Winter storm warnings in northern Minnesota

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

By MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press Writer


      WYODAK, Wyo. (AP) - Utilities across the country are building
dozens of old-style coal plants that will cement the industry's
standing as the largest industrial source of climate-changing gases
for years to come.

      An Associated Press examination of U.S. Department of Energy
records and information provided by utilities and trade groups
shows that more than 30 traditional coal plants have been built
since 2008 or are under construction.

      The construction wave stretches from Arizona to Illinois and
South Carolina to Washington, and comes despite growing public
wariness over the high environmental and social costs of fossil
fuels, demonstrated by tragic mine disasters in West Virginia, the
Gulf oil spill and wars in the Middle East.

      The expansion, the industry's largest in two decades, represents
an acknowledgment that highly touted "clean coal" technology is
still a long ways from becoming a reality and underscores a renewed
confidence among utilities that proposals to regulate carbon
emissions will fail. The Senate last month scrapped the leading
bill to curb carbon emissions following opposition from Republicans
and coal-state Democrats.

      "Building a coal-fired power plant today is betting that we are
not going to put a serious financial cost on emitting carbon
dioxide," said Severin Borenstein, director of the Energy
Institute at the University of California-Berkeley. "That may be
true, but unless most of the scientists are way off the mark,
that's pretty bad public policy."

      Federal officials have long struggled to balance coal's hidden
costs against its more conspicuous role in providing half the
nation's electricity.


      Hoping for a technological solution, the Obama administration
devoted $3.4 billion in stimulus spending to foster "clean-coal"
plants that can capture and store greenhouse gases. Yet new
investments in traditional coal plants total at least 10 times that
amount - more than $35 billion.

      Utilities say they are clinging to coal because its abundance
makes it cheaper than natural gas or nuclear power and more
reliable than intermittent power sources such as wind and solar.
Still, the price of coal plants is rising and consumers in some
areas served by the new facilities will see their electricity bill
rise by up to 30 percent.

      Industry representatives say those increases would be even
steeper if utilities switched to more expensive fuels or were
forced to adopt emission-reduction measures.

      Approval of the plants has come from state and federal agencies
that do not factor in emissions of carbon dioxide, considered the
leading culprit behind global warming. Scientists and
environmentalists have tried to stop the coal rush with some
success, turning back dozens of plants through lawsuits and other
legal challenges.

      As a result, current construction is far more modest than
projected a few years ago when 151 new plants were forecast by
federal regulators. But analysts say the projects that prevailed
are more than enough to ensure coal's continued dominance in the
power industry for years to come.

      Sixteen large plants have fired up since 2008 and 16 more are
under construction, according to records examined by the AP.


      Combined, they will produce an estimated 17,900 megawatts of
electricity, sufficient to power up to 15.6 million homes - roughly
the number of homes in California and Arizona combined.

      They also will generate about 125 million tons of greenhouse
gases annually, according to emissions figures from utilities and
the Center for Global Development. That's the equivalent of putting
22 million additional automobiles on the road.

      The new plants do not capture carbon dioxide. That's despite the
stimulus spending and an additional $687 million spent by the
Department of Energy on clean coal programs.

      DOE spokesman John Grasser acknowledged the new plants represent
a missed chance to rein in carbon emissions. But he said more
opportunities would arise as electricity consumption increases.


      Experts say the widespread application of carbon-neutralizing
technologies for coal plants remains at least 15 to 20 years away.

      "This is not something that's going to happen tomorrow,"
Grasser said. "You have to do the required research and
development and take steps along the way."


      Producing clean coal power appears straightforward: Separate the
carbon dioxide before it goes up the smokestack, then store it
underground in geological formations.


      Experimental trials have been successful but putting the concept
into commercial practice has been stymied by high costs and the
difficulty of isolating carbon dioxide from other gases.


      "We are pushing the envelope as far as what's possible," said
Jon LaCour, manager for the 115-megawatt Wygen III coal plant,
which came online in northeastern Wyoming this spring. "We have no
way of capturing carbon."


      Inside the plant, a ton of coal per minute rumbles off conveyor
belts from the nearby WyoDak mine.


      Hulking steel pulverizers crush the fuel to the consistency of
baby powder, fans blow it into a giant furnace and the coal goes up
in flames that can top 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, producing steam to
generate electricity.

      WyGen is more efficient than earlier plants, burning about 20
percent less coal. Yet the process itself has changed little since
Thomas Edison built the first plant in 1882 in Manhattan.

      And while dramatic advances have been made at the back end of
coal plants - where Wygen's operator, Black Hills Power, removes
most of the nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and other acid-rain
pollutants - efforts to curb greenhouse gases have lagged.


      Black Hills spent $80 million on pollution controls for WyGen,
bumping up its price tag to $247 million. Like most of the new
fleet of plants, space was left at WyGen for the future
installation of carbon-capture equipment.


      As climate change emerged as a global dilemma in recent years,
the coal industry at times appeared on the ropes.


      Environmentalists trumpeted 100 plants dropped or delayed.
Regulators imposed tighter emission limits for acid rain pollutants
and reined in destructive mining practices. And the recession
dampened consumer demand for power, prompting some utilities to
scrap expansion plans.


      "The reason coal burns in this country is not because anyone
likes the smog. It's the cost," said Daniel Scott, a coal industry
analyst with Dahlman Rose & Company in New York.
      

Gallery

Business and Economic News

Utilities across the country are building
dozens of old-style coal plants that will cement the industry's
standing as the largest industrial source of climate-changing gases
for years to come.

Old-style coal plants expanding

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox