"Clean" Coal -- Myth or Fact?

Toxic emissions from coal fired power plants have contributed to acid rain and air and water pollution, now the Carbon Dioxide that these plants produce is being eyed as a contributor to global warming. Yet in the U.S. (in 2005), 50 percent of electricity (KWHs) came from coal-fired power plants (U.S. Energy Information Administration).

Coal fired plants are regulated to meet Federal and State standards for clean air and water. Although emissions regulations may shift depending on political circumstances, a community that gets a coal-fired power plant will have a very long-term -- 40 or 50 year -- relationship with that plant. What kind of power plants are being built now? No one is building nuclear plants now; a lot of "alternative energy" plants are being constructed but, except for Wind, these don't contribute significantly to new capacity. Three new coal plants scheduled to come on line in the U.S. in 2007 will contribute 11 percent of the new (2007) capacity, natural gas fired plants will contribute 64 percent, and Wind generators 21 percent.

Question: Why is new (2007) generating capacity expected to be more reliant on natural gas than coal? Isn't coal supposed to be cheap? Hasn't coal historically been a major energy source?

Question: What if global warming shifts the discussion about "clean coal" away from the known "baddies" (like mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and ash) and towards the greenhouse gas Carbon Dioxide? What if technology and the regulatory climate shift during the next eight or ten years (see "FutureGen")?

Question: How likely is it that FutureGen will once and for all solve the problems of abundant, cheap and clean energy?

Question: What if a natural gas pipeline is constructed from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska? How would this change the cost-benefit picture of planning new or expanded electric generation?

Question: What kind of "neighbor" - locally, regionally, and globally - would a coal-fired power plant be? [This could be your neighbor, particularly if you live a few miles south of Palmer. See Divided MEA board backs coal power 4-2, Anchorage Daily News, Rindi White (June 13, 2007)]

U.S. generating capacity (called "Summer Capacity") of the plants slated to come on-line during 2007 shows natural gas generating units make up 9,196.7 megawatts, wind generators nearly 3,000 MWs, and coal-fired units nearly 1,500 MWs.

There are currently plans to have four coal-fired power plants operating in Alaska by 2015: Matanuska Electric's 100 MW plant (operation to start in 2015), Homer Electric Association's operation of the Healy "Clean Coal Project" plant (50 MW), Agrium US with a 350 MW gasification plant in Kenai scheduled to start-up in 2011, and a 100 MW plant in Bethel (sponsored by Nuvista).

In 2007, new capacity is projected to be two-thirds natural gas, 21 percent wind, and 11 percent coal (graph 1). New wind generation (wind articles and map) is scheduled to come on-line during 2007 in California, Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.

Graph 1.

How does the new capacity compare to historic capacity? U.S. electric generating capacity in 2005: 40 percent natural gas, 32 percent coal, 10 percent nuclear, 8 percent hydroelectric (graph 2). (Note these percentages are based on capacity in MWs not consumption in kilowatt hours. Generation by power source in terms of KWHs in 2005 was 50% coal, 19% natural gas, 10% nuclear and 7% hydroelectric.)

Graph 2.

Human health impacts of coal...

The American Lung Association explains that "...The administration plan would hurt public health and help big polluters by weakening, delaying and diluting cuts in power plants’ sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollution compared to timely enforcement of current law. The administration plan would roll back the current law’s public health safeguards to protect local air quality, curb pollution from upwind states, and protect our national parks... "

Toxic chemicals most often mentioned in the same breath as coal power plants are: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury:

Mercury (EPA) - scroll down on this EPA page for a diagram of how mercury moves through the environment from power plant emissions to being ingested by humans.

Nitrogen Oxide - According to EPA, "Nitrogen oxides, or NOx, ... are colorless and odorless. However, one common pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) along with particles in the air can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas." (EPA's NOx page: "How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe" has a few more links including a fancy brochure but it was published in 1998 so is probably out-of-date.)

Sulfur dioxide EPA explains some of the basics of sulfur dioxide: what it is, causes for concern, and health and environmental impacts.

So, these pollutants can cause acid rain, smog, and soot. And transporting and unloading coal is known to cause dust that negatively impacts humans and the environment. Plus, there's the recognition that carbon dioxide is contributing to climate change with all its long-term and hard-to-reverse consequences.

Pollution - regulations and/or incentives...

MERCURY:

Mercury Matters, Linking Mercury Science with Public Policy in the Northeastern United States, Hubbard Brook Research Foundation, January 2007. -- "...Mercury emissions to the atmosphere are the largest source of mercury pollution globally and in most areas of the Northeast. Watersheds throughout the nation receive mercury that is emitted from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants and other sources and then deposited to the Earth. Some of the mercury eventually runs off into nearby rivers and lakes where, under the right conditions, it can bioaccumulate up to 1 million times as it passes from water to fish, wildlife, and people..." (from Key Findings, page 4) [Mercury Matters is based on studies recently published in the journal BioScience and takes a readable and hard look at the interrelationships between coal-fired power plants and mercury hotspots in ecosystems. Since the CFB technology that MEA plans to use is not a mercury-free technology and there are obviously important ecosystems in the Matanuska Valley and Cook Inlet Basin, I recommend a careful reading of this report and related materials. Besides a link to the Mercury Matters Report, this Hubbard Research Foundation web page also includes links to press releases, comments (negative) from EPRI and Hubbard Foundation/researcher responses, and a powerpoint presentation of findings. -ke]

Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR):

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation - Alaska Top Hazardous Air Pollutants - Mercury lists emissions of mercury (tons per year) in Anchorage, Juneau and Fairbanks.

Fact Sheet - Proposed Federal Plan Revisions of Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources; Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Federal Plan Requirements for Clean Air Mercury Rule; and Revisions of Acid Rain Program Rules (SAN # 5094) - "New coal-fired power plants (“new” means construction starting on or after January 30, 2004) will have to meet new source performance standards (NSPS) in addition to being subject to the CAMR emission caps... States with new and existing coal-fired power plants are required... to submit plans to EPA that implement and enforce the standards of performance."
Mercury Rule Regulatory Actions (US EPA)

And, if these EPA pages are clar as mud or you want a quicker idea on how the Federal CAMR (Clean Air Mercury Rule) works and where Alaska fits in, read the Congressional Research Service Report for Congress: Mercury Emissions from Electric Power Plants: States Are Setting Stricter Limits (July 11, 2006) or read recommended articles.

