Switching From Coal to Woody Biomass

A school district in the mountains of Northwestern Colorado is replacing its old coal-fired boilers with a system that will burn woody biomass - a suddenly plentiful resource - thanks to the region's pine beetle epidemic that is threatening to kill off nearly all of the state's lodgelpole pines in the next 3-5 years.

The South Routt School District will be spending the next few months replacing it's old coal-fired boiler with a biomass boiler that will use wood pellets for fuel instead. A significant portion of the pellets will come from the new Confluence Energy facility that is just about ready to open its doors in Kremmling, Colorado.

The project was financed The Governor’s Energy Of­­fice and a state bond program. McKinstry, an energy-oriented consulting and contracting firm based in the Seattle area, also is contributing free services for the boiler, which Reed said will be “cost-neutral” for South Routt schools. The change is part of a $4.1 million project to improve energy efficiency in schools and buildings, and could save the district $10,000 a year.

See Also:
"Should We Pursue Biofuels From Beetle-Killed Wood?" :: CleanTechnica (2/2008)
"Jamtland: A County Fueled by Biomass" (Video) :: ecopolitology (3/2008)
Steamboat Pilot (4/2008)

Photo: Steve Roe

More Legal Action in Desert Rock Power Plant Case

In my 3.19.08 post at Red, Green, and Blue, I reported that Dine Power Authority and Sithe Global Power sued the US Environmental Protection Agency for dragging its feet on the air permit for a proposed coal-fired power plant on Navajo land in New Mexico. The group filed for a permit in 2004 and is still awaiting a final decision.

Now, opponents of the proposed coal-fired power plant have joined the legal fray by suing the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, according to a report in News From Indian Country. Dine Citizens Against Ruining our Environment and the San Juan Citizens Alliance claim federal agents have violated open records laws by withholding information related to the controversial plant and a coal mine that would supply it.

Among the groups’ requests are records on a consultant’s work on the draft environmental impact statement for the Desert Rock project, water use for the project and how the expansion of BHP Billiton’s Navajo Mine would affect tribal members who live and graze livestock in the area.

The New Mexico Environment Department and others have criticized the draft permit for not including enforceable conditions to address adverse visibility and for not analyzing mercury or carbon dioxide emissions. Others have complained that a better understanding of existing air quality conditions in the Four Corners region is needed before acceptable standards can be set for Desert Rock.

Gallup Independent
CNN/Money
Desert Rock Blog
Desert Rock Clean Air Proposed Permit

Video: State of Resolve

This short pbs video highlights California's relatively progressive environmental policy and juxtaposes it with our (lack of) federal policy. The well-produced piece also does a good job of linking our drive for material wealth as a contributor to environmental pollution in China. About 4 minutes.

Dept.of Energy Pulls Support for Future-Gen and 'Clean Coal' Project

Dave Roberts at Grist just reported on this ginormous story. The Department of Energy has just announced that they are pulling the plug on the proposed Future-Gen test plant in Illinois. Future-Gen is all about 'clean coal'. And the biggest arguments from clean coal's supporters is that it coal is cheap. Why was Future-Gen shelved? It is too expensive! Where is 'clean coal' now?

read more | digg story

Photo: RealNeo

Hoosier Daddy? Big Coal

As plans for new coal-fired power plants are being canceled at unprecedented rates, and the possibility of a carbon tax looms large on the American horizon, state legislatures are scrambling to come up with proposals to spur new types of energy development that will not contribute to the planet's rising GHG problem. And in Indiana, despite a recent poll suggesting that 73 percent of Hoosier-state residents were in favor of HB1112, a bill that would have required investor-owned utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2018, it did not make it out of Committee on Thursday. The Indiana House Commerce, Energy and Utilities Committee defeated the bill by a vote of 8-3. By itself, that does not sound like good news. However, upon further inspection, it turns out that this bill may be better off dead anyway. Why? Coal.

Indiana's energy portfolio is 95 percent dependent on coal. HB1112 was the first time for renewable energy legislation to be voted on in Indiana that did not include incentives for coal. The bill was scuttled in committee because the Chair (also the bill's sponsor), refused to hear amendments that would include incentives for the elusive technologies of 'clean coal.' Rep. Dave Crooks (D-Washington) said, "My desire was that if we're going to debate a renewable energy bill in this state it needs to be a pure renewable bill." Crooks failed to garner the support of his vice-chair, Rep. Kreg Battles (D-Vincennes) who said, "I've made it very clear that I will support renewables, but I don't want to put clean coal at a disadvantage."

Jesse Kharbanda, executive director of the Hoosier Environmental Council said the vote would have been a 'golden opportunity' for Indiana to send a message to out-of-state investors that Indiana was open for renewable energy business. "Sadly that welcome message was not sent," said Kharbanda.

