Invest in Clean Coal Technology

Clean coal techonology has become even more important after last weeks decision by the EPA saying that coal plants must limit CO2 emmissions.

Cullen West of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity wrote a guest column in the Des Moines Register calling for more research and investment in clean coal technology.

Meeting America's future electricity needs will include a variety of fuel resources, including coal. And, the question isn't whether we'll use coal (we will), the question is HOW we'll use coal. And the answer is cleanly.

For that reason, we need to be sure we keep putting dollars toward funding research into clean-coal technology. With the right investments in technology, coal will help power America through the 21st century and will do so with ultra-low emissions, including zero emissions of pollutants regulated by federal and state clean-air laws and the capture and storage of carbon dioxide.

I couldn't agree wtih him more. Clean coal that captures CO2 can be a big part of the diverse energy resources used for electricity needs.

However, West goes on to say that even though clean coal technology can't capture CO2 yet, we must build new plants now.

The bottom line is we need to continue building new coal plants that are carbon-capture ready, so that the plants can be retrofitted once the technology comes on line. If we were to go the other way, as some groups suggest, and eliminate coal from our energy mix, we would become overly dependent on other, more expensive forms of energy, such as natural gas, at nearly three times the cost of coal.

I don't see us becoming dependent on other forms of energy.  Iowa depends on coal for something like 80% of it's electrical needs.  It seems we are dependent on coal right now.

Instead of investing in relics of the last century, we should invest in the research and implementation of clean coal technology, while, at the same time be developing a sustainable renewable energy industry in the state.

Are Coal Power Plants a Good Idea?

I haven't written about this yet, but it was announced awhile back that Alliant Energy is planning on building a new coal power plant in Marshalltown. I go back and forth on the power plant. Yes, it will be good for the Marshalltown economy, but as a Marshalltown resident and an asthmatic, I have to consider the health care and environmental impacts.

Here is a recent letter to the editor in the Des Moines Register that shows one viewpoint on the issue of coal power plants.

A halt to building coal plants? It's not such a radical thought
By MARC FRANKE
SPECIAL TO THE REGISTER

March 17, 2007

We should stop building new coal plants in Iowa and declare a moratorium on increasing coal use.

When I first heard this idea, it seemed pretty radical. Now, the more I consider it, the more it seems like the best thing for our state. We can grow our economy, add new jobs, improve our tax base and reduce pollution for us and our children all at the same time.

When we burn coal for electricity, it releases a lot of pollution. The tiny particles from combustion get into our lungs, choking our breathing and providing a pathway for pollutants into our bloodstream. The airborne mercury from burning coal gets into our fish, which then endangers pregnant mothers and small children. The sulfur from burning coal gets into our air and acidifies our lakes and streams, destroying habitat for fish. The carbon dioxide from burning coal gets into our atmosphere and accelerates global warming. In the years since 1940, carbon in our atmosphere is 27 percent higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years.

Iowa has some of the best wind resources in the United States. Already, Iowa's wind farms have created new jobs, increased the property-tax base for schools and services, reduced money flowing out of our state to import coal and prevented a huge amount of pollution. The new factories for wind turbines have created jobs, too, right here in Iowa.

If we need more electrical capacity, why wouldn't Iowans insist that it come from our own energy resources? Why spend our hard-earned energy money on highly polluting power from somewhere else? When I pay my electric bill, I want the money to help build my community, not to create more pollution in the air I breathe and the water I drink.

Advocates of coal electricity tell us that the pollution could be eliminated and the carbon could be stored with new technology now available. But so far, none of those plants has yet been built for us to evaluate. The Department of Energy has a $1 billion contract out to build such a "FutureGen" plant by 2012. When such a plant exists and is proven, we could end our coal-power moratorium.

Alliant is proposing a new coal plant for Marshalltown, and a New Jersey company, LS Power, is proposing a new plant for Waterloo. The Waterloo electricity might be sold to other states. Iowa would get the pollution; other states would get power; and New Jersey would get the profits.

Iowa gets up to 85 percent of its electricity already from coal. Nationally, coal provides only 50 percent of electricity. Let's get all of our new electrical capacity from our own energy resources and build up our economy, our jobs and our local tax base.

A coal power plant lasts 50 years. Let's not build any that aren't the best technology. Let your local officials and legislators know that Iowa already has more than enough coal electric power and the pollution that it brings.

