The American Southwest has some of the best solar resources on the globe. Nevada, with abundant land and sunshine is becoming a hot bed for the solar industry. The result is green jobs and billions of investment dollars.

Solar Panel Manufacturing

The opening of Ausra’s solar thermal power factory earlier this week in Las Vegas is a prime example. As the largest plant of its kind in the world, it employs 50 factory workers. At full capacity, the plant can generate 700 MW of solar panels, which could produce enough power for 500,000 homes. This quantity of panels would create an estimated 1,400 solar plant construction jobs.

The factory will produce giant mirrors and absorber tubes that are used for solar power plants. This technology uses the sun to generate heat and spin turbines, thus creating electricity. The giant mirrors follow the sun and reflect it onto fixed absorber tubes that are mounted above.

“Nevada is poised to be a leader in the clean energy revolution,” said U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). “This facility will help position our state as the premiere place to invest in these new technologies. As the factory expands operations and we continue to invest in clean energy, we’ll create thousands of good-paying jobs and keep our outdoors pristine for future generations.”

Solar Power Plants

Solar projects totaling more than 10,000 MW have land requests from the Bureau of Land Management in Southern Nevada. If constructed, these solar plants would bring over $40 billion of investment to Nevada.

Power plants benefit the economy in the short-term by creating large quantities of construction jobs. In the long-term, they create plant operations jobs, tax revenue, raise property values, and generate income through land leases. A recent example is Acciona’s Nevada Solar One, located in Boulder City, NV.

As the third largest solar concentrated plant in the world, its maximum output is 75 MW of electricity. It generates enough power for 15,000 homes annually and had a cost of $260 million. Operating since June, 2007, there are 300 acres of solar fields. The plant will produce peak power, with nearly zero carbon emissions and created approximately 28 operations related jobs.

Related Posts on Solar Thermal Electricity

Solar Thermal Electricity: Can It Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil?
Molten Salt May Be Solution to Solar Energy Storage
MIT Team Plays With Fire to Create Cheap Energy

Photo: Ausra’s facility in New South Wales, Australia. Courtesy Ausra.

A Superior Court Judge in Fulton County, Georgia has ruled that construction of Dynegy’s Longleaf plant be halted until it is assured the plant will limit the amount of carbon dioxide it releases.

The original permit would have allowed the plant to emit 9 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, something the court said was unreasonable.

The court cited the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling recognizing that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.  It’s the first time any court has applied the ruling to an industrial source.

Commenting on the ruling, Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign said:

“Coal-fired power plants emit more than 30% of our nation’s global warming pollution.  Thanks to this decision, coal plants across the country will be forced to live up to their clean coal rhetoric.”

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius rejected construction of a new coal plant in that state, saying global warming is a public health threat.

It isn’t known yet whether Dynegy, the largest coal plant developer in the country, will fight the ruling.  Dynegy has more new coal plants planned in the country than any other developer.

Coal Related Posts:

Florida Weighs Clean Energy, Coal Plants

Does Coal Have a Role in “Clean” Energy?

e2 energy: “Coal & Nuclear: Problem or Solution?”

Tangled Up in Green: A Tale of Two Energies

For a lot of years, I’ve respected and admired Arizona Senator John McCain, and even though he is a Republican, he seemed to be more moderate than his right-wing compatriots.

That changed today when I read that he has proposed construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.  Adding insult to injury, he told a Missouri State University audience that he’d pledge $2 billion a year in federal funds to make clean coal a reality.  All in the name of reducing dependence on foreign oil and fostering a cleaner environment.

Here we go again with the nuclear crap

He tells the worn out tale of reactors being clean and non-polluting.

Interestingly, and certainly not surprisingly, he didn’t mention anything about cleaning up the messes left by earlier uranium mining.  Nor did he propose on how to get rid of, store, neutralize or make safe, the huge stockpile of nuclear waste piling up every day.  And let’s not forget the environmental damage to be done by mining more uranium to feed those reactors.  He gave that subject the same brush-off every nuclear energy proponent does, with the statement that more needs to be done to safely transport and store spent materials.

