Hanson's Moratorium on Coal - Considering the Implications
James Hanson, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute, is considered a hero in the environmental community as one of the first to sound the alarm about global warming. Mr. Hanson was in Washington the week of June 23rd to mark the 20th anniversary of his original testimony before the Senate Energy Committee. This time, his message to the House Committee on Global Warming and to the National Press Club included a ban on coal fired power plants:
Practically, I don’t see how we can stop putting oil in the atmosphere, because that’s owned by Russia and Saudi Arabia. We can make our vehicles more efficient but that oil is going to get used and its going to get in the atmosphere…and it doesn’t really matter much how fast we burn it. But what we could do is stop coal.
Certainly, Mr. Hanson believes that in the context of global warming “desperate times call for drastic measures.” At the same time, the economic and national security consequences of Mr. Hanson’s proposal must be more fully considered. He calls for a phase out of all coal use by 2030 (unless plants can capture the carbon dioxide), to be replaced by solar, wind, and other renewable energy.
Some facts about coal:
- In 2007, coal constituted approximately 50 percent of all electrical generation in the US.
- In the West North Central states, coal accounts for 75 percent of electric generation.
- Our demonstrated reserve base for coal, as reported by the Energy Information Agency (EIA), is 491 billion short tons.
- In 2007, we used about 1.2 billion short tons of coal.
- At this rate, there is about 409 years worth of coal resources remaining in the US.
This is why the US has been called the Saudi Arabia of coal.
Currently, renewable energy constitutes approximately 3.5 percent of electric generation. Thus, under Mr. Hanson’s proposal -- either renewable energy must increase by more than 1,400 percent in the next 20 years or coal-fired power plants must find a way to capture carbon. These figures don’t even take into account the growth in energy demand projected over the next 20 years. EIA projects as much as a 39 percent increase in US electricity usage by 2030.
What concerns me most about Mr. Hanson’s remarks is how he surrenders to the global economics of oil, because “you’re not going to tell Saudi Arabia and Russia, the countries that have oil, not to sell their oil” but, forgoes America greatest resource base.
Similarly, one must consider the national security and economic implications of Mr. Hanson’s proposal. America’s dependence of foreign oil, currently at 70 percent or so, would grow even further presumably at staggering price levels. This would precipitate an even greater transfer of wealth from the US, Europe, and Asia while our own most abundant domestic fuel base would be banned. Does Mr. Hanson assume that the growth in renewables will offset the demise of the US coal industry? And what about the expected world wide growth of coal? The EIA projects that coal use will jump by nearly two-thirds by 2030, three-fourths of which will be accounted for by China alone. What impact will this have on global warming and will US coal exports also be banned?
All of this underscores the intricacies of the debate on climate change. Coal, our country’s most abundant resource, should not be phased-out in favor of Saudi or Russian oil. Instead, in my humble view, we need to consider a wide-breath of initiatives as well as strike a reasonable balance between carbon reduction and economic and national security issues. This would include offshore drilling for oil, Canadian oil sands, construction of new nuclear power plants, conservation and efficiency programs, biofuels and biomass, renewable energy portfolios, transmission line programs, tax incentives, and technology initiatives.
With respect to coal, we should continue to concentrate our national efforts on clean coal technologies, especially those that capture carbon dioxide. There is hope on the horizon with promising new technologies. Recently, the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory announced it hoped to capture 90 percent of the carbon from power plants by 2020 with an incremental increase in generating costs of some 20 percent. Mr. Hanson believes that carbon sequestration technologies will be available within the next 10 years.
Perhaps these are desperate times and while I agree that the US should lead by example, climate change is a border-less issue. While banning coal in the US might demonstrate an unparalleled commitment to climate change, without a world-wide response, that includes emerging nations, especially China, and India, the economic and national security consequences of our actions must be well-considered and ultimately not in vain.
Steve Gardner is an energy partner in the Washington, DC office. He previously served as Senior Counsel to AMAX Coal Company, at the time the nation’s third largest producer of coal.
Coal: The Energy Source of the Future?
Gas, oil, nuclear energy, biofuels, other alternative energy, energy conservation – are they enough to cause plentiful, Btu-rich, relatively inexpensive coal to take a back seat to post-Kyoto climate concerns in the developed and developing economies of the world?
