Ahh, 2007. What a year. The iPhone made its debut (got one). The Harry Potter series comes to an end (never read a single one). Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, OJ Simpson, Kid Rock, and Senator Larry Craig all went to jail. (As did I, but for the climate, not driving drunk or bathroom kink). Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for the climate (but, we still think he should be in jail).
But Fox news has forgotten to mention that in 2007, all our organizing has started to pay off on the fight against coal-fired power plants! Based on research compiled by Coal Moratorium Now! - 59 proposed coal plants were canceled or severely delayed last year!
Despite the attempts of coal-industry front groups (like Americans for Balanced Energy Choices) to portray coal as a necessary or desirable aspect of our future - the fact is it’s a dirty thing of the past. They can pump millions of dollars into sponsoring presidential debates, slick advertising campaigns, or dishonest marketing slogans like “clean coal” - but the fact is, we aren’t buying it. And slowly but surely, regulators, politicians, utilities, and investors (what RAN is focusing on) aren’t buying it either - they are moving to energy efficiency and clean renewable sources as the smart choices for our future.
Check out the press release below - and help spread the word! Thanks for the hard work and support - your efforts make ARE making a difference!
-Matt
Proposed Coal Plants Losing Steam
59 Coal Plants canceled or Shelved in 2007
SAN FRANCISCO—Fifty-nine proposed coal-fired power plants were canceled or shelved during 2007, according to research compiled by Coal Moratorium NOW! and Rainforest Action Network. Both groups are calling for a moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants.
The list, including documentation, is posted online at “Coal Plants Cancelled in 2007.” It includes data supplied by Sierra Club, coalSwarm, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Lab, and utility industry sources.
“Coal-fired power plants are the wrong investment for our climate, our health, and our economy,” said Becky Tarbotton, director of Rainforest Action Network’s Global Finance Campaign. “Utilities, regulators, and investors are realizing that the path ahead is energy efficiency and renewable energy. It’s time to stop financing and building coal and to start funding the future.”
Ted Nace, founder of Coal Moratorium NOW! said, “Although we knew that many plants were being nixed, we were stunned by the total number. It spells real hope for the movement seeking to blunt the coal rush.”
Because coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, coal plants are at the top of the list of global warming threats cited by climate scientists. Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Space Center, the world’s largest climate research agency, told Congress on April 26, 2007, that a moratorium on new coal plants is “the most critical action for saving the planet at this time.”
Among the study’s conclusions:
· Climate concerns played a role in at least 15 plant cancellations. These included five plants in Florida, where Gov. Charlie Crist has made global warming a top issue; a three-unit plant in Kansas opposed by Gov. Kathleen Sibelius; and several plants affected by strict new carbon regulations in western states.
· Coal plants disappeared entirely from some utilities’ long-range plans: Increasingly, coal plants were cancelled before they could even be named, due to increasing regulatory scrutiny of long-range integrated resource plans by states such as Oregon and California.
· Renewables began elbowing out coal: Regulators in several states favored utility-scale renewables over coal. In Delaware, regulators canceled a coal power plant proposed by NRG Energy in favor of an alternative proposal that combined wind and natural gas. In California, the combination of a strict carbon emissions standard and a renewable portfolio standard prompted utilities to enter into contracts for large thermal solar projects sponsored by Ausra, BrightSource, and Solel.
· Grassroots opposition mounted, financial markets cooled to coal: After a spate of enthusiasm in 2006, coal plant financiers in 2007 recoiled from escalating construction costs; litigation by environmental groups; and public opposition to coal expressed through rallies, sit-ins, petitions, and local referenda in Texas, Maine, Montana, Utah, Iowa, Minnesota, Virginia, and elsewhere. As sponsors ran into difficulty raising funds, numerous projects were quietly abandoned.
· More plants were abandoned than rejected: Of the 59 cancelled or sidetracked projects, only 15 were rejected outright by regulators, courts, or local authorities. In the remaining 44 cases, the decision was made by the sponsors themselves. Besides climate concerns, leading reasons for abandoning plants include (1) rapidly rising construction costs, (2) insufficient financing or failure to receive hoped-for government subsidies, and (3) lowered estimates of demand.
