Location: Englewood
Author: Ken Silverstein
Date: Monday, July 19, 2010
Coal's future may not be as cloudy as some would think. It still ranks as the number one energy source for electric generators while 38 states here import the fuel from either other states or other nations.
Utilities are under lots of pressure to reduce their emissions regulated under the Clean Air Act. That movement alone would cause companies to shy away from coal and toward other, less polluting sources. But those same enterprises are trying to install new technologies that would lessen their releases. As such, the majority of the states that import coal from elsewhere may stay the course for a while.
"Every state has opportunities to cost-effectively reduce its coal use by boosting energy efficiency and developing in-state renewable resources," says the Union of Concerned Scientists, which published Burning Coal, Burning Cash. "The benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy policies are even greater for states that now rely on imported coal, because such policies channel funds into local economic development -- funds that would otherwise leave the state."
According the Environmental Protection Agency, coal-fired electricity generates about a third of all carbon emissions, as well as 70 percent of sulfur dioxide, 33 percent of nitrogen oxide and 23 percent of particulate matter. The U.S. Department of Energy adds that coal now provides about half of all the fuel needed for electric generation and that this percentage will decline to around 40 percent in 25 years. Still, it says that the demand for power will rise by about 1 percent a year during that time.
The Union of Concerned Scientists says that the most immediate way for utilities to wean themselves from their dependence on coal is to incorporate energy efficiency into their offerings. By making buildings and industry more efficient, it says that could reduce electricity demand by 24 percent by 2030. Adding renewables would furthermore benefit local economies.
"Such investments yield well-documented economic benefits for all states, including new jobs, higher local tax revenues, and more income for farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners," says the scientists. "However, these benefits are even greater for states now dependent on imported coal. That's because those states can channel funds that would otherwise leave the state (to pay for coal) into measures that spur local development and a clean energy economy."
Southern states, which are among the biggest coal users and coal importers, would have the most to gain, the group says. Consider: Georgia's expenditures on coal from 2002 to 2008 rose by 87, an increase of $1.2 billion; North Carolina's climbed by 88 percent, an increase of $1.1 billion and, Alabama's jumped by 170 percent, or more than $875 million. The dollar figures reflect an increase in the price of coal during that time.
Maintaining Relevance
Alabama spent the most on international coal. But the Northeastern states, which don't use as much coal as elsewhere in the country, also relied on foreign imports. Massachusetts consumed the most coal from foreign sources. In all cases, Columbia was the major source. Venezuela also made the list as did Indonesia. The United States is still a net exporter of coal.
In this country, most of the coal comes from Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky. Wyoming provides about 40 percent of U.S. coal production, which is increase from 18 percent two decades earlier. Today, coal from the Wyoming Powder River Basin is shipped to 34 states, including those in the east. With an expanding rail transportation network, coal emanating from that area could flourish.
That's because western coal is easier to mine. It is also low in sulfur, a toxic compound considered by many scientists as contributing to the earth's warming and one of those emissions that regulators are trying to cut. At the same time, western coal costs about $12 a ton. That's considerably less than its eastern cousin, which runs about $60 a ton on the spot market, and also contains more sulfur.
But coal producers in Kentucky and West Virginia aren't going anywhere. Consider: Coal from the western United States produces about two-thirds of the heat that eastern U.S. coal produces, because western coal has greater moisture content. That fact, coupled with relatively high transportation costs, means eastern coal is still a powerful force. And when the possibilities presented by new "clean coal" technologies are added to the mix, eastern coal companies say they will compete for a long time.
Coal interests, generally, are emphasizing that they are moving forward. Since 1980, major emissions from U.S. power plants have fallen by about 40 percent -- at a period in which economic growth grew by 90 percent and coal use in electricity generation by 75 percent. Newer technologies will only mean better results.
At the same time, coal-based businesses are adding jobs and wealth around the country, as well as supplying affordable electricity to the masses, says Hal Quinn, chief executive of the National Mining Association. "Coal is providing real jobs; real economic opportunity; affordable and secure energy; a vital feedstock; and fuel for steel, cement, paper, food and chemical production in the U.S."
Coal may be prevalent today. But it will have to work to maintain its relevance. By incorporating the modern technologies to minimize emissions, the utilities that use coal can keep it in their generation portfolios.
Copyright © 1996-2010 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energycentral.com