CARBON CONUNDRUM: Shipping unused U.S. coal to China could prove an economic boon but also an environmental disaster.
Image: Flickr/Randy Slavey
PORT WESTWARD, Ore. -- This 900-acre industrial park features a horseshoe-shaped dock of timber and steel that juts out into the Columbia River, an hour's drive north of Portland. During World War II it shipped bullets and bombs across the Pacific. Now it's providing ammunition for a new battle: whether to export substantial amounts of coal from the western United States to Asia.
"The channel runs deep here. It's self-scouring, so you don't have to dredge it," explained Craig Allison, operations manager for the port, gesturing toward the dark water off the edge of the dock. "That makes this one of the few sites in the Northwest where you can handle oceangoing freight."
The site is one of five proposed export terminals for U.S. coal, mined from the inner mountain regions of Wyoming and Montana and bound for markets in energy-hungry Asia.
Taken together, the scattered projects offer a kind of lifeline to a U.S. coal industry being squeezed by low natural gas prices and tougher environmental rules, a combination that has eaten into domestic demand. At least three of the Powder River Basin's largest coal companies -- Peabody Energy Corp., Ambre Energy and Arch Coal Inc. -- have stakes in one or more of the five terminals.
Should all the projects come to completion, their combined shipping capacity of 150 million tons per year could more than double current U.S. coal export levels.
But the scale of the projects has also drawn strong push-back from environmental groups, Northwestern tribes and dozens of communities along the coal's 1,200-mile route to the ocean. Worried about the localized impacts these terminals' traffic could have on their quality of life, these groups have lobbied aggressively for more stringent and comprehensive environmental reviews that could delay the projects by months, even years.
After a year of tumultuous weather extremes, the export terminals raise difficult questions about what exports of carbon-heavy coal would mean for the United States' climate commitments. The country's carbon emissions stabilized last year, thanks primarily to the combined influences of natural gas use and a warm winter -- essentially, because the country is burning less coal.
"If you're just shipping that coal to China, have you really made any gains?" said Brett VandenHeuvel, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, a member of the Power Past Coal coalition, which opposes the terminals. "There's no doubt that China is going to keep burning coal for the next 30 years, but we're looking past that. The plants they build today in an era of cheap coal will keep them locked in for decades."
High-tonnage routes to the coast
Bulk commodities can reach Port Westward by two routes -- overland by rail or down the Columbia River by barge. Both options are currently under review.
Kinder Morgan, the largest terminal operator in the country, is conducting due diligence on plans to move between 15 million and 30 million tons per year to Port Westward by rail, there to be loaded onto oceangoing vessels.
Australian-owned Ambre Energy, meanwhile, is further along in its plans to move some 8 million tons of coal per year down the Columbia River by barge. After entering the river at the Port of Morrow, that coal would not touch land again until it crossed the Pacific but would be transferred directly onto freight vessels off the dock of Port Westward.
Aside from the terminals at the Port of Morrow and Port Westward, three more sites are currently passing through various levels of due diligence and permitting. Two are in Washington -- the Gateway Pacific Terminal near Bellingham and the Millennium Bulk Logistics Terminal near Longview -- with one more near Coos Bay, Ore.
Though more modest in scope, Ambre's Port of Morrow project is the furthest along of the five in terms of permitting and could come online as early as 2014, said Ambre Energy spokeswoman Liz Fuller.
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentPersonally I find it very interesting that when you get to discussions of:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. What specific harms do you believe will happen to the US as a result of it getting warmer?
2. What reliable information leads you to your conclusions in #1
3. What policies do you propose should be implemented
4. What will your proposed policies cost the US taxpayer
5. What will your proposed policies accomplish
Those who seem to frequently throw around the “denier” label generally seem to shy away from providing coherent responses/plans. Perhaps the editors at SA would provide answers instead of just propaganda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" country's carbon emissions stabilized last year, thanks primarily to the combined influences of natural gas use"
Gas is actually a worse GHG forcer than coal with massive production to user leaks of the 100 times a GHG potent as CO2 methane.
They don't have a lot of good alternatives."
"..Where the supply-and-demand argument makes more sense, he said, is in countries like Japan, which is seeking alternatives to nuclear power.. "
What utter complete stupidity. Japan is restarting its nukes and building more realizing there are no alternatives to nuke power. China is some far addling 80 GW of new nukes for 2020 and may double and triple that if the program works out as expert's expect.