Recommend these 4 articles for help understanding the evolution of U.S. mercury regs and trading schemes since 2005:

1. Amid rising concern about mercury, EPA sets new rules, A proposal would set a cap, and allow emissions trading by industry, The Christian Science Monitor, Brad Knickerbocker (March 16, 2005 edition)
"The latest fight over environmental pollution in the United States focuses on mercury, a highly toxic substance that's dangerous to wildlife and humans..."

2. Revolt over new federal mercury law, The state-led push could weaken the EPA's emissions-trading system, which is popular with industry. The Christian Science Monitor, Mark Clayton (December 07, 2006 edition)
"Facing a mandate to slash toxic mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, 23 states are thumbing their noses at a federal cleanup plan and are instead developing their own far tougher plans to deal with mercury..."

3. Do carbon offsets live up to their promise? Consumers purchase them to relieve greenhouse-gas guilt, but there's no easy way to keep offset companies accountable. The Christian Science Monitor, Moises Velasquez-Manoff (January 10, 2007 edition)
" WIND FARM: Some carbon-offset companies invest in renewable energy projects like these wind turbines in Kasigluk, Alaska, funded by Vermont-based NativeEnergy. " [Read this article for an understandable overview of terms like "cap and trade" and "voluntary carbon market." -ke]

4. Push to replace new US mercury plan Mercury's tendency to pollute locally has caused the Bush administration's emissions-trading scheme to be called into question. The Christian Science Monitor, Peter N. Spotts (January 24, 2007 edition)
"Several draft bills in Congress – as well as a suit in federal court – are challenging the Bush administration's mercury pollution program, which took effect last year. A key reason, they charge, is that the plan's emissions-trading scheme – which has worked to curb other pollutants that spread far and wide – doesn't work for mercury, which accumulates locally as well as spreading over long distances..."

. . .

Summary of the Clear Skies Act of 2003 -- perhaps Alaska isn't included in these regs? Alaska is not clickable on the US map on: http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/where.html -- Does this work? The American Lung Association doesn't think so. Read the Lung Association's comparison (if the table in dark blue is hard to read, use the link to their "printer friendly version" and print it).

. . .

Alaska: What ever happened to Beluga coal, or rather, will it be back?

Cool to Coal, Zaz Hollander, Anchorage Daily News, pp. G1, G2 (4/8/2007) -- "...Over the next 25 years, PacRim Coal LP hopes to strip mine a billion metric tons of coal from state leases it holds on more than 20,000 acres in a largely undeveloped mine area. PacRim is a limited partnership domiciled in Delaware and backed by Texas investors...." This would be the Chuitna Coal Mine located in the Beluga Coal field on the west side of Cook Inlet.

The Arctic Energy Office of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) sponsored a feasibility study of mining and gasifying Beluga coal for the Agrium plant as well as selling excess power. Read the report. The proposed Chuitna mine is part of this analysis, see: Beluga Coal Gasification Feasibility Study, DOE/NETL-2006/1248, Phase I Final Report (July 2006)

Cook Inletkeeper says "The Chuitna Coal Project would be the largest coal strip mine in Alaska history & the third largest strip mine in the U.S... and that Alaskans will get the short end of the stick..." Cook Inletkeeper also has a Coal Fact Sheet that includes the question: "Is there such a thing as ‘Clean Coal’?"

. . .

Local news...

Power plant on fairgrounds proposed by private firm CLASH: Local utility not keen on project due to its own planned power plant. Anchorage Daily News, S.J. Komarnitsky (July 11, 2007) -- "An Anchorage-based energy company is seeking permission to build a power plant on the Alaska State Fair grounds in Palmer that it says would alleviate a local electric cooperative's need to build a controversial coal-fired plant..."

Why vote when MEA has already decided on coal? Compass: Points of view from the Mat-Su community, Anchorage Daily News, Bill Erickson (July 11, 2007) -- "A friend e-mailed me asking what the best thing members of the Matanuska Electric Association can do with the ballot they received recently from MEA..."

MEA: Don't fix it if it's not broken, Frontiersman, Spectrum / Darin Markwadt (July 10, 2007) -- "So, MEA is finally going to the people. It wants advice concerning its plans to divorce Chugach Electric. It is odd that MEA is finally asking for advice. This is, after all, the same company that threw out 20 percent of the advisory ballots gathered two months ago because MEA did not like what that member-owners had to say. This is the same company that decided in 2006 to build a coal-fired plant without ever going to its membership..."

MEA generates powerful protests, Frontiersman, Russell Stigall (July 10, 2007) -- "Calling Matanuska Electric Association's advisory ballot about power generation plants “propaganda,” local residents gave the cooperative's board of directors an earful Monday..."

ANGDA plans attachable application Spur line could run from either Delta Junction or Glennallen to Beluga River field; volume would depend on authority’s open season Petroleum News, Kristen Nelson (July 8, 2007) -- also "ANGDA commissions Cook Inlet energy study" -- "Heinze said study will compare scenarios such as coal-fired energy with natural gas and what that does to the cost structure. "It has implications: I can’t heat my house efficiently with a big coal plant because all it can give me is electrons and … I lose all that efficiency.""

Critic asks state to scrutinize MEA's behavior COAL PLANT: Bill Erickson takes issue with plan that had no membership vote. Anchorage Daily News, Zaz Hollander (July 6, 2007) -- "An outspoken critic of the Matanuska Electric Association is asking state regulators to investigate the cooperative's move to build a coal-fired power plant as a violation of by-laws that mandate ratepayer participation..." [The discussion in the filing includes: "Erickson raises questions about decisions and procedures in MEA’s power supply planning process. In particular, Erickson opposes the MEA plan to cease purchasing its power supplies from another utility and instead to construct its own coalfired electrical generation plant, and attaches a consultant report questioning the project’s economics. Erickson also raises questions about MEA’s procedures for election of its board of directors, bylaw amendments, and information disclosure. Finally, Erickson questions the board of directors’ delegation of authority to the general manager..." Read the RCA filing. -ke]

MEA members voting on power source BALLOTS IN MAIL: Utility asks if it should build plant or keep buying electricity. Anchorage Daily News, Rindi White (July 6, 2007) -- "...Borough Manager John Duffy said the borough is not forcing MEA to choose between building a local power generation plant and buying power from Chugach, as an MEA brochure mailed out with ballots seems to indicate. 'I don't understand what the choice between buying power from Chugach or building their own power has to do with our ordinance,' Duffy said..."