MARC FRANKE of Ely writes and speaks on energy and policy. He volunteers with the nonprofit Iowa Renewable Energy Association.

Coal Plants Must Limit CO2

Last week the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board ruled that new and proposed coal-fired power must limit CO2 emmissions.

From Bleeding Heartland...

In a move that signals the start of the our clean energy future, the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled today EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming.  The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions.

"Today's decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy," said Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case. "This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America."

"The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States.  This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century," continued Spalding The decision follows a 2007 Supreme Court ruling recognizing carbon dioxide, the principle source of global warming, is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.

The ruling seems that it will affect the two proposed coal plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo since the Iowa DNR must enforce EPA guidelines or have more stringent guidelines in place.

The EAB decision is formally binding on all air quality permits issued by the EPA.  However, most air quality permits are not issued by the EPA but rather by state authorities delegated that power by the EPA, for instance the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.  However, those authorities must enforce regulations at least as stringently as the EPA and all of them look to the EPA for guidance on issues such as this.  So it is probable that every coal plant air quality permit in the country from now on (including those issued but still being challenged on carbon dioxide grounds) must address CO2 limits directly, either establishing a limit or justifying their refusal in a new way that the EPA has not previously used.  It is likely a de-facto stay on all air quality permit decisions for approximately the next 6-12 months, including proposed coal plants in Waterloo and Marshalltown that have not been issued air quality permits.

The DNR was supposed to decide on the Marshalltown permit early this fall.  They haven't even opened up the public comment period, which was supposed to take place in August.  Now it sounds like the DNR won't be making a decision until early summer at the earliest.

Today's coal plants are cleaner than the ones from th 1950's, but the techonology isn't there yet to capture coal.  The plant in Marshalltown is supposed to have the highest techology available, yet no carbon or mercury was going to be captured.  

Matt Stoller has more on how the EPA's decision will test the clean coal technology...

One of the claims of the coal industry - that there's some capacity to use coal without emitting carbon dioxide using fancy new technology - is about to be tested in a big way.  One sign to look for is squealing; if the industry gets very upset, it means they weren't really telling the truth about the ability to use clean coal technology in the first place.  If they don't squeal, then it looks like we're going to get a whole bunch of coal plants that don't emit carbon.

This could be a chance for Democratic Leaders to be ahead of the curve and propose huge investments in renewable energy in the state.  The Alliant plant in Marshalltown was going to cost $1 billion.  Maybe an agreement could be made between leaders at the statehouse and Alliant to invest that money in wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy technology in the state.

Where's Culver on Coal?

I went out for dinner tonight and at the restaurant, I talked with someone who attended a meeting of a group of citizens in Marshalltown last night. The group met to share concerns over the proposed coal-fired power plant. The group began to formulate questions and share information about the effects of the coal plant on their health, their property values, their jobs, and their quality of life.

When I got home, I had this email in my inbox from Ed Fallon...

Yesterday, a group of leading Iowa environmentalists met with Chet Culver’s staff to ask the Governor to help stop a proposed coal-fired plant in Waterloo. This request should be an easy one for the Governor, especially given a statement he made two months ago when he signed legislation establishing the Climate Change Advisory Council:

"Global warming is a real danger that threatens our very way of life, and it is our responsibility to take any and all steps that we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and hope to curb global warming." (Governor Culver, April 27, 2007)

Well, any and all steps should certainly include opposition to new coal-fired power plants. In Waterloo, a New Jersey company has proposed a 750-megawatt plant. Couple that with the 600-megawatt plant proposed for Marshalltown and carbon emissions in Iowa will increase by the equivalent of two million cars per year, not to mention the mercury that will end up in eastern Iowa’s streams and rivers.

For many years, scientists, environmentalists and forward-thinking policymakers have known that burning coal pollutes our air and water and is a serious threat to human health. The evidence is now conclusive that coal is also a major contributor to global warming. And despite what some industrial apologists want us to believe, there is no such thing as clean coal (Union of Concerned Scientists website: www.ucsusa.org).

The political mainstream is starting to wake up. Most Democratic presidential candidates are speaking out. Some agree with the scientific community on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. Some speak about energy conservation and efficiency, and at least one has spoken out specifically against burning coal.

Culver has yet to weigh-in on new coal-fired power plants. The renewable-fuels focus of his Iowa Power Fund would suggest opposition to burning more coal. Furthermore, he should consider the obvious economic advantages of investing in small- and medium-sized Iowa-owned businesses, as opposed to a couple of huge power plants that ship both power and profit out of state.