· Heavy spending but poor results for “clean coal”: Despite a multi-million dollar advertising campaign by the coal industry in support of its “clean coal” message, the public was unconvinced. An October poll by Opinion Research Corporation showed that 75 percent of American adults would support a five-year moratorium on new coal plants if funding for renewable alternatives was increased and efficiency standards were tightened.
Background on the Coal Boom
After mainly building natural gas turbines during the 1980s and 1990s, utilities returned to coal when natural gas prices jumped in 2000. In May 2007, the Department of Energy’s “Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants” (5/07) study counted 151 proposed coal plants. Five months later, “Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants” (10/07) counted 121 proposed plants. According to a survey completed in the first week of January 2008 by Coal Moratorium NOW! and Rainforest Action Network, the number of proposed plants (including those under construction or recently completed) now stands at 113. Details on the study may be seen at the following links:
· “Coal Plants Cancelled in 2007”
· Proposed Coal Plants: state-by-state descriptions
· Proposed Coal Plants: spreadsheet
· Table of Proposed Coal Plants by Expected Year of Completion
· Table of Proposed Coal Plants by Type of Utility
· Table of Proposed Coal Plants by Region
###
Coal Moratorium NOW! (http://cmNOW.org) tracks the coal boom and advocates for a moratorium on new coal plants. Together with the Center for Media and Democracy, Coal Moratorium NOW! also co-sponsors www.coalSwarm.org, a coal-oriented wiki. Contact: info@cmNOW.org or Ted Nace at 510-331-8743.
Rainforest Action Network (http://www.dirtymoney.org) runs hard-hitting campaigns to break America’s oil addiction, reduce our reliance on coal, protect endangered forests and indigenous rights, and stop destructive investments around the world through education, grassroots organizing, and non-violent direct action.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
History repeats itself? I remember in the late 1970s when the large amount of cancellations occurred for both the coal and nuclear stations due to lack of demand and high interest rates. If memory serves, 56 coal plants were cancelled and 110 nuclear units were cancelled. The cancellations were proportional to the respective orders.
It will be interesting to see what actually gets built with so many competing organizations vying for approval of their plans.
But boy what a great year for nucelar power plants!! Over 300 in development worldwide and 32 of them here in the USA. So good to see a practical and inexpensive technology that’s been slandered for the past 30 years by the great ignorati environmental morons is on the rise again. Looks like the actual out put of a single pair of new Texas reactors from Mitsubishi will produce more power than the entire population of 7500 wind turbines that are producing unrelaible, unpredictable amounts of power almost precisely when nobody needs it - during the past two California summer grid collapses, wind power was generating zilch at the time when electricity was most needed. The environmentalists were upset when this was pointed out.
Things are now looking good for coal plants - use biocoal and keep the power flowing.
A farmers coop in Missouri has now agreed to supply feedstock for biocoal pellets, which not only
make the coal plants some of the least carbon emitting around, but reduce the need for afterburn
scrubbers. Looks like there will be coal-cum-biofuel electrical plants in our future. This avoids the need to waste money on failed alternative energy contraptions like crappy windmills and most
wave machines and solar photovoltaic, three technologies that are doomed. Looks like solar thermal, geothermal, nuclear and biocoal are all that’s going to be needed, or affordable.
Expect significantly higher energy prices going forward. You can’t generate enough megawatts from new wind, solor, geothermal and hydroelectric for it to make a meaningful difference. So what will be built to serve that additional demand? Many say nuclear. That’s great, but nuclear is a long time away. The initial plants will not come online until 2016 at the earliest. I’ve heard estimates of 2020 for the first nuclear plants. To serve incremental load, natural gas plants will have to be built. But the US is already deficient in natural gas and no one wants LNG to be built in their backyard. This will create an additional pull on natural gas prices. Higher natural gas prices means higher power prices. Let’s see how people react when their power bills double. And let’s not forget that natural gas produces 60% of the carbon a coal plant produces. There are additional estimates that the finding and development and pipeline transportation of natural gas raises this percentage even higher.