MEA goes to voters again Frontiersman Russell Stigall (July 3, 2007) -- "Matanuska Electric Association member-owners have another chance to vote on their co-op's future electric generation plans..." [The advisory "ballots" are out and the glossy brochure is very clear on how MEA wants you (the member/owners) to vote. -ke]

Palin vetoes $26.5 million in MEA grants Frontiersman Russell Stigall (July 3, 2007) -- "Matanuska Electric Association watched its third strike cross the governor's plate Friday when Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed $26.5 million from the co-op's Railbelt Energy Fund request. The veto was the third time a governor has vetoed MEA..."

Consultant challenges MEA's plant projections Anchorage Daily News, Rindi White (June 29, 2007) -- "...Utility and pipeline consultant Mark Foster, at a recent public meeting about the cost of coal, warned attendees that by choosing coal, MEA could kill a project to ship North Slope gas through a pipeline spur to Southcentral Alaska. "The economics of that spur line will be materially undermined if you switch from natural gas to coal," Foster said recently by phone..." [Suggest also reading ANGDA plans... in Petroleum News, 7-8-07 -ke]

Company prepares to drill for methane COLLABORATION: Oil man says surface owners left out of equation in past efforts. Anchorage Daily News, Zaz Hollander (June 29, 2007) -- "...Fowler Oil and Gas Corp. hopes to drill a single pilot well in the Mat-Su on 840 acres owned by Fowler's friend Henry Kircher and three other local families. The four own subsurface mineral rights, too..."

Climate change a pricey matter BILLIONS AT STAKE: Warming may push building costs up, study says. Anchorage Daily News, Dan Joling (The Associated Press June 27, 2007) -- "Climate change could add billions of dollars to the cost of building and maintaining Alaska's public structures over the next 23 years, a university study has concluded..."

Power play: Feud heats up between borough, MEA Frontiersman, Russell Stigall (June 29, 2007) -- "Whether government should regulate the Mat-Su Valley's electric cooperative is fast brewing into a bitter war of words between Matanuska Electric Association and the Mat-Su Borough..."

Borough close to switching on power permit, Frontiersman, Russell Stigall (June 26, 2007) -- "A Mat-Su Borough ordinance governing the permitting of power plants could encompass potential environmental impacts and mitigation efforts by future power generation in the Mat-Su Valley..."

Tally it up Greenhouse pollution reporting is good idea; question is how? (editorial) Anchorage Daily News (June 23, 2007) -- "Should Alaska require all major greenhouse gas producers to report how much they pour into the air each year?..."

T-shirts, buttons unite coal use critics RALLY: Organizers say MEA will listen if the community pulls together. Anchorage Daily News, Rindi White (June 22, 2007) -- [An informational meeting for the public was held June 20th by MEA Ratepayers' Alliance to provide information on "The True Cost of Coal" -ke]

...Perhaps the most unexpected was state Rep. Carl Gatto, who said the choice to use coal to generate power "seems to be going backward pretty quick."

"What is relevant is that every state is dealing with (coal) legislation ... They're going to place caps on the emission of carbon and they're going to tax to keep carbon emissions down," Gatto, R-Palmer, said. "I am troubled by the plan."

Gatto and Anchorage engineering consultant Mark Foster instead touted the clean-burning technology of natural gas power generation plants...

Groups Vow to Fight Proposed Coal Plant, Frontiersman, Russell Stigall (June 22, 2007) -- "Cold, hard cash and coal plants were on the schedule Wednesday evening to examine the economics behind a proposed coal-fired power plant..." [couldn't find a link to this article on Frontiersman.com. Maybe they'll add it later...]

Borough considers power plant regulations, Frontiersman, Russell Stigall (June 22, 2007) -- "Is coal the new coal bed methane? A Mat-Su Borough memorandum introduces an ordinance to regulate proposed electrical generation or power plants on both plant operation and impacts on location..." [In 2004, the state created a furor by leasing a lot of land in the "core area" of the Valley for CBM (coal bed methane) development. The fall-out of that whole process was that one legislator resigned rather than face a recall vote, the borough enacted tough CBM regulations, and a few weeks before the 2004 election Evergreen Resources simply gave the leases back to the state. -ke]

Talk of Alaska - Tuesday, June 19, 2007 Alaska Public Radio Network ANCHORAGE, AK (2007-06-19) -- "Alaska could be a leader in alternative energy, should that future involve coal? At least one proposed coal project here could prove new industrial-scale technology to capture and store carbon instead of putting it into the atmosphere..."

Utility consultant: Coal may cost MEA more than it thinks, Alaska Journal of Commerce, Margaret Bauman (June 17, 2007) -- "An Anchorage utility consultant who reviewed an executive summary of Matanuska Electric Association's power generation plans says it appears to seriously underestimate the long-term cost of electricity from a coal-fired power plant..."

CH2M Hill, Veco agree to terms DEAL: Colorado-based company sees chance for growth in energy sector. Anchorage Daily News, Don Hunter (June 17, 2007) -- "A month of negotiations produced an agreement this weekend for Colorado-based CH2M Hill to acquire the Alaska oil field services and construction company Veco Corp. for about $365 million, spokesmen for the companies said Saturday..."

Top Utilities Looking at Possible Merger Alaska Public Radio Network, Steve Heimel (2007-06-15) -- "Two of the state's largest utilities are looking at a merger. The Chugach Electric Association and Anchorage's government-owned Municipal Light and Power signed an agreement to look into combining operations today. APRN's Steve Heimel tells us more."