Rank-and-file Iowans are contacting the Governor. More of us need to do that. Write, call, e-mail or bring it up at one of the Governor’s public appearances (I’ll make a commitment to doing all four). Ask him to speak out against new coal-fired power plants and to tell the Iowa Utilities Board that coal does not fit in with his administration’s stated commitment to renewable energy.

Write: Governor Chet Culver
Iowa State Capitol
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Call: (515) 281-5211
E-mail: http://www.governor.iowa.gov/administration/contact/

Track him down: We don’t have a lot of detail on the Governor’s schedule. You might look for him at parades and county fairs. According to his website, here’s where he’ll be hosting Wellness Town Hall Meetings over the next two months. (It would certainly be appropriate to ask how new coal plants will affect public health!)

• Fort Dodge Tuesday, July 10th
• Burlington Wednesday, July 11th
• Quad Cities Thursday, July 12th
• Sioux City Tuesday, July 17th
• Newton Wednesday, July 18th
• Mason City Thursday, July 19th
• Oskaloosa Tuesday, July 24th
• Cass County Wednesday, July 25th
• Cedar Rapids Monday, August 6th
• Waterloo Tuesday, August 7th

Thanks for doing your part for our environment, our economy and our democracy!

Sincerely,
Ed Fallon

Wisconsin Denies Alliant Permit to Build Coal Plant

Earlier this week, the state of Wisconsin denied Alliant the necessary permit needed to build a 300 megawatt coal-fired power plant near the the Mississippi River in Cassville, Wisconsin.

From the Iowa Environmental Council...

The rejection of a coal plant proposal in Wisconsin highlights the changing atmosphere of energy policy in the United States. Once thought an inexpensive means of producing power, coal-fired power plants are facing greater opposition as the cost of coal grows alongside the concern about global warming pollution.

"Building coal-fired power plants has never made sense from an environmental perspective and no longer makes sense from an economic perspective," said Katie Nekola, energy program director of Clean Wisconsin. "The transition toward a clean energy economy is beginning, and it's important for other states not to lag behind the movement by building more coal plants."

Nathaniel Baer, energy program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, says Iowans need to follow the lead of neighboring states to the west, north, and now east, which have concluded that clean energy makes more economic sense than coal."Iowa simply cannot afford to be left behind sinking billions of dollars into monuments to 19th century dirty coal," Baer said.

With today's decision Wisconsin joins a list of states including Kansas, Montana, Minnesota, Georgia, and Florida that have all rejected plans to construct coal fired power plants. The rejected proposal is the 64th nationwide in the last two years. The Big Stone II coal plant proposal is still pending. It will come in front of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Nov. 12. Eight plants are pending in Michigan, six are pending in Illinois, and two are pending in Iowa.

Iowa has two proposed coal-fired power plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo.

Environmental Dangers of Coal and Mountaintop Removal

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote an article about the environmental dangers of coal and mountaintop removal. With proposed coal-fired power plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo, it is something everyone should be aware of.

In fact, there is no such thing as "clean coal." And coal is only "cheap" if one ignores its calamitous externalized costs. In addition to global warming, these include dead forests and sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates. Coal's most catastrophic and permanent impacts are from mountaintop removal mining. If the American people could see what I have seen from the air and ground during my many trips to the coalfields of Kentucky and West Virginia: leveled mountains, devastated communities, wrecked economies and ruined lives, there would be a revolution in this country.

Well now you can visit coal country without ever having to leave your home. Every presidential candidate and every American ought to take a few seconds to visit an ingenious new website created by Appalachian Voices, that allows one to tour the obliterated landscapes of Appalachia. And it's not just Arch Coal, Massey Coal and their corporate toadies in electoral politics who are culpable for the disaster. The amazing new website allows you to enter your zip code to learn how you're personally connected to the great crime of mountaintop removal.

The Iowa Utilities Board will be holding a hearing about the proposed coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown on January 14th. If you have concerns about the environmental impact of the plant, now would be a good time to give Gov. Culver a call.

Operating Coal Plants are Getting More Expensive

In November the EPA said coal-fired power must limit CO2 emissions. Earlier this month, the EPA began the process of putting this policy into place.

From the Washington Post...