Don’t let anyone try to tell you the in-situ leaching process is environmentally clean.  Being an underground process, it has, under certain conditions, the ability to contaminate ground water.

45 more reactors and “clean coal”, what a wonderful promise for our future.

Image:  www.scoop.co.nz

Source:

Solar energy currently generates .1% of the electricity used in the U.S. According to a study released today, this will change rapidly as the cost of electricity increases and the cost of solar energy drops.

The Utility Solar Assessment Study produced by Clean Edge and Co-op America finds that solar energy is already reaching cost parity with conventional sources in some areas of the U.S. where electric rates are highest. By 2015, this will be achieved in many more areas, including Boston, San Diego, and New York. By 2025, cost parity will be achieved throughout the U.S.

The implications of this are huge. The U.S. solar photovoltaic market now relies heavily on state incentives to lower the cost of solar energy. Many people utilize solar energy because it is “the right thing to do” or businesses like the positive publicity solar brings.

Unique Advantages of Solar Electricity

Solar energy does not have fuel costs, like power generated from coal, natural gas, oil, or nuclear energy. The maintenance costs of solar are relatively low , it can generate electricity at the point of use, and emits no carbon. Solar is ideally suited to produce peak electricity, when demand is highest on the power grid and utility companies pay the highest rates. This is also where there is the greatest growth in electricity demand.

“The daily and seasonal variation in grid load in the United States matches solar availability,” said John O’Donnell, executive vice president of Ausra. Solar effectively generates electricity when the rates and demand are the highest.

Action is Needed to Advance Widespread Use of Solar Energy

Solar Companies

Large-scale use of solar energy depends on prices dropping to $3 per peak watt of electricity by 2018, according to the study. This involves quickly implementing advanced technologies in a cost-effective manner. Solar technology needs to be easier to install, thus reducing installation costs and other installations barriers.

Utility Companies

Utilities have become more and more interested in solar energy. California is a great example, where many utilities have signed purchase agreements for solar plant output. The U.S. will also need trained workers, which is another opportunity for utilities to take the lead.

A large investment in solar energy is needed for 10% of U.S. electricity to be generated by solar energy by 2025. Utilities will need to invest between $26 and $33 billion per year, a pretty hefty sum. To put this number in perspective, utilities invested $70 billion in 2007 on new power plants and transmission and distribution centers.

Solar Regulation and Policy

There is currently a 30% commercial tax credit for solar energy, but it is set to expire at the end of the year. There are purchase agreements for 3.2 gigawatts of concentrated solar power during 2007, but these solar power plants cannot be constructed before the tax credit expires. A long-term extension of the renewable energy tax credit is needed for large-scale use of solar energy. Many states also have renewable portfolio standards, but a national renewable portfolio standard would also help strengthen the industry.

Related Posts on Solar Energy

Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil?
Senate Coalition Introduces Clean Energy Tax Package
Solar Panels and the Quest for $1/Watt
Clean Energy Intro: Solar Businesses
4 Things to Consider Before Going Solar

Photo Credit: Solar Service Inc of Illinois

Them: I am deeply concerned about global climate change and the effects of mankind’s continued use of dirty fossil fuels on our planet’s health.
Me: I used to operate power plants that produced zero emissions. What do you think about taking a new look at using nuclear power to replace fossil fuel consumption? Them: I do not like nuclear power. We can get all the power that we need by conservation, wind, solar and biomass.
Me: How do you expect for windmills and solar panels to produce power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? Can you really shut down fossil plants if you build wind turbines and put solar panels on buildings?
Them: No, but the grid can provide all the back-up we need. We already have paid for building the existing plants and should not spend any money on building new ones while we transition to a new economy where we can live within our natural energy income.
Me: But that means that we have to continue extracting and burning fossil fuels when we could be building plants that make them unnecessary.
Them: I do not like nuclear power and do not want to replace one poison with another.

These conversations often go on far longer until either I or my opponent gives up from frustration or exhaustion.