Coal should not be part of Alaska's future, Frontiersman, Howard Bess/Spectrum (June 15, 2007) -- "...Even though great strides have been made in developing cleaner coal generating plants, cleaner is not good enough. Coal producers and electrical power producers like to talk about 'clean' coal. Depending on the particular polluting substance, 'clean' means 20-90 percent clean. Truly clean coal is not even on the horizon. For the well-being of us all, we need to bring coal burning to an end as soon as possible..." [Howard Bess brings personal experience and a keen eye to what MEA's plan for coal power might mean within the bigger picture of life in southcentral Alaska. Check Frontiersman.com to see if they've posted a link to this article. -ke]

MEA coal-fired plant plan spurs heated debate, Alaska Journal of Commerce, Margaret Bauman (Web posted Sunday, May 13, 2007) -- "A proposed coal-fired plant to provide much of the electricity for nearly 53,000 customers of Matanuska Electric Association is nowhere near the permitting stage yet, but the prospect has already generated heated debate..." [Interesting article even though it's a month old. Provides some perspective. -ke]

Divided MEA board backs coal power 4-2, Anchorage Daily News, Rindi White (June 13, 2007) -- "Two Matanuska Electric Association board members tried but failed Monday afternoon to stop plans by the utility to build a coal-fired power plant..."

Valley farmers' concern grows over MEA coal plan Frontiersman, Russell Stigall (June 10, 2007) -- "Acid emissions from coal-fired power plants can strip calcium and magnesium from farmers' soil. Will sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide from Matanuska Electric Association's proposed coal-fired plant acidify Valley farm land, strip calcium and magnesium from soil and mobilize heavy metal in wetlands, lakes and streams?..."

MEA Glenn plant site squeaks in (POWER: Members rated two Palmer locales the highest, but the vote margin was narrow.) Anchorage Daily News, Rindi White (June 9, 2007)

Limited debate leads to poor decisions at MEA (COMPASS: Points of view) Anchorage Daily News, David Cheezem (June 8, 2007)

MEA advisory vote selects gravel pit south of Glenn
RESULTS: Board will review new power plant decision on Monday.Anchorage Daily News, Rindi White (June 8, 2007)

Coal-fired plant plan powers voices of opposition Anchorage Daily News, Rindi White (June 7, 2007) --

Mat-Su Residents Fearing Coal Plant Pollution, Alaska Public Radio Network, Ellen Lockyer (2007-06-08) -- "Matanuska Electric Association officials counted ballots yesterday in an advisory vote aimed at guiding MEA's board in selecting a site for the company's proposed new power generation facility."

'Green' energy backers pleased at progress, Frontiersman, Russell Stigall (June 5, 2007), p. A-11.

Valley power play over coal continues PROXIMITY: Possibility of locating energy plant nearby makes arguments more heated. Anchorage Daily News, Rindi White (June 6, 2007) -- "Hit the switch and the lights go on. That simple act is such a habit that few think about where their power comes from. Until someone suggests plunking down a coal-burning plant in their neighborhood, near their cabin or their favorite fishing hole. Then it's the talk of the town..."

AP IMPACT: Blame coal: Texas leads in carbon emissions overall (Anchorage Daily News) Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer (June 2, 2007 ) -- "America may spew more greenhouse gases than any other country, but some states are astonishingly more prolific polluters than others - and it's not always the ones you might expect... In sparsely populated Alaska, the carbon dioxide produced per person by all the flying and driving is six times the per capita amount generated by travelers in New York state..."

[June 1, 2007 -- Three Letters to the Editor in the Frontiersman protesting MEA's modus operandi. I'll post the links if I find them. -ke]

older news articles ...

Power plant ordinance introduced Planning Commission hears testimony July 12 -- "A draft ordinance that would regulate where a power plant could be built and how it operates was introduced tonight at the joint meeting of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly and Borough Planning Commission. A public hearing is set for July 12 before the Planning Commission..." (Mat-Su Borough Press Release, June 26, 2007)

The Mat-Su Borough Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on July 12 th at 6:00pm . The hearing will be held in the Assembly chambers of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough offices at 350 E. Dahlia Ave. in Palmer. The Borough is accepting public comments until 5:00 p.m. July 11, 2007. Draft ordinance and related links.

. . .

An anti-coal sign was burned sometime between the evening of June 8th and morning of June 9th. The burning was done, ironically, during a time when radio stations had carried repeated announcements re: no open burning, burn permits suspended, no burn barrel burning due to high levels of fire danger.

Letter to the Editor of the Frontiersman, 6/15/07: "This is in response to the person(s) responsible for burning down the anti-coal sign at four corners. I painted that sign a couple weeks ago and I feel honored to have sparked a deep feeling in the individual(s) involved enough to commit arson. I'd also like to say thank you for proving the point that nothing burns clean; you did a wonderful job." Jaimie Church, Palmer

On June 9, 2007, the MEA Ratepayers float won First Prize in the Colony Days Parade Political category.

Is a coal-fired power plant (in the Matanuska Valley) the neighbor you want?

On June 11th, the MEA board approved the Glenn Hwy south location as the site of the coal fired power plant that they seem intent on building. Glenn Hwy north site was second, Pittman was third. See the Frontiersman article: MEA board approves proposed coal plant site (Russell Stigall, June 12, 2007) for more information.

If you missed the MEA board meeting, read the Frontiersman article for more information. Note that this was an "advisory" vote and that it asked people to "rank" the choices (i.e., a preferential voting method) that basically pits neighbor against neighbor -- people who "vote" and don't want a coal plant near their homes may tend to vote the plant as far away as possible from where they live. Other people will recognize the sham nature of this way of creating an "advisory" vote and choose not to vote at all which will give the "voters" more possibility of affecting the outcome. There are also a number of different methods for enumerating this type of vote (preferential voting, a vote where choices are "ranked"). If anyone is curious to know more about preferential voting, check out the Wikipedia Preferential Voting page and the paper: ALTERNATIVE VOTING SYSTEMS by Steven J. Brams, New York University and Peter C. Fishburn, AT&T Bell Laboratories.

