Iowa Coal Plants Could Offset Clean Power
Two proposed coal-fired power plants in Iowa could negate the state’s efforts to cut emissions with clean, renewable power.
LS Power Group wants to build a 750-megawatt (MW) plant near Waterloo, and Alliant Energy wants a 630 MW coal plant near Marshalltown. A new MidAmerican Energy coal plant just began operation near Council Bluffs on June 1.
Local and regional supporters of clean and efficient energy will fight the plants. Besides the economic drain of having to import coal from Wyoming, supporters argue that powering the Iowa’s ethanol plants with coal power does not make environmental sense or economic sense. Cleaner methods of production – like using a biomass gasification system to produce ethanol – is a smarter choice, noted Carrie LaSeur of the Iowa law firm Plains Justice: “Biofuels are supposed to make us less dependent on fossil fuels and reduce CO2. Using coal to power a biofuels plant has the opposite effect…Coal is a thing of the past. Why keep falling back on this old technology, when clean alternatives are out there?”
The Iowa Utilities Board still has to approve construction of both plants, but this situation is duplicated across the U.S., where 150 new coal plants are proposed. Worries about imminent carbon regulation seem to have mixed results: while plans for about two dozen coal plants have been scrapped since 2006, other companies are rushing to build before new regulations take effect, with the assumption that their plants would be grandfathered in under any new emissions requirements.
While more than half of U.S. states have renewable energy standards that require a certain percentage of power to come from renewables, the construction of a coal plant or two can quickly unravel all the good intentions. The left hand has to pay attention to what the right hand is doing here, and we can’t have it both ways if we’re serious about creating a rich, clean energy economy while slowing global warming.
Associated Press, via Quad Cities Online
Iowa Environmental Council
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Where are you getting the idea that ethanol reduces CO2 emissions? Ethanol and all traditional fuels are hydrocarbons. All of them have chemical formulas with C’s (carbon) and H’s (hydrogens), although in varying amounts. O2 (oxygen) generally from the air is necessary for combustion to occur. When combustion occurs the C’s and the H’s combine with the O2’s to produce H2O, CO and CO2 (and a few other compounds) in the exhaust stream. The only thing green about ethanol is it’s renewable source (plants).
Additionally, if you believe the traditional theory that coal, oil and natural gas are the by-products of dead dinosaurs and prehistoric plant life, you would have to label them as biofuels as well. How can you justify supporting one biofuel while slamming another when both produce CO2 as a by-product of combustion?
Lastly, coal may be an old fuel but the way it is now utilized is far from old tech. “Clean Coal” is more than merely an advertising campaign.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I hope politicians stand up to these plants and make the case that they are bad in the long term, however tempting they may seen in the short term.
The issue of coal vs. renewable energy is only going to get more important.
Sites like this one can do a good job pressuring presidential candidates to address our issues.
Meanwhile, I wanted to let you know about a study coming out in early September showing that cleaning up the Great Lakes will have economic benefits that actually outweigh the costs of the whole undertaking.
Look for it online at:
http://www.greatlakes.org/
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I hope politicians stand up to these plants and make the case that they are bad in the long term, however tempting they may seen in the short term.
The issue of coal vs. renewable energy is only going to get more important.
Sites like this one can do a good job pressuring presidential candidates to address our issues.
Meanwhile, I wanted to let you know about a study coming out in early September showing that cleaning up the Great Lakes will have economic benefits that actually outweigh the costs of the whole undertaking.
Look for it online at:
http://www.greatlakes.org/
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I am not, by any means whatsoever, condoning putting up more messy power plants. But MidAmerican and Alliant, at least, are making pretty big steps in favor of green practices. They, like many power companies, offer initiatives to customers who make energy-efficient improvements. MidAmerican put up a wind turbine this year that will supposedly provide 25% of the Iowa State Fair’s energy for the next ten years. Iowa is supposed to be pretty high on the list of states with lots of wind energy–and, as we drove across the state about a week ago, we saw gigantic turbine blades traveling in both directions on the highway. Other innovations include a plant in Ames, Iowa–it burns trash as well as coal, which has saved quite a bit of landfill space over the years.
But I didn’t think the state’s population was going up significantly, so my question is: where is all that energy going?
The murmurs I’ve heard indicate that, with the increasing demand for ethanol, it’s kind of difficult to grow enough corn to accommodate everyone. I hear that corn prices have shot up.