In 2017 the game changer is coming - China's new 2 cent a kwh first of a kind high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) now under construction is going into to service with 60% of its output reserved for hydrogen synfuel. With factory production the cost of this unit is expected to drop to a penny a kwh with its syndiesel coming in at less than $3 a gal, and methanol and ammonia(propane) fuels at 60 cents a gal.
Complaining about Coal without a viable alternative technology is without substance!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion
We need to replace the fossil fuel power plants, the primary source of GHG. Now!
At a scale required to accomplish this task :
Ethanol starves people : not a viable option.
Fracking releases methane : not a viable option.
Cellulose Bio Fuel Uses Food Land : not a viable option
Solar uses food land : Not a viable option
Wind is Intermittent : Not a viable option
All Human and Agricultural Organic Waste can be converted to hydrogen, through exposure intense radiation!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DennisearlBaker/2012-a-breakthrough-for-r_b_1263543_135881292.html
The Radioactive Materials exist now, and the Organic waste is renewable daily.
Ending the practice of dumping sewage into our water sources.
Air, Water, Food and Energy issues, receive significant positive impacts .
Reducing illness / health care costs as well !
Dennis Baker
* Creston Avenue
Penticton BC V2A1P9
cell phone 250-462-3796
Phone / Fax 778-476-2633
If we don't act immediately and take draconian action, we humans could be extinct by 2060. This is not a joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease read: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/full
"Drought Under Global Warming: a Review" by Aiguo Dai
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/adai/
See the maps of drought in the 2060s on page 15.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/the-moscow-warming-hole/
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/26/353997/nature-dust-bowlification-food-insecurity
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/18/1101766108.abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/16/science.1201224
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/statistics.pdf
http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/20/ncar-daidrought-under-global-warming-a-review/
http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/14/southwest-drought-global-warmin/
http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/20/lester-brown-extreme-weather-climate-change-record-food-prices/
"Preliminary Analysis of a Global Drought Time Series" by Barton Paul Levenson, not yet published. Under BAU [Business As Usual], agriculture and civilization will collapse some time between 2050 and 2055 due to drought caused by GW [Global Warming].
See:
"Ecological Footprints and Bio-Capacity: Essential Elements in Sustainability Assessment" by William E. Rees, PhD, University of British Columbia and "Living Planet Report 2008" also by Rees.
We went past the Earth's permanent carrying capacity for humans some time in the 1980s. We are 20%+ over our limit already. And the US no longer has excess biocapacity. We are feeding on imports. 4 Billion people will die because we are 2 Billion over the carrying capacity. An overshoot must be followed by an undershoot.
continued: Reference: "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan and "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. When agriculture collapses, civilization collapses. Fagan and Diamond told the stories of something like 2 dozen previous very small civilizations. Most of the collapses were caused by fraction of a degree climate changes. In some cases, all of that group died. On the average, 1 out of 10,000 survived. We humans could go EXTINCT in the 2050s. The 1 out of 10,000 survived because he wandered in the direction of food. If the collapse is global, there is no right direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. We must take extreme action now. Cut CO2 production 40% by the end of 2015. [How to do this: Replace all coal fired power plants with factory built nuclear. Renewables do not work except for niche markets.] Continuing to make CO2 is the greatest imaginable GENOCIDE. We have to act NOW. Acting in 2049 will not work. Nature just doesn't work that way. All fossil fuel fired power plants must be shut down and replaced with nuclear. Target date: 2015.
2. Expect at least 4 Billion people to die because of the population overshoot. Attempt to maintain some form of civilization while this happens.
How are we feeding 7 billion now? On "mined" water. Aquifers are running dry. When the aquifers are dry, the food is gone.
573 certified deaths were due to evacuation-related stress at Fukushima. Zero due to radiation. February 4, 2012 http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2012/2/4/japanese-authorities-recognize-573-deaths-related-to-fukushi.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Japanese authorities recognize 573 deaths related to Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe
As reported by the Yomiuri Shimbun:
"A total of 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant....
A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster. ....""
ZERO deaths were caused by radiation. 573 deaths were caused by the evacuation that was forced by officials. The people who died were evacuated from such things as intensive care. They might have survived if the evacuation had not taken place. Fukushima's natural background radiation is still higher than the radiation from the reactor leak. Fukushima's natural background radiation plus the radiation from the reactor leak is still less than the natural background radiation here in Illinois. Natural background radiation varies greatly from place to place. Our background radiation is around 350 milli rem/year.