As a technically trained power plant operator, I have apparently not learned the right words to use to convince people that comparing wind and solar power to a reliable electricity supply is a bit like comparing a bicycle to a city bus or a metro rail.

Sure, the sun and wind are forces that man can harness to do work or make electricity, just like a bicycle is a pretty good form of transportation in certain circumstances. However, I would look pretty silly trying to carry dozens of people on my bicycle. In fact, it gets pretty challenging just to carry enough stuff with me to provide a change of clothing and a raincoat in case of inclement weather. My legs are in pretty good shape, but I need a rest after about 25 miles.

When it comes to reliable power that is available on demand, it is hard to beat a fossil fuel powered generator, unless, of course you have a generator that runs off of the heat produced by an atomic fission reactor. As a guy who used to operate an electric power grid that ran almost exclusively on fission power - granted, it was a small, self-contained grid on a ship - I can personally testify that the system works fine and lasts a long (long, long) time. I have been an ocean sailor and spent enough days becalmed to also be able to testify that the sun sets every single day, making solar cells worthless as a power source until well after sunrise the next day, and the wind changes direction or disappears without any warning more often than many people care to admit.

Reducing fossil fuels for power production so that humans cause less damage to the planet is a big, difficult endeavor. It seems silly to undertake that challenge without using the best available tools. The photo accompanying this post is from just one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of the world’s operating coal mines that currently supply about 6 Billion tons of coal each year. That is my target competition when I think about the benefits of investing the time, effort and treasure required to build new nuclear power plants.

Help me, folks. Why is it so difficult to agree that uranium fission competes with fossil fuel combustion and that conservation, wind, sun and biomass “alternatives” are simply not in the same power generation league?

Related links:
First High Resolution Wind Map
Cost of Wind vs Cost of Nuclear to Replace Coal
Nuclear vs. Wind Farms Debate - rather misses the point.

Update (posted May 20, 2008 at 1800 EDT) There is a great article on the front page of Wired dated May 19, 2008 titled Inconvenient Truths: Cutting Carbon Is the Only Thing That Matters. One of the 10 inconvenient truths listed is that environmentalists should EMBRACE NUCLEAR POWER: Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy

The seemingly innocuous question comes with all sorts of ethical baggage these days: for many Americans, recycling is not just an initial step into a greener life, but also an activity suffused with moral weight. While many will argue about the significance of individuals and families recycling items they might otherwise throw away, there’s no doubt that creative and innovative reuse of materials is critical for the health of the planet… and the people who reside on it (along with all of those other species). Tonight, the Sundance Channel’s Big Ideas for a Small Planet goes beyond the blue bin many of us place on the curb, and looks at three organizations that are taking recycling in some interesting, and effective, directions.

Ever been to the dump? If so, it probably didn’t look like Sonoma County, California’s, which manager Ken Wells (pictured on the left) describes as a “mining operation for the trash of your life.” Yes, there’s a landfill, but there’s also a composting center, an organic garden, a reuse store, and a power plant that creates electricity from landfill gas (enough to power about 7000 homes). Accessory design shop Ecoist, in Miami, definitely looks more upscale, but they’re also reusing materials that would otherwise go to waste: in this case, misprinted or otherwise flawed packaging, and movie billboards. And Baton Rouge, Louisiana’s Capital Area Corporate Recycling Council (CACRC) gathers used computers on a massive scale, “dematerializes” those that aren’t in working condition, and repairs those that are to sell cheaply or donate to public school programs. As in earlier episodes, many of the “big ideas” presented come from ordinary people (well, ordinary people with extraordinary imaginations). And, of course, folks known for their own big ideas provide commentary: David Suzuki, Allen Hershkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Anne Reichman of Earth 911, and Sundance’s own Simran Sethi.

Following Big Ideas, the Sundance Channel presents the eco-documentary Burning the Future: Coal in America. According to press materials,

This timely documentary takes us to the Appalachian Mountains of southern West Virginia to explore the political, economic and environmental issues surrounding coal, the source of more than half of U.S. electricity. At particular issue is the controversial above-ground mining technique known as mountaintop removal, which is defended as safe by the coal industry but opposed by a growing number of residents who believe it is a threat their land, their health and their unique way of life.

