Coal crashing party for clean energy sources

By Lisa Mascaro (contact)

Thursday, Jan. 25, 2007 | 7:02 a.m.

Washington — Suddenly, coal - not nuclear power - looks like the more worrisome environmental threat to Nevada.

In just a few days this week, that dirtiest of fuel sources, responsible for one-third of the emissions from the U.S. that contribute to global warming, has taken center stage.

President Bush said in his State of the Union address Tuesday that alternative fuels, such as those from coal-liquefaction plants, which convert coal to vehicle fuels, can help reduce the country's gasoline consumption by 20 percent by 2017.

One day earlier, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons talked up the same technology in his State of the State speech. Gibbons said Nevada should consider building a coal-liquefaction plant.

The idea comes as Nevada faces higher carbon dioxide pollution from as many as four new coal-fired power plants. Separately, the owners of the legendary "smog monster" - Laughlin's closed Mohave Generating Station - are considering restarting the plant. It was blamed for decades for dirtying the air at Grand Canyon.

Environmental activists noted Wednesday that the coal-liquefaction idea comes as the nation seems poised to embrace clean renewable energy: wind, solar and geothermal energy.

"The irony is Nevada is one of the most renewable-rich states in the union," said Dan Geary, a member of the state's renewable energy task force. "That we're moving forward so aggressively with coal-fired power plants just seems to be on the wrong track."

Congress has been rolling out its energy agenda with legislation that gives Nevada's renewable energy companies a financial break with the kinds of tax breaks oil, coal, gas and nuclear have enjoyed for years.

The push for coal comes as Bush gave just passing mention to nuclear power during his address to the nation, drawing complaints from nuclear energy advocates, who note that just a year ago the president was calling for a nuclear power renaissance.

Then, the prospect of more nuclear plants increased pressure on the federal government to move ahead with a long-delayed nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But today, problems with the project and growing national opposition make it less likely that a Yucca dump will ever open.

Instead, coal is ascending.

In Nevada, applications are pending before the state Public Utilities Commission for four coal-fired power plants. White Pine County, which is bankrupt, has welcomed two of them as a potential source of jobs and economic development. Another plant, in Eureka County, is under construction. A fourth plant is planned in Lincoln County. A fifth, near Gerlach in Washoe County, has been delayed by protests from residents.

Nevada Power says coal is needed to reduce its dependence on natural gas, which affects consumers mightily as prices soared in recent winters.

The company plans to give its portfolio a flip - swapping a portion of natural gas production for coal. By the time the first phase of Nevada Power's $3.2 billion Ely Energy Project is completed in 2013, Nevada Power will have gone from getting 70 percent of its energy from natural gas and 30 percent from coal and other sources to 40 percent from coal, 40 percent from gas and 20 percent from renewables.

The power company says it would like to use more renewables, but they cost too much and are not as readily available.

Wind, solar and geothermal sources can play a role in meeting the state's energy needs, but "cannot replace some of our conventional sources," said Nevada Power's Roberto Denis, vice president for energy supply.

The Mohave Generating Station outside of Laughlin shut down in 2005 because the utility's owners did not want to spend the $500 million needed to comply with a court-ordered consent decree to clean up emissions. One of those owners, the Phoenix-based Salt River Project, is seeking new partners to buy a share of the plant and reopen it.

In his national address, Bush refused to call for strict limits on carbon-producing power plants, preferring a voluntary approach. Since 1992, carbon emissions have increased more than 30 percent despite an array of voluntary programs, according to the National Environmental Trust.

Congress is determined to consider emission caps as part of global warming legislation. Europe and much of the industrialized world have agreed to caps as part of the Kyoto Protocol, and chief executives from some of the nation's leading energy companies suggested it's time for caps the day before Bush's speech.

Denis said even with potential caps and fees, coal would be cheaper.

Scot Rutledge of the Nevada Conservation League said coal would not be so cheap if not for the subsidies it enjoys. Why not give some of those economic benefits to the renewable industry sector?

"Why don't we not go back to coal?" he said. "If Nevada's going to be a part of the solution as part of carbon emissions and creating really clean affordable energy, then we need to stop talking about pulverized coal-fired plants and turning coal into fuel. There are other solutions."