"milli" means ".001"
350 milli rem/year means 0.350 rem/year
1 rem = 10 millisievert
People living in Ramsar, Iran have a background radiation of 10 to 20 rems/years. Ramsar is a city in Iran.
Here are some natural background readings from "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007:
Guarapari, Brazil: 3700 millirem/year
Tamil Nadu, India: 5300 millirem/year
Ramsar, Iran: 8900 to 13200 millirem/year
Denver, Colorado 1000 millirem/year
A not entirely natural reading:
Chernobyl: 490 millirem/year
Some background reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html
62% of Japan's electricity comes from coal fired power plants. Coal contains so much uranium and thorium that we could get all of the uranium we need from coal cinders and ash. Coal fired power plants put all of it either up the stack or into the solids that are hauled away.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Calculate your annual radiation dose:
http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/dosechart/
Sisko, why is it everyone else's responsibility to educate you? The answers to your questions are available from many sources including sciam. Many people posting here in the past, including myself, have provided you with links to the science but you have obviously refused to read them. The fact that you have made no effort to understand the issues makes it clear that your only objective is advancing your agenda. Once again you post lies to give the uninitiated the impression that scientists are not forthcoming, that there is some global conspiracy behind AGW, but it only reveals the kind of person you are. This is science. You are obligated to prove your hypothesis if you expect to have it considered. You and your denier cohorts haven't done that. But then again, you haven't done any science at all so what should we expect?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood work re your nuclear info. We have to keep up the fight against nuclear phobia & those who would prefer to see humanity enter a new dark age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes keep polluting, the only way to solve this planets biggest problem, an irrational species that thinks it is special and everything exists for its benefit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal mining releases the trapped methane and other gasses that are always present in coal seams, a lot more potent than CO2, the thawing permafrost is also doing the same.
Bring the sixth extinction to a speedy conclusion. The best thing for all sentient life forms on this planet.
Amen, brother. Telling it like it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko, "How do my questions equate to untruth?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"shy away from providing coherent responses/plans", the only ones that appear "shy" are the deniers when asked to prove their claims. Once again, plenty of information here and with other science publications and organizations. The Kyoto Protocol was a very coherent plan that the US refused to ratify. Carbon taxes are another coherent plan. The fact that you disagree with them on ideological grounds means nothing.
"Try to determine what areas of the world will suffer harms with NO models that can reliably forecast changes in future rainfall and no evidence of a dangerous rate of sea level rise"
Once again, you think that denying the facts is all you need to do to justify yourself. I guess that's why you are called deniers. We can see the changing rate of sea level rise right now. We know how much water is stored in glaciers. We can predict what will happen to those glaciers when the temperature rises. We know the elevation of coastal cities and communities. This isn't one of the difficult predictions. Also, sea level rise is only one of the negative impacts of climate change. We are already seeing negative impacts to agriculture. We are already seeing conflict caused by changes to the environment. It takes a blind fool or a corrupt shill to not see what is going on. BTW the fact that you think sea levels have something to do with rainfall shows how completely ignorant you are about climate science.
But once again, you know you are a mindless shill. That's why you are here and why you lie instead of providing any evidence for your claims. I guess sociopaths have hobbies too.
Oh, so the goal posts have been moved out to 2017, eh? Too bad Vogtle is coming in at $8 per W barring any more delays or cost overruns. And this was supposed to be a 2-reactor "state-of-the-art" plant too...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo even after all the subsidies, loan guarantees, The Price Anderson Act forcing the government to pick up the nuclear industry's liability insurance tab, pre-charging utility customers billion$$$ for years before the plant even begins operation, and getting most of the core technology developed for the nuclear weapons program, $8 per W is the best they can do? And don't go blaming the NRC for the astronomical costs and decades'-long construction times these plants need; they gave Vogtle a combined construction and operating license!
You're all out of scapegoats, seth. Time to admit that nuclear power was a dud and move on.
@Carlyle, "would prefer to see humanity enter a new dark age" as I recall the dark ages were caused by those who denied what scientists were discovering about the world in order to protect their dogma. I guess they were just one of the earlier denier groups. Like you and your denier cohorts trying to protect your right wing dogma from government regulation. Fanatics such as yourself have been the root cause of most of humanity's dark ages. People are going to look back on climate deniers like we do the southern slave owners who refused to change even once it became clear the damage they were doing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this11. RSchmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin reply to Carlyle
05:08 PM 1/17/13 writes....in part...
...We can see the changing rate of sea level rise right now. ...
