Over the Coals
Plants are fueling debate on energy
Plants are fueling debate on energy

By Adam Wilmoth

Published: August 26, 2007

Nearly half of all Americans wouldn't be able to turn the lights on if the country were to immediately ban the use of coal-fired power plants.

Coal's role in America's energy future is a complex and emotional issue.

Even the most adamant coal opponent agrees the country is dependent on the mineral. With coal fueling more than 49 percent of the country's electricity, there is no way to immediately pull the plug without dramatically altering the country's economic and industrial future.

"We don't have the capability of shutting down every coal plant and maintaining the standard of living we enjoy,” said Lee Paden, attorney for the Tulsa-based Quality of Service Coalition, which is opposing a plan to build a new 950-megawatt coal-fired power plant near Red Rock.

"The ideal that suddenly we're going to require all coal plants that don't meet a certain level of technology or compatibility to be shut down by 2015 or even 2020 just probably isn't a rational process.”

Beyond that, the discussion intensifies.

Coal proponents point out that the cost of fuel is far less expensive than natural gas or most other power sources, with the possible exception of nuclear.

Coal represents about 70 percent of the electricity generated by the state's largest electric utility, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. Still, about 75 percent of the company's fuel costs are associated with the 30 percent of its power generated by natural gas.

Coal costs represent only 25 percent of the total cost of fuel.

In Oklahoma, fuel costs are passed directly on to consumers, so higher fuel costs would lead to higher consumer bills. The average OG&E customer paid $98.31 per month in 2006, OG&E spokesman Brian Alford said. If the company's power generated had been fueled only by natural gas plants, bills would have soared 59 percent to more than $156 per month.

"Looking out, we model our fuel options with comprehensive financial models to determine what will be in our customers' best interest,” Alford said. "Time and again, our models demonstrate that coal, using advanced technology, will provide our customers with the greatest savings for the long run.”

Despite the cost savings, coal also has a number of detractions. Opponents say the fuel is dangerous. Burning the thick rock releases harmful chemicals such as nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, mercury and carbon dioxide.

Coal has its share of negatives even before the mineral is burned.

Environmentalists and other groups protest the damage strip mines have on the surface, especially in the Appalachian Mountains. And the dangers of underground mining operations are regularly brought to the public's attention.

"The environmental costs and health costs associated with continued coal use is a hidden cost that people are unaware of,” said Billy Brown, conservation organizer at the Sierra Club of Oklahoma. "Though it may be cheaper on one end, the cost is much higher when you look at the cost on pollution and at the affect that pollution has on people's lives.”

The Sierra Club on Thursday announced plans for a national campaign to block all proposed new coal-fired power plants and to eventually phase out existing facilities.

Despite environmental concerns, others say the fuel is an essential power source that needs only better technology to reduce the dangers.

"Technology has come a long way,” said Randy Eminger, south region vice president for the Center for Energy and Economic Development, a group that supports and encourages improvements in clean coal technology. "Emissions have dropped dramatically, and they will only get cleaner and cleaner.”

Eminger pointed out that newer coal-fired power plants remove 98 percent of the sulfur and up to 75 percent of the nitrous dioxide as well as other harmful chemicals.

The coal industry is working on a test project for a plant that would grind the coal and use the resulting gas to fire a power plant that would operate more like a natural gas plant. The facility is expected to remove all carbon dioxide and other emissions.

The group is working to select a site for its first test facility.

Proponents also say coal reduces the country's dependence on foreign energy. The most abundant fossil fuel in the Untied States, Wyoming and Montana alone are believed to contain enough coal to support the country's current energy needs for more than 200 years.

Despite promising technology, not everyone is convinced.

"There is no such thing as clean coal,” McClendon said. "Ultrasupercritical is going to be 10 percent more efficient. Ten percent cleaner coal is still twice as dirty as gas. It's a wonderful public relations trick to call something that dirty ‘clean.'”

Coal opponents also point to improving technology to support their case that coal is the wrong answer.

"The Clean Water Act required things to be done that couldn't be done at the time,” said Larry Edmison, chairman of the Sierra Club of Oklahoma. "That act spurred development of better technology and controls. I think it's time to go back to the technology-pushing approach to get companies to develop new technology, such as ways of making wind and solar power more efficient. I think that can be done in America.”

Experts on all sides of the coal issue point to technology as the answer, either for cleaning up coal or for finding a replacement for it. But technology is a long-term solution. It takes years to develop, test and prove new options.

In the meantime, the country's existing coal-fired power plants will continue to burn the thick rock while the industry and regulators look at ways of making the plants cleaner.

Comments