Several folks have commented (mostly in a nice way, but a few, not so much) on Coal Tattoo recently to question either whether I personally use some alternative to coal-fired energy, or — more to the point — what the nation or the world could really use to replace coal.

What to do about coal is a major part of what I hope to continue writing about with this blog. We’ve got lots of coal in the ground, we’ve got increasing energy needs, but we’ve got huge problems with greenhouse emissions, not to mention the damage coal does to the workers that mine it and the communities around where it is produced.

But I wanted to try to address these recent comments to the blog sooner, rather than later, with a two-part post. This first part will look at what some (in fact many) energy experts see as ways to reduce our reliance on coal. Replacing coal II will look at President Obama’s energy research budget proposal, and give Coal Tattoo readers some information (mostly stolen from other blogs) about whether it’s adequate to help the nation along toward a cleaner energy policy.

First, let’s get one thing straight: Not very many energy experts are at this point thinking that the nation or the world will stop using coal, at least not in what any of us would consider the short term. What most of the debate is about regarding coal-fired power plants is whether we should stop building plants that don’t include carbon capture and storage equipment and plans.

If you want to dig into all of that a little bit more, I’d suggest giving a read to a report called, “Coal Power in a Warming World,” issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Here’s a summary from the organization’s news release on the October 2008 report:

The United States has significant coal reserves and likely will continue to generate power from it for many years to come. Climate projections, however, indicate that the United States must swiftly cut carbon dioxide emissions and ultimately reduce them by at least 80 percent of 2000 levels by mid-century to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Coal is the nation’s largest source of global warming pollution, representing approximately a third of U.S. emissions, equal to the combined output of all U.S. cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats.

The UCS report, “Coal Power in a Warming World,” proposes that the federal government fund five to 10 full-scale demonstration projects to test carbon-capture-and-storage technology’s ability to cut coal power plant emissions. The report also calls for a halt in construction of new coal plants that do not capture and store carbon emissions, even though U.S. utilities are currently planning to build more than 100 plants without the technology. The country can meet its near-term energy needs and curb emissions, the report contends, using readily available renewable-energy and energy-efficiency technologies.

Next, there continue to be a lot of concerns about carbon capture and storage (CCS), whether it will work and how expensive and dangerous it might be. See Carbon capture: Dreaming the impossible?

And a huge part of the upcoming debate is going to be on how soon that technology might be read, and thus on how quickly any carbon dioxide emission cuts should be mandated. President Obama has called for reducing U.S. emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050. More importantly, his campaign plan called for reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The United Mine Workers union (and many in the coal industry) think the 2020 targets Obama proposed are too tight. They’re worried that CCS technology won’t be ready by then, and that Obama’s limits would kill the coal industry.

Others, like Joe Romm at Climate Progress, believe that emission cuts of 20 to 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 are needed to save the world from the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Romm has a more detailed paper on this issue here.

So what do we do about replacing coal?

I did a story back in late December to outline the findings of a Worldwatch Institute study that examined this very issue. Here’s part of that story:

New technologies will move the world economy away from coal and other fossil fuels much more rapidly than experts from the energy industry would have the public believe, according to a new study by the Worldwatch Institute.

Hundreds of old coal-fired power plants that provide 40 percent of the world’s power could be retired in the process, eliminating up to one-third of global carbon dioxide emissions, while creating millions of new jobs, the study asserted.

And here are some concrete steps Worldwatch said we could take:

Make buildings more efficient – Buildings consume about 40 percent of global energy and emit a comparable share of carbon dioxide emissions. More efficient lighting and appliances and improved walls and windows could reduce energy use in buildings by 70 percent or more, with the investment paid for via lower energy bills.

Improve efficiency of power plants – Two-thirds of the energy contained in the fuel for most power plants is converted to waste heat or lost in distribution. Combined heat and power systems can reduce those losses to less than 20 percent and provide the U.S. with 150 gigawatts of generating capacity – more than nuclear power now provides.

Expand wind power – In 2007, wind power represented 40 percent of new generating capacity installations in Europe and 35 percent in the United States. Wind power now costs less than 6 cents per kilowatt-hour on average, less than natural gas and roughly even with coal.

And I’m going to fall back again on Joe Romm, because he understands these issues so well, and explains them so clearly.

First, here’s one post where he explains that energy efficiency is the cheapest alternative we have and also points out that much progress on clean energy can be made without some kind of Moon-shot type of investment program.

More recently, Climate Progress has featured a multi-part post called, “If Obama stops dirty coal, as he must, what will replace it?” Here’s Part 1 and here’s Part 2.

I welcome comments from everyone on all of this — as long as they are constructive, don’t name-call and include some citation or link to where you’re getting your information.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 6, 2009 at 6:23 pm and is filed under Climate policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.