Community Conversations

 

 

Clean Coal

Prepared for the Pratt Museum by Dr. Deland S. Anderson based on a Community Conversation held at the Museum on October 20, 2006

The topic of clean coal stimulated a lively and learned debate on energy sources and their relation to the environment and economy. Over the past couple of years coal has been the subject of several concerns that have caused ripples to be felt throughout communities on the Kenai Peninsula. And this is nothing new. Homer itself was established as a coal depot at the end of the 19th century to refuel ships plying the waters of the North Pacific. More recently an attempt was made to develop coal bed methane in the area, a proposal that was roundly rejected by the populace. Additionally, community concern has been raised by Homer Electric Association’s announced plans to purchase and bring on line a coal-fired generating plant at Healy. Lately rumblings have been heard from a Texas concern to develop a major coal strip mine on the Chuitna River on the west side of upper Cook Inlet. In the past year the public has begun to hear about the development of a coal gasification project at Nikiski and an associated coal-fired generating plant. China and other Far Eastern countries are burning more coal than ever to fuel their expanding economies, and the Lower 48 has plans to follow their lead. What was once thought of as a 19th century technology is making a remarkable comeback. Coal, then, is very much on the minds of the people of late.

There was a clear consensus in the group assembled at the Pratt Museum’s Community Conversation that the phrase “clean coal” is an oxymoron and that generating electricity from coal is a step backward rather than forward in the quest for clean, renewable energy sources. However, some maintained that this is a necessary evil. It is almost a truism today that economic development is tied to cheap energy. With the price of oil and natural gas reaching astronomical heights, the pressure is on to develop other sources of power generation or face economic disaster in the region. This seems to be the strategy behind linking Agrium’s proposed coal gasification project at Nikiski with the development of the massive Chuitna River strip mine. As the argument goes, Agrium’s fertilizer plant will have to be closed, causing a severe economic downturn on the Kenai Peninsula unless a reliable and economical fuel source can be found to replace the depleted, expensive, and unreliable natural gas of Cook Inlet. The proposal is to strip mine coal on the Chuitna River, transport it across the Inlet, cook it into synthetic gas in Nikiski to fuel the fertilizer plant, and sell surplus electricity from the operation to the people through HEA’s grid, reaching from Nanwalek to Nenana. This cheap source of energy will in turn fuel economic growth in the region. And best of all, some might argue, the coal gasification plant itself will be fired by coal! It seems, at first blush, to be a pretty neat operation. It promises economic growth, promotes energy independence, and develops natural resources. But some at the conversation responded that this argument was in bad faith. Several elements of this deserve consideration.

First, even if economic development is tied to affordable energy, this does not mean that more cheap energy is always required. Instead diversification of energy sources, improved efficiency in power generation, and energy conservation can offset the relatively low cost of a fuel source such as coal. Basically use less, use more different kinds, and get more out of it. Suggestions offered by the group along these lines included improved building designs, energy efficient appliances, more efficient power transmission techniques to prevent what are now very considerable line losses (10%-30%), energy independence for the Kenai Peninsula to stop the transporting of energy back and forth through Anchorage to the Interior and back, etc.

Second, economic development is not synonymous with economic growth. It could well be that developing an economy means making it more sustainable. This means seeking economic stasis by supporting renewable resources in the economy, such as gardening over logging, fishing over mining, art over oil, etc. To crack open a gigantic strip mine on the Chuitna River in upper Cook Inlet is, according to this line of reasoning, to undermine the economy, not to develop it. To promote economic sustainability entails leaving it in the ground.

Third, the real cost of coal is not to be measured by the ton, but rather by the total cost of development, including all government subsidy of the industry, as well as the short and long term effects produced in the ecosystem by that development. Just what is entailed here is not altogether clear, but there are a few clear trade-offs. For example the reputation of Cook Inlet salmon as the cleanest of wild salmon would be severely impacted by strip mining and burning coal in this remarkable watershed. This of course is based on the likelihood that the development of coal as an energy source in upper Cook Inlet would lead to the release of mercury and other contaminants into the environment and thence into the fish themselves. Additionally, the loss of numerous fishing jobs due to such changes clearly outweighs the creation of jobs at a strip mine. Fishing is much more labor intensive than is contemporary surface coal mining and so many more people are involved in the former than would be in the latter industry. Also, no matter where this coal is burned, whether it be in Korea or Cook Inlet, the release of particulate and greenhouse gases will contribute to global warming, and global warming is felt first and most dramatically not on the average, but in microclimates. The microclimate of Cook Inlet is changing rapidly due to the effect of rising global temperatures and the resultant changing weather and seasonal patterns. The effects are far reaching. Water temperatures both in the Inlet and in the fresh water streams feeding it are on the rise. So much so that we may be witnessing regime changes in the ecosystem as heat intolerant species like eulachon, trout, salmon etc. are replaced by other species. Glacial melt triggered by rising temperatures has affected the levels of salinity in the marine waters of the region, and this in turn leads to changes in ocean currents. Since such currents are the paths along which zooplankton and phytoplankton flow, dramatic changes to the ecosystem could result.

Fourth, much of the area’s economy is tourist related. Whether visitors are seeking sport fishing adventures, wildlife viewing safaris, or wilderness treks, the relatively pristine quality of the environment is critical. Massive strip mines and coal-fired plants are clearly not in keeping with the tourists’ wishes or expectations.

Finally, in a finite world, there is just so much time, energy and money. Consequently to develop one energy source, such as coal, could well proscribe the development of other sources. For example, if coal is brought on line to meet the energy demands of the Kenai Peninsula, will the existing natural gas industry lose its local market share? Will the much touted natural gas spur line to South Central Alaska be taken off the table? Or again, by developing coal as a local source of energy, will we be delaying or altogether preventing the implementation of alternative energy sources in the region such as wind, solar, tidal, hydroelectric, or even nuclear? And these are not pie-in–the-sky notions either. The Bradley Lake hydroelectric project at the head of Kachemak Bay produces enough energy to meet the needs of Homer. (Unfortunately, the Homer Electric Association only owns a small portion of that project, and so must go to Chugach Electric and Golden Valley Electric to meet local needs.) Additionally, the Peninsula has two other existing hydroelectric projects and the potential to develop many more. Some objected to the suggestion of hydroelectric generation, such as the notion of damming the Susitna River because to the damage to the ecosystem and the impact on pristine wilderness. But, as someone pointed out, New Zealand has a vast and invisible hydroelectric generation system that siphons off water from high altitude lakes via underwater tunnels that lead to turbines at lower altitudes where electricity is generated. When mountains of cheap coal are heaped to the sky, coal will be king. But if King Coal leads the way, we will likely not be ushered into a sustainable future.

North to the Future is Alaska’s motto. And the way to the future does not lie in repeating the mistakes of the past. Some have expressed the vision that Alaska has the potential to become a world leader in alternative energy sources. We have a resilient, self-reliant, and highly innovative population of residents who are dedicated to economic sustainability, protection of the environment, and political independence. These values are compromised by the use of fossil fuels. The people of Alaska are poised to make a great change. And, because of the legacy of the extraction industry in Alaska, they already possess the infrastructure and the technical know-how to develop and implement alternative energy sources. Geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric, solar, wind—these are the bywords of our future. We have the opportunity to do this, and the responsibility. Every little bit of CO2 released hits us first and hardest. That is a fact of life in the high latitudes.