Coal-Fired Power Plants Not the Answer
Marcel J. Harmon, Ph.D.
November 27, 2006
The general consensus within the scientific community, as exemplified by statements from organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the national science academies of the G8 nations, and the US National Research Council, is that the majority of global warming occurring over the last fifty years can be attributed to human activity, most of which is likely the result of our release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Do scientists argue about the details? Yes. Do scientists agree that natural variability most likely contributes to a percentage of these changes? Yes. But don’t be fooled by the vocal group of naysayers out there. We are significantly increasing the global temperature of our planet by burning fossil fuels, and this release of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, will have devastating environmental and economic consequences.
A recent British report, commissioned by finance minister Gordon Brown (the likely next Prime Minister) and authored primarily by former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern, states that unchecked climate change could cost up to 6.98 trillion dollars, more than the combined costs of World Wars I and II. And failure to act quickly in a coordinated international effort could potentially result in a global recession.
How quickly? Many scientists, including Jim Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, have argued that we have no more than 10 years before we reach a "tipping point" where the effects of global warming become irreversible. Others believe that we are already past the tipping point with respect to certain environmental impacts, such as the “acidification” of our oceans.
As we continue to pump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, ever-increasing amounts are absorbed into our oceans, reducing their pH levels. According to Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institute (as reported by Elizabeth Kolbert in her November 20, 2006 New Yorker article entitled “The Darkening Sea: What Carbon Emissions are Doing to the Ocean”), even if CO2 emissions were eliminated tomorrow, current atmospheric concentrations are sufficient to continue this reduction in ocean pH over the next century. A significant percentage of coral reefs and associated sea life – approximately one million species – could be lost. Our planet’s bio-diversity would be severely impacted, and fishing industries decimated. Intellectual fishing traditions that have spanned for generations could be snuffed out. For Caldeira then, the only appropriate CO2 emissions target is zero.
This is just a portion of the global context that surrounds the debate as to whether or not three 700 MW coal-fired power plants should be constructed near Holcomb, KS. It is estimated that these three plants will produce a combined 13 million tons per year of CO2 – almost a quarter of a percent of the total CO2 estimated to have been produced by the U.S. in 2002 (of which the U.S. accounted for almost a quarter of the global total CO2 emissions for that year). While comparatively small, these three plants will nevertheless make a measurable contribution to global warming and the acidification of our oceans. And I’ve ignored other environmental impacts in this discussion, such as mercury emissions and the additional strain on the Ogallala aquifer. Therefore this debate isn’t just the concern of western Kansas, as some of the power plants’ proponents insist.
Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, the eventual operator of these plants, responds to CO2 concerns by hiding behind the current lack of U.S. regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Earl Watkins, president and CEO of Sunflower, was quoted in the October 27, 2006 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World as stating “I would say that when, and if, carbon dioxide becomes a regulated pollutant, we will comply with those laws that apply to our assets.”
Such statements imply a very shortsighted, narrow view of the world. It’s past time for politicians, presidents, CEOs, as well as small business owners, local community leaders, and parents to step up and recognize that long-term environmental and economic consequences must outweigh short-term economic gains. For this reason, I urge everyone to submit their written comments opposing the construction permit for these three power plants to Rick Bolfing, KDHE Bureau of Air and Radiation, 1000 S.W. Jackson, Suite 310, Topeka 66612-1366. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment is accepting public comments through November 30.
But I would be remiss if I stopped here, for there is another important element to this story. I’m referring to the jobs that would be created by these power plants, estimated to be near 2100 during construction and 400+ afterwards. Carol Meyer, President of the Garden City, KS Chamber of Commerce, has estimated that the earnings from the latter would be more than $22 million per year. For rural communities in western Kansas that face the reality of slow growing or stagnating local economies, the decline of their populations, the loss of local schools, and the struggle to maintain basic infrastructure, such an economic opportunity is hard to pass up. Many in the area no doubt see this as a means to help preserve their way of life, their social/cultural continuity, and their very existence as communities. So it’s easy to see why many western Kansans tell outside critics to mind their own business.
Therefore, critics of these power plants have a responsibility to work with western Kansas communities in formulating alternative energy production strategies and economic opportunities. And wind power options, such as the “community wind” model of JW Prairie Windpower LLC (http://www.juwi.de/international/c2.htm), are potentially a large part of the answer here. Such smaller, community based windpower farms, dotted across the western Kansas rural landscape, would be more easily tied into the existing power grid than larger farms, allow for local ownership, create jobs via their construction and operation, allow for rural road upgrades, and provide tourism opportunities in addition to a cleaner source of energy.
This is only one of countless potential alternatives out there. But it requires the recognition that the production of greenhouse gases is no longer a viable long- or short-term option, and that we – and by we I mean all Kansas communities, utilities, state officials, etc. – must work together to formulate sustainable solutions that maintain a respectable quality of life for all and have minimal environmental impacts around the globe.
