Contents of this page:                                            

Coal's positive aspects

Supply: Of the three major fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—coal is the most abundant domestically.

Cost: Coal is the "cheapest" fossil fuel, if cost is very narrowly defined (but see "Cost" also under "Coal's negatives," below).

Diversity: In the case of a city like Tallahassee, which is almost entirely dependent on natural gas as a fuel, coal adds diversity to the fuel mix.

Reliability: Diversity in turn improves the reliability of an energy supply: if one fuel runs short or becomes more costly, the other fuel may remain available or cheaper.

Coal's negative aspects

Carbon dioxide: Compared with the other fossil fuels, coal emits the most carbon dioxide (per unit of energy). Oil runs a close second. Natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal, but even natural gas is becoming an unacceptable fuel in these days of accelerating global warming. Most important to people concerned about climate is coal's carbon dioxide threat.

Mercury pollution. This is a major concern associated with coal. Even "clean" coal adds mercury to the region's air and water, and environmental mercury is already jeopardizing health. Many of the people who fish north Florida waters are advised not to eat the fish they catch because the mercury load is too high to be safe. In November, 2006, 22 states united to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for being "too soft on mercury."

Fine particulate matter (soot). Soot is also released into the atmosphere when coal, even "clean" coal, is used as fuel. These small particles of pollution escape the body's natural defenses and are absorbed into the bloodstream.The most dangerous risk is premature death. Particle pollution also causes cardiac arrythmias, heart attacks,and angina. Intrauterine growth rates and newborn birth weights can be reduced by maternal exposure to particle pollution.People with diabetes are a newly recognized group at risk for adverse health effects including mortality. The most susceptible populations are children and older adults and people with preexisting asthma, lung disease (such as bronchitis and emphysema), or heart disease.As of December, 2006, more than a dozen states were suing the Environmental Protection Agency for having weak standards on soot.

Nitrogen oxides. These air pollutants are also emitted from coal, even even "clean" coal, and north Florida's air already carries significant amounts of nitrogen pollution. Nitrogen pollution is severely degrading Wakulla Springs and other once-beautiful, natural waters near Tallahassee. More than 25% of the nitrogen pollution affecting Wakulla Springs today comes from atmospheric deposition. Other contaminants present in coal, even "clean" coal, are arsenic, lead, and radioactive substances.

Pollution during transport. An 800-megawatt coal plant requires about a 100-car trainload a day of coal brought in by rail from West Virginia, Tennessee, Wyoming, or elsewhere. Unloading the coal entails spillage of fine coal particles into the immediate environment. This pollution, which can be major, is not included in reports of the coal plant's emissions. Rain falling on stored coal produces runoff that can pollute the ground and nearby waterways with toxins.

Ash piles. When coal is burned, ash remains and ash is toxic, too. Its storage and disposal involve further environmental pollution. As with stored coal, rain falling on ash piles produces runoff that can pollute the ground and nearby waterways.

Scrubber "gunk." As the smoke from burning coal goes up the smokestacks, the Clean Air Act requires that to some degree, pollutants must be "scrubbed" from it. Then, periodically, the "gunk" that accumulates in the scrubbers has to be removed. This is a highly toxic material that, itself, has to be disposed of.

Water use. Conventional coal technology (which is intended for all of the coal plants proposed for Florida) entails the use of immense amounts of water. It is unclear where this water is disposed of, how badly polluted it is, or how hot it is when released.

Environmental injustice. Coal plants, like sewage treatment plants and heavy industry, tend to be located in towns and neighborhoods where the residents mostly have low incomes and are powerless to resist. An example is the town of Perry, in Taylor County, where a pulp plant for years badly polluted the Fenholloway River. A coal plant is now proposed to be located in Perry and the local residents would get most of the pollution while Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Disney World, and other central Florida towns would get the energy.

Economic downside. A coal plant negatively impacts real estate values and tourism over a wide area.

Source damage. To mine coal, the tops are blown off of mountains, valley streambeds are filled with debris, miners get black lung disease, and both surface waters and ground water are badly polluted with acid mine drainage.

For an overview of the damage that coal pollution can do to health, turn to the Earth Policy Institute update on coal and for a map showing the intensity of exposure of children to coal-fired power plants around Florida, turn to the Clean Air Task Force website.

Cost: For all fossil fuels, costs are going up. Reasons why coal is rising in price were summed up in an article in Public Power Magazine. Moreover, even as the price of coal itself