Easing away from coal

Friday, 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.