If you liked Big Coal, this sounds like one you won’t want to miss.

Finally, keep in mind that there’s Sundance schwag to win: Sundance’s own “What’s the Big Idea?” contest is still taking entries, and we’re giving away a Sundance giftbag to one lucky subscriber to our biweekly newsletter.

Images courtesy of Special Ops Media 

This is important news, since the authors also estimate that by 2050, 60% of US transportation could be met by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Total impact on electrical generation may all depend on when the vehicles are charged. A recent study from Oak Ridge National Laboratory showed that charging vehicles during off-peak hours (after 10 pm) would result in only slight increases in energy draw, while charging them after work could require 160 new power plants over the next few decades.

More Posts on Plug-In Electric Cars:

• Plug-In Hybrids Could Require 160 New Power Plants By 2030 (Or None At All)
• Affordable Electric Cars Coming to US in 2009
• MIT Study Predicts Well-to-Wheel Vehicle Emissions for 2030
• Without Clean Electricity, Plug-In Vehicles aren’t So Hot
• Google To Spend $10 Million on Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Project

Following, organized by region, are the top international environmental news for during the week of April 20 - 27. See an archive of top international environmental news here.

Asia

Working the land the natural way: Organic farming in China

It’s been almost four years since the project was launched, and of the nine households who have tried organic farming, only four are still at it. The others decided it just wasn’t worth it. Organic farming requires much more labor, the yield can be half or less of that of conventional farming, and besides, hardly anyone in Chengdu is eating organic. Our stock broker-turned-farmer estimates their customer base to be only 0.01% of Chengdu’s population.

Anlong farmer Gao Shengjian believes there’s a link between the use of pesticides and fertilizers on farms and the growing incidences of various diseases among the rural population.

Source: Crossroads China. Vote for this article in social media: StumbleUpon.

China down to 12 days worth of coal

China only has enough coal for 12 days of consumption, three days less than a month ago, state media reported Wednesday, sounding the alarm bells over the nation’s most important source of energy.

In certain parts of China, such as densely populated Hebei province in the north, reserves are down to less than a week, Xinhua news agency reported, citing the China Electricity Regulatory Commission.

In the period since early March, coal reserves have slumped by 12 per cent to 46.7 million tonnes, according to the commission.

Source: News.com.au. Vote for this article in social media: Digg.

Chinese execute Tibetans

Note: The above video contains long-distance video footage of people being killed. Please watch at your own discretion. Vote for this article in social media: Digg, Care2. Get involved: Students for a Free Tibet.

Europe

Europeans using cars less

Europe generally has far better public transportation than the United States, with workers in countries like Britain, Be

Conversely, a day later, Greenpeace published a piece on their website eviscerating nuclear power.

Oh let the fun begin!

As I mentioned, this is not a new argument, as Moore has recently taken up the reigns for causes Greenpeace opposes. Old-growth logging, keeping polyvinyl chlorides and now nuclear energy have definitely not endeared him towards his former environmental group.

However we don’t get to see so vividly the argument unfold like it has this week. Moore’s comments were reported on by Thursday of last week, and Greenpeace’s statement came out the day after. There is definitely some damage control happening; especially if the language and rhetoric from Greenpeace has anything to say about it.

Greenpeace banked their piece on the 22^nd anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, which our own Max Lindberg touched on in the latest edition of The Lindberg Report. Their impassioned plea to stop similar disasters from happening was nothing but a major scare tactic. The opening paragraphs would have even the most conservative thinker fleeing from a nuclear reactor, if there was no previous knowledge at hand.

In fact, it seems that if it wasn’t for Greenpeace, nuclear reactors with bad regulatory conditions and poor safety measures would be springing up all over the place.

As for what Moore had to say, he was somewhat more circumspect. Noting that there wasn’t enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric or geothermal to replace coal – which he described as having “…the worst health impacts of anything we are doing today,” – Moore pointed to Nuclear as the only clean path for us to take.

