Minnesota’s Xcelsior Energy has been proposing a new Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) coal plant on the Iron Range of Northern Minnesota. IGCC, also called “clean coal” has long been touted as a global warming solution, despite the fact that it still relies on the most carbon-polluting fuel source, and has not demonstrated effective sequestration ability. Youth climate leaders nationwide have been working for years to stop coal from becoming the political way forward, since it isn’t really a solution, so here’s some promising news.
Administrative Law Judges ruled that the Mesaba IGCC project is niether an Innovative Energy project, nor a least-cost option for electrical production, and have recommended that the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) be denied. This decision, though not the end of the Mesaba effort, signals a major victory for local citizens groups like Citizens Against the Mesaba Project (CAMP), youth climate leaders, and those opposing the expansion of IGCC nationwide. Interestingly, it also pleases the large power utility (Xcel Energy) which would otherwise be forced to buy high-cost electricity from the facility under state regulation – Xcel agrees that this plant is not the right direction, as it is taking the first steps towards considering a fundamentally different electrical mix. By 2020, Xcel in Minnesota is mandated to produce 30% of it’s electricity from renewable sources, including at least 25% wind energy.
Check out the official ruling and arguments given against the project!
“Clean Coal” is more efficient than regular coal (~45% as opposed to ~30%) so global warming pollution per kilo-watt-hour is reduced as compared with regular coal. Since the coal is first gasified, toxic emissions like sulfur and mercury can be extracted prior to burning the gas, preventing their escape into the atmosphere. Since the flue gases of the gas turbine have a much higher concentration of carbon dioxide than regular coal, proponents argue that IGCC also allows carbon sequestration – pumping carbon into subterranean aquifers to prevent atmospheric release. However:
- toxics may be stored on site or impact the local community rather than going into the atmosphere. Just because it’s not burned doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
- carbon sequestration has not been effectively demonstrated on a large scale or over a long-term and is only possible in some geologic zones. Most of northern Minnesota, including the location of the Mesaba facility cannot support carbon capture.
- of the new coal plants proposed nationwide, only 16% are IGCC, and NONE of these have proposed including carbon capture and sequestration technology, so the argument that coal is advancing climate neutrality is defunct.
- IGCC is very expensive – on the level of nuclear energy and solar. If we’re going to spend that much money, why don’t we use much more sustainable technologies? Better yet, spend less cash and go to true renewables: wind is much cheaper.
- IGCC still require cooling water, large transmission lines, and in the case of Mesaba, destroys virgin forest.
- Like other fossil energy facilities, IGCC generates little long-term employment, unlike wind and other clean energy sources.
- Still relies on destructive, dangerous, and polluting extraction, often violating the rights of local communities.
IGCC, also called “Clean coal” has been touted by the energy industry as the way of the future. The defeat of Mesaba is a step towards defining a better solution, and could lead decisions around the country. Rulings on similar IGCC facilities in Delaware, Indiana, New York, and Florida are pending – these early movers are closely watching other approval processes – so the solid reasons given for Mesaba’s defeat will help inform decisions elsewhere. With a lot of work by leaders nationwide, I hope we will soon be able to conclude that IGCC was a costly mistake that we were smart enough to avoid. It also gets all the enviro orgs who have been supporting clean coal to start thinking – real renewables are cheaper and smarter – so let’s do this right!
I look forward to hearing about more victories to put the ‘coal is the future’ idea to rest.
Hi Timothy–Thanks for the good post. At Clean Energy Action we definitely do not see coal as the future–We don’t need it! Also, we don”t have nearly as much as we’ve been told we have which is very good news. Check out the Peak Coal report put out about 10 days ago by the Energy Watch Group in Germany. The United States reached peak coal on an energy content basis in 1998! Here is the link http://www.energywatchgroup.org/files/Coalreport.pdf.
Take care and now we’re fighting Xcel in Colorado because out here they are proposing a coal gasification plant! We think it will be hard for them to get approval when people realize how expensive they are and that they don’t manage the carbon dioxide!
Take care. Leslie
Another wrinkle in the carbon sequestration issue is: what about states that do not have suitable geology? I read the recent release on North Carolina:
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/institute/news-carboncapture.html
I was wondering if the neighboring states will accept carbon from another state.
People are fighting these things all over the place. Wherever a proposal pops up, in comes a group of concerned citizens trying to protect their air, water, land, and assets, and we have the privilege of being joined in this post by fights led by two great women, regarding the Mesaba project and Leslie from Colorado.
There is no such thing as clean coal!
Re the state export issue – yes some states will accept carbon from other states for sequestration – that’s actually what the Mesaba proposal was suggesting. However, long-distance carbon dioxide pipelines are neither cheap nor energy-efficient …