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
September 10th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
The other thing is, my husband recently read about at least one giant wind farm that is proposed, also in Iowa. With Iowa being one of the top-rated states for wind energy, why choose it to pick on about the coal? Particularly if there are two coal plants proposed in Iowa and 150 across the nation. . .
I do find it strange that one would pop up in the Marshalltown area, since Marshalltown’s industry primarily consists of a meat-packing plant (and I don’t know how that’s staying open after two INS raids), a company that makes valves and parts, and a trowel company which, although many people from Marshalltown haven’t even heard of it, is a pretty major provider to archaeologists and other people who use a lot of trowel-type things–but mostly only the forgery and administrative stuff is still in M’town. I can’t see any of them needing a huge energy boost. Yes, energy can travel, but only so much distance can be practical. Marshalltown is in the middle of the state–where would it send energy? Des Moines?
And is Des Moines growing enough to need it? The location and logistics are irrelevant to a lot of the discussion here, but that stuff still makes me wonder.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Ha ha ha, needless to say, I didn’t actually mean "forgery." But I assume people know what I did mean.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Jimmy says, “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.”
I don’t think that CO2 is stored in coal. Even if it was, from whose environment would it have originated? Coal is primarily a hydrocarbon, which is a chain of C’s and H’s. CO2 is released when it is burned in the presence of Oxygen (O2), generally from the air. The primary resultants of all combustion processes is CO2 and H2O. Now, here’s the catch. Ethanol (still a hydrocarbon) is not really any better than “fossil” fuels when it comes to nitrous oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx), because the plants absorb the Nitrogen and Sulfur from good old mother earth. As such, you still have to have the scrubbers at the utility plant to minimize the risk of acid rain and the automobiles still contribute to the smog problem. Is ethanol really the answer?
serenity ii says, “Yes, energy can travel, but only so much distance can be practical. Marshalltown is in the middle of the state–where would it send energy?”
Thousands of miles can be “practical” when transmitting AC. I would direct you to the following wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
It’s long but the sections on Bulk Transmission and Losses answer the distance questions. You may also want to read the section on Wireless Power Transmission, because it’s cool.
You may also want to check out:
http://www.teslasociety.com/
Hope this helps to answer some of your questions.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Ethanol is considered to reduce emissions due to being carbon neutral. That is the plants would normally give off CO2 during decomposition in the soil. By burning this renewable fuel there is no net gain in CO2 (assuming you can produce it without the need of burning coal).
October 25th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
More energy is needed everywhere. While not in Iowa, population is increasing a lot elsewhere. Even in Iowa the needs are increasing. Have you seen the size of new homes being built? Do you realize how much energy plasma TVs use? — (more than twice that of projection LCDs) An 18 volt battery charger for a cordless drill uses 75 watts continuously when a battery is just sitting in the charger costing about $65 per year. All of these new toys and gadgets, computers, electronics and cordless adapter chargers are increasing the needs for more energy. Energy efficiency helps, but we keep adding new things that counter its effect.
October 25th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
The electric grid is continuous across the state of Iowa. It doesn’t matter where you inject it with power. The energy produced in Marshalltown will be used accross the entire state. Ethanol plants use a huge amount of electricity. The plant in Marshalltown might serve 15 of them.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Please read my post dated September 12th.
The generally accepted theory is that all fossil fuels are the resultants of the decomposition of dead dinosaurs and prehistoric plants. Regarding ethanol you say, “the plants would normally give off CO2 during decomposition in the soil” and “By burning this renewable fuel there is no net gain in CO2″. If coal, oil and natural gas are the remnants of dead critters and foliage that have already released their CO2, H2O, O2, etc. via decomposition thereby leaving behind C2H2, C2H4, etc., how can burning them generate a net increase in CO2? It stands to reason that burning those hydrocarbon remains forces a reconnection of sorts with compounds that were released into the environment eons ago. If you believe that the earth is a closed system in a state of general equilibrium, the elemental make-up is more or less a constant. As such, it makes no sense to say that burning fossilized remains generates any more CO2 than burning fuels produced from freshly killed plants and animals.
I would say that your argument has some merit if only taking a snapshot of the world as it is. However, shouldn’t we consider the distant past, the present, and the future when analyzing the blue planet?