Hey, I am all for a cleaner environment, but I think we need to be realistic. We have limited natural gas supplies and plentiful coal. Nuclear plants are a ways off and renewables are unrealistic (currently). Get ready for the complaints when power bills skyrocket and there are rolling blackouts in the summer and people’s air conditioning units don’t work.
And how many people railing against coal plants are driving SUVs?
While I agree that increased nuclear will be part of the baseload, my guess is that many other generating technologies will also be employed. The carbon issue may finally get folks to think more about electricity and we can have a more diverse generation portfolio. I have not heard of biocoal, it sounds similar to the other biofuels being discussed.
Huh!
Research conducted by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) contradicts recent claims by critics that coal-fueled power plant construction has died. In addition, the research identified substantial benefits, including economical and environmental returns, resulting from the construction of several new coal-fueled power plants nationwide.
Currently, there are more than 120 coal-fueled power plants currently under or near construction, permitted or in the early stages of development. The US EIA projects the need for an average of 6,000 megawatts (MW) per year through 2030.
The breakdown of new plants according to status and capacity is:
• Currently under construction: 24 (capacity 12,506 MW)
• Near construction: 8 (capacity 4,565 MW)
• Permitted: 13 (capacity 23,240 MW)
• Announced: 76 (48, 440 MW)
“According to the US Energy Information Association (EIA), electricity demand nationwide will nearly double in the next 20 years. With a 250-year supply of coal, the United States is in a position to leverage its most abundant domestic resource to provide secure, affordable energy,” said Joe Lucas, ABEC executive director.
Lucas clearly admits that there have been some high profile coal projects that have either been delayed or cancelled. “But the research shows there are many more projects that have been approved and under construction than have been cancelled,” said Lucas.
Lucas acknowledged that a lot can happen between when a project is announced and a permit is issued and a project begins construction. “But, in order to get a full appreciation of coal’s near-term future, you have to focus as much on what is being built rather just looking at instances where coal projects are in trouble,” said Lucas.
“Construction of these new coal-fueled plants will not only make it possible to meet this growing electricity demand, but help further the development and deployment of technology that increases plant efficiencies and reduces emissions. During the past 35 years, the use of coal in the U.S. has nearly tripled, at the same time, air quality improved and emissions from coal-based electricity are 33 percent lower despite this increased use,” Lucas said.
Lucas also said the research is more than just a running total of what is being built versus projects that have died. It also identifies technology deployment and economic impact.
Every plant listed as under or near construction or permitted has proposed deploying technology including subcritical and supercritical pulverized coal (PC) technology, clean coal fluidized bed technology (CFB) or integrated gasification and combined cycle (IGCC) technology.
Research indicates that coal, in addition to providing affordable electricity, plays an important role in other areas of a state’s economy. According to research, US coal-fueled electricity contributes $1.05 trillion in gross economic output, $362 billion in annual household incomes and 6.8 million jobs in 2015. As a result, halted or deferred plant development may result in insufficient electricity capacity growth, which would affect a state’s economic output, household income and job growth.
“Not only does coal provide a constant, reliable flow of base load power, but its transmission capabilities can help further diversify a state’s energy portfolio. Many wind-generating power sites lack transmission lines needed to send the power to its customers. The construction of new coal-fueled plants can help further advance wind power by providing much needed transmission capabilities wind power generating sites currently lack,” Lucas said.
The following is a list of coal-fueled plants currently under construction, its location and initial opening year:
• Black Hills Wygen plant, Gillette, WY, 2008
• Arkansas River Power Lamar plant, Lamar, CO, 2008
• WPS Resources Weston plant, Rothschild, WI, 2008
• Newmont Mining TS Power plant, Dunphy, NV, 2008
• Santee Cooper Cross plant, Cross, SC, 2009
• East Kentucky Power Spurlock plant, Maysville, KY, 2009
• Omaha Public Power Nebraska City plant, Nebraska City, NE, 2009
• Wisconsin Energy Elm Road plant, Milwaukee, WI, 2009
• TXU Sandow Repower plant, Milam County, TX, 2009
• San Antonio Spruce plant, San Antonio, TX, 2009
• TXU Oak Grove plant, Franklin, TX, 2009
• Salt River Power Springerville plant, Springerville, AZ, 2009
• Springfield, IL Dallman plant, Lake Springfield, IL, 2010
• Springfield, MO Southwest plant, Springfield, MO, 2010
• LG&E Energy Trimble County plant, Trimble County, KY, 2010
• Kansas City P&L Iatan plant, Weston, MO, 2010
• LS Power Plum Point plant, Osceola, AR, 2010
• GenPower/First Reserve Longview plant, Monongalia County, WV, 2011
Roger,
enough coal to last 250 years? that number is in doubt…
http://www.scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=1397
Oh Roger, are you really regurgitating the spin from a coal-industry front group? Have you seen the movie “Thank You For Not Smoking”? Then you understand exactly what ABEC is…..
