Coal's Time Is Up In US, Environmentalist Warns
US: February 15, 2008
NEW YORK - The United States should leave its estimated 200 years' supply of
coal in the ground and invest in wind farms and solar technology for its
power-generating needs, a leading environmental analyst said on Thursday.
Wall Street, politicians and public opinion have all turned so dramatically
against coal in the last year over climate concerns that it is probably "the
beginning of the end of the coal industry," said Lester Brown.
He claimed in a conference call with reporters that efforts to clean up coal
and develop carbon sequestration technology to prevent emissions from
coal-fired power plants were too far off and would be more expensive than
investing in energy efficiency and alternative power sources.
"Carbon sequestration has been something the coal industry has leaned on to
avoid facing the full force of the climate concerns and will probably not be
a viable option," said Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, a
nonprofit environmental organization.
The coal industry shot back, accusing Brown of exaggerating coal's
contribution to climate change and ignoring the economic necessity of power
generation.
"This is part of a concerted effort to grossly exaggerate opposition to
coal-based electricity generation," said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the
National Mining Association (NMA), which groups together coal and other
mining companies.
"The NGO's (nongovernmental organizations) are on a jihad, exaggerating
anecdotal evidence to conclude that coal is on the way out. Demand for coal
in the world, let alone the United States, continues to set records, despite
what they say.
"Affordable power is critical for the US economy," said Popovich. According
to NMA figures, US electricity utilities consumed 1.05 billion tons of coal
last year, up from 859.3 million tons in 2000.
'KISS OF DEATH'
Brown noted that a US Department of Energy report last year listed 151
coal-fired power plants in the planning stages and talked about "a
resurgence in coal-fired electricity."
But during 2007, 59 of those proposed plants were either refused licenses by
state governments or quietly abandoned. Almost 50 more are being contested
in the courts, and the remaining plants will likely be challenged as they
reach the permitting stage, he said.
"The public at large is turning against coal," he said, citing a 2007
national poll by the Opinion Research Corp in which only 3 percent of people
chose coal as their preferred source for electricity.
Legislators in Texas and Florida have refused to license new coal-fired
plants, and last August coal "took a heavy political hit" when US Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he was against building coal-fired
power plants anywhere in the world.
Coal's future is also suffering as Wall Street turns its back on the
industry, Brown said. Citigroup and Merrill Lynch have both downgraded coal
company stocks across the board.
This month, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America
said lending for coal-fired power plants will be contingent on utilities
demonstrating they would be economically viable under future federal rules
on emissions.
"This appears to be the kiss of death for the industry," Brown said,
especially if a national moratorium on coal-fired plants is passed by
Congress.
Asked by Reuters what the US should do with its vast coal reserves, given
the growing demand for electricity, Brown said: "I'm in favor of leaving it
right where it is."
And he dismissed coal-to-liquid technology, in which coal can be converted
into vehicle fuels, as "too carbon-intensive."
"The cheapest alternative is investing in efficiency," he said, claiming
that if the US shifted to long-life compact florescent light bulbs, it would
save enough power to close 80 coal-fired power plants.
Story by Steve James
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
 |