It also means that we all must be willing to pay for this, whether it be through increases in taxes and energy rates, decreases in corporate profits and payouts, or some other means. And it may mean that – gasp – those regions and individuals with more money at hand may have to foot more of the bill. For those of us outspoken against fossil fuels, are we ready to put our money where our mouth is? For the sake of my children and theirs, I couldn’t be any more ready.
A recent British report, commissioned by finance minister Gordon Brown (the likely next Prime Minister) and authored primarily by former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern, states that unchecked climate change could cost up to 6.98 trillion dollars, more than the combined costs of World Wars I and II. And failure to act quickly in a coordinated international effort could potentially result in a global recession.
How quickly? Many scientists, including Jim Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, have argued that we have no more than 10 years before we reach a "tipping point" where the effects of global warming become irreversible. Others believe that we are already past the tipping point with respect to certain environmental impacts, such as the “acidification” of our oceans.
As we continue to pump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, ever-increasing amounts are absorbed into our oceans, reducing their pH levels. According to Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institute (as reported by Elizabeth Kolbert in her November 20, 2006 New Yorker article entitled “The Darkening Sea: What Carbon Emissions are Doing to the Ocean”), even if CO2 emissions were eliminated tomorrow, current atmospheric concentrations are sufficient to continue this reduction in ocean pH over the next century. A significant percentage of coral reefs and associated sea life – approximately one million species – could be lost. Our planet’s bio-diversity would be severely impacted, and fishing industries decimated. Intellectual fishing traditions that have spanned for generations could be snuffed out. For Caldeira then, the only appropriate CO2 emissions target is zero.
This is just a portion of the global context that surrounds the debate as to whether or not three 700 MW coal-fired power plants should be constructed near Holcomb, KS. It is estimated that these three plants will produce a combined 13 million tons per year of CO2 – almost a quarter of a percent of the total CO2 estimated to have been produced by the U.S. in 2002 (of which the U.S. accounted for almost a quarter of the global total CO2 emissions for that year). While comparatively small, these three plants will nevertheless make a measurable contribution to global warming and the acidification of our oceans. And I’ve ignored other environmental impacts in this discussion, such as mercury emissions and the additional strain on the Ogallala aquifer. Therefore this debate isn’t just the concern of western Kansas, as some of the power plants’ proponents insist.
Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, the eventual operator of these plants, responds to CO2 concerns by hiding behind the current lack of U.S. regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Earl Watkins, president and CEO of Sunflower, was quoted in the October 27, 2006 issue of the Lawrence Journal-World as stating “I would say that when, and if, carbon dioxide becomes a regulated pollutant, we will comply with those laws that apply to our assets.”
Such statements imply a very shortsighted, narrow view of the world. It’s past time for politicians, presidents, CEOs, as well as small business owners, local community leaders, and parents to step up and recognize that long-term environmental and economic consequences must outweigh short-term economic gains. For this reason, I urge everyone to submit their written comments opposing the construction permit for these three power plants to Rick Bolfing, KDHE Bureau of Air and Radiation, 1000 S.W. Jackson, Suite 310, Topeka 66612-1366. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment is accepting public comments through November 30.
But I would be remiss if I stopped here, for there is another important element to this story. I’m referring to the jobs that would be created by these power plants, estimated to be near 2100 during construction and 400+ afterwards. Carol Meyer, President of the Garden City, KS Chamber of Commerce, has estimated that the earnings from the latter would be more than $22 million per year. For rural communities in western Kansas that face the reality of slow growing or stagnating local economies, the decline of their populations, the loss of local schools, and the struggle to maintain basic infrastructure, such an economic opportunity is hard to pass up. Many in the area no doubt see this as a means to help preserve their way of life, their social/cultural continuity, and their very existence as communities. So it’s easy to see why many western Kansans tell outside critics to mind their own business.
Therefore, critics of these power plants have a responsibility to work with western Kansas communities in formulating alternative energy production strategies and economic opportunities. And wind power options, such as the “community wind” model of JW Prairie Windpower LLC (http://www.juwi.de/international/c2.htm), are potentially a large part of the answer here. Such smaller, community based windpower farms, dotted across the western Kansas rural landscape, would be more easily tied into the existing power grid than larger farms, allow for local ownership, create jobs via their construction and operation, allow for rural road upgrades, and provide tourism opportunities in addition to a cleaner source of energy.
This is only one of countless potential alternatives out there. But it requires the recognition that the production of greenhouse gases is no longer a viable long- or short-term option, and that we – and by we I mean all Kansas communities, utilities, state officials, etc. – must work together to formulate sustainable solutions that maintain a respectable quality of life for all and have minimal environmental impacts around the globe.
It also means that we all must be willing to pay for this, whether it be through increases in taxes and energy rates, decreases in corporate profits and payouts, or some other means. And it may mean that – gasp – those regions and individuals with more money at hand may have to foot more of the bill. For those of us outspoken against fossil fuels, are we ready to put our money where our mouth is? For the sake of my children and theirs, I couldn’t be any more ready.
Print
Email
