Groups pan Alliant coal-plant plan

From a news release from the Sierra Club:

Madison - When Alliant Energy announced plans to shut down a small coal plant in a vain attempt to deal with the huge amounts of pollution that may be spewed from its proposed new coal plant in Cassville, Mark Kresowik, the corporate accountability representative for the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, felt a sense of déjà vu.

“This is exactly the same thing they tried to pull in Iowa, distract ratepayers and regulators from the plain fact that their new coal plant is dirty, unnecessary, and will send costs sky high right along with the increased pollution from their plants,” said Kresowik, who moved to Madison from Iowa just a few months ago. “Wisconsin’s economy can’t deal with the investment risks and higher energy costs of new coal plants right now, look at what happened to the assembly plant in Janesville as oil prices have increased. We need lower-cost energy efficiency, clean energy, and green-collar jobs in the 21st century, not expensive and dirty coal.”

Alliant’s claimed global warming pollution reductions pale in comparison to their proposed coal-fired power plant’s estimated 2.9 million tons of global warming pollution each year.

“Investments in wind and energy efficiency are always good,” notes Jennifer Feyerherm, Director of Sierra Club’s Wisconsin Clean Energy Campaign. “Unfortunately, when they are made in conjunction with a proposal for a new coal plant, it smacks of green-washing.”

And a news release from Clean Wisconsin:

Madison, Wis. - Today’s latest proposal in Alliant Energy’s push to construct a coal plant in Cassville, Wisconsin, would still result in one of the state’s dirtiest power facilities, according to the state’s largest environmental advocacy organization.

“Alliant continues to repackage their proposal in an attempt to sell this dirty coal plant as an environmentally friendly option,” said Katie Nekola, Energy Program Director at Clean Wisconsin. “Replacing a nearly retired coal plant that emitted less than 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide in 2006 with one that would emit more than 2.3 million tons of greenhouse gas annually for at least 50 years is not a solution to global warming.”

The company announced changes in a new proposal today, including the retirement of one small coal plant, the addition of more wind to its energy portfolio and the ability to burn up to 20 percent biomass in the plant.

Even at 20 percent biomass, the Cassville plant would emit more greenhouse gas emissions than other, more efficient, power plants fueled exclusively by coal in Wisconsin. The Public Service Commission, however, has questioned many details of Alliant’s previous commitment to burn even 10 percent biomass in the recent environmental impact statement.

The announcement comes one month after the Public Service Commission released a draft environmental impact statement claiming Alliant’s proposal was “not the optimal generation choice,” and “not the least cost option under any scenario.”

 

Alliant to retire aging coal plant, build more wind, double biomass commitment, and increase energy efficiency, to reduce carbon ‘footprint’

From a media release issued by Wisconsin Power and Light, parent company of Alliant:

MADISON, Wis., June 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WPL), a subsidiary of Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE: LNT - News), proposed today to reduce its generation fleet’s greenhouse gas emissions by retiring a coal-fired generating unit, dramatically increasing its wind power portfolio, doubling its commitment to utilizing biomass, and aggressively building upon its energy efficiency measures, when its proposed expansion at the Nelson Dewey Generating Station becomes operable in 2013. . . .

As part of its greenhouse gas emissions reduction proposal, WPL would retire Edgewater Generating Station’s coal-fired unit 3. The facility is the oldest coal plant in WPL’s generation fleet. The company would also increase its commitment to develop new wind power resources. Previously the company had announced plans for approximately 300 megawatts of new wind by the end of 2010. Upon approval of the Nelson Dewey expansion, the company would add 200 megawatts to that total by the time the new facility begins commercial operation. While the sites for the future wind farms have not yet been determined, it is possible that one of the sites could be located in southwestern Wisconsin.

WPL would also double the amount of renewable resource fuels to be used at the new third unit of Nelson Dewey, to twenty percent. As a result of utilizing fuels such as switch grass, waste wood, or corn stalks, not only are CO2 emissions reduced by offsetting the use of coal at the facility, but Wisconsin farmers and foresters will have access to new economic markets, an ecologically friendly crop and better land and forest management practices. Analysis by researchers from the University of Wisconsin has shown that the 20 percent biomass at Nelson Dewey unit 3 could create economic development revenues for the State of Wisconsin to exceed an estimated $50 million annually.

