Image: EMILY GERTZ/© SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
More In This Article
-
Photo Album
A Look At a Coal Power Plant
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
HOLCOMB, Kans.—Kyle Nelson points upward to show off the six-story-high main boiler of Holcomb Station. The 370-megawatt coal-fired power plant sits on the rolling prairie of southwestern Kansas just a few miles from the small town of Holcomb, population 2,100, roughly 40 miles (65 kilometers) east of the Colorado border. Enormous metal pipes crisscross far overhead in a facility where the temperature is a little too hot to ignore, and the machinery's din is deafening.
Nelson, a senior vice president and chief operating officer at Sunflower Electric Power Corp. unhooks a heavy latch and swings opens a large metal hatch to reveal the 26-year-old plant's fiery heart: a furnace where coal-fueled flames burning nonstop at about 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit (1,370 degrees Celsius) heat a 55,000-gallon (208,200-liter) boiler to produce 2,400 pounds per square inch (170 kilograms per square centimeter) of high-pressure steam. The hulking gray metal turbine that converts the steam into electricity, which will energize the aging high-power transmission lines of western Kansas, recalls the size and streamlined form of a 1930 steam locomotive.
"I just want to build power plants to meet system need," says Nelson, who notes that his analysis of the energy needs of western and central Kansas found that even the most energy-efficient program won't meet the demand that will grow over the next several decades. So, he wants to build two new 700-megawatt coal-fired plants on the site.
In early May, Sunflower Electric, a cooperative of six utilities serving around 400,000 customers, got its wish—or at least part of it: Newly sworn in Gov. Mark Parkinson (D) announced a compromise with the utility that will allow it to build one new 895-megawatt coal-fired plant. That was only after two years of fighting with the state's executive branch to expand its Holcomb operation—plans vetoed three times in 2008 and once in 2009 by then-Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D).
The confrontation catapulted Kansas and Sunflower onto the front lines of the national debate about ending the nation's dependence on coal-fired power.
***
No plumes of black smoke float from the Holcomb Station's smokestack into the wide-open Kansas sky, as much of the toxic ash by-products from burning the coal (over 1.5 million tons a year) are scrubbed from the plant's emissions and stored in nearby containment ponds. But Holcomb does emit 1.5 million to 1.7 million tons of carbon dioxide per annum—the invisible greenhouse gas that is the leading driver of human-propelled global warming. This is one of the main reasons many—including Sebelius—opposed the two coal-fired plants, which would have generated more than 11 million tons a year of CO2.
The proposed 895-megawatt plant will create around seven million tons of CO2, according to Stephanie Cole, a Kansas City, Kans.–based campaigner with the Sierra Club. Kansas will be responsible for all that CO2, while getting less than a quarter of the power generated by the plant The rest of the power will go to two power wholesalers helping to co-finance the Holcomb expansion: Colorado's Tri-State Generation and Transmission, which supplies power to 44 electrical cooperatives in Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming; and Texas-based Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, which serves 16 electrical cooperatives in Texas and the Oklahoma panhandle.
About a year ago, Sunflower Electric refused to take Gov. Sebelius up on a very similar compromise: building a 660-megawatt coal-fired plant that would provide power exclusively to Kansans while creating less of a CO2 load on the state, along with increasing the company's total wind power capacity to 20 percent. Instead the company challenged an earlier air-quality permit denial in state court, and sued the Sebelius administration last November in federal court. (The judge in the federal case is considering a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case; Clare Gustin, a Sunflower vice president, says the company will withdraw the federal lawsuit when it receives an air quality permit from the state to build the new plant.)
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentThese same Democrats who oppose coal fired power plants will be the first ones to squawk when their precious wind power causes electricity prices to jump and reliability to suffer. They will rail against utilities hurting "working class families", when in fact it is their own doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGranholm in Michigan squashed coal fired plant projects which would have created billions in investment and hundreds of millions in tax revenue for the state. All so that her vaunted "green jobs" can be created to saddle the state with more spending on subsidies and higher electricity prices in the end.
When is the Obama administration going to finally realize that nuclear is the only answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWestinghouse believes it can make its AP-1000 reactors for less than 2 cents a kwh with public power financing rates and mass production techniques. It backed its claim with a sale of four ap-1000's to China for 5.5 billion. Construction started last month.
A massive World War II type nuclear power build using mass production techniques of generations 3.5 and generation 4 nuclear plants would end global warming, and foreign oil dependencies within10 years and put American workers back on the job.
What stopping us are a bunch of green nitwits in the Obama administration backed by hundreds of millions in campaign donations from Big oil/coal.
Regarding fossil fuel use generally: Is it prudent to proceed unrestrainingly with the climate/atmospheric experiment that's leading to unprecedented atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo behind the scenes of a coal-generated power plant. On our Factuality Tour, weve been traveling around the country talking to the people who are behind the production of cleaner electricity from coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently, there are more than 300 clean coal research projects underway around the country many of which are devoted to carbon capture and storage. In fact, we visited the Tenaska Energy headquarters in Omaha, Neb., where theyre working on two new facilities that capture and store carbon dioxide.
