Electricity From Coal Isn’t Cheap
June 2009
by Fr. John S. Rausch

When a dike broke at the Kingston Fossil Plant spilling a billion gallons of toxic fly-ash sludge into the waters and homes of eastern Tennessee, the future of coal got blacker. The most abundant fossil fuel in America looked "so yesterday." From its digging to its burning to its cleaning up, the use of coal remains problematic as a major source of electricity.

While nearly half of coal fly ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, is recycled through commercial use, the majority of it gets buried in landfills or stored in ponds. Six inches of rain in ten days and 12 degree temperatures wreaked havoc in December 2008 on the earthen dam near Harriman, Tennessee. A devastating fish kill in the Emory River and 12 flooded homes resulted from the spill.

Before fears about spills, however, come worries about burning coal for electrical power. In the older coal-fired power plants fine airborne particles formed from soot, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and metals account for an estimated 24,000 premature deaths in the U.S. with an average of 14 life-years lost per person. Mercury spewed from these plants endangers 8 percent of American women of childbearing age with its unsafe levels, exposing 322,000 newborns to the risk of neurological problems.

In the newer plants built since 1985 producing 12 percent of U.S. electricity, state of the art anti-pollution technology has significantly lessened emissions that cause acid rain, fine particulate pollution and mercury toxicity. Yet, even these modern plants do not capture their carbon dioxide, the most significant greenhouse gas.

In 2006 the U.S. emitted 2.12 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a quarter of the world’s emissions, and coal-fired power plants contributed 36 percent to that U.S. total. Worldwide coal supplies 40 percent of all electricity, but accounts for over 70 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions of the electrical sector. To counter the drooping image of coal, the industry launched a public relations campaign to make coal appear more environmentally friendly.

"Clean Coal," the industry’s new icon, represents an imprecise term describing ways to reduce the environmental impact of coal-based electricity. Most often the term refers to the process of carbon capture and sequestration, where carbon dioxide is pumped into underground caverns and stored.

Critics charge that carbon sequestration has not been demonstrated on a commercial scale at any coal-fired power plant, and the costs and lack of investment in the technology cast doubts about its economic viability even by 2020. All new proposed coal plants with the most advanced scrubbers will still release 100 percent of their carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

America’s foremost climatologist, NASA scientist James Hansen, claims sustaining the level of civilization we have developed on our planet requires reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to below 350 ppm (parts per million). Currently the number stands at 387 ppm, explaining why, he feels, the Arctic has melted with rapid speed and why the pH of the oceans has changed dramatically within a decade.

Public opinion has also shifted concerning climate change, occasioned in part by the intensity of Hurricane Katrina. An October 2007 poll by the Opinion Research Corporation showed that 75 percent of Americans would support a five-year moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, if accompanied by increased investment in renewable power research.

People of faith recognize the difference between environmental rhetoric, called "greenwashing," and green technology. As stewards of creation, they pursue authentically safe, clean energy sources so people in Appalachian communities like Harriman won’t pay the price for cheap electricity from coal.