With high prices for oil and gas and other promising sources of energy, precisely the opposite appears to be happening, with uncertain implications for carbon dioxide emissions levels and the success of technological fixes for Old King Coal’s dark side.
The expanding global demand for electricity, the skyrocketing prices of oil and natural gas, and the stubbornly high price of alternative energy sources have led to a global re-examination of the place of coal in supplying energy. Despite global attention to climate change, Old King Coal is receiving a new look, as well it might considering worldwide energy price pressures for all other fuel sources. Coal use in the United States, however, could face a less certain future.
As the price of natural gas has surged, utility companies have begun to reexamine coal-fired electrical generation. Coal offers utilities several advantages:
- Oil and natural gas reserves are expected to last for another 50 years, coal reserves will last for another 200 years.
- Coal is less expensive than oil and natural gas.
- Coal is found throughout the world and is exported by many countries. With so many supply sources, no coal cartel exists and buyers have more room to negotiate prices.
As surprising as the statistic may be to observers of the climate debate in the US, the Post-Kyoto economies of Europe contemplate adding about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years. Although the European Union operates a greenhouse emissions trading program which forces utilities to purchase permits to emit carbon dioxide, the price of oil and natural gas is so high that burning coal represents the cheapest mode of electricity production in Europe, even after accounting for the permit cost. Further, countries like Italy and Germany have banned and are phasing out nuclear power, departing sharply from the pro-nuclear path France has chosen. Facing a narrow range of options, Italy’s largest power producer, Enel, has focused on coal and will soon produce 50 percent of its power from coal. As a country, Italy will increase its reliance on coal from 14 to 33 percent over the next five years.
In India, Tata Power recently received 450 million dollars in funding from the International Finance Corporation to open a 4,000 MW coal fired power complex. Between India and China, the worlds largest producer and user of coal, a new coal-fired plant opens almost every week.
Of course, the growth in coal as an energy source has major ramifications for climate change. Even under optimal conditions, coal emits more than twice as much carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced as natural gas, according to the Electric Power Research Institute. While “clean coal” plants can reduce particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide emissions, clean-coal technology has a minimal impact on carbon emissions. Further, carbon capture and sequestration are not currently commercially available and, even if they become available relatively soon, many power plants cannot be retrofitted for sequestration without major renovation. With a growing global population and a growing global middle class demanding more energy, and over two billion people lacking access to viable energy sources, the world’s hunger for energy will not subside anytime soon. Coal, as a relatively inexpensive and readily available energy source, will play a major, and likely growing, role in supplying the world’s energy needs.
In the United States, coal could be facing a less certain and stable future as investors, legislators, and the public have taken a keen interest in climate change and carbon dioxide emissions. According to Global Energy Decisions, an energy information supplier, natural-gas and renewable power projects have leapt ahead of coal in the development pipeline. Gas and renewables each show more than 70,000 megawatts under development compared with about 66,000 megawatts in the coal-power pipeline. In 2007, utilities scrapped plans for 59 coal power plants. The investment banks Citigroup, J.P. Morgan, and Morgan Stanley also recently announced that their financing for new plants would be contingent on the utilities’ plans to control greenhouse gas emissions. In Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said that “there’s no such thing as clean coal,” and House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman recently called for a ban on new coal-fired power plants unless they come up with a way to control their carbon dioxide emissions.
The three presidential candidates seem committed to cap-and-trade for all greenhouse emissions when discussing climate change policy. Further, a report released by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. stated that utilities that plan their futures around new coal-fired power plants will face “risks and uncertainties” comparable to those that derailed the US nuclear power industry in the 1970s. The risks associated with nuclear power led to fierce legal opposition to new plant construction, resulting in delays and cost overruns and causing investors to pull out of nuclear investments. The Synapse report concludes that “coal is losing its appeal as a predictable investment and is instead fraught with uncertainty.”
The United States is not immune to the input price pressures which are causing energy companies in other countries to turn to coal. Such pressures are amplified by a desire for energy independence from Middle Eastern energy sources, residual opposition to nuclear energy, and vastly underdeveloped renewable energy sources. Today, 22 new coal-fired power plants are under construction and more are on their way as companies rush to get them operating before carbon-emissions standards are enacted. But, energy must come from somewhere, so unless consumers are willing to pay substantial premiums for energy, coal should remain a major energy source in the United States for the foreseeable future.