And as much as it would be nice to see fields of wind turbines or solar panels, and oceans worth of hydroelectric turbines, the incentive is not there; not to mention the sheer number of constructions that would need to be implemented.

Make sure you check out both articles. The Greenpeace one can be found here and Moore’s story can be found at the Idaho Statesmen here. And make sure to check out Max’s interview with Kenneth Bossong, co-director of UAEA, about the anniversary of Chernobyl.

The most recent issue of Solar Today includes an article by Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute about the public outcry all across American which, in addition to the cost of the plants, has led to the cancellation of hundreds of coal plant construction projects. And a survey conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation, published yesterday, shows that “79% of respondents would prefer to try and meet demand through greater energy-efficiency and conservation before building more coal-fired plants. Only 19% say they disagree.” With that kind of public opposition, it’s not surprising that Wall Street is cooling on coal plants, too. According to Brown:

• “In July, Citigroup downgraded coal company stocks across the board and recommended that its clients switch to other energy stocks.
• In January, Merrill Lynch downgraded coal stocks.
• In early February, investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi and J.P. Morgan Chase announce that any future lending for coal-fired power would be contingent on the demonstration that the plants can be economically viable under future federal restrictions on carbon emissions.
• On Feb. 13, Bank of America followed suit. “

Follow the money. It appears that Wall Street is ready to look toward the future; now the only question is: will our government stop putting up road blocks?

Environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Council, are staging a coal plant-by-coal plant attack on any proposed new coal-fired power plant in the United States. Using bureaucratic or legal means, such as zoning or water use, environmental groups have stopped 65 coal plants in the last three years. The LA Times explains its really a war about climate change, “Coal puts twice as much temperature-raising carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as natural gas, second to coal as the most common power plant fuel.”

Image:  Ohio Citizen 

Despite all the talk about solar energy, it only generates a measly .1% of electricity in the US. Meanwhile, national demand for electricity is growing by 2% annually. Considering that solar technology has been in use for decades, why is it not more widespread?

Cheap Fossil Fuels

Even though sunlight is free, fossil fuels in the US have been widely available at a very low cost. There are extensive coal fields all across the country. Nationally, coal produces about 50% of our electricity, with a majority of it being used for base load. That means that coal plants produce a steady stream of electricity a majority of the time.

Natural gas however has skyrocketed in price over the last 6 years. It is widely used to generate electricity during peak times, typically on warmer days when we are cranking up the air conditioning. Natural gas plants can start up quickly and come to the rescue when needed, but the cost of fuel has gotten quite high recently.

Solar energy is very capable of producing peak electricity and is ideally suited for for it. Solar radiation is what causes us to need air conditioning in the first place. The utility companies have started taking notice of solar energy’s potential to generate electricity during peak demand.

Real Cost Pricing

When we turn on a light, we don’t pay the real cost of generating that electricity. The federal government absorbs some of that cost through subsidies and the environmental cost is rarely taken into account. For example, asthma is linked to the burning of coal, but I don’t pay for asthma attacks when I pay my electric bill. A carbon tax is one method for accounting for some of these hidden costs.

Scale and Price of Solar

Remember how much cell phones cost when they first hit the market? When larger manufacturing plants are constructed, the cost per unit typically decreases compared to smaller plants. Germany, Japan, and California have all stimulated the solar market. Photovoltaic solar panels have already come down in price by 90% over the last 20 years.

Stable Solar Energy Policy

The US had impressive solar energy incentives under the Carter administration, which quickly vanished when Reagan took office. There is currently a 30% commercial tax credit for solar energy, but it is set to expire at the end of the year.

There are purchase agreements for 3.2 gigawatts of concentrated solar power during 2007, but solar power plants cannot be constructed before the tax credit expires. The coal, nuclear, and oil industries have stable energy policies and the same is needed for solar energy to thrive.