The Environmental Protection Agency today plans to propose regulating greenhouse gas emissions on the grounds that these pollutants pose a danger to the public's health and welfare, according to several sources who asked not to be identified.

The move, coming almost exactly two years after the Supreme Court ordered the agency to examine whether emissions linked to climate change should be curbed under the Clean Air Act, would mark a major shift in the federal government's approach to global warming.

This action by the EPA, that occurred during the Bush administration, is probably one of the main reasons Alliant decided to drop plans to build a coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown. Alliant knew the costs of running coal plants would be increasing, but didn't know how much.

From Michigan Liberal...

The costs to building new coal plants, already up compared to a couple of years ago thanks to the rising costs of construction materials, will go up also, either because the utilities will need to invest in clean coal technology (which doesn't exist right now in the market) or to buy carbon credits to make up for the excess pollution. Neither is cheap, and the costs for both will be passed along to rate payers.

When the Iowa Utilities Board agreed to a 10% return on investment after Alliant asked for a 12.5% return, Alliant knew they would be unable to pass the cost of this increase onto customers.

Iowa, like Michigan, depends on electricity from coal plants. Now is the time to chart are path for our future energy needs. State leaders need to continue to strongly push renewable energy and need to announce that coal is going to be a declining part of our energy future.

This state can either acknowledge that federal action on this is imminent, or it can continue to pretend that an energy plan crafted last year remains relevant in terms of today's political and economic environment. The costs of coal are going to go up, and the federal carbon program is aggressive enough, it's not unimaginable that the costs for coal could pass on their way up the declining cost for renewable energy, made cheaper thanks to improvements in producing technology and the electrical grid.

Related articles by Zemanta

• EPA Presses Obama On Climate Regulation (cbsnews.com)
• EPA Makes Landmark Finding: Global Warming Threatens Public Health and Welfare (worldchanging.com)

Iowa City Press Citizen Calls for Moratorium on Coal Plants

The Iowa City Press Citizen makes the case for a moratorium on coal plants from being built in the state.

In a move that could halt a proposed $1.5 billion, 750-megawatt coal plant project in northeast Waterloo, the Black Hawk County Health Board last week urged the state to ban the construction of coal plants in Iowa until enacting tougher emission standards. That the vote was close -- 3-2 -- isn't surprising. The $1.5 billion price tag on the facility would mean jobs, taxes and investment in the county. But the board's study of the plant's potential health effects indicated thousands of people could be exposed to emissions linked to asthma, bronchitis, heart attacks and other pulmonary diseases. A majority of the board rightly looked beyond any temporary economic gain and recommended a moratorium on issuing coal plant permits; the board voted unanimously to recommend tougher statewide air pollution standards.

The state leaders would be wise to follow the board's recommendation and to deny permits for either the proposed Waterloo plant or the plant Alliant Energy wants to build in Marshalltown. Right now coal produces more than half of the electricity in the United States, but that number likely is to go down dramatically as concerns about climate change, construction costs and transportations problems are making coal less attractive and less cost-effective source for producing electricity. Last year, more than 50 proposed coal-fired power plants in 20 states were canceled or delayed because of such concerns.

They conclude...

In essence, the coal industry is saying, "If you allow us to build these plants, we'll then have a significant economic incentive to figure out how to build the appropriate technology and to use it efficiently." But there's no guarantee that the technology will be in place by the time the plants are scheduled to come on line -- a situation that would leave Iowa in the unfortunate situation of having to choose between allowing the plants to produce electricity without the technology or to let newly completed $1.5 billion plants sit idle.

If the coal industry needs an additional incentive to perfect carbon-capturing technology, it should be that the industry can't begin building plants until it develops a workable system.

What Will Culver Do About Coal Plants? Kansas Governor Denies New Coal Plants

On Thursday, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius denied the permits for two coal-fired power plants that were proposed to be built in western Kansas. Gov. Sebelius cited that coal would take the state in the wrong direction and the need to invest in renewable energy.

Here is a statement from Sebelius...

Kansas utility companies, including Sunflower Electric, have done a great job providing reliable energy to Kansans. What has become clear, however, is that Kansas must take advantage of renewable energy and conservation as we progress through this century.