Check out our site if you can: http://sn.im/factuality.
Scrubbing CO2 from coal-fired generators will take decades to implement all over country. Getting rid of mercury from coal will not be so easy. At present, some advanced governments restrict fish eating to not more than two days per week, to avoid ingesting too many mercury compounds. Coal companies may claim that their mercury emissions are below safe thresholds, but the food chain concentrates them again!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScrubbing CO2 from coal-powered generating stations would indeed be a progress. But burning coal releases considerable quantities of mercury into the food chain where it concentrates. The problem is so serious that certain governments limit eating fish to just two days per weeK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can bet that the Obama administration will not let this stand. No more coal is their stand, until 2012 when demand for electricity may have picked up, prices have skyrocketed and it's election time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal plants produce more radiation than nuclear plants. Both options need to be considered. The US cannot be competitive in the world and maintain jobs without energy. We cannot all be lawyers. The global warming hockey stick shows an ignorance of statistics or the history of warming in the world. Our money would be better spent on increasing the education of women and reversing the population explosion, then on stopping global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change is a given as shown by the fossil record. We need to allow the technology to develop to give us new forms of energy. We also can develop ways to cope with climate change (anyone heard of air conditioning or relocation). This has to be done by engineers and scientists, not politicians.
In General our push for new energy should follow these guidelines. Ground source heat pumps for heating and cooling our homes, solar and wind (where possible). Sunflower would be better off looking at Geothermal and wind in Kansas instead of a new coal plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm, you're late! The Kansas legislature has ruled, and the now governor Parkinson has signed a law allowing a limited plan to proceed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow having read some of the posts on this topic, it appears that "the long term view" isn't in vogue. We've been living in a "fool's paradise" for too long, enjoying cheap energy. Considering its long-term value, there needs to be some action to wake us up to the notion that even air isn't free.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a nuclear engineer, I agree that nuclear plants can be a part of the solution. Had Sunflower moved in that direction, their work would have had my support.
To those who like to rant, put me among those who feel we should all pay $4.00/gallon for 87 octane fuel for our vehicles, as that may be about the only way to get us to recognize the overall costs of non-renewable fuel use. The benefits of this pricing shouldn't all go to big oil, but to support programs that help GM, Ford and Chrysler compete with smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and helping maintain automotive industry jobs.
Coal will never be 'clean' because it takes too much energy to clean it up. That means you can have CHEAP coal or CLEAN coal. Guess which one wins? Not that it is actually as cheap as claimed. If you eliminate the rail subsidy, mining subsidies, etc coal is not so competitive any more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the focus should be to move to alternative energy while at the same time 'rebuilding' current coal power to higher standards. Taking 30% efficiency coal and replacing it with 44% efficient gassification plants would save about a third of the emissions.
Coal is NOT cheap if you add the subsidies to rain transport, mining, employment, etc. And it will be way to expensive to make it CLEAN.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, it is still needed while we develop the alternatives. But the focus of investment should be in replacing capacity that gets 30% efficiency with more modern IGCC gassification plants at 44% efficiency ( thus saving a third of the emissions) while ALSO resiting them in cities where the 'waste heat' can be used for cogeneration. Overall 60% plus efficiency would cut emissions in half or saving something on the order of 15% iof total emissions ( given that coal dominates electricity generation and electricity production is about 27% of total energy use).
I see several problems with clean coal: nobody looks at the mines, which are not particularly clean, nobody mentions the by-product problem, which is similar to nuclear waste in its disposal problem. Carbon sequestering is an energy sucker, and so are electric cars such as the Volt. There is no doubt that the price of energy will go up. Nuclear is a short term option, but it too releases energy into the biosphere. Energy use equals waste heat. The necessary steps all involve conservation and efficiency. Probably restraint as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot only all that, Gubinor Jinny also signed the Energy Bill last year that set up PRE-Payment of two new plants of the coal persuasion. Then in her State of the State she banned all new coal plants! Huh? So, Gubinor, where the hell is all our money going?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is it, exactly, are we giving Consumer Energy all that money for? Eh? Gubino Jinny?
I note she is a Toronto Beauty Queen, Detroit Lawyer and probable Obama groupie.
Whatever. But please, Please, PLEASE someone get her the hell out Michigan while we still have someone working here.
In what way is the Hockey Stick ignorant statistics.?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are trying to analyse past values of Temperature,it is
is a muliple variable solution with unknown accuracy.
That is why it is difficult to forecast future temperatures and weather in the future with any great degree of accuracy.
Bear in mind one should use absolute values for all the variables which will include equations such as statistical,real,imaginary,etc.Chaos Theory should not be forgotten.
WE need to find a way to keep the clean air and also provide energy so we can live on it without tearing up anymore forests or habitat places.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbecause what would be the point of keeping things green if we destroy lots more trying to make life green?