Maps of so-called "winners" on the MEA web site -- Glenn Highway Pittman Gravel Pits

Also, at the June 11th MEA board meeting, the board voted to release both the 2007 and the 2006 Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs). A link for MEA's 2007 IRP is on their home page. Apparently, the 2006 IRP is not yet posted on the MEA web site.

See MEA Ratepayers Alliance and utilitywatch.org for how to make your views heard.

[Utilitywatch.org has links to MEA board members' comments (posted by Russell Stigall/Frontiersman on youtube.com) following May 14 hearing on coal plan site selection. These are quite enlightening. -ke]

Some pertinent articles:

MEA lays out plan, Frontiersman, Russell Stigall (May 20, 2007) -- "Public feedback continued to be negative for Matanuska Electric Association on Saturday..."

Parade mocks plan to build coal, gas plants, Anchorage Daily News, Joseph Ditzler (May 16, 2007) -- "...At 3 p.m. the Renewable Energy Parade, 80-some strong, uncoiled itself and fell in behind a pickup truck pressed into duty as a float, a model of a geothermal-power-producing volcano rising from its bed. The protesters carried homemade signs bearing messages: 'MEA: We need more options,' 'Coal is a four-letter word' and 'Coal is not cool...'"

Coal opponents take message to street, MEA board Meeting, Frontiersman, Russell Stigall (May 15, 2007) -- "...More than 60 ratepayers and concerned citizens braved blustery weather to march in opposition to Matanuska Electric Association's proposed coal-fired electric generator..."

Anchorage Daily News article: MEA reveals proposed locations for power plant COAL-FIRED: Opponents want the utility to reconsider greener sources of energy. Anchorage Daily News, S.J. Komarnitsky (May 9, 2007) -- "The Matanuska Electric Association is still years away from building a coal-fired plant in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. But opponents are lobbying hard to get the utility to reconsider its plans..."

Poll respondents say No to coal-fired power plant -- "On Thursday, May 10, Channel 2 News conducted an online poll asking Southcentral residents whether Matanuska Electric Association should build a coal-fired power plant in the Valley. Respondents voted 'No,' MEA should not build a power plant, by a margin of approximately 2-to-1..." See poll results. [Also, see Channel 2's Valley power plant locations up for vote ktuu.com, Rebecca Palsha Thursday (May 10, 2007) "A coal-fired power plant and a natural-gas fired power plant are going to be built in the Mat-Su Borough and Valley residents get to decide where to put them..."]

MEA goes to voters again Frontiersman Russell Stigall (July 3, 2007) -- "Matanuska Electric Association member-owners have another chance to vote on their co-op's future electric generation plans..." [The advisory "ballots" are out and the glossy brochure is very clear on how MEA wants you (the member/owners) to vote. -ke]

Critic asks state to scrutinize MEA's behavior COAL PLANT: Bill Erickson takes issue with plan that had no membership vote. Anchorage Daily News, Zaz Hollander (July 6, 2007) -- "An outspoken critic of the Matanuska Electric Association is asking state regulators to investigate the cooperative's move to build a coal-fired power plant as a violation of by-laws that mandate ratepayer participation..." [Read the RCA filing. -ke]

MEA members voting on power source BALLOTS IN MAIL: Utility asks if it should build plant or keep buying electricity. Anchorage Daily News, Rindi White (July 6, 2007) -- "...Borough Manager John Duffy said the borough is not forcing MEA to choose between building a local power generation plant and buying power from Chugach, as an MEA brochure mailed out with ballots seems to indicate. 'I don't understand what the choice between buying power from Chugach or building their own power has to do with our ordinance,' Duffy said..."

...more local news articles...

Stories worth noting...

Stars Join Their Voices to Support Live Earth The New York Times, Alan Riding (July 8, 2007) -- "They joined forces two years ago to combat global poverty under the flag of Live 8, and rock and pop stars and their myriad fans around the world threw their voices behind a good cause again on Saturday, this time that of raising awareness about global warming through a campaign called Live Earth..." [This multi-continent event is worth pondering if nothing else than because it brings the vernacular of climate change and global warming to hundreds of thousands of people attending eight concerts as well as millions more watching televised and Internet broadcasts. Also, see Wikipedia Live Earth. -ke]

. . .

Oil race at top of the world As Russia pursues claim to huge Arctic reserves, U.S. is sidelined Chicago Tribune Alex Rodriguez (June 10, 2007) [Published p. F-4 Anchorage Daily News on 7/1/07] -- "A new Klondike may be waiting at the top of the world, where geologists believe a quarter of the globe's undiscovered oil and natural gas lies trapped within the rock strata underneath the ice-encased Arctic Ocean..."

. . .

Jeff Goodell: Big Coal's Dirty Secrets Fresh Air from WHYY, June 21, 2007 (heard on KSKA) -- "Jeff Goodell's book Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future, now out in paperback, argues that the U.S. is more dependent than ever on coal..."

. . .

What's in the Senate Energy Bill? NPR.org, June 22, 2007 -- "The Senate passed a new energy bill late Thursday night that aims to boost the nation's use of renewable energy and promote energy efficiency. That's in sharp contrast to the energy bill passed two years ago..."

. . .

State rejects coal plants, citing cost and risks, HeraldTribune.com, Kate Spinner (June 6, 2007) -- "In a decision that surprised environmentalists, [Florida] state utility regulators Tuesday turned down a proposal to put two new coal power plants near Lake Okeechobee. Signaling a shift in the state's energy policies, the Public Service Commission told Florida Power and Light that building the coal plants would not be worth the risks and cost, especially with the potential for new taxes on the carbon emissions that coal plants produce..."

. . .

The Big Thaw, National Geographic, Tim Appenzeller (June 2007) -- "From Greenland to Antarctica, the world is losing its ice faster than anyone thought possible. Can humans slow the melting?"

. . .