Related Posts on Solar Energy

:
Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil?
Senate Coalition Introduces Clean Energy Tax Package
Solar Panels and the Quest for $1/Watt
Clean Energy Intro: Solar Businesses
4 Things to Consider Before Going Solar

Photo Credit: Ausra

Ford Motor company announced today it would be offering a new range of alternative-fuel vehicles by early 2010, powered by what some think is the US’s only hope for energy independence: coal.

Ford says that it will be converting the massive amount of empty storage space found on their larger trucks into mobile coal-storage and processing containers:

“We’ve done some serious research on coal—since it will be the 21st century’s predominant fuel—and we’ve come up with some interesting results. For example, in extensive polling, we found that American’s don’t really care which fuel they use, as long as it’s cheap. Coal is by far the cheapest source of domestic energy we’ve got. Second, we also found that 98% of the bed space in our large trucks goes unused about 100% of the time. So, we just put two and two together.”

The company estimates that an F-350 could haul about 1,000 lbs of coal without any noticeable sag. Raw coal (yeah, the black blocky-looking stuff) will be fed into the bed of the truck were it will be processed by an onboard coal gasifier.

“It really doesn’t require any energy to get the coal from the bed of the truck into the gasifying unit,” said engineer Mark Driver. “Instead of installing expensive micro-conveyor belts, we’ve developed a coal chute that uses one of nature’s most powerful forces… uh, gravity. Also, if the fuel ever gets low in one of these things, you can just stamp on the brakes and it will refill the gasifier.”

While Ford is keeping technical details hush-hush, Mark showed me a picture of the gasifying unit: It’s a cylindrical, heat-proof container about the size of a beer fridge. The only space engineers could find to install it was underneath the rear passenger seats, but that allowed them to use waste heat from the gasifier to power the rear seat warmers.

Apparently, the gasifying unit uses electricity and waste heat from the motor to power up, and then burns a small amount of coal to start the gasification reaction. Liquid fuel produced from the coal is filtered and sent directly to the fuel tank.

It isn’t any big secret why major US auto manufacturers have been looking at coal. The world’s oil production has probably already peaked, but the US still has about 200 years of coal left—more than enough to power us into the foreseeable future.

Presently, coal can be converted into fuel in two ways: 1) by conversion into a liquid fuel called ’synfuel’, or 2) by using coal-powered electricity to make hydrogen. But both of these require extensive front-end processing that can be expensive. Plus, they increase greenhouse-gas emissions over regular fuel by an order of magnitude.

Ford says it’s figured out a way to substantially decrease the cost of the conversion of coal-to-liquids by ‘distributed energy generation’, ie making customers pick up and process their own fuel. They’ll also be adding extensive catalytic-converter technology to their new line of coal-powered trucks to keep emissions at or below equivalent levels. The company claims this is a major step to ‘green’ its image and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Ford spokesman Jim Cain commented, “When General Motors announced it would be making most of their vehicles hybrids by 2020—which I might add are some of the biggest vehicles on the planet—we realized it was time to act. We’ve been looking at coal for a long time, but it wasn’t until recent advances in technology that we realized, a-ha! we can do this!”

Ford’s engineers based their concept vehicle on Ford’s F-X50 line of heavy-duty trucks, called the F-C50 (’C’ for ‘Coal’).

Customers were already psyched about the announcement: “My grandparents were coal-miners, and this is awesome!” said one man. “On 500 lbs. of coal I could drive from Pennsylvania to Mississippi!”

But some have criticized the development as a region-specific solution. “How am I going to fill up on coal in the middle of New Mexico?”

Environmental groups’ comments weren’t even included since I’m lazy and would have had to write another paragraph.

APRIL FOOLS!

Related Post: International Whaling Moratorium Lifted = Biofuel Bonanza

Last year’s post caused quite a stir. Listen to Max’s podcast to find out why.

These aren’t jokes (but maybe should be):
Air Force Will Be Coal-Powered by 2011
GM Unveils The E85 ‘Green Hummer’
ADM to Pump Ethanol Plant’s CO2 Under Illinois

Photo Credit

A Navajo Nation enterprise has filed a lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday for dragging its feet on an air permit for a proposed coal-fired power plant. Dine Power Authority of the Navajo Nation and Houston-based Sithe Global Power have partnered to build the $3 billion, 1500 megawatt Desert Rock plant. The group filed for a permit back in 2004 and is still awaiting a final decision. “Time is money,” said Steven Begay, the general manager of DPA. Begay added, “Sithe is spending money, and we’re spending money. The longer we wait, the more money we spend … and we don’t want to do that. We want to move forward.”