I understand why environmental groups would want a renewable energy standard in Indiana, but I am surprised they are crying so loudly about the defeat of this particular one. First off, a 10% renewable energy standard is rather paltry. Second, there is no such thing as clean coal. There are, however, plenty of other clean technologies that do need investors and policy support. Coal's heyday is near its end. And I applaud Rep. Crooks for taking a stand against Big Coal.

Crooks indicated that it is still possible for a renewable energy bill to be revived this session, but that it was not very likely.

Inside Indiana Business
Indianapolis Star
Photo: j3net via flickr

Kansas Coal Proponents Try New Strategy for Power Plant

First, they became involved in the only American case, thus far, of a coal-fired power plant being denied a permit based upon the negative impact of its carbon dioxide emissions. Then they cried foul and filed a lawsuit. Right around the same time, they produced a series of ads with Peabody Coal suggesting that Kansas legislators were playing into the hands of people like Russian President Vladimir Putin, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now, according to a report in DeSmogBlog, Sunflower Electric has joined forces with the several other co-ops, the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO among others, to form a group that seems poised to fight the state of Kansas' October decision to deny the permit of two coal-fired electricity generators. And apparently the group's flashy new website is registered directly to Sunflower Electric Power Corporation.

According to the website:

The Alliance for Sound Energy Policy is a statewide, non-partisan organization committed to balancing our growing energy needs with environmental stewardship while encouraging the development of a comprehensive energy strategy that provides an affordable, reliable, and diverse energy portfolio for Kansas' future."

But a quick run through of the website content and the organization's list of members reveals a severe shortage of those who might be called "environmental stewards." Members on that list are:

Central & Western Kansas Building & Construction Trades Council

Finney County Board of Commissioners

Kansas AFL-CIO

Kansas Chamber of Commerce

Kansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.

Kansas Farm Bureau

Kansas IBEW Local 304

Lane-Scott Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Midwest Energy Inc.

Pioneer Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Prairie Land Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Sunflower Electric Power Corporation

Victory Electric Cooperative Association, Inc.

Western Cooperative Electric Association, Inc.

Wheatland Electric Cooperative, Inc.

If the above list doesn't do much to ease your concerns about the ecopolitics of the new organization, perhaps a snippet from their recent press release will:

"The diversity of our coalition makes the Alliance for Sound Energy Policy a credible voice in the debate over balancing our growing electricity demand with our need to protect the environment."

Oh, now I get it. Simply saying that you are diverse, means that you are diverse. I feel much better now [note sarcasm].

Photo: Courtesy of simplerich via flickr

Straw Poll: How much do you pay for electricity?

In light of my most recent post about the so-called "externalities" of coal-fired power, I thought I might add a participatory element the discussion that'll add some context. So, in the name of 'science' please visit ecopolitology (if you're not already here) and answer one simple poll question: How much do you pay for your electricity? (2 seconds and no strings!)

If you don't know, look at your most recent electric bill. Otherwise you can probably find your rates online. I encourage and welcome votes from all cities, counties, states, provinces, territories and countries. Thanks!

Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861, “Annual Electric Power Industry Report.”(2006)

Consumer choice and the eco-social "externalities" of coal (part one)

It is quite common for the end-user of a commodity to have no idea where the good was actually produced, never mind how it got from point A to point B. But some consumers might prefer to get their vegetables them from a local farmers’ market, instead of the supermarket. A person might want to support a business because they have received exceptional service there in the past; or, because they know the signature dish is made with the freshest local ingredients. The global commodities market has separated the consumer and the producer across both time and space. Goods can be shipped all the way around the globe and many can be stored away for future use/sale. When consumers do not see where the good is produced, how it is produced, and the byproducts of that production, they are less likely to have the knowledge that will alter their own spending habits. Not only that, but it may not be so easy to buy something even though it is all around you (as my search for locally-grown soybeans proved). Why does this matter? It all boils down to consumer choice. On one hand, the modern globalized economy consists of consumers that are primarily concerned with getting a given commodity for the best price possible. On the other hand, some may want to choose something other than the least expensive product - and that's where coal comes in.

There are increasing numbers of people who want to weigh other variables or 'social costs' such as the ecological sustainability of a good and the process of manufacturing it; the human rights records in the country where the good is produced or workplace health and safety records of the company making the product. The global economy lives and dies at the level of uncertainty a consumer will accept before choosing to not buy a good. Coal may be less expensive in terms of how much you pay every month for electricity, but those bills do not accurately reflect all of the electricity’s costs or, what economists call, “externalities,” like sulfur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide Externalities occur when neither the producer nor the consumer bear all of the costs of an economic transaction and these costs are inimical to the provision of such 'public goods' as air, water, streetlights, and public safety.

