“Expanding our
dependence on coal will
only make global warming
and other environmental
and public health impacts
from coal worse.”
Dena Mottola
Executive Director
|
Energy companies are planning to build
over 150 coal-fired power plants across
the United States, according to “Making
Sense of the Coal Rush,” a report released
on July 20 by Environment New Jersey
and colleagues in the environmental
community.
If built, the new coal plants—many of
which are upwind of New Jersey—would
increase total global warming pollution
by more than 10 percent and lock in
decades of excess emissions.
“This rush to build new coal generation
would take us in the wrong direction on
energy policy, here in New Jersey and
around the nation,” said Dena Mottola,
executive director of Environment New
Jersey. “Expanding our dependence on
coal will only make global warming and
other environmental and public health
impacts from coal worse.”
The report, “Making Sense of the Coal
Rush,’’ examines the consequences of
building these plants, including: increased
pollution; financial risks for energy companies,
investors and the economy; increased
mining impacts; and the lost opportunity
to invest in cleaner, more sustainable—
and often cheaper—solutions like energy
efficiency and renewable energy.
Coal: Making a comeback
The level of added coal-fired electric generating
capacity now proposed has not been
seen since the 1960s and 1970s. There have
been no new coal plants built in New Jersey
since 1994; and nationwide, the amount of
new coal plants has been declining steeply
since 1980, until now.
In early July, West Deptford Township
announced that it would sell 300 acres to
LS Power to build a new coal plant within
the town. And state regulators are also
considering allowing a currently inactive
coal plant in Cape May County, BL England,
to be re-powered and expanded. The
BL England Plant, now owned by Atlantic
City Electric Company, is up for sale.
Moving backward on global
warming solutions
The early effects of global warming are
evident across the United States and
worldwide. Left unchecked, global warming
threatens to cause wide-ranging problems
for New Jersey and the nation, such
as flooding of coastal areas, drought, species
extinction and disease outbreaks.
In May, Environment New Jersey called on
Gov. Corzine to make a public commitment
that New Jersey would make steep reductions
in its global warming emissions and
become a model for the rest of the states
and the nation. The governor committed to
begin working on a plan in September.
“But New Jersey would be moving backwards
on global warming if new coal plants
are built here. Coal-fired power plants can
last for 50 years or more, making it much
harder to achieve emission cuts on this
scale,” said Dena Mottola, Executive Director
of Environment New Jersey.
“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,” continued Mottola.
“What’s more, these steps would be good for America’s economy; creating jobs and
improving productivity. But not if we stake
our energy future on coal.”
Missed opportunities
Building the 150 coal plants proposed
around the nation would require a capital
investment of $137 billion dollars. Investing
that money in energy efficiency instead
would reduce national electricity demand
by about 19 percent in 2025 vs. business
as usual (saving 1 million GWh per year).
These savings would eliminate the need
for the all of the coal plants on the drawing
board. Alternately, investing that money
in wind energy would allow the development
of 110 GW of the best wind energy
locations in the western United States,
which could produce electricity at an
overall cost comparable to coal.
Here are the steps we can take to stem
the “coal rush”
• Our state and national leaders should
commit to the significant global warming
emission reductions and establish
a cap on carbon dioxide pollution, to
be lowered over time to achieve a 70 to
80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions by the middle of the century;
• The governor and state Legislature
should join Idaho officials in establishing
a moratorium on new coal plants
and large coal plant expansions in
New Jersey, in order to evaluate the
environmental and economic impacts.
This move would give policymakers time
to study and understand the true costs of
coal-fired electric generation compared
to safer alternatives. The moratorium
should only be lifted if it can be demonstrated
that coal is the most cost effective
way to deal with global warming.
• Policymakers should stop subsidizing
coal. Public money should not be
spent on coal technology. From 1950
to 1997, the coal industry received
$70 billion in federal tax subsidies.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gives
the coal industry another 7.8 billion
of taxpayers dollars; and
• Our leaders should dramatically expand
programs to develop energy efficiency
and renewable energy resources and
make these safer alternatives the primary
means of meeting our growing energy
needs. The state and the nation should
adopt strong energy efficiency standards
for new homes, commercial buildings,
and gas and electric appliances, and
increase subsidies for renewable energy
installations. The federal government
should take its cue from New Jersey
and establish a strong renewable energy
requirement on utility companies.
“Our leaders must take decisive action to
stop the rush to build new coal plants and
avoid the worst effects of global warming,” --Dena Mottola
Carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants
Coal-fired electricity generation makes up a vast majority of global warming pollution
from the energy sector.
|
