Winds of Change Newsletter, December 2005     See sidebar for table of contents

Sequestration Smokescreen?

by Elisa Young from Racine, Ohio

With gas and oil supplies on the decline, "clean coal" technology is rapidly elbowing its way to the forefront in answer to our country's increasing energy demands.

Living near four coal-fired power plants, I get a little suspicious when I hear the words "clean" and "coal" used in the same sentence. When I learned of AEP's plans to build two Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants near my farm, as well as drilling core samples for the first-ever geological carbon sequestration site, I started asking questions.

I found out that IGCC does have the advantage over traditional coal-fired power plants of generating more electricity from the same amount of coal, but it does nothing to address coal issues at the most basic level. I don't need to tell anyone reading an OVEC newsletter about mining impacts.

According to AEP spokesperson Jeff Rennie, IGCC is being built "in response to increased energy demand." There are no plans to take any older coal-fired power plants off line once the IGCC's are operational. In fact, by building two "cleaner" IGCC plants, AEP can legally transfer pollution points, or credits, to allow for stepped-up production at the older, less efficient plants - creating even greater demand for coal.

IGCC doesn't solve the problems posed by byproducts at the end of the energy production cycle, either. All the naturally-occurring heavy metals and coal-processing chemicals that don't travel off site through air emissions will be left in landfills along the river, leaving a toxic legacy for future generations.

These issues aside, presenting IGCC and carbon sequestration technology hand-in-hand as the answer to global warming is deceptive, according to Sierra Club Environmental Justice Program coordinator Bill Price.

"Carbon sequestration is still years away," says Price. "Yet, new coal power plant permits are being granted today. This is putting the cart before the horse. We have an opportunity to develop a sustainable energy policy that values people and not polluters. It's time we look for true, comprehensive solutions."

At a recent tour of the sequestration site at AEP's Mountaineer facility, Charles Bryer, project manager for the DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory, said the Department of Energy is testing to locate a site suitable for geological sequestration, but they are not planning to pursue carbon capture technology (transporting carbon from power plants to the wells for injection) because of the costs.

Battelle's research leader at the Mountaineer site, Neeraj Gupta, said that borrowing current technology from the oil industry for carbon capture would "more than double our utility bills." Our utility bills would increase by approximately 70% - barring major policy changes that might require polluters to pay for technology advancements.

There is nothing to stop industry from building new power plants and abandoning carbon sequestration due to costs post construction. Perhaps it would be wiser to place a moratorium on all new power plant construction, IGCC included, until carbon sequestration is proven attainable, safe, and effective; otherwise a net increase in greenhouse gas production is inevitable.

If the true cost of coal were to be quantified - mining impacts, damage to communities, tax subsidies, abatements, taxpayer-funded environmental remediation, health care costs, loss of life, even the billions being invested in "clean coal" research to prolong our dependency - investment in conservation measures and sustainable energy resources would undeniably present a far more attractive solution.