Comment, Human Nature, The New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert (May 28, 2007), pp. 23-24 -- "...the Administration has done its best to gut the safeguards put in place after “Silent Spring.” When, for instance, the E.P.A. proposed new rules on mercury emissions from power plants, the proposal turned out to contain several paragraphs lifted, virtually verbatim, from an industry lobbyist’s memos. (With minor changes, those regulations are now in effect.) Just last month, the Administration proposed new rules on the retrofitting of old power plants. The more or less explicit purpose of the rules is to accommodate a power company, Duke Energy, that the E.P.A. had itself sued for violating the Clean Air Act. Also last month, the E.P.A. announced that it would once again delay taking action on two drinking-water contaminants, perchlorate, an ingredient of rocket fuel, and M.T.B.E., a fuel additive..." [Also see American Lung Association excerpt and link. -ke]

. . .

Bush Unveils Strategy On Global Warming, President Urges Voluntary Cuts Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions CBS News (May 31, 2007) -- "A week before the start of the G-8 Summit in Germany, President Bush was trying to head off critics of his policy on global warming by announcing he’s ready to work with the rest of the world, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod..." [Of course it isn't as simple as it sounds... -ke] "...Critics disagree. They say Mr. Bush wants to set unenforceable targets for curbing greenhouse gas, not concrete limits on emissions. They contend he is ignoring other international efforts on climate change that are already under way, and is trying to avoid taking action until he leaves office..."

. . .

May 7-18, 2007 - United Nations subsidiary groups meet to work on "...long-term cooperative action to address climate change..." See United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for current press releases, news articles, and possibly live webcasts.

Climate Panel Pushes Lower Emissions Goals Third U.N. Report Completed Despite China’s Efforts To Water Down Language On Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CBS news, BANGKOK, Thailand (May 3, 2007) -- "International delegates reached an agreement early Friday on the best ways to combat climate change despite efforts by China to water down language on cutting destructive greenhouse gas emissions..."

. . .

U.S Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation hearing on Clean Coal Technology (April 26, 2007) - Links on this page include minority statement by Sen. Ted Stevens, and testimony by Mr. Joseph Chaisson, Clean Air Task Force; Mr. Roberto R. Denis, Sierra Pacific Resources; Dr. Gregory J. McRae, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mr. Michael W. Rencheck,
American Electric Power; and Mr. John M. Wilson,
Siemens Corporation. [Note: except for Dr. McRae with MIT, the panelists are all industry guys. The advantage is, they have experience. The disadvantage--well, that is probably obvious. -ke]

Video archive of Clean Coal Technology Hearing April 2007 26th at 10:00 AM (You'll need realplayer - click link for FREE DOWNLOAD). [U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation Archived Hearings Page]

[If your time is limited, check out a small piece of the hearing transcribed by the Daily Kos. The comments are worth a look, too. Note: the Daily Kos transcript appears to be from two different meetings, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology on the morning of April 26, 2007 and the Senate Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure in the afternoon Coal: A Clean Future. -ke]

Kerry offers bill to ban new coal plants with old tech, MarketWatch.com, Ian Talley (Apr 26, 2007)
"Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., introduced a bill Thursday that would ban all new coal power plants unless they use the "best available" emissions reduction technology."
"The bill would mandate that all new coal power plants - including 150 new plants forecast to be proposed throughout the U.S. in the next decade - be integrated gas combined cycle units, and ban pulverized coal fired power plants unless they used state of the art technology that cut greenhouse gas emission, in particular carbon dioxide..."

Or check out the press release from Sen. John Kerry's office: Kerry Plan Would Ban All New Coal Plants That Use Obsolete Technology (04/26/2007)
"Today, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced the Clean Coal Act of 2007, which prohibits the construction of all new coal fired power plants in the United States unless they use state-of-the-art emissions reduction technology. The new technology limits the release of carbon emissions from power plants, which is one of the leading causes of global warming..."

. . .

Speech Remarks: Regulatory Framework (April 25, 2007) -- Canada's Environment Minister John Baird, P.C. M.P., presents plan for reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases by 2020. [This is apparently the speech referred to the the CBC article Leaked speech reveals Tories' plan to cut greenhouse gases (April 25, 2007) -ke]

. . .

To Fuel the Future, Alaska's Need For Sound Renewable Energy Policies, Part One of a Two-Part Series, Insurgent Media AK, Brian Yanity (April 5, 2007) - [Yanity tackles renewable energy policies, including state level renewable energy funds, renewable energy certificates (like Denali Green Tags), Net Metering, Tax Credits and Feed-In Tariffs (including Golden Valley Electric Association's Sustainable Natural Alternative Power (SNAP) program. -ke]

To Fuel the Future Alaska's Need For Sound Renewable Energy Policies, Part Two of a Two-Part Series, Insurgent Media AK, Brian Yanity (April 26, 2007 ) - [Good review of Renewable Portfolio Standards, Carbon Taxes and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Schemes, and Alaska's renewable energy policies. -ke]

. . .

It seems like not a day goes by without another organization weighing in on climate change, from the United Nations to the United States Supreme Court, to Congress, to the Governor of Alaska:

State aims to reduce emissions CREATING SUBCABINET: Palin's desire to curb contributions to global warming represents shift in emphasis. Anchorage Daily News, Tom Kizzia (April 12, 2007) - "Gov. Sarah Palin plans to explore ways Alaska can reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions as part of a global-warming strategy to be developed by a new subcabinet of top administration officials..."

Two searches on April 14, 2007 of the Library of Congress Thomas bill tracking web site using the terms "global warming" and "safe climate" showed eight bills that obviously have content related to protecting the climate, regulating emission of greenhouse gases, and dealing with global warming. See search results. For instance, Dianne Feinstein's bill (S.317) would "...amend the Clean Air Act to establish a program to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases from electric utilities."

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, MASSACHUSETTS ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. Docket 05-1120, Argued November 29, 2006—Decided April 2, 2007 (Supreme Court index page) -- [The Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and ordered that EPA either regulate tailpipe carbon dioxide emissions of autos or provide a suitable explanation why they aren't. I recommend reading at least Justice Stevens' delivery of the Opinion of the Court (PDF file page numbers 7-38) -ke]

"Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases." from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers of the Fourth Assessment Report "Climate Change 2007" released April 6, 2007. [This short, 23 page, report is a MUST READ. I recommend reading at least section C "Current knowledge about future impacts" which describes the probable impact of climate change/global warming by resource categories: fresh water, ecosystems, 'food, fibre and forest products', 'coastal systems and low-lying areas', 'industry, settlement and society', health, as well as by continental geographies, polar regions, and small islands. -ke]

. . .

