Michael Babcock

ENGL 1102
417/2014
Second draft
~~G ~ Climate Change: What About Coal Power?
r ~~(t\ J
tt/l I amcurrently working on asenior project that is improving the operation of aFlue Gas
Desulfurization (FGD) system for Duke Energy. An FGD is an expensive system that connects
--- - --
to the back end of acoal power plant and reduces the sulfur emissions by 99% to protect the
environment. When I heard about new EPA regulations coming down that would effectively ban
new construction on coal power plants, I realized that I didn't know much about the issue of
climate change and how it will effect our lives in the future. The focus of my inquiry into the
climate change debate centers on the role of coal power and where it fits in our energy future. I
found many perspectives but was able to narrow them into three major groups.
WlftC\1 Ort f~ILLj d
o
( ,
The first group consists of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and -I (A I I fl, t >: I I
________________ - _ ( ;tV ~1(f .:Vlt {h/ILUL /,n
environmental activists who believe that we must do everything we can and more to reduce our
-----------=- --~
impact and conserve the environment. The next group consists of power industry companies and
people with an interest in the coal industry that is being regulated out of existence. Obviously,
-
both of these sides have alarge stake in the discussion and will come with biases. The final
group I would like to discuss is the academic researchers who are studying the facts underlying
the issues and speaking on what they are finding. They tend to have amore practical reasoned
approach and promote energy stability and security.
The EPA's stated mission is to "protect human health and the environment" (EPA, 1).
Based on the available data they have concluded that the emissions caused by humans arethe
deciding factor and underlying cause of the climate change trends we are seeing today. They
present evidence of climate change such as
- , d : > v 1 ' - l VH. WIiLlrn{Af
~lting glaciers, rising sea level, changes in weather
patterns, and acidification of the oceans (EP ,2). It's not hard to surmise that the environment is
their chief concern and that this influences everything they work toward. In addition to the EPA,
there are activist groups that fight for and support regulations limiting corporations. For example,
groups like the Environmental Defense Fund praised the new rule that will prevent the
construction of coal power plants. One of their attorneys, Megan Ceronsky, believes that these
regulations will promote new technologies inthe industry rather than hinder the generation of
power in the future and asserts that, "Opponents of this rule need to explain why they think it's
okay to have unlimited carbon pollution. "(Stein, par. 2) This quote illustrates the extreme nature
of these activists by implying that energy companies want to be able to pollute the environment
as much as they please. Sweeping statements, and unattainable regulations seek to vilify the coal
industry and have influenced the current media climate toward supporting these factions.
Ultimately, the voice represented by these groups contends that the environment is the most
important factor and concludes that humans are the main cause of climate change and we must
~v to-V' vA J L s- \c~ !w :~ -
be stopped.
Admittedly, both sides of the debate exaggerate the position of their opponent to make
them seem ridiculous. The other group with alarge investment in this discussion is the
companies and industry professionals who focus on the economic concerns surrounding coal
power. Currently, coal is the source of about 43% of our power, which makes it the largest
contributor to our energy supply (EPRI, fig. 1). Obviously, major changes in regulations
affecting coal power will also have major consequences for the economy and our energy
security. Sonal Patel, an editor at Powermag.com, quotes Environment Subcommittee Chair
David Schweikerts stating, "These rules are simply athinly veiled attempt to prevent new coal
power and eventually take down natural gas." (Patel, 1) As seen with the environmental activists
above, the coal power industry seeks to paint apicture of the EPA crashing the.Q!lQ!!!Ydue to
unreasonable regulations and controls on the businesses that employ us. This voice from the
_ _ _ _ _ _~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ A
industry argues that an attempt to change too rapidly ~n~he scale of the power industry will
--
result in huge economic damage and back us into acomer that threatens our security and the
---------
availability of energy.
The final voice consists of researchers and academic groups that are researching the
technology and facts of the issue. The ones I will focus on advocate that energy, and how we get
it, is one of the most important issues of our time because everything in our society depends on
the availability and affordability of energy (Switch). In support of this academic reasoned
approach, Bhown and Freeman at the Electric Power Research Institute published an academic
journal on the status of carbon capture technology. In it they produced atechnology readiness
level (TRL) rating from 1to 9 for various kinds of technology that would allow coal power
plants to compete in this environmentally focused society. A commercial scale technology rates
as a9and something that is purely conceptual would rank as a 1(Bhown, 5). They found that
none of the required technologies rate as commercially ready to implement on coal power plants
today (Bhown, 6). This means that there is some merit to the industry asserting that they can't
meet the new regulations with current technology. Their conclusions remained hopeful that a
combination of expertise across multiple industries could lead to an attainable level of emissions
control that would please environmentalists and the power industry. Dr. Tinker, of the Switch
Energy Project, believes that one of the largest driving factors is the scale of energy demand and
thinks the solution lies with consumers reducing the total demand on the system, which would
allow for more flexibility in how we produce that energy (Switch). Finally, these academic
voices conclude that because of the scale involved, our energy security must drive areasoned
balanced policy to avoid facing the looming consequences.
~d_ U. Imagine atriangle with the environment, the economy, and energy security at each corner
~ \)",'
) \f\ a\ and these groups of voices engaged in athree-way tug-of-war. Each voice or groups of voices in
\ ~~ ~<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- ~o~, (\' the media fail to see the merits in their opponent's arguments and charges ahead with their own
~ d\~1- --
tV
-( agenda. Pulling the United States too far towards anyone corner will result in major
~
consequences in another. For example, if we over regulate coal and natural gas power the cost of
energy could easily double and cripple the economy. Ifwe only focused on producing energy as
cheaply as possible, we could become over dependant on other nations or pollute the very air we
breathe as has been seen in Beijing and other areas of China. If we focus only on energy security
and using our own natural resources like natural gas "fracking", we could pollute our clean
drinking water supplies or ruin local ecosystems. In the end, abalanced educated approach to
this major issue seems like the best course of action. Unfortunately, digging into the facts behind
this issue requires alot of effort and leads to people giving up their responsibility and trusting the
rhetoric of whatever media personality they have an affinity for. Hopefully, seeing how
differently these voices approach the topic of coal power leads you to do your own research and
to be skeptical of what is presented as fact inthe media.
.s, 11 )(HIA( d ttt\ J tY A ov1c1
I
!t\dv1-1vio \, Jut bl(; l~11111.9 W( ~1 o-IlH(
-'Iruwd Atfl ~ (1)dh11[CSI'lJfl ~(t ~IA(, OIM) w\,1~io<>l ()~ buAIA sfcil.J