MODERN TIMES
Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 8 November
2008
Another coal plant
for Arkansas?
Thanks
partly to the vigorous propagandizing of the fossil fuel interests, and partly
to the scientific illiteracy of the Bush administration, the U.S. and the world
have waited far too long to take action on global warming. The scientific consensus on this is now
about as solid as any scientific conclusion can be: Global warming is occurring and it's caused primarily by
humans. Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas
from fossil fuel use is the main problem.
Coal
is the biggest single source of CO2 pollution. Each coal-fired electric
generating plant emits enormous amounts of the stuff. In Arkansas, two new coal plants are in line to open: the Plum Point plant near Osceola in
2010, and the Turk (aka Hempstead) plant near Texarkana in 2012. These two plants will increase
Arkansas' CO2 emissions by 16 percent, emitting as much CO2 annually as do all
the cars in Arkansas.
The
U.S. and the world are embarking on a disastrous expansion of coal: over 150 planned new U.S. coal plants,
and 1400 worldwide. However, 59
planned plants were cancelled, abandoned, or put on hold in the U.S. in 2007
alone, partly because of global warming concerns, so it's not clear how many of
these plants will actually be built.
Although
today fossil fuel plants emit their CO2 directly into the atmosphere, it's
possible to capture these emissions and inject them underground. This is happening in a few small
demonstration projects, but isn't yet developed for commercial use. It's thought that the captured gases
will remain safely underground for many centuries with inconsequential
leakage. No human health hazard is
expected, but there's a question about whether the leakage will be large enough
to defeat the purpose of underground storage by allowing most CO2 to gradually
re-surface. It's hoped that this
technology, called carbon capture and storage (CCS), will be ready for
commercial use within ten years and will capture 90 percent of most plant's
emissions. This will drive up the
price of electricity from coal plants by 20 to 50 percent.
Most
environmentalists, many scientists, and some politicians think that all new
coal plant planning and construction must be halted at least until CCS is
developed. Here's why.
Earth
is dangerously close to a tipping point beyond which global warming could
trigger natural processes that would melt much of the Greenland and West
Antarctic ice caps, causing a 40-foot rise in ocean levels by 2100 or 2200,
disastrously flooding the planet's coasts. This tipping point could be reached within two or three
decades, after which the process would be out of human control. NASA's global warming expert James
Hansen, perhaps the most qualified person in the world on this issue, estimates
that we are just two Fahrenheit degrees away from this tipping point and that
1.25 of these degrees are already "in the pipeline" because of the
delayed effects of greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere.
These
conclusions were developed by Hansen and 48 fellow scientists from 12 U.S.
scientific institutions and published in 2007. Because of the impending expansion of coal use, they
concluded their paper with this:
"The principal implication is that avoidance of dangerous climate
change requires the bulk of coal and unconventional fossil fuel resources to be
exploited only under condition that CO2 emissions are captured and
sequestered."
Thus
it isn't surprising that the Governor's Commission on Global Warming (GCGW), of
which I'm a member, recently recommended that the Turk coal plant be delayed
until CCS is ready and can be included during plant construction. The Plum Point plant has already
received state clearance and is under construction, but the Turk plant is not
yet fully approved because it has not received a permit from the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality.
It might be objected that delaying a single coal plant in Arkansas won't
help the ice caps much, but the current national and international campaign to
delay or stop new coal plants can make a crucial difference and Arkansas needs
to play a role in this campaign.
But
doesn't Arkansas need the Turk plant's power? The answer is no.
Arkansas' "need" for this power can be provided at far lower
cost by energy efficiency. The
GCGW has recommended that utilities institute "demand-side
management" to reduce the state's electricity growth to zero by 2015. Utilities would actively spend funds to
help customers weatherize, install efficient lighting, etc. Utilities recover these expenditures by
increasing rates, but customers' bills actually decrease because they use far
less electricity. North Carolina
recently began such a program, led by Duke Energy. California's program has flattened per capita electricity
consumption in that growing state ever since 1973. Everybody wins:
customers, utilities, and environment. The reason for this surprising outcome is that Americans
waste so much energy that there's money to be made in plugging the leaks.
If
additional energy is needed, it can be provided by renewable energy
sources. The newspapers have
recently been full of news about plans for wind turbines in Arkansas. The GCGW has recommended measures to
encourage wind and other renewable energies, and the legislature should follow
suit. It's estimated that
there is some 1000 megawatts--about two Turk plants--of usable wind energy in
Arkansas.
One
of the many nice things about DSM and wind energy is that they employ far more
people than would be employed if the equivalent energy services were provided
by new power plants.
Last minute note: I've gotten word that ADEQ just gave final approval to the Turk plant, so it is now fully approved. Governor Beebe could have stopped this plant. Please register your opinions with him.