If you follow the energy and climate news you’ve probably noticed the occasional article about some big coal plant being canceled. This is usually positioned as a reason to celebrate for those of use concerned about climate change. I really hate to say this, but climb down from the table, take off that ridiculous party hat, and pay attention, because Killer Koal isn’t going anywhere, as the AP points out in, Old-style coal plants expanding (emphasis added):
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.
…
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.
A few observations…
The AP dared to directly connect fossil fuels and “wars in the Middle East”? Wow, that’s one I don’t see often (enough).
The additional 125 million tons of CO2 emissions is about a 2% increase in all US emissions, or a 3.5% increase in emissions from electricity generation. Those sound like small amounts, but at a time when we should be struggling to cut every ton possible, any increase emissions, even if it’s “only” 125 million tons, is a big deal because it represents that much more we have to cut somewhere else.
The relevant agencies don’t take CO2 emissions into account? Let me be perhaps the millionth or so person to suggest we pass some laws to change that, along with a time machine so we can make the new rules go into effect around the mid-1970′s.
As a very round number, assume that a new coal plant will be in operation for 50 years. So these plants will be cranking out electrons and CO2 until 2060. Just wondering — what percentage of people who read this site reasonably expect to still be alive in 2060?
I don’t find the comments in the article about what assumptions the coal companies are making about legislation to be convincing. The article says it’s an acknowledgment that “clean coal” technology isn’t close. I think it’s just as likely to be proof that the plant operators think existing plants will be grandfathered in when legislation is eventually passed in another five or ten or who knows how many years. In short, they’re trying to build as many plants without emissions controls or CCS as possible now, on the assumption that they’ll be able to keep running them with only relatively affordable upgrades being forced on them. The “if you force us to spend this money, we’ll be able to convince the public service commission to let us hike rates, and the voters will send you packing in the next election” argument convinces a lot of politicians to go easy on power companies.
Overall, I think this article is one more piece of evidence that shows how insanely hard it will be for the US to get on an emissions reduction path anywhere near what’s in our own best interest.
More climate chaos:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2010/08/minnesota_tornadoes_2010_were.shtml
I’ve lost at least a dozen trees this year.
The largest expansion of coal plants in two decades? Unbelievable. I knew there was one here or there that might be built, but 32 since 2008 (constructed or being constructed)? That blows me away.
Thanks for putting this up Lou, I had no idea.
You see stuff like this and it makes it bloody hard to keep thinking we have a realistic chance of stopping things before mother nature takes control out of our hands.
We probably shouldn’t feel too bad about the numbers (considering how the deck is stacked), if it wasn’t for alot of grass roots activism over the last 5 years there’d be a whole lot more than these built or being built.
Considering what we’ve seen over the last two years, I’m preparing myself to be underwhelmed by what the Obama administration allows the EPA to do with regard to CO2 emissions. Hopefully they surprise us in a good way and a good chunk of the 16 plants currently being built are abandoned before completion (how’s that for dreaming?).
Sasparilla:
Like you, I keep trying to tell myself how much worse it could have been, but that’s a pretty tough sell job.
I’m also not expecting much from the EPA. Any new regs are likely to be festooned with grandfather clauses and loopholes to the point where they amount to little more than a promise to do something in the future. Heaven forbid we do something inconvenient for the coal companies’ profits just to, you know, try to avoid a climate mess of almost unimaginable proportions.
I agree with you on the tough sell job…hopefully we’re wrong about what the EPA will do – everyone is expecting them to bring the hammer down on CO2 emissions, but that expectation doesn’t seem to square with the way this administration has been with big energy.