"Sunflower was the first, major high-profile decision denying a permit for a coal plant, but since then there's been dozens and dozens of them. In almost every case, climate risk has come up," says Patrick Parenteau, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School. "It's part of a massive transformation of the energy industry, and it caught all these utilities by surprise."
Meanwhile, the economics of relying on coal-fired power are shifting: Over the strenuous objections of the Bush administration, in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court held in the case Massachusetts v. EPA, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could, and probably should, regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
The Obama administration has moved swiftly on the ruling. In April, the EPA released its finding that "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations." The EPA's conclusion will be finalized in early summer, giving the agency authority to monitor and mandate reductions on industrial carbon dioxide emissions as well as five other global warming pollutants.
And the U.S. House of Representatives is debating legislation that would cap CO2 emissions and create a market to trade pollution permits—the Obama administration's preferred method for reducing the nation's CO2 output. That could mean more expenses for power generators that release CO2.
Sunflower says it doesn't know how much it will cost to build the 895-megawatt plant, but it estimated the two 700-megawatt plants would have cost at least $3.6 billion. "Is this plant still going to make sense for Kansas and for this market," Parenteau says, "once you start factoring in all these costs?"
***
Should the new Holcomb plant move forward, Kansas will become something of a living laboratory experiment on the comparative economic benefits of wind versus coal: The Siemens Corp. recently announced plans to build a $50-million facility in Hutchinson—a central Kansas city of around 41,000—to manufacture nacelles, the tubular enclosures atop wind towers that contain electronics, generators and gears. The factory is expected to turn out its first nacelle toward the end of 2010, and will employ around 400 people.
Jamie Jarnagin, mayor of Holcomb, is pleased that Sunflower and the state seem to be coming to terms. "My opinion is it's going to be a huge economic boost for the local area," he says. "You have to grow or you lose out. A lot of the small towns in western Kansas are having a hard time making it, and we want to avoid that." A statement from Gov. Parkinson's office estimates that there will be 1,500 jobs created at the peak of construction of the new plant.
Holcomb Station currently employs around 130 people; Jarnagin believes the new plant would create around 60 to 100 additional permanent jobs.
***
As part of the compromise, Sunflower Electric must permanently retire two oil-burning power plants in Garden City, just up the road from Holcomb. The utility, which operates within a swath of the Midwest that's been nicknamed "the Saudi Arabia of wind" for its potential to generate clean energy, will also be required to directly or indirectly develop around 180 megawatts of wind power generation, in addition to meeting a newly enacted state law requiring utilities to obtain 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. (Under the compromise, Sunflower must meet this standard by 2016.) The utility pulls about 10 percent of its total 1,254-megawatt generating capacity from wind power. Of the rest, it generates 42 percent from coal-fired power, and 48 percent from natural gas.
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?