Sithe has alredy invested about $20 million in the project and the lawsuit claims the tribe is losing $5 million per month in tax revenue for each month the permit is delayed. The investor group announced in January that they would be suing the agency, and that they would be represented by friend of ‘big energy,’ Giuliani and Bracewell. Apparently Rudy Giuliani will find ways to assert his political will, even if he can’t be President.

The air permit would set limits for emissions covered under the federal Clean Air Act, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulates and lead emissions. Both federal officials and Desert Rock developers have said the draft permit contains some of the strictest controls ever set for a coal-fired power plant in the United States.

But not everyone is as excited about what would be the third coal-fired power plant in the Four-Corners region. Environmental groups, and Navajo environmentalists argue that Desert Rock would be unhealthy for local residents and the environment. This, like most other power plant sitings, is an issue of environmental health and justice. The New Mexico Environment Department and others have criticized the draft permit for not including enforceable conditions to address adverse visibility and for not analyzing mercury or carbon dioxide emissions. Others have complained that a better understanding of existing air quality conditions in the Four Corners region is needed before acceptable standards can be set for Desert Rock.

As awareness about global climate change has deepened in the US, the pace of permitting new coal-fired power plants has fallen-off considerably. Big coal is mounting a big pushback to fend off coal’s image as a dirty fuel and win favor in the court of public opinion. Until the feds either pass meaningful climate legislation, or the EPA takes a firm stance on regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (as they were instructed by the Supreme Court), there is not much for EPA policymakers to hang their hats on.

My belief is that there are some very wise people at the EPA who are blocking a decision on this permit until there has been a clearer signal from the administration, or a precedent-setting case brought to the Supreme Court. At least, that is my hope.

Gallup Independent

CNN/Money

Desert Rock Blog

Desert Rock Clean Air Proposed Permit

Photo: Wolfgang Staudt

Last week, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed a bill that recognizes that surface owners control the underground pore spaces where carbon dioxide could be stored or sequestered. A companion bill, gives the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality the authority to regulate the long-term storage of carbon dioxide.

“With the signing of these two bills today, Wyoming puts itself in the forefront of carbon sequestration legislation. This is a forward-thinking approach to protect both Wyoming’s economy and Wyoming’s environment.” Gov. Freudenthal called the legislation a “groundbreaking” framework for carbon capture and sequestration

Earlier this year, Freudenthal told the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee that the Wyoming Legislature had an opportunity to lead the nation in regulating long-term carbon capture and sequestration.

The strange thing about this law, is that it takes the overriding principle of so-called “split-estates” and turn them on their heads. You see, when sub-surface mineral rights are not owned by the same party as owns the surface rights, this is called a split-estate. Split-estate land development has allowed the BLM to lease out sub-surface mineral reserves of oil and gas to the highest-bidding energy developers. Unfortunately for surface owners, access to precious minerals trumps virtually any other use, and there is little one can do to prevent the oil and gas underneath their land. When push comes to shove, there is often little regard for the surface owner’s rights.

This bill would essentially put sub-surface mineral development rights in the hands of the surface owners (presumably ranchers, farmers, oil and gas companies, etc.), who would then have the legal right to fill the cavernous subsurface voids with carbon from coal-fired power plants. My question is this, do we actually have the technology that tells us exactly where the carbon dioxide would go once it is pumped back into the ground well enough to determine the proper surface owner? There is something funny about this law and I don’t like the path it could take us down.

WyomingNews.Com

Photo: wyoming.gov

Although he wants the UK to lead the world in renewable energy, he argues that some form of coal will be needed to work with renewables. The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, argue that coal cannot be clean without carbon capture and storage. The problem is that technology is still years away from commercialization and the amount of money the UK is investing in its research is small.

