New Mexico is currently leading the charge both for and against legislation to stimulate US renewable energy. Senator Bingaman (D) is the main author of a bill that will require US utilities to pull 15% of their power from renewable sources by 2020. His fellow NM Senator Domenici (R) is a main opponent, forwarding a substitute that would permit nuclear energy and allow states more wiggle room in meeting requirements. The mostly Democratic support barely missed the 60 necessary votes to end debate on the bill and are planning to bring it to the floor next week. Recent press has highlighted objections to the bill from the automaking industry and the low-wind-potential South, but one opponent that has not appeared in the press is the coal lobby.
Coal state senators are hoping to get coal-to-liquids (C2L) technology lumped in with low- or no-carbon alternative fuels. There are a number of problems with this. For starters, coal is the most carbon-intensive fuel in power production today. It is a fossil fuel, its main and only advantage being domestic abundance. Proponents tout upcoming C2L and gasification technologies to turn the coal into liquids for transportation and gas for power generation, while extracting most of the associated carbon and burying it underground.
If we had no other options, I would take a hard look at C2L, but we have demonstrated alternatives in wind, solar, and biomass. I am not simply against combustion – landfill methane capture is smart and cost-effective. Removing mountains to reach new coal seams is something else altogether. Coal is a dirty fuel, end of story. Using it for power production requires environmentally devastating mining, processing and long-distance transport to power plants, expensive equipment to remove sulfur and particulates belching from the stack, with the possible addition of expensive C2L and carbon re-injection technologies! We are tied to coal for most of our power production, and I am not in favor of shutting down currently running plants. We do not have large-scale alternatives right now, but the Bingaman bill will take decisive steps to finance technological progress. Let’s run our coal power plants for their useful lives, begin investing in educational and occupational opportunities for the former coal communities of the future, and push renewable technologies. Hard.
June 15, 2007 at 2:59 pm |
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have threatened to filibuster against the Bingaman amendment. As you indicate, this means that 60 votes are needed for this legislation rather than a majority. With the polls showing very strong, indeed overwhelming, support for clean alternative energy sources and for action against global warming, it’s hard to understand this position. Nearly half of all states (24) have similar renewable energy standards already, and some have even passed new laws increasing the percentages of renewable energy required.
The Bingaman Renewable Energy Standard would:
Reduce global warming pollution from electric power plants;
Create brand new manufacturing industries with thousands of new jobs;
Revitalize rural communities through the increased tax base and payments to landowners that wind and other renewable energy projects bring;
Help meet America’s steadily growing electricity demand;
Save consumers more than $100 billion through 2026.
If you support this first meaningful step to fight global warming, contact your Senator’s office through the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and let him/her know you support the Bingaman Renewable Energy Standard.
Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
http://www.awea.org
risingwind.blogspot.com
June 15, 2007 at 8:44 pm |
[...] Both have grave, long-term side effects and high pricetags (for more on coal see my recent post). But Bush also has experience with renewables – let’s not forget that Texas produces more [...]