These additional coal plants would have moved us in the wrong direction and far exceed the critical power needs for Kansas homes and businesses. In fact, eighty-five percent of the power proposed to be generated would be sold to customers, not in Kansas but in states like Colorado and Texas. These coal plants would have produced 11 million additional tons of carbon every year – 550 million tons of carbon over the lifetime of the project. Why should Kansans get one hundred percent of the pollution and threats to our health while only getting 15 percent of the energy? While there are some innovative technologies proposed as companions to these coal plants, none will significantly diminish the carbon impact of two new coal plants in our state.

Governor Culver has been a big supporter of renewable energy. He ran on a platform of making Iowa the renewable energy center of the world and his biggest achievement during his first year in office was the creation of the Iowa Power Fund that would invest in renewable energy throughout the state.

However, Culver and Lt. Governor Patty Judge have supported two coal-fired power plants that are being proposed in Waterloo and in Marshalltown. If these two plants are built the pollution from the coal plants would offset much of the gains Culver has made in renewable energy.

If Culver really wants to make Iowa a renewable energy center then he should follow Gov. Sebelius' lead and deny permits to these plants.

Coal-Powered Ethanol Plants Aren't Good for the Environment

You can put this story in the "No, Duh" category.

An Ames company has released a study that shows coal-powered ethanol plants release 92% more carbon dioxide than plants powered by natural gas. This is days before the Des Moines City hears plans about a coal-powered ethanol plant being built in Des Moines. From the Des Moines Register...

The carbon dioxide report was released this week by Frontline BioEnergy. Frontline works with and promotes technological advancements to convert plants into a mixture of gases that could be used to replace some natural gas burned in ethanol plants. Frontline is not associated with the two companies competing to build in Des Moines.

Frontline's analysis of a plant that would produce 50 million gallons of ethanol a year show a coal-powered facility would release as much as 207,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year while a natural gas-powered plant would emit 108,000 tons.

Des Moines' proposed plants would produce at least 100 million gallons of ethanol a year. That means that the coal-powered plant would release as much as 414,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, according to the report.

State and U.S. environmental laws do not limit carbon dioxide emissions, although more than 150 other chemicals or compounds are regulated.

Technology exists to sequester carbon dioxide emissions but it's costly and not required by law, say Iowa Department of Natural Resources officials. If that technology were used, the price to use coal would be about the same as natural gas, according to estimates from Frontline officials.

Coal is one of the dirtiest forms of energy out there. I didn't need read a study to know that. If you look at the history books, it can be argued that the burning of coal is what caused the development of the suburbs. People didn't want to be around the smoke from burning coal and those that were wealthy enough, hopped on the street car and moved outside of the city. The idea of clean coal is just ridiculous.

Consumer Advocate Opposes Interstate Power and Light Company Proposed Coal Plant

I heard this on Iowa Public Radio this morning and recieved this press release in my inbox...

Consumer Advocate urges company to evaluate more cost-effective and environmentally sound supply resources.

The Iowa Consumer Advocate has filed testimony with the Iowa Utilities Board, recommending that the IUB reject Interstate Power and Light's application for authority to site a 630-megawatt coal-fired generating unit (SGS Unit 4) adjacent to Interstate's existing Sutherland Generating Station in Marshalltown, Iowa. Interstate is a subsidiary of Alliant Energy of Madison, Wisconsin.

"When the risks to consumers and the public associated with building a new coal-fired power plant are properly taken into account, the advantages are clearly demonstrated of Interstate Power meeting its supply needs through lower-cost and environmentally-friendly energy efficiency and renewable energy generation resources," said Consumer Advocate John R.
Perkins.

The Office of Consumer Advocate filed the testimony with the IUB late Monday. The OCA represents gas, electric and telephone utility consumers generally and the public generally in all proceedings before the Iowa Utilities Board.

Expert testimony submitted by the Consumer Advocate interpreting current scientific analysis and consensus argues that the proposed coal plant would inject enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for 50 years or more, contributing to a worsening of the dangerous buildup of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere and to accelerated global climate change for centuries to come.

According to the testimony, emissions from the proposed plant would be equivalent to the CO2 emissions from about 740,000 additional cars– an additional 40% of current emissions today from all of the cars registered in the state in 2005.

Human-induced climate change presents a grave and increasing threat to the environment and to human societies around the world, according to the testimony. The primary source of increasing atmospheric CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels by industrialized societies. Unless squarely addressed by effective public policy, the increasing buildup of atmospheric greenhouse gases will likely cause dramatic environmental and economic harm to societies around the world, including communities in Iowa. Policymakers within and beyond Iowa are evaluating policies to achieve electricity production by less carbon-intensive or zero-carbon means, the testimony
said.