As consumers, we are constantly being bombarded with choices that can challenge the strength and conviction of our beliefs. Most of the choices seem minute, but depending on how loud that little voice inside your head shouts, other choices may present some rather sticky cognitive dissonance at an uncomfortable level. Don't believe me? What is the first thing you think of when you are faced with the ubiquitous inquiry 'paper or plastic?' Concerned about the consequences of all that Styrofoam, do you calculate differences in total resource depletion when asked 'dine-in or carry-out?' Do you buy organic or conventional fruits and vegetables? always? why? why not? Do you buy your gas at Exxon/Mobil or BioWillie? Would you rather have a Budweiser or a Fat Tire? Do you prefer coffee from Starbucks, the coffee cart, or your French press? Would you rather go to to WAL-MART or AL-MART?(*) Would you choose fresh, crisp apples from New Zealand or last autumn's apples from upstate? Would you like bananas that were grown by a company that pays extortion money to violent crime syndicates? or would you rather have no bananas at all?

As electricity consumers, we have no way of determining exactly where the electricity that powers our homes and businesses is generated. Unless you live off the grid or you’ve got the ability to completely disconnect from the grid and generate your own electricity, you cannot distinguish between an electron generated from coal and one generated from wind, natural gas, solar, hydro, or any other source. We can determine the probability that our electricity is of a specific mix, but that is about it. Electricity consumers also often lack any specific knowledge of when electricity is expensive and when it is cheap; we generally know that electricity is more expensive in the morning and in the evening but most of us do not have the ability to monitor those price fluctuations and act accordingly. Fortunately, there is some hope in all of this, as barriers to markets are removed and electricity providers are held accountable for their externalities.

As the issues of energy use and its relationship to climate change are achieving greater acceptance among the general public, consumers want more control over how the energy they consume is produced and how they consume energy. People would be much more interested in the production cost of coal if they were paying the actual cost of coal-fired electricity. Energy generated from “traditional” fossil fuels is only cost-effective because the formula used to determine those costs omits too many of the social and ecological externalities of production...(to be continued).

(*) AL-MART is a small store located in Alma, CO (locals at the South Park would remind me to tell you that Alma's elevation of 10,578 feet above sea level makes it the highest incorporated town in North America, despite what any other towns might claim).

Germany to Phase Out Coal Industry; U.S. to Not.

The German government is making headway on a proposal that would seek to totally phase out the country's entire coal mining industrial sector by 2018. The proposal, which is subject to approval by both houses of the German Parliament, will ensure structured

compensation payments for the country's 34,000 coal workers. The German Social Democratic Party has secured a review of the plan in 2012 before it goes into full effect. This reflexive approach is intended to safeguard the mining industry, which was largely responsible for the success of the Social Democrats in the 19th century.

How is Germany able to take such aggressive steps towards eliminating coal? For one thing, the cost of coal-mining in Germany is making the practice economically unattractive. Stringent safety measures, high labor costs and the increased expense to dig deeper to find untapped coal seams has driven the cost of German coal to about 180 euros ($250) per ton, more than three times the global market price. Second, and not completely unrelated, the German feed-in tariff which I have written about here, mandates that utilities enter into purchase agreements for any producer of renewable electricity to the grid.

The formidable presence of the Greens in the German Bundestag has had the ultimate effect of 'devolutionizing ' electricity generation and revolutionizing grid interconnectivity. Now, it looks like their aggressive push for renewable energy sources will help anchor renewable energy sources as the essential ingredient in the German energy mix.

So, with that said, what is the future of coal in the U.S.? Well, put it this way, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of coal development in a country and the number of Green Party representatives in that country's legislature (Congress, Bundestag, Parliament, etc.). The preceding assertion would certainly need to be tested to find a statistically significant correlation, but the point is that there is virtually no third party presence, Green or otherwise, in the American system of interest representation and there is also no significant political efforts toward phasing out coal development.

In fact, one reporter from the Voice of America, has suggested that "like it or not, coal is here to stay." I think those types of blanket statements can be problematic, especially when we are addressing the mobilization of political action. Reporting that something cannot be changed can have the effect of suppressing thought and action. Yes, coal is currently the number one source of electricity in the U.S. And yes, the most powerful coal advocate's national political action committee CoalPAC donates tremendous sums of money to the campaign coffers of legislators in both parties in hopes of perpetuating the 'we need coal' myth. But one of the beauties of democracy is that just because it is here now, does not mean it will necessarily be here later.

Despite the fact that coal is often projected to be our primary source of electricity for some time to come (and I generally agree with this statement), asserting that it must, or accepting such assertions as a predestined certainty precludes the possibility of any discussion of other alternatives. Some will just shrug and accept their perceived reality of a coal-based future, because that is what the 'experts' are saying. Fortunately there are increasing numbers of people and organizations that are not limiting their discussion to the alternatives that provide no alternative

Should Coal Have Standing?