I live by the sea. I can see it out my window. I walk along the sea wall every day. I made my living on the local waters for three years. The nature of that work required that I pay very close attention to the tides and the overall level of the water. I still pay very close attention to the level because it is an indicator of natural seasonal variation in the local environment.
Another job that I had was working on the regional dike system placed at the confluence of the local river and the sea. Since some of my family live behind the dike protective area I pay close attention to the river level, the sea level and the tidal impact which often runs some thirty miles up the river.
I can tell you that the sea level is _not_ rising more than the couple of millimetres per year that it has been doing for hundreds of years.
For people living on flood plains and sandbars that is a concern. For the vast majority of people it is unnoticeable.
My point is that _you_ can not _see_ it. You may believe computer models that lead you to believe that it is or will be happening. You may fervently believe that it _must_ be happening because of other factors that you believe are or will generate a sea level rise.
By close observation over the last thirty years I would say that the sea level rise has been around two inches. In another 70 years I expect it will go up another 4 or 5 inches maybe even 6.
I'm not sure because I'm not totally familiar with the area but I'm guessing that will be a problem for Bangladesh. For those countries that are comprised of an island atoll which is only 6 inches above the sea then I guess their outlook is gloomy.
But around here, even for the area behind the dikes, it is not something be concerned about.
Thanks for pointing out the irrational fanaticism present in your brand of green.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLuckily the vast majority of people don't agree with you. The eco-movement is undergoing it's own "Tea Partying" with the calm, moderate rational people being pushed out of the way and the rabid radicals grabbing the agenda. The only saving grace is that the radicals are so far out to lunch that they've alienated everyone, so they are spent.
CO2 is not a pollutant, even your God Hansen threw in the towel on warming. Carbon soot an issue? Yeah, I can see some merit in that one. But the problem is that it would then require upgrading scrubbers, not banning all fossil fuels and jailing of Carbonites.
And that just won't work for the anti-fossil fuel left. CO2 has nothing to do with their arguments anymore. They just hate all fossil fuels. No room for science in that position.
RSchmidt you really are a special kind of peach. For one who seems to have no understanding of the scientific method or the principles of the "NULL" hypothesis (the default science), you sure are quick to throw feces around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is your CO2 induced AGW hypothesis that requires defense NOT those who are properly skeptical. It fact, recent findings (regarding soot) are already eroding any conjectured CO2 climate effect. With that soot adjustment, CO2 climate sensitivity have now been reduced to a yawn.
Stop asking for others to disprove your pet hypothesis and conjectures. The onus resides with those who advocate a hypothesis NOT those who are prudently skeptical of the multiple conjectures needed to support it.
You need to google the "null hypothesis" and learn it's importance in the scientific method. The "null" is axiomatic to all but those that possess an ideological agenda. Stop casting stones in your broken windowed home. GK
I have become curious as to proof of global sea level rise. As crustal plates move their millimeter or two per year rate, some areas will have a natural "rise" of sea level in relation to land. Others will have a natural sea level "drop" in relation to land. Has anyone used satellites to actually measure a change in the total amount of land mass above sea level year over year? I'm not talking area, I'm talking mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've never heard of this being done. If actual above sea level mass is essentially unchanged then there is no sea level rise. It would only be crustal plate movement altering mass above sea level rather than sea level rise.
Ole Sault is at it again. With his laughable claim of a BS and MS in engineering, he continues to spew his many times debunked horsepucky on nuke power in his effort to retain his stupidest commenter on Sciam title.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe is a pants on fire liar.
Not one American reactor (or any anywhere else) under construction has a loan guarantee.
All American reactors under construction are under $4.3B/GW. The Vogtle plant has a $4B transmission component rebuild of the state's power grid included.
No American insurance company can legally insure against a unlimited losses from a dam, chemical plant, refinery, or asteroid strike as the accident would bankrupt both the insurance company and the plant owner. If Americans could sue the wind power company for the thousands killed and sickened by its gas backup no wind power projects could be built.
The prepay option while unnecessary for public power like TVA's new plant could save taxpayers burdened with private utilities $billions due to the rapacious Wall Street financiers.
The world's foremost climate scientist James Hansen ,obviously a lot smarter than our resident troll,tells us the nuclear power is the only in time solution to the fast approaching warming precipice and the believing in solar and wind is like believing in the tooth fairy and the fair godmother.
There is a LOT of coal in the western states. This stuff is not the greatest quality. It will really increase global warming and mess up the air. If China uses it we are down wind if the burn a lot of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cccarto.com/wyoming_coal/