This proposal, along with a fifty percent increase in WPL energy efficiency savings, is projected to more than offset the carbon emissions from the new Nelson Dewey unit. The potential increased capital costs associated with these changes in WPL’s generation fleet are expected to be $500-$550 million, and are contingent upon the company receiving all applicable regulatory approvals related to the expansion of the Nelson Dewey Generating Station.

 

Alliant eyes offset for emissions in Iowa

From an article by Jeff Richgels in The Capital Times:

Alliant Energy’s Iowa utility unit has announced a plan it says would help offset the carbon emissions from a proposed new coal plant in Iowa.Interstate Power and Light said it would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 800,000 tons a year by retiring two coal burning electricity generating units in Lansing and switching a Dubuque power plant from coal to natural gas when it opens the proposed $1.5 billion coal plant in Marshalltown.

Plans to build wind turbines in north central Iowa and implement energy efficiency initiatives to reduce customers’ electric usage are expected to reduce emissions by another 2.57 million tons per year, the company said.

All of those actions would more than offset the 3.1 million tons of carbon dioxide that could be released from IPL’s portion of the proposed Marshalltown plant.

 

Suggested comments on Global Warming Task Force proposals

Ryan Schryver from Clean Wisconsin drafted suggestions for comments on the proposals made by the workgroups of the Govenor’s Global Warming Task Force. Comments can be made online at http://dnr.wi.gov/environmentprotect/gtfgw/templates/index.html through December 14.

Work group: Electric Generation and Supply Policies

Enhanced Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard
This draft policy calls for between 15% by 2020 and 25% by 2025 renewable electricity. The electricity would come from imported renewable electricity as well as Wisconsin-produced electricity.

• Comments should focus on supporting renewable electricity goals of 20% by 2020 and 25% by 2025, which would agree with the goals in the “Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform for the Midwest” (“Midwest Energy Platform”), signed by Gov. Doyle and other Midwest Governors on Nov. 15.

• The renewable electricity goals should be achieved without reliance on hydro electricity from dams larger than 60 megawatts, which would exclude large Canadian hydro power.

Incentives for Combined Heat & Power
This draft policy encourages replacement of old, non-utility steam boilers with combined heat & power systems.

• Comments should encourage the strengthening of this policy to include replacement or repowering of utility power plants into combined heat and power plants. This option was deemed infeasible by the utilities, although it has been suggested for study in the “Policy Forum” policy proposal.

Relax Restrictions on Construction of New Nuclear Power Plants
This draft policy would repeal §196.493, Wis. Stats., the so-called “nuclear moratorium law,” which states that the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) may not authorize the construction of a nuclear plant unless it finds that a facility will be available for the disposal of high-level waste from all Wisconsin nuclear plants, and that the proposed plant is economically advantageous to ratepayers based on specified factors.

This law should not be repealed. Comments on this policy could include the following concerns:

Cost: A new nuclear plant would be extremely expensive. Standard & Poor’s recently estimated the cost of a new nuclear plant at $4000 per kW; and Moody’s recently suggested $6,000 per kW. Nuclear plants currently being built in other countries continue to experience massive cost overruns and delays in completing the projects.

Safety: New nuclear plants would increase the risk of a serious reactor accident, which could threaten thousands of people and cost billions to deal with.

Nuclear Waste: For the foreseeable future, there remains no safe means of disposal for nuclear waste. Building additional nuclear plants in Wisconsin would only add to the problem in which thousands of tons of waste are sitting on the shores of Lake Michigan and along the Mississippi River.

Wisconsin as a Nuclear Waste Dump: The failure of the federal government to open Yucca Mt. in a timely fashion, if ever, increases pressure to find an alternate site for disposal of nuclear waste. The Wolf River area was studied in the past, and could be studied in the future as a disposal site for the nation’s nuclear waste.

Nuclear Does Not Help with Global Warming Pollution: While the operation of a nuclear plant may not directly produce GHG emissions, GHG emissions are released at various points throughout a plant’s lifecycle (construction, uranium mining and enrichment, spent fuel disposal, decommissioning, etc). According to MIT researchers, it could take nearly 1,000 additional nuclear plants to make a significant contribution toward reducing global warming pollution, whereas other strategies such as energy efficiency and renewable energy would be much less costly.

