editorial:

Easing away from coal

Market forces and possible new regulation start trend away from polluting power source

Fri, Jan 25, 2008 (2 a.m.)

With President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress providing strong support, the coal industry appeared headed for a boom despite the growing alarm over global warming.

The Democratic takeover of Congress after the midterm elections in November 2006, however, gave coal executives reason to pause. A goal of the Democrats, one we strongly support, is to have the United States become a player in the international effort to reduce greenhouse gases.

Coal executives, who plan years ahead, suddenly had to assume that building power plants would entail an enormous, but as yet unknown, new cost that of adding technology that would greatly reduce pollution.

Already the handwriting is on their smokestacks Senate Democrats have introduced a bill that would cut carbon dioxide emissions by two-thirds by 2050. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he hopes to hold a vote on the bill by May.

A Jan. 18 story by the Los Angeles Times said the likelihood of new federal regulation is only one reason why “coal has begun to lose its luster.” Costs for constructing power plants are going up, as is the cost for transporting coal.

For all these reasons, the paper reported, 53 proposals for building coal-fired power plants were canceled or postponed in 2007. Enough other proposals are still alive, however, to keep coal as the country’s major source of power for some time.

One of the proposals still alive is for the Ely Energy Center in Northern Nevada, which would burn about 8 million tons of coal a year. A Jan. 9 hearing in Ely drew about 300 people, nearly equally divided on the issue. Supporters spoke up for the jobs it would create. Opponents cited air quality and health issues.

Our view is that the trend away from coal and toward cleaner, renewable sources such as geothermal is welcome. Alternative power industries, if properly supported by Congress, would provide employment without the threats to health and the environment.

Discussion: 4 comments so far…

By sunreader

1/25/08 at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Alternative energy generation is not without "threats to health and the environment." To replace all coal and nuclear plants in plan today, would mean utilities across the country would have to immediately build large-scale renewable energy projects. In the west, it takes years just to get land and other permits, and in the case of wind and geothermal it can take years to find and study the resource potential to know if a site is even viable. Once proposed, environmentalists will oppose them because turbines kill animals, take up land and destroy the viewshed. With solar, plants will need to take up thousands of acres of land, take years to permit, and environmentalists will oppose them too because solar thermal takes up too much land, uses fossil fuel and needs lots of water for mirror washing, wet cooling, and dust control. PV is too expensive still and not very efficient or dependable. The reality of the energy situation is that renewable energy is not threat-free nor are they all emission free. We do need to reduce GHGs to help the world reduce global warming, but we need to be realistic in our approach and goals. It won't come 100% easy and clean and happy like people think.
By clearskies

1/25/08 at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Sunreader"'s comments are overblown.

Modern wind turbines have had near-zero impacts on bird populations; the new large blades turn slowly and are visible to birds. Wind power is one of the cheapest energy sources of all types.

Solar thermal power plants, when built using dry cooling, use very little water (under 20 gallons/MWh versus about 2000 gal/MWh for coal plants). Land? If somewhere in Nevada's 110,000 square miles we could find 100 square miles -- .09% of Nevada land, a small fraction of that currently in use in mining -- we could generate all of Nevada's current electricity use, forever.

There's work to be done, to be sure. Power plants don't build themselves. Let's get to it.
By Ruralsrule

1/25/08 at 10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sunreader comments are verbatim coal industry talking points. Nice try.
I am astonished at how desperate they are to cling to their old polluting ways.
Given the choice between higher paying jobs with less pollution on one hand, and continued industry profits with climate catastrophe on the other, the coal industry, power companies, lobbyists and PR firms have chosen the latter.
Pray their Faustian bargain doesn't take us all to hell with them.
By Sunlizard

1/27/08 at 1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

There are ways to create solar without covering thousands of mile of our beautiful desert without unsightly solar panels. Rooftop could work just fine. There are thousands of cookie cutter houses in Vegas. Del Webb and companies like them could put solar on every rooftop and sell it to power companies. Buyers would get a discount. This would work. The desert is NOT a wasteland and should not be destroyed in the name of "green" energy. There is nothing green about scraping hundreds of miles of wildlife habitat and open space. Let's face it, if these politicians were serious about solar, we would be able to afford it. Vast solar and wind farms are more about big energy companies selling the power to us and turning a big profit. To the joker who thinks that wind farms do not kill birds, do some research. Raptors are often found dead under them. There are also permit applications for almost every square mile of BLM land in Nevada. There are many of us who will fight these applications until power companies can coe up with green energy plans that do not destroy our beautiful deserts. We will fight all of these solar farms until these companies can find rooftop alternatives or develop disturbed areas such as old mines. Do not try to hide behind the concept of "green" by destroying the Earth to save her!