"Proposals to build new power plants are often speculative and typically operate on 'boom & bust' cycles, based upon the ever changing economic climate of power generation markets. As such, it should be noted that many of the proposed plants will not likely be built. For example, out of a total portfolio (gas, coal, etc) of 500 GW of newly planned power plant capacity announced in 2001, 91 GW have been already been scrapped or delayed. The Department of Energy does not warrant the accuracy or suitability of this information." [p. 2] Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants, Coal's Resurgence in Electric Power Generation, U.S. Dept. of Energy (5/1/07).

Making money on clean coal As global warming takes the spotlight and electricity use soars, several companies are poised to cash in on the demand for clean coal. By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer April 5 2007: 4:06 PM EDT

. . .

According to Reuters (March 5, 2007):

"North Carolina just approved one of two planned 800-megawatt coal-fired power units Duke Energy wants to build, but only four U.S. plants have come on line since 2000, even though 155 were built between 1980 and 1999."
Source: US Coal-Fired Power Plant Plans up in Smoke?

. . .

NASA climate guru: Don't build coal plants Hansen calls coal 'the big amount' when it comes to greenhouse gases (2/27/07)

. . .

"Clean coal plants aren't cheap to build, and costs to dispose of their waste are steep."

"Bechtel said the initial cost to build a coal gasification plant is 25 percent more than a medium-sized conventional coal-fired power plant. A conventional plant costs about $780 million to build, according to Bechtel, so a comparable coal-gas plant would cost about $975 million."
Source: Clean coal: A good investment? Proponents say it could be America's dream energy resource, but it's expensive -- and controversial. CNNMoney.com, October 19, 2004: 1:28 PM EDT, Katie Benner

. . .

What is clean coal?

"Washington – Cleaner ways of generating electricity from coal can help curb global warming by mid-century if they are implemented on a large scale, a major report says."

"The study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concludes that, under the most optimistic scenario, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to global warming can be stabilized by 2050 at roughly year 2000 levels, with nuclear power and renewable sources replacing or augmenting some coal-fired generating capacity."

Source: U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs, Carbon Dioxide Controls, Clean Coal Can Help Curb Global Warming, Andrzej Zwaniecki (14 March 2007)

. . .

Read the MIT report for yourself:
The Future of Coal, An Interdisciplinary MIT Study

. . .

Discover Magazine delves into the problem of carbon dioxide gas (CO₂), global warming, and who's doing what regarding storing ("sequestering") carbon from coal-fired power generation like the Norwegian company Statoil, EnCana Petroleum in Calgary, and a project in Salah, Algeria. The U.S. seems to be at least somewhat interested in the need to keep excess CO₂ out of the atmosphere. The U.S. Department of Energy intends to kick-start carbon sequestering technology with the $1 billion pilot project using IGCC (coal gasification) technology called FutureGen (yes you might want to Google on "FutureGen" or go directly to http://www.futuregenalliance.org/ to learn about an energy future hyped as "A Brighter Tomorrow.")
Source: Can Coal Come Clean? How to survive the return of the world's dirtiest fossil fuel., Discover Magazine, Tim Folger (12.18.2006)

. . .

More on clean coal technology... In 1984, congress established the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program. As of 1999, five projects were nearing completion and eight projects had serious delays or financial problems (two of which were in bankruptcy). Source: Government Accounting Office Report B-284381, March 9, 2000 (http://archive.gao.gov/f0902b/163510.pdf).

. . .

"As a city grows, it must expand its infrastructure to meet the demands of its population. This is a simple fact of development. In this regard, Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) is proposing to build a new coal burning power plant, or circulating fluidized bed (CFB) coal plant, near town in anticipation of future growth and needs.." read this article for a look at what the various sides have to say about the issues (cost, pollution, externalities, etc.) of siting a new CFB coal plant in Colorado Springs. Source: Pros and cons of a new coal power plant Colorado, Springs Business Journal, Sep 19, 2003, Geoffrey Roper

Reports & References...

Alaska Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections, 1990-2020, prepared by Center for Climate Strategies (February 2007) for Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority (linked from http://www.aidea.org/aea/index.html)

Agrium's Kenai Blue Sky Project, Repowering an Ammonia/Urea Complex with Coal Gasification, October 2006.

Cook Inlet Energy Supply Alternatives Study Final Report, Dunmire Consulting Team, prepared for Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority, April 14, 2006 (linked from http://www.angda.state.ak.us/)

. . .

"Clean" Coal in Alaska started with the Healy Clean Coal Project (HCCP), a demonstration project adjacent to a Golden Valley Electric Association power plant and the Usibelli Coal Mine. In August 1998, U.S. Department of Energy touted: "A new, advanced power plant in Healy, Alaska, featuring state-of-the-art coal combustors and pollution controls, has passed its environmental compliance testing and is now generating electricity at full power for Alaskan consumers.

The U.S. Department of Energy article goes on to explain that "The plant's high-tech 'clean coal technology' is expected to be a showcase for electric power and industrial plants in the 21st century. Not only will it help open new markets for Alaska's abundant coal resources, it is also expected to be in demand in other countries, especially those looking for cleaner ways to use coal, oil or natural gas to generate electricity."

And, in 1998, looked to an optimistic future: "...Recently, the plant completed a test run of 18 consecutive days at full load without a shutdown or the need to take it offline. For the next 3½ years, the plant's performance will be monitored by the Energy Department, as part of its Clean Coal Technology Program. For two of the 3 ½ years, operational data will be provided at no cost to the government."

What did the 50 MW Healy Clean Coal Project cost and who paid for it? "Total cost of the project is $242 million, with the Energy Department providing 48 percent ($117 million) and the project sponsor, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), providing 52 percent ($124 million)... Additional funding of $25 million for the project is coming from power revenues and from private sector participants."