This sparring comes while Hutton’s department is considering an application to build the UK’s first new coal plant in 24 years.

The question the UK and the rest of us have to grapple with is: Is coal a part of our energy future at all? Should coal plants have to commit to carbon capture and storage in order to be approved?

Abigail Dillen with EarthJustice — a law group that sued to to block the loan program because of the reasons above — put it this way:

This is a big decision. It says new coal plants can’t go to the federal government for money at least for the next couple years, and these are critical times for companies to get these plants built.

The suspension isn’t indefinite, but no loans will be issued this year and none are likely in 2009. That means at least four proposed coal plants in Kentucky, Illinois, Arkansas and Missouri are out of luck unless they want to look into more expensive loans on the open market or private funding. Kansas and Wyoming have canceled coal plants in the last few months because of construction costs and global warming concerns.

This decision comes on the heels of banks announcing closer scrutiny of projects that involve global warming emissions and are thus likely to be risky when regulations and/or fines are imposed down the road. The head of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association also said that the federal government is responding to “nervousness” among lenders over carbon legislation before Congress.

So if the global warming implications make building coal plants too risky, then the state (or the feds) need to also set policies to encourage the development of rural renewable energy and efficiency. Some states are doing this (like Minnesota, with rural community-owned wind power provisions) and there should be more out there. As we move to placing a higher cost on dirty power, so too must we also balance that demand with increased attention on renewables and (especially) energy efficiency.

Forbes.com

Editor’s note: Welcome to “Tangled Up in Green,” Red, Green and Blue’s weekly debate over the hot issues in environmental politics. Each week, writers Ranjit Arab and Adam Bowman will “throw down the glove” on current events involving environmental policy, legislation and citizen action. Adam and Ranjit are both graduate students in journalism at the University of Kansas, and currently enrolled in Professor Simran Sethi’s “Media and the Environment” course.

In Holcomb, Kansas, there rages a battle over energy, jobs, and economy.

The Sunflower Electric Company has a plan to build two coal-fired power plants that would produce 1400 megawatts of power. And until the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Roderick L. Bremby, denied the application for an air quality permit, they probably would be breaking ground right now.

People in the more populated Eastern part of Kansas, (which is pretty much all powered by coal), want to abandon the coal for sustainable wind energy. For Kansas, wind makes a lot of sense. Wind maps show that we are sitting in a very productive wind energy area. Basically any state in the Great Plains has an abundance of wind at their disposal. And the good news is, there isn’t any waste emissions or land ruining strip mining to harvest this energy.

But what about Eastern and Western States that aren’t sitting on a wind gold mine?

Kenneth Defeyes writes in his book, Beyond Oil, that coal, “is the best of fuels; it is the worst of fuels.”

Coal is cheap. (Not including the environmental costs.) And more importantly, we have the largest reserve in the world. Which means that we aren’t in conflict with foreign countries for our energy. We can dictate the costs.

Coal is the dirtiest of dirty energies. From excavation to consumption, it pollutes. There have been many advances in reducing the amount of mercury and sulfur dioxide emitted by coal plants. But they still contribute to the majority of green house gas emissions in the world. In 2004, 10 billion tons of CO2 were emitted into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Wouldn’t it be great if we could get rid of the best of fuels worst byproducts?

There has been a buzzword in fossil fuels lately, clean coal.

At the National Governor’s Association annual winter meeting, energy was at the heart of the event. Governors from coal-rich states say it is irresponsible not to have coal in the energy debate. They put a lot of stock in new technologies to curb the emissions from coal. There is a lot of skepticism however, from Governors of renewable energy rich states, and environmentalists.

One clean coal technology already in use is coal gasification. It basically boils the coal into gaseous elements. These can then easily be separated and used for other purposes. Unfortunately there aren’t a lot of uses for CO2. However, Basin Electric in North Dakota has found a buyer for their waste.

PanCanadian Petroleum is pumping the gas into porous rock about a mile underground. This forces oil out of the rock. Pumping CO2 into the gro