-Matt
Matt…
You are such a hypocrite.
There is a more than 50% chance the power you are using to write your drivel….talk on your cell phone…turn on your tv…etc. is coming from coal!
I don’t care where the stats come from….it’s fact.
So instead of complaining…come up with a solution! Either that…or live in the dark!!
In fact….chances are all you people live off coal every day unless you live life without electricity.
So…it’s hypocritical to bash our most secure, affordable energy source when in fact, each of you use it!
Another question? Do you drive a car? Does that car not emit pollutants as well?
Furthermore…coal is what’s able to help you actually afford electricity!
What’s the answer to that?
And no…I’m not an employee of the coal industry….just some one who is rational and agrees we can invest in technology to solve a problem (just like everything else)!
I can see carbon sequestration buying time with coal (it is over 50% of US electricity) to allow other energy sources to be developed. Both wind and nuclear can be built faster if the proponents could cut a deal with the opposition. In Japan and Korea, nuclear plants can be built in 4-5 years because they have the same folks building the same design.
Maybe I am too much the engineer, but I could see a combination of geothermal, nuclear, and carbon sequestered coal as the bridge until we figure out our next step.
Roger,
It’s not my fault I was born into a way of “living” dependent on fossil fuels. My responsibility comes in what I do with this life as it’s been presented to me. This is not a matter of running away to the woods, because there is no longer anywhere to escape. But I can do something to work for the transformation of a death-system, even if that means I use, ohmygod, fossil fuels in the process. also, why are you so worried that i’m a hypocrite? are you jesus or something?
Evan
Hey all,
It’s great to have Roger here on the blog - he can dispute me, but I think he’s working with Americans for Balanced Energy Choices which is a coal industry funded campaign to do some good old fashioned green washing. Among other things, they’re down here in South Carolina where I’m working showing up at candidate events to try and convince voters about clean coal.
Better yet, they’re spending over $250,000 on radio ads in the state to encourage voters to “Ask the candidates about clean coal” - I’ll try and get an audio copy to post, it’s pretty classic. Seems like they’re also paying people to patrol the blogs or maybe Roger’s just a concerned citizen. Either way, welcome Roger, glad to have you here - and here’s to the spirited discussion. If you’re down in SC, perhaps we can meet up in person.
There was a great Washington Post article on this campaign which I think someone will blog on soon, but for now, here’s a link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011702837.html
Here’s to attracting the eye of industry folks! You’re doing something right.
Cheers,
J
Nope - as I mentioned before, I’m not employed by the industry.
I’m someone that knows we can’t eliminate a fuel source that accounts for more than half our electricity!
So…you want to get rid of coal? What do you have to replace it and what happens to the electricity bills of people who even today have to choose between heating their homes and eating???
So many trolls, so little time! Folks, as Jamie said, we are certainly doing something right when we attract the attention of trolls for not only the coal industry, but the nuclear industry as well in a single post. Keep writing and keep acting up and keep watching the coal plants fizzle!
2007 was actually a record year for coal. Companies are so busy building them that we do not have enough people to do work. We needed to almost double our size in the next few years to handle all the coal plants under development. Most plants were cancelled b/c the owners did not get the necessary permits to start construction. It’s only a matter of time before they do and start building.
Also commodity prices have sharply risen which has made all new power plant construction more expensive (even wind turbines and solar thermal). Many utilities have put off their plans in an attempt to let prices level off.