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, New Alaskan Power Plant Producing Clean Electricity from Coal, Healy Clean Coal Project Completes Environmental Compliance Testing, DOE Fossil Energy Techline, August 26, 1998

. . .

According to a Petroleum News article (January 29, 2006), "The Healy project began in 1988. Golden Valley was the plant operator and had contracted to buy power from the 50-megawatt coal-fired plant. The facility was completed in 1997 and operated for a year and a half testing new coal-burning and emissions-control technologies for the U.S. Department of Energy, which contributed $117 million toward the $297 million cost of the plant." (Source: MINING NEWS: GVEA seeks mediation in Healy plant dispute AIDEA files lawsuit against Interior cooperative in hopes of getting mothballed clean-coal facility in Interior up and running, Vol. 11, No. 5 , January 29, 2006)

. . .

So, what actually happened? Fast forward to November 2006. The Healy Clean Coal Project has not generated one kwh of power "...since it failed a required 90-day test period in 1999." A Petroleum News article (November 26, 2006), reports that Homer Electric reached an agreement to restart the Healy Clean Coal Project but will not actually start buying power from HCCP until 2014. " Source: State, Homer Electric reach deal on Healy, Vol. 11, No. 48, (November 26, 2006 ).

. . .

Coal: Alaska's Other Black Gold Part One of a Two Part Series, Insurgent Media AK, Brian Yanity (August 4, 2006) - [Intro to history of coal mining and electric generation in Alaska. -ke]

Coal: Alaska's Other Black Gold Part Two of a Two Part Series, Insurgent Media AK, Brian Yanity (August 18, 2006 ) [Yanity provides background on so-called clean coal technology, then segues to coal in Alaska -- the Healy Clean Coal Project (with a photo), an explanation of Carbon Sequestration technology, and a list of whose (trying) to do what with Alaska coal. Recommended reading. -ke]

In December 2006, the GAO report Key Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs states that "According to DOE, FutureGen is designed to be the first 'zero-emissions' coal-based power plant and is expected to be operational by 2015. In addition to producing electricity and capturing and storing 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the 275 megawatt plant also will be capable of producing hydrogen."

According to the GAO, Barriers to advanced fossil technologies include harmful emissions and high capital costs of new coal gasification plants:

"While coal-fired power plants have substantially reduced their sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, electric power companies face important challenges to deploying a new generation of advanced IGCC coal gasification power plants. These challenges are to further reduce mercury and carbon dioxide emissions and manage the risk associated with high construction and operating costs of new advanced coal technologies. The administration’s Clear Skies Initiative set goals for coal-fired plants to cut their 2003 emissions—49 tons of mercury, 10.2 million tons of sulfur dioxide, and 3.9 million tons of nitrogen oxide—by an average of 70 percent by 2018. However, coal-fired plants also annually emit 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide—the most significant contributor to greenhouse gases and global warming—or 36 percent of the nation’s total carbon dioxide emissions. EPA currently does not regulate carbon dioxide emissions but might do so in the future to address the growing concern about the harmful effects of greenhouse gases. IGCC coal-gasification technology enables power plants to separate sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide before the synthesis gas is burned, thus reducing their emission into the air. DOE and industry are conducting R&D to develop sequestration technologies for the long-term storage of carbon dioxide gas without the gas gradually leaking back into the atmosphere. DOE has funded 25 carbon-dioxide sequestration projects as of September 2006, but has not yet demonstrated the storage of carbon dioxide captured by a large-scale, coal-based power plant. Specifically, when carbon dioxide is compressed and stored in geologic formations, such as oil and gas reservoirs, its density is close to that of some crude oils, resulting in buoyant forces that tend to drive carbon dioxide upwards. It is unknown whether carbon dioxide will remain safely sequestered if pressure, temperature, or other conditions change. According to international climate change experts, leakages could significantly affect climate change or contaminate groundwater. Moreover, given the long-term nature of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, storage sites may require monitoring for very long periods of time—possibly for “eternity,” according to one DOE official."

"New coal gasification plants also face the high costs associated with employing advanced energy technologies, such as IGCC and carbon dioxide capture and sequestration systems. In particular, IGCC plants are 20 percent more expensive—about $100 million more—than pulverized coal plants that use currently available technology, according to International Energy Agency, DOE, and industry officials. Moreover, carbon dioxide capture and sequestration technologies will further increase an IGCC plant’s costs because capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide increases fuel consumption by as much as 25 percent. According to international climate change experts, an IGCC plant that employs carbon dioxide capture and sequestration technologies could increase the cost of electricity per kilowatt hour from 21 to 78 percent, depending on plant design, the cost of fuel, and the storage site characteristics.26"

"In addition to technological and cost barriers, the uncertainties surrounding new coal-gasification technologies create substantial investment risks that threaten to hinder development. Despite the greater efficiency, reduced emissions, and the ability to capture carbon dioxide, only four coal-based IGCC power plants currently operate worldwide. The unproven nature of IGCC technology creates uncertainty and reluctance among industry to invest in building a new coal-based IGCC power plant, particularly given the additional cost, according to DOE and industry officials. Furthermore, international climate change forecasting models predict that carbon dioxide capture and sequestration systems are unlikely to be deployed on a large scale without explicit government regulations that substantially limit greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. In light of such technological uncertainties, industry officials noted that cost-sharing initiatives with DOE will continue to be an important factor in encouraging the demonstration and deployment of IGCC plants."

Source: Key Challenges Remain for Developing and Deploying Advanced Energy Technologies to Meet Future Needs, GAO-07-106, December 2006, pp. 33-34.

Kittitas Valley of Washington state, 10/19/2006     Perhaps this is a chicken and egg situation... or who will blink first. Will the FutureGen plant and global climate change prove once and for all that we have to pay attention to global warming and thus, apparently, carbon dioxide emissions, or will it be a moot point for some reason or another and we should just concentrate on the well-known baddies... like mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and ash... or is there an alternative?

Definitions

CFB: circulating fluidized bed

Carbon dioxide capture and sequestration (CCS): capturing carbon dioxide from coal-fired electric generation and injecting it into the ground so that it can't add to global warming.

GHG: greenhouse gas