As the new home of MASSPIRG's environmental work, Environment Massachusetts can be contacted regarding this news release.
Over
150 Proposed Plants Would Boost Global Warming Pollution by 10 Percent,
Coal Consumption by 30 Percent; Dirty Technologies Predominate
Energy
companies are planning to build over 150 coal-fired power plants across
the United States, according to a report released today by
Massachusetts Public Interest Group (MASSPIRG). Far from enhancing
America’s energy security, the wave of proposed plants – most of them
powered by dirty, last-generation technologies – would dramatically
increase global warming emissions and pose energy security and economic
problems.
“We’re
lining up for a sprint in the wrong direction on Massachusetts' energy
policy,” said Frank Gorke of MASSPIRG. “Expanding our dependence on
coal would only worsen its impact on global warming emissions and
intensify the other environmental impacts and economic risks.”
The
MASSPIRG analysis, based on information from the U.S. Department of
Energy and published reports, documented the potential impacts of
completing the 150 plants proposed across the U.S. Among the impacts
would be the following:
A 10 percent increase in U.S. global warming emissions.
This increase would occur amid urgent scientific warnings about the
dangers posed by global warming and growing consensus that, to avoid
the worst consequences, America and the world must achieve steep cuts
in global warming emissions by the middle of this century.
A 30 percent increase in U.S. coal demand,
which would require the opening of new mines and expanded
infrastructure for delivering that coal to power plants. The increase
in coal demand would exacerbate the environmental devastation caused by
coal mining, which has already denuded more than seven percent of
Appalachian forests, buried 1,200 miles of streams in fill, and
resulted in the release of hundreds of millions of pounds of toxic
chemicals. It would also increase the likelihood of future cost
increases for coal.
Expanding America’s coal demand would come at a high price,” said Joe
Lovett of the Appalachian Center. “New mines would level more
mountains, permanently bury hundreds of miles of pristine mountain
streams under billions of tons of mining waste and continue to
devastate local communities located near the mines.”
$137 billion invested in dirty, outdated coal-burning technology.
Despite recent hype about the promise of “clean coal” – including the
prospect of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from power
plants underground – only 16 percent of the proposed plants nationwide
would use coal gasification technology, and none would incorporate
carbon capture and storage. The rest would use older technologies that
are already responsible for massive global warming emissions and the
release of large quantities of pollutants responsible for human health
problems.
Lost opportunity for investment in cleaner technologies. Investing
the $137 billion slated for new coal-fired power plants into cleaner
alternatives would yield economic and energy security benefits for the
United States. If invested in energy efficiency, those funds could
reduce U.S. electricity demand by about 19 percent in 2025 vs. business
as usual – obviating the need for the all of the coal plants on the
drawing board. If invested in wind energy, the United States could
develop 110 gigawatts of the best wind energy locations in the western
U.S., which could produce electricity at an overall cost comparable to
coal.
“We
could avoid the need to build any new coal plants if we simply invested
the same amount of money in energy efficiency,” said Travis Madsen, a
policy analyst who authored the report for MASSPIRG, “and we’d save
money at the same time.”
Economic risks for ratepayers, utilities and generators,
who could be liable for the cost of complying with any new rules to
limit global warming emissions from power plants – rules that are
increasingly likely as evidence mounts of the potential environmental
and economic impacts of global warming.
“Companies
that build coal-fired power plants today are gambling with their
investors’ money,” said Leslie Lowe of the Interfaith Center on
Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of investors promoting social
responsibility. “They are betting that operating coal fired power
plants will continue to be cheap, despite the near certainty that
global warming pollution will be regulated within the lifetime of the
plants.”
Despite
these problems, the “coal rush” appears to be accelerating across the
United States. In April, TXU Corporation announced plans for eight new
coal-fired units in Texas, adding to three previously announced
projects, for a total of 8,600 MW and $10 billion in capital
investment. In June, NRG Energy announced six new coal-fired projects
from Texas to Connecticut. And in July, PacifiCorp announced plans for
two new coal-fired facilities to serve markets in Oregon.
The report, Making Sense of the Coal Rush: The Consequences of Expanding America’s Dependence on Coal, calls
for several steps to stem the “coal rush.” First, our leaders should
join Idaho officials in establishing a moratorium on new coal plants
in, in order to evaluate the environmental and economic impacts.
Second, our leaders should establish a cap on carbon dioxide pollution,
to be lowered over time. Third, public money should not be spent on
coal technology. Finally, our leaders should dramatically expand
programs to develop energy efficiency and renewable energy resources.
At
the federal level, on June 20, Rep. Waxman introduced the Safe Climate
Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. It would require the U.S. to
reduce its global warming pollution 15 percent by 2020 and by 80
percent by 2050. To achieve these targets, the bill calls for improved
energy efficiency and a greater reliance on clean, renewable energy
sources, while providing companies flexibility in meeting the
pollution-reduction goals through a “cap-and-trade” program. Senator
Jeffords of Vermont is introducing a similar bill in the Senate today.
“
America could substantially reduce its global warming pollution using
existing technology to improve energy efficiency and increase the use
of clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and
biomass,” said Gorke. “What’s more, these steps would be good for
America’s economy; creating jobs and improving productivity. But, none
of this is possible if we stake our future on coal.”
