Sun editorial:

Good riddance to coal

Nevada will benefit from decision to shelve plans for power plant near Ely

Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2009 | 2:07 a.m.

NV Energy’s announcement Monday that it was postponing for at least 10 years its plans to build a coal-fired power plant near Ely was as welcome as it was inevitable.

We have opposed the plant, known as the Ely Energy Center, since plans for it were announced in 2006. Nevada should be moving forward with renewable energy, not moving backward with coal, whose ceaseless, voluminous emissions are unhealthy to all forms of life.

“The company will not move forward with construction of the coal plant until the technologies that will capture and store greenhouse gasses are commercially feasible,” a statement on NV Energy’s Web site said.

That statement confirms that so-called “clean coal” does not exist, despite promotions of the concept in national advertising.

Although new coal plants emit fewer pollutants than ones built two or three decades ago, they are still dirty. Proof of that is contained in the Ely Energy Center’s draft environmental impact statement, which says emissions of greenhouse gases and various unhealthy chemicals and particulates would amount to millions of tons per year.

So it is welcome that Nevada will be spared this source of smog, haze and unhealthy air and water for the next decade — and probably longer. That is because Congress, likely this year, will pass regulations that have been inevitable for some time.

The regulations will require that coal plants vastly reduce the noxious emissions that have been allowed to pollute our cities, countrysides and waterways, contributing to global warming and causing serious health problems. The cost of bringing about such reductions will almost certainly steer power companies away from building coal plants.

It was the prospect of such regulations that led NV Energy to postpone plans for the Ely Energy Center.

The short-term alternative in Nevada, which NV Energy is pursuing, is more plants fired by natural gas, which is a bit cleaner. The ultimate solution, which NV Energy, to its credit, says it is also pursuing, lies in developing this state’s vast potential for renewable energy.

Discussion: 12 comments so far…

By Houstonjac

2/10/09 at 6:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

This is a sad day when the environmentalists are allowed to shutdown this nation's quest toward energy independence. What source of renewable energy will appear that does not already exist? Do you think that geothermal will surface as a big natural surprise? If solar is feasible why not move forward with it now. The real message that this decision sends to me is that the additional power these plants would have produced is not really urgently needed.This nation is blessed by abundant quantities of coal. It should be used.
By Future2012

2/10/09 at 7:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Harry Reid has put $2 billion dollars into the Reid --Pelosi Stimulus II package to push forward on the FutureGen initiative.

FutureGen will equip and demonstrate new clean coal power plants by using advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

So is Harry Reid is stopping coal in Nevada. Coal is our cheapest source of central generating power. With advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology there is no carbon emission cap and trade cost.

Meanwhile Harry Reid is promoting natural gas-fired unit which pollute CO2 at have the rate of a dirty coal plant and will be subject to carbon emission cap and trade costs.

Where is Harry Reid's logic.

We need to stop buying or building any fossil fuel plants including natural gas-fired power units, until Harry announces how much cap and trade will cost Nevada.
By jfnance32

2/10/09 at 8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

It is sad.

Renewables are expensive sources of energy.

With the current technology they can not provide 24/7 reliable energy.

That is why most countries are only targeting 20% of their power needs from renewables and the bulk of renewables is hydro (dams).

Because solar and wind can not be relied on to provide on the spot reliable energy due to weather conditions. We will need to have duplicate power sources to back them up when they fail to deliever power.

That means we need power from reliable sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear.

It is doubtful that Nevada will go nuclear.

Coal is out of the question now.

Natural gas is going to be the choice for the future reliable energy.

Natural gas prices are not stable during strong economic times.

I expect our powers bills in the future will be the size of a car payment on a new fancy car.

When that happens then I am sure we will again hear from politicans, "Who me...I dunno know what happen?"
By Future2012

2/10/09 at 9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

The new FutureGen CCS plant will be built in Illinois providing the south side of Chicago with jobs and cheap subsided power.

Why did Harry Reid not put his $2 billion FutureGen demonstration of new clean coal power plants by using advanced carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology at the Nevada Ely Energy Center.

Nevada could use the 1200 high tech Jobs Harry.

Harry Reid is full of natural gas.

I smell a lobbyist in Harry Reid's searchlight den.
By johnevegas

2/10/09 at 10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Renewables are expensive sources of energy."

A lot of what you say is true Jim. Like the inability to deliver 24/7 power, and certainly that factors into the real costs as well. We need to keep working on that for sure.

For example, it would be possible to create hydrogen from solar and then use the hydrogen at night to create power when the sun is down. But, admittedly, that's just a noodle in my head right now.

Too bad we can't harness all the hot air in these comments and convert it to energy. If that were the case, it would be "problem solved"!
By uddeboda

2/10/09 at 10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Solar power is without doubt the best source of energy for the State of Nevada. Bright sunshine can be expected for 83% of daylight hours on an average throughout the year.
The possibilities are huge, produce energy from solar in vast amounts and sell it to neighbouring states who still rely on other forms of energy, then import energy from other states that have excess during the dark nights.

CCS technology is still a long way into the future, and at the present time there are only a few experimental projects ongoing, and still nobody knows the true cost of CCS.

The problems are not easy to solve for the state of Nevada, and the use of fossil fuels for energy production are becoming more and more restricted, like this latest 10 year postponment.
By boftx

2/10/09 at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

The cost of energy is really unimportant. What matters is where the money is ultimately spent.

If the money remains in this country then every dollar that is spent on producing energy eventually is recycled back into the economy via the purchase of goods produced by that energy. If, however, those dollars are spent on foreign goods then no matter how cheap our energy might be we still go broke.
By nevadakid

2/10/09 at 3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

The title to your Editorial should read: Good Riddance to Ely.
By jldour

2/10/09 at 3:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

There are three coal fired power plants in the area where I live. There is one in the planning stages that will capture the CO2 and pump it underground, which seems to be very promising technology. When two of these plants were built, I remember there were many hundreds of construction jobs at each site. Then after construction, there are, I'm guessing 300 permanent jobs at each of the plants. These are well paying jobs with very good benefits. There are many small companies in the two county area that service the plants. Then there are over a thousand miners, hundreds of transport drivers and on and on.
I wouldn't be so quick to be happy about this plant not being built. We need something to bridge us to the ultimate renewable, what ever that ends up being. Why not embrace the new technology of coal, especially if the CCS technology proves viable.
By getalife

2/10/09 at 8:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Our country is being driven under by enviro-wackos.

We are NEVER going to be energy independent.

Anybody that thinks energy independence is attainable needs to ask themselves one question and only one question; where are they going to put the wind farms and solar gen plants?

You cannot answer that question honestly because NIMBY and the eco-nuts rule the day.
By uddeboda

2/11/09 at 12:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

getalife,
Never say NEVER, unless of course you wish to be a 3rd world nation in the coming decades. Other countries across the world are energy independent, so why cant the USA do it as well, it only needs some get up and go, instead of sitting on your ars## thinking that coal is good
By middleoftheroad

2/11/09 at 8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Great editorial!
Renewable energy will soon be mainstream and cost effective now that it is getting the attention, tax incentives, and investment that it has been robbed of the past several decades.