"The proposed coal plant stands in stark contrast to this goal," Perkins said. "Undertaking construction of a coal plant in these circumstances presents an enormous risk for IPL's customers and the environment – a risk that is unnecessary. Moreover, our recommendations
would allow for the potential development of cleaner energy sources which may occur over the next decade and eliminate the need for a baseload coal plant in the future."

Perkins said that in the course of the OCA's detailed analysis of Interstate's electric resource planning model, OCA's experts determined that IPL failed to properly model the costs of CO2 regulation and other energy resource potentials. Adjusting for these errors, the OCA experts
concluded, IPL can defer the need for the base load coal plant beyond the planned 2013 in-service date of SGS-Unit 4. Energy efficiency and wind generation would be a more cost-effective means of meeting Interstate's energy needs, and with little to no adverse environmental impact, Perkins said.

"Energy efficiency and renewable energy resources actually deliver greater and more evenly distributed economic benefits to the State of Iowa than the proposed coal plant," Perkins said. "Removing IPL's modeling constraints that limited Interstate's wind generation capacity to 9.1 % of its projected retail energy needs in 2022, and allowing the model to increase wind generation to 25 percent of IPL's retail energy needs, would result in 1,657 MW of wind in 2022, or 1,039 megawatts more than IPL assumes in its base resource plan. Similar environmentally sound results will accrue from increased investment in energy efficiency."

Grassley: Use Coal to Produce Ethanol

The Des Moines Register has a story about Charles Grassley saying we should be using coal to produce ethanol to lessen the demand on natural gas. One of the main advantages of using ethanol is that it produces less greenhouse gases, but using coal to produce ethanol cancels out the gains.

Ethanol distilleries should consider running on coal to lessen demand for natural gas, says Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia.

Some analysts have expressed concern that the proliferation of ethanol plants around the country will drive up the cost of natural gas, the facilities’ chief source of heat.

“We’ve got to use things that we have in greater supply. We need to use more coal in place of natural gas,” Grassley said Tuesday.

Environmentalists have opposed the use of coal in ethanol plants, arguing that it produces more pollution than natural gas and could undo the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that occurs when ethanol is used as a gasoline additive. Burning natural gas releases less carbon than burning coal.

“Fundamentally you’re negating any greenhouse gas improvement by using coal to distill” ethanol, said Dave Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs for the Sierra Club.

By using coal to produce ethanol, your basically making the only advantage of using ethanol is that it helps Iowa farmers. Why limit the benefits?

Edwards Calls for Halt on Coal Plants in the Backyard of Proposed Coal Plant

John Edwards called for a halt on coal-fired power plants in Marshalltown, where a proposed $1 billion, 600 mw coal-fired power plant is being proposed by Alliant Energy.

Edwards said...

...we need to use coal sequestration technology and not build anymore coal plants until this technology is available.

I assumed Edwards was not informed about the proposed power plant in town when I first heard this comment. However, after the event, I overheard a local reporter ask if Edwards was aware of Alliant's proposed coal-fired power plant. Edwards said he doesn't believe in changing his position based on what town he is speaking in. This makes me think Edwards knew about the plant was once again taking a principled stand on the issue.

Edward's answer came on a question about high gas prices and requiring oil companies to invest excess profits into building new refineries. Edwards used to the question to lay out his plan to curb carbon emmissions and he threw in there the comment about putting a halt on coal plants until the coal sequesteration techonolgy is available.

It will be interesting to see if the media picks up on this comment.

National Experts Testify in Opposition to Marshalltown Coal Plant

I received an email yesterday from Plains Justice, who is opposing the proposed coal plant in Marshalltown. The email included testimony from national experts, including climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, an Iowa native.

Here is part of the email...

The 660 MW coal plant proposed by Wisconsin-based Alliant Energy would emit approximately 6,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Alliant projects a 40% increase in emissions in the next 7 years, making them one of the worst global warming offenders in the Midwest. The Iowa Utility Association, of which Alliant is a member, recently commissioned a study that demonstrated that capacity for nearly 1,000 MW of cost-effective energy efficiency potential is available in their service territory in the next ten years at half the cost of Alliant's proposed coal plant. Kansas and Florida regulators rejected similar large coal plant proposals in 2007 because of global warming impacts.

