Home > News

Coal plants threaten environment
By Lou Christopher
achris25@mscd.edu

Photo by Jenn LeBlanc/jkerriga@mscd.edu Xcel Energy's Zuni electric generating station. Located at 13th and Zuni the plant generates natural gas and oil-fired electricity to customers of downtown Denver. The plant also generates steam for end-us customers.

Renewable-energy advocates are upset over a plan to build new coal-fired power plants in the United States.

According to an Environment Colorado analysis, more than 150 of these will be built soon.
The analysis stated that they would cost more than $137 billion and create enough power for 96 million homes.

“We’re lining up for a sprint in the wrong direction on U.S. energy policy,” said Jake Meffley, an energy advocate for Environment Colorado, an environmental policy center.

According to Environment Colorado, if the money allocated to be spent on the new coal-fired plants was invested into energy efficiency and cleaner alternatives, U.S. electricity demand could decrease by as much as 19 percent by 2025.

“Promoting energy efficiency would be a lot more cost-effective than building new coal-fired power plants and transmission lines,” said Howard Geller, executive director of the Southwest Energy and Efficiency Project.

Coal-fired power plants are not without their problems. The proposed Colorado plants would create a 39 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions compared to levels that were emitted in 2003, Meffley said.

“Expanding our dependence on coal will only worsen coal’s impact on global warming emissions and intensify the other environmental impacts and economic risks from coal,” Meffley said.

An alternative, endorsed by Meffley, would incorporate new coal-gasification technologies, which only 16 percent of the proposed new plants will have.

Coal gasification offers a more versatile and clean way to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen and other valuable energy products, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. This process is the cleanest of all coal-based electrical power technologies as it has significantly lower levels of air emissions, solid wastes and wastewater.

Instead of burning coal directly, this method breaks coal down from its solid state into a gaseous state composed of its basic chemical compounds.

Another process that none of the proposed plants will use is carbon capture and storage.

This process captures carbon dioxide from the plants and safely stores the gases away instead of releasing them into the atmosphere.

Overall, U.S. global-warming emissions would increase 10 percent by building coal-fired plants, according to Meffley.

This possible increase comes at a time when global warming is being blamed for record heat in the U.S. and dramatic changes in global weather patterns.

Emissions from power plants affect health issues as well.

“Here in Colorado, we are witnessing an increase of lung cancer, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease each year,” said Stacey Simms, air quality manager for the American Lung Association of Colorado. “Years of research have shown the direct link between air pollution and lung health.”

Alternative fuel sources do exist, according to Meffley. Wind energy can produce electricity at a comparable cost to coal.

“America could substantially reduce its global warming pollution,” Meffley said, “by using existing technology to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.”