West Virginia Redefines Dirty Energy as 'Alternative'

When you hear the phrase "alternative energy," what comes to mind?

Solar power? Wind? Hydroelectric?

Not for West Virginia's political leaders. They think a little differently.

In the recent legislative session, Gov. Joe Manchin championed and state lawmakers approved an energy portfolio standard requiring 25 percent of generation to come from "alternative and renewable" sources by 2025.

But the new standard, which goes into effect this month, defines "alternative" in an unusual way to include natural gas, old tires, coal gas and even waste coal – energy sources that emit significant quantities of climate-warming greenhouse gases, as well as toxic, health-damaging pollutants.

"It's Governor Humpty Dumpty occupying that nice mansion beside the Kanawha River (where he can admire the endless coal barges)," West Virginia Sierra Club Chair Jim Sconyers wrote about the new law. "After all, it was Humpty Dumpty who said, 'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.'"

The new law sets up a system of tradable credits for electricity produced by alternative and renewable sources. While it offers credits for traditional renewable sources including solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal, it also gives credits for what it calls "alternative" sources:

The West Virginia Environmental Council's head lobbyist, Donald S. Garvin, Jr., blasted the new standard in an op-ed, writing:

"No other state includes natural gas as a source of 'alternative' energy. Nuclear energy is included by only a few, and they specify 'advanced generation' nuclear facilities.

"Most states that include 'clean coal' specifically limit it to facilities that include carbon capture and sequestration, or require that they lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Some jurisdictions specifically exclude 'pump-storage' hydropower facilities."

By listing all of these heavily polluting sources as "alternative," Garvin said, the standard undermines the original goal of reducing carbon emissions while creating a system that puts West Virginia "completely out of step" with the rest of the nation.

He also pointed out that by including natural gas and nuclear, the new law may enable West Virginia's utilities to meet the standard without building any renewable energy facilities at all. That because there's no requirement that the electricity provided actually be produced in West Virginia. And American Electric Power – the Ohio-based utility that serves the state through its Appalachian Power unit – already has enough nuclear and natural gas generation to meet the requirement through 2025.

A Toxic Standard for Environmental Health

The new law gives West Virginia the dubious distinction of being the first state to include tire burning in its alternative/renewable portfolio, observes Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network. While that helps dispose of the 290 million or so tires discarded in the U.S. every year, burning tires also release toxic chemicals including cancer-causing lead, benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and dioxin.

The new standard also makes West Virginia the only other state besides Pennsylvania to include in its energy portfolio standard waste coal – mining refuse originally cast aside during processing as too low-quality but which can now be burned thanks to the development of fluidized bed combustion technology.

As with burning tires, this provision helps remove a big waste problem – but the experience of the Pennsylvania communities with the nation's heaviest concentration of FBC waste coal burning power plants raises serious questions about waste coal's potential environmental health impact.

Last week, representatives of the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry held a public meeting in eastern Pennsylvania to discuss a planned $5.5 million research project into what may be causing a confirmed cluster of the rare blood cancer polycythemia vera in the coal mining communities of Schuylkill, Luzerne and Carbon counties. The area where the cancer was found to be occurring at an unusually high rate is home to toxic hotspots including numerous waste-coal burning plants, with five such facilities in Schuylkill County alone and three others just across its border in Northumberland, Carbon and Luzerne counties.

This map, prepared by ATSDR, shows the location of the cancer clusters (blue ovals) in relation to the waste-coal-burning plants. The map excludes the waste-coal burning power plant that's in Luzerne County because it uses waste coal as a secondary fuel; that facility is located north and slightly west of the large cluster.

Plants using FBC technology operate at lower temperatures and oxygen levels than conventional coal-fired power plants and inject limestone during combustion to reduce sulfur oxide pollution. But lower temperatures and oxygen levels, low-quality fuels and limestone injection have all been found to contribute to increased emissions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) – toxic compounds known to cause genetic mutations and cancer. In fact, the specific genetic mutation involved in polycythemia vera has been linked to PAH exposure. And because radioactive elements are found in waste coal, FBC plants emit radioactive pollution, which has also been linked to an excess risk of polycythemia vera.

Today, there are 18 FBC plants nationwide using waste coal as a primary fuel, according to the Energy Justice Network – 14 in Pennsylvania, three in West Virginia and one in Utah. Another 13 use waste coal as a secondary fuel – four in Virginia, three each in Alabama and South Carolina, two in Pennsylvania and one in Mississippi.

