�'Clean' coal technology does not really exist
>>Print ViewPublication Date: 01/15/2009
sponsored by
In the past year, politicians have proposed using "clean" coal technology to help mitigate climate change while still supporting the huge coal operations. However, the technology accomplishes more of the latter at the expense of the everyday consumer. In reality, there is no such thing as clean coal. Coal is a dirty, non-renewable resource that, when burned, releases sulfur dioxides, nitrogen dioxides, mercury, particulates and carbon dioxide. "Clean" coal technology theoretically reduces pollutant emissions while the pure carbon dioxide stream is captured and stored underground. The problem with this scenario is that little is known about the safety and effectiveness of underground sequestration, especially on a large scale; it is very expensive; the technology will not be available for another 15-20 years; and it does not make sense to use more energy to dispose of a waste product of energy production.
Duke Energy has proposed and started construction on a cleaner-coal integrated gasification combined cycle power plant in Edwardsport, Ind., producing 630 megawatts at a new estimate of $2.35 billion, with costs constantly increasing. The plant is being passed off as more efficient and will be set up to sequester carbon dioxide in the future, IF the technology is developed. According to Duke Energy's Web site, "Eventually, we hope to be able to capture and permanently store the CO2 emitted from this plant." However, they are building the new plant knowing that CO2 will not and cannot be sequestered in the near future.
Pressure on the energy industry to clean up its emissions is causing utilities all over the state to retrofit old plants and build new ones. The cost of this construction is simply passed along to the public, and Indiana citizens should expect at least a 17.5 percent increase in their electric bills. In the Duke case, as a regulated electric utility, they are ensured a "reasonable rate of return" � which usually averages around 11 percent � on their investments. Thus, Duke is encouraged to spend more money to earn more money. For this reason, Duke invests heavily in expensive coal power plants rather than truly renewable energy sources. To give them credit, Duke has dabbled in some renewables, but with the capital they have, they should especially focus on wind energy.
Let's compare the Edwardsport coal plant to the Fowler Ridge Wind Farm in Benton County. When completed, the wind farm will generate 740 megawatts at a cost of approximately $1.1 billion. From those numbers alone, wind energy seems more economical. Looking further we should see local farmers benefit from leasing parts of their land for the turbines, totaling about $1.5 million per year, and all Hoosiers will benefit from cleaner air and water.
Large coal reserves have in the past made electricity cheap for Indiana, which explains why coal supplies about 95 percent of Hoosier electricity. However, just because we have easy access to this increasingly expensive non-renewable resource does not mean that we should use it. With climate change and rising electricity costs from coal, we must look toward renewable technologies, such as wind energy, that will be beneficial to our environment and our pocketbooks.
Katie Jones is a junior in the College of Agriculture and School of Biological Engineering and a member of the policy committee of the Boiler Green Initiative. Boiler Green Initiative strives for environmental awareness and action on Purdue's campus and, more recently, at the state government level. For more information about Boiler Green Initiative, please visit www.boilergreen.com.