I assume that these particular energy companies wouldn’t build messy plants in this day and age unless they felt they had to. After all, they are advertising their environmental friendliness all over the place, and building things that aren’t good for the environment is going to make them look like hypocrites, causing trouble with consumer relations. So who are the people using the energy, why are they using so much, and why don’t they say “We demand clean energy and will pay more for it”?
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
New coal plants are actually pretty darn clean and do not pollute significantly more than natural gas or “biofuels” plants. Is there a difference - yes and it looks significant on paper - but when you look at the realistic impact on people, fauna and flora there is less to be concerned about, in my opinion, that what many people think.
“Biofuels” (the other poster is correct, fossil fuels are biofuels but what the heck) burn somewhat cleaner but their CO2 footprint is similar. If you are really concerned about CO2 you need to go nuclear with a mix of wind, solar etc. Keep in mind that there is no way to store electricity so wind and solar cannot at present function as base load because solar doesn’t produce power at night and wind doesn’t produce if the wind is either too strong or too weak.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
serinity ii says:
“I didn’t think the state’s population was going up significantly, so my question is: where is all that energy going?”
Part of the reason Westinghouse (thanks to Tesla) beat out Edison in the electricity wars was his recognition of the importance of alternating current’s (AC) ease of transmission over direct current (DC). Edison envisioned a power plant on every block providing DC power to local customers. Imagine the filth associated with that idea. Westinghouse delivered large, centralized facilities that could provide power to both nearby and distant customers. Rural electrification would still be an issue had it not been for Westinghouse’s insight. That being said, few people realize that a utility company in one location can provide power to customers thousands of miles away. This is a good thing because it allows one facility to take up the slack should another require maintenance or repairs, which provides stability to the grid. As such, if Iowa’s population is not growing, expect any excess power to be sold elsewhere.
Bluetone, do some research regarding the real impact of ethanol’s expansion. It is increasing the price of the feed to ranchers and subsequently the price of cattle at the market (not to mention popcorn). It costs more per gallon to produce than traditional fuels. It has less energy output drop-for-drop than traditional fuels, which means less miles per gallon. It contributes to smog (low level ozone) more than traditional fuels. As its popularity increases, so will the number of farms growing corn. The expansion may require additional deforestation and contribute to soil erosion issues. More acreage will require additional pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc. that ultimately end up in nearby streams, rivers and lakes via runoff. There is even a prediction regarding the expansion of the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico as the runoff leaves the Mississippi River. Lastly, there are concerns that people in the poorest nations will suffer as more American farmers move away from food crops and into fuel crops, which will impact how much will be available to the US government to give away via foreign aid.
I will concede that ethanol is useful as a replacement for MTBE in gasoline, but it may not be the best alternative fuel out there for large scale applications.
August 24th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
If the energy can go far away, why are there 150 coal plants proposed in the US? Are only a handful of them actually going to be built?
August 27th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
They are often built in areas where the regulations will permit their construction. Some of the areas that are growing exponentially have prohibitive regulations when it comes to building new industry (think California). However, that growing population still needs power. So, neighboring states get the factory and transmit the power to the population centers.
I would be surprised - though not disappointed - to see all 150 coal plants up and running anytime soon. Sometimes you will see a flood of applications submitted for construction projects with the expectation to garnish a 5 to 10 percent build. When you consider that we have not built an oil refinery in the US in over 30 years, the chances of seeing 150 new coal plants in our lifetimes is slim.
September 10th, 2007 at 2:14 am
I wish the author of this article would do a little homework, because she’s misguided by the anti-coal movement. The new coal plants are quite clean, and can provide far more energy than a wind farm. Until people come to terms with the advances in nuclear power, coal will be a necessary evil. Until then, deal with it, or deal with not having lights.
September 10th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Coal is cheap and we use a lot of it in the US. If you want to come up with an effective reduction in GHGs in the US (and China) you can’t do it without considering improving coal technology.
On the biomass side though using ethanol instead of coal is a kind-of pay as you go plan because every carbon atom that is produced from burning the ethanol is pulled from our current environment making it a more-or-less net zero carbon transaction.
Burning coal is not net zero because it adds long-ago stored CO2 to our current atmosphere.
The cellulosic processes of generating ethanol from plant waste and native grasses does promise to help offset a lot of liquid fuel (read ‘oil’) but I don’t see it approaching the efficiency of coal for power generation.