Even Professor Christopher Stone would have some difficulty extending moral consideration to coal, oil, or gas (I think). Stone first posed an ethical question in the pages of the University of Southern California Law Review 45 (1972) that has remained a perennial favorite for nearly two generations of environmental philosophers, ethicists, law school professors and the like; Stone's question: "Should Trees Have Standing?"

Bad pun aside, Stone was able to hang his academic hat on that question. Although I don't really remember the exact logic of his argument, I don't think he successfully argued that trees should be extended moral (or legal) rights.

Everywhere it is occurring, the development of mineral resources for fuel (i.e. coal, gas, coalbed methane) presents a deluge of social and ecological challenges for policymakers and citizens alike. But I find it to be particularly troublesome when land use planning officials can successfully claim that coal has any sort of legal right. Unfortunately, it is also the case that in many mostly western U.S. states that, while the mineral itself does not have any inherent right, there's a good chance that someone or something has the legal right to get at it -- and that something is usually the federal government.

So-called "split estates" are legally binding mechanisms by which a land title is considered as completely separate from the title to the underlying minerals, including oil, gas and coal. According to the High Country News, forty-eight percent of Wyoming’s private land is split estate, and the Bureau of Land Management began leasing the minerals under tens of thousands of acres of this private land. Once the subsurface rights are leased, surface owners have little recourse against the traffic explosion on freshly bulldozed roads. Energy exploration and development (and most mining practices more broadly) threaten the quality of the air and water, they disrupt and fragment wildlife habitat, they have contributed to boom-and-busty cycles with often devastating economic consequences. And, as recent events in Utah and elsewhere have reminded us, energy development endangers the health and safety of the humans who live and work amongst it.

As miners and oil and gas industry workers toil away at their dangerous and pursuits, and as labor and environmental groups make efforts to make those jobs safer, western ranchers are fighting a different kind of fight altogether. For example, Shaun Andrikopoulos (pictured) and a group of his neighboring ranchers have been engaged in a battle to regain control use of their surface rights in Sublette County, Wyoming (photo: Justin Fantl, for Planet Jackson Hole).

Owners of the lands' surface have little they can do about the noxious fumes, flair-offs, noise from drill rigs, diesel generators and seismic exploration, add the addition of city-like skylines created by the illumination of drill rigs and their necessary outbuildings at night, and you've got some pretty disappointed landowners.

Thankfully, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition has publicized some of these problems in a powerful series of pictures of mountaintop removal mining and information as well as a collection of quotes from energy industry representatives, company execs and public officials. Below is one of the most memorable ones (and ultimately, the inspiration for this post):

"There's still coal underneath the land and sometime in the future, that coal has the right to be mined. What I am saying is there are areas where people will build and in the future they will have to un-build." -Campbell County (WY) Commissioner Alan Weakly and former mining engineer.

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, part 1

Perhaps you've recently seen or heard "environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg discussing his new book,Cool it: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, in which he argues that global warming is real but not worth fussing about. Why not? Because the prognosis for environmental health is pretty good, according to Lomborg, and more "social good" could be purchased if societies would spend their money on AIDS or malaria treatment instead of on trying to control carbon emissions. Even if the rosey environmental scenarios Lomborg concocts out of creative statistical analysis were plausible (and there's good reason to believe that they're not, GRIST notes plenty of examples of Lomborg's "cherrypicking") there would be plenty of room left to raise an eyebrow at Lomborg's underlying premise: that doing environmental good is the equivalent of perpetrating humanitarian harm.

Lomborg has presented us with a false premise: that the way to solve the world's problems is simply to throw money at them--after doing a cost-benefit analysis. There is an inherent absurdity that comes along with trying to reduce social and environmental issues to quantifiable--in Dollars or Euros--terms such as "social good" (let's see, how about if we say that the loss of an island nation to sea-level rise has the same value as a 10% change in cancer incidence). It is equally silly to try and draw a dividing line between social and environmental issues, and then depict the two "separate causes" as competitors.

For instance, coal mining intensifies as the demand for energy rises to meet the needs of an expanding population; and burning that coal increases mercury pollution, which increases the incidence of developmental disabilities; of course, coal also contributes to global warming, which harms many communities in the form of drought, more intense hurricanes, and loss of coastline. Not to mention that working in a coal mine is extremely dangerous--in 2006 a BBC story reported that as many as 6,000 thousand coal miners die every year in mine accidents in China alone.

Socio-environmental problems can not be fixed by separating out their various components. In fact, separating "environmental" and "social" issues from one another virtually guarantees that more egregious eco-social problems will arise.