The three existing waste coal burners in West Virginia include Dominion's North Branch plant in Grant County; the company's Morgantown Energy Facility in Monongalia County, which provides power to West Virginia University as well as other customers; and Edison International's Grant Town plant in Marion County, which also burns tires.

Looking at these three plants' emissions, it is clear that "alternative" does not mean non-polluting.

Together these facilities released more than 89,000 pounds of toxic chemicals into the air alone in 2007, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory. That includes more than 38,000 pounds of hydrochloric acid, 11,000 pounds of sulfuric acid, more than 9,000 pounds of hydrogen fluoride, 183 pounds of mercury and 57 pounds of lead. The TRI does not include PAHs or radioactive emissions.

Three new waste coal burning plants have been proposed for West Virginia, according to the Energy Justice Network, and a big waste coal plant – the nation's largest, in fact – is slated for Wise County in southwestern Virginia, just three counties south of the West Virginia line. A coalition of environmental groups represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center is challenging the Wise County plant's air permits in court, with the trial scheduled to start July 31.

At the same time West Virginia is promoting dirty power through its energy standard, new evidence is emerging about the serious environmental health problems already afflicting residents of Appalachia's coalfields. A study released last month by West Virginia University Professor Michael Hendryx documented higher mortality rates in Appalachian coal counties, which it blamed in part on environmental pollution.

Unfortunately, rather than easing the problems associated with environmental pollution and poor environmental health, West Virginia's new energy standard ensure they will continue – a big missed opportunity for the state to build a greener, cleaner future.

 

(Originally published at Facing South/Institute for Southern Studies)

Sue Sturgis is editorial director and co-editor of Facing South, the online magazine of the Institute for Southern Studies.

Biomass burning

I hope that Ms Sturgis will appropriately broaden her critique of biomass burning, since wood and solid waste bruning is typically viewed as "clean and green" in comparison to coal.

While she quite correctly notes the increased emissions of toxins from burning waste coal, the same is true for buring solid waste, of even greater importance is the fact that buring wood emits more CO2, NOx, SO2 and particulates than buring coal (tons/MWh of power).

Yes burning wood is dirtier than burning coal.

To call power generation by burning wood "clean and green" is a travesty since it actually accelerates climate change according to the EPA since it is not "carbon neutral" (See Fed Register P18899). The current House and Senate climate bills which don't count these emissions of CO2 from biomass (about 700,000,000 tons a year if renewable targets are met in 2020 effectively reducing the cap reduction from 17% to 11%) are an environmental scam. To then qualify these biomass plants for billions of dollars in renewable energy credits is a total ripoff of the taxpayers/ratepayers.

More information is available at www.nobiomassburing.org

Bill Sammons, M.D.
drsammons@aol.com

A Few Mistakes

Nuclear power actually releases much less radioactivity to the environment than coal. Less radioactivity is released to the environment by all of the nuclear power plants in the United States than bubbles up into Americans' basements in the form of naturally-occurring radon.

And while pumped storage facilities are indeed net users of electricity (owing to the second law of thermodynamics), they serve a vital purpose on the grid -- one which improves grid efficiency and therefore reduces the overall fuel consumption and pollution emission from the power plants supplying that grid.

The most efficient generating plants are "base load" plants, which produce their full megawatt output day and night. But customers use more power during the day. There are two solutions to this disparity: We can run expensive, low-efficiency "peaking units" during the day when power demand is high and shut them down at night. Or we can use a pumped storage facility.

The pumped storage facility (for those unfamiliar) uses excess night-time generation capacity to run large pumps that move water from a low reservoir (like a lake or river) to an elevated storage area. Then during the day, the stored water is released through water turbines (similar to those at a hydroelectric plant) to supplement the higher day-time power demand. Pumped storage facilities therefore serve to even out power demand on the grid, allowing it to run most efficiently.

Natural gas and propane deliver the highest amount of energy per unit of carbon of all the various fossil fuels. While they are neither carbon free nor renewable, they are excellent "alternatives" to coal -- which currently powers more than 60% of our nation's electricity demand. There are even a few natural gas generation plants running on methane produced from biological decay in abandoned and covered landfills. This seems to me like an excellent "alternative" to coal.

I agree with the author that generation meeting the definition of "alternative" should meet the intent of the legislation -- namely, reducing the emission of undesired pollutants, including but not limited to greenhouse gasses. But the list of "alternatives" disputed in this article wrongly demonizes a few options that I believe could drastically improve the cleanliness of our power generation infrastructure.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options