 

Challenges of carbon sequestration

The listserve focus_solar has an interesting dialog on carbon sequestration. It began with this letter to the editor by Joel H. Goodman, M. Architecture diploma, MIT; former assistant professor of architecture at the U. of Minnesota:

Coal trains to Wisconsin, to burn coal in Wisconsin, and then capture the CO2 carbon dioxide pollution at the coal plants, and build CO2 pipelines out of Wisconsin, to pump the CO2 back to the coal mine areas to be injected into permanent geologic storage-sequestration. The politicians recently signed “…we must begin to take action now…” in the Nov. 15, 2007 “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord”, organized by the Midwest Governors Association; and it appears to depend on coal fired carbon capture and construction of new CO2 pipelines to out of state geologic storage.

If large scale geologic carbon sequestration works, the hope is that it can be applied to the many coal plants being constructed and planned, in the USA, India, China, and globally, for example, the two 615 MW Oak Creek coal units now being constructed south of Milwaukee.

However, these are recent published technical expert comments: “Large-scale commercial carbon capture and sequestration have yet to be successfully demonstrated”; and “There’s no easy technological fix to deal with carbon capture and sequestration”.

Niels Wolter commented with this quote from a paper titled The War on Coal: Think Outside the (Coal) Pits:

“In other words, sequestering just 10% of the world’s fossil-fuel combustion CO2 would require an industry whose throughput would have to 1.3 times what the oil industry, with its vast distribution network and immense network of wells, storage tankers, and storage locations. Moreover, both the sheer scale and cost (trillions of dollars?) of the project remain unknown, as are the safety and operating reliability conditions (see the details below of safety risks associated with sequestration). Despite all this, this project would reduce emissions by only 10%! There’s no reasonable perspective by which sequestration can make enough of a dent in coal’s carbon emissions without significant improvements in technology.”

 

Energy Conservation Corporation praises Doyle’s commitment to environment

From a press release issued by the Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation:

MADISON, Wis. (November 21, 2007) - Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation (WECC) applauds Governor Jim Doyle’s role in the signing of the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord.

The announcement of the accord, which was made at the Midwestern Governors Association Energy Summit last week, includes specific timelines for the advance of energy efficiency, the promotion of biobased products, the production of renewable electricity and the development of advanced coal and carbon capture and storage.

Governors throughout the Midwest signed the accord as a regional strategy to achieve energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. As part of the announcement, Governor Doyle agreed to pursue policies to meet 2 percent of Wisconsin’s annual electricity and natural gas consumption through energy efficiency.

“The signing of this accord enacts a unified approach to addressing global warming in Wisconsin and throughout the Midwest,” said WECC Energy Policy Director, George Edgar. “In addition, the governors recognize that energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies must play an integral role in reducing our environmental impact. Governor Doyle played a critical role in the signing of this accord and has also been a key player in bringing energy efficiency and renewable energy practices back to the forefront in Wisconsin.”

 

Carbon cap-and-trade opportunities in governors’ agreement

Though a bit of self-promotion, an Environment/Energy Alert from the Madison law firm of Godfrey & Kahn focuses on the call for a carbon cap-and-trade system:

Wisconsin recently joined five other states in entering the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, a copy of which is attached to this news alert. The most important element of this pact is the commitment to develop a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. This cap-and-trade system is to be set up over the next year and to be implemented by 2010.

Wisconsin businesses that become more energy efficient or pursue green energy projects may see significant financial gains under the terms of the accord, as the accord calls for the development of credits for those who work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because these credits apply to past and present actions, Wisconsin businesses that act now may substantially generate valuable credits. Taking early action is especially important in light of the governor’s pact, because the pact essentially assures that there will be a robust market for any carbon reductions through energy efficiency or green energy projects. In addition, it is highly likely that there will be credit for early action under the cap-andtrade system. This means that actions taken now will allow our clients to accumulate credits that may be sold for higher value as the cap-and-trade market matures.