Sally Wilson, a biology professor at Marshalltown Community College and member of Community Energy Solutions, opposes the plant as a private citizen. "We deserve clean air and water as much as any other town in Iowa," says Wilson. "There's no reason for Iowa to be building more coal plants. It is critical that we protect our environment for the health of our community and its members. We are dependent on clean air and water," says Wilson. "It makes no sense to build a coal plant when much better alternatives are now available."

The Iowa Utilities Board will hold public hearings starting January 14th in Marshalltown.

"The single most important action needed to decrease the present large planetary imbalance driving climate change is curtailment of CO2 emissions from coal burning," said Dr. Hansen. "Because of the danger of passing the ice sheet tipping point, even the emissions from one Iowa coal plant, with emissions of 6,000,000 tons of CO2 per year, could be important as 'the straw on the camel's back'."

The full text of the Plains Justice petition and the direct testimony of the joint intervenors' four expert witnesses are available at their website.

League of Woman Voters Opposes Coal-fired Power Plants

Another group opposes building more coal-fired power plants.

The League of Women Voters today called for a moratorium on new construction of coal-fired electric power plants.

“Global warming is happening now,” said national League President Mary G. Wilson. “If we wait for federal action from our congressional leaders, it will be too late. We must take immediate and aggressive action to halt climate change,” she said. (Click here for a fact sheet on the League’s stand.)

“Burning more coal is too big a risk for too many people,” Wilson said. “Coal is the single largest source of global warming pollution in the U.S., with power plants responsible for 33 percent of CO₂ emissions. Because of this pollution, we already face increasingly severe heat waves and droughts, intensifying hurricanes and floods, disappearing glaciers and more wildfires. If left unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic to us and our planet,” she said.

“We will be active in opposing the building of these plants,” said Wilson. “Coal-fired electric power plants have a very long lifespan and contribute huge amounts of pollution to the atmosphere. Building these new plants would foreclose the possibility of preventing dangerous global warming.”

“Today, there is no environmentally sound use of coal,” Wilson said. “Many hope that CO₂ can be captured and stored underground,” she observed, “but this technology has never been demonstrated on a commercial scale.”

“Instead of coal, we must look to clean energy alternatives,” according to Wilson. “California, which has been a leader in energy conservation and efficiency, has been able to keep per capita energy consumption essentially constant for three decades while enjoying a growing economy,” she noted. “Wind and solar are also ready to make large contributions to economic growth,” she said.

The League carefully examined many facets of energy policy before taking its stand (click here for the League’s FAQ). “We support strong action in Congress to stop global climate change, but the planet can’t wait,” Wilson concluded.

In Iowa there are two proposed coal-fired power plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo.

Iowa Looks at Coal Ash Regulations

Last month a flood of toxic sludge in Tennessee covered hundred of acres of land after a dam broke at a coal plant.

Iowa is now looking to regulate the disposal of coal ash.

Iowa environmental regulators say they will push for landfill-style regulations for coal ash disposal sites in the state.

Members of the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission vowed Tuesday to push for the more stringent and costly rules. They also criticized Iowa Department of Natural Resources officials, who last month said they favored the testing of groundwater to see if the toxic ash was polluting waterways before requiring liners and monitoring at new disposal sites.

The commission's decision follows recent coal ash spills in Tennessee and Alabama, and stems from efforts to rewrite the state's landfill rules.

Coal ash comes from coal-burning and contains heavy metals and pollutants linked to neurological problems and other illnesses.

There are more than a dozen coal ash disposal sites in Iowa.

Alliant Plans to Raise Rates on Customers

Image via Wikipedia

Alliant Energy is planning on raising rates as much as 17% per customer. The Iowa Utilities Board will be ruling on the proposed increase.

From the Des Moines Register...

Alliant Energy vice president Vern Gebhart took the microphone at a hearing to propose a rate increase that could be as high as 17 percent per customer.

"Given the current economic environment, the rate increase is a challenge," he acknowledged.

The utility has asked the Iowa Utilities Board to increase rates across all of its system, which includes Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, Keokuk, Marshalltown, Mason City, Ottumwa and the Spirit Lake area. The Osceola hearing was the first of several that Alliant and the utilities board will conduct through May 21. The board will make its decision by early next year.

Gebhart told the crowd that the rate increase, which would raise $171 million annually, is necessary to help pay for more than $600 million in upgrades Alliant has had to make to its generation and transmission system, and also to buy power from other utilities.

Alliant had planned on building a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown, but dropped those plans this spring after the Iowa Utilities Board ruled a lower return on investment than the company wanted. Add that to news that Alliant's earning are down and the cost of operating coal plants will be getting more expensive after the EPA, under the Bush administration, ruled that coal plants must limit carbon emissions, it became clear that a new coal plant was a poor investment.

Last summer, an independent financial expert, testified that a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown could significantly raise rates even more.

According to Thomas Sanzillo, IPL hasn't addressed four major risks sufficiently: the cost of construction, weak demand, likely regulation of greenhouse gases in the near future, and the rising price of coal.

"The company has decided to place the risk for this plant squarely on the ratepayers. This is costly for Iowans, and in the long-term risky for shareholders," Sanzillo said. He is a former First Deputy Comptroller for New York State who has reviewed the management and operation of the New York Power Authority and the Long Island Power Authority and supervised New York State's $150 billion public investment fund.

"IPL's plan could double the cost of electricity consumers pay to keep the Marshalltown plant solvent." Sanzillo said. "This does not mean the monthly household bill doubles. It does mean a stiff monthly increase. This is not the time to build a coal plant. There are just too many risks and the plant is not needed."

Coal plant would be 'waste of money'

The Iowa Utilities Board will be meeting next to week to discuss the proposed coal-fired power plant that is proposed to built in Marshalltown. Iowa native James Hansen, a climate scientist form NASA, will be testifying about the environmental impacts of coal plants.

One of the world's top climate scientists says a new coal-fired power plant planned for Marshalltown would be a waste of money because it will soon be necessary to close such coal-burning facilities to save the earth's climate.

James Hansen, an Iowa native who heads NASA's Goddard Space Center in the Manhattan borough of New York, is expected to testify as a private citizen before the Iowa Utilities Board next week in opposition to Alliant Energy's proposed Marshalltown power plant.

"It would be a tremendous waste of money to put money into coal-fired power plants at this time, because it has become clear that we're going to need to phase out coal use where it is not possible to capture and sequester the carbon dioxide," Hansen said.

Coal plants being constructed now will never be able to fill out their useful lives because the government will be forced to regulate them out of existence, Hansen said.

Kansas Governor Takes Strong Stand Against Coal Plants

Kansas Governor Kathleen Seblius took another strong stand against the expansion of coal plants.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius today vetoed legislation to allow a sizeable coal plant expansion in western Kansas.

The bill would have eliminated the discretion a state regulator used last year to block Sunflower Electric Power Corp.’s plans to add two coal-burning generators to its existing Holcomb, Kan., power station.

Sebelius said that she couldn’t support an erosion of an environmental regulator’s powers and that the bill didn’t do enough to encourage renewable energy.

Last week, a group of concerned citizens from Waterloo and Marshalltown, where coal-fired power plants are proposed to be built, held a rally at the State House to encourage Gov. Culver to take action against the coal plants.

The question now is if Culver will follow Sebelius' lead?

Des Moines Register: Marshalltown Coal Plant is Not the Right Course for Iowa

The Des Moines Register Editorial Board came out today against the proposed coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown.

Today, the editorial board has concluded that building a coal-fired plant in Marshalltown is not now the right course for Iowa. The right course would place far greater emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable sources of generation, particularly wind. For power plants, it would encourage a harder look at natural gas, which emits much less carbon dioxide, and would specify that any new "cleaner-burning coal plants" must be able, at least on the near horizon, to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.

But this moment of decision for Iowa shouldn't be just about this particular plant. It offers a time for Iowa to look itself in the mirror and decide what kind of energy-producing-and-consuming state it wants to be in an entirely different era for energy.

Will Iowa lead or follow at a time when the health of the planet may be in peril and when the availability and price of clean energy may starkly define economic fates? Will it simply meet federal regulations when required, burning fossil fuels as much as it can, as long as it can? Or will it chart a course to conserve electricity, generate more of it from renewable sources and, through its innovation and leadership, create new jobs, new businesses and new opportunities?

This is about image, too. Iowa has led the way in developing the biofuels and wind industries - and enjoyed more jobs and growth as a result. A new coal plant without carbon capture doesn't build a clean-energy reputation.

The Register provided in-depth coverage of the pros and cons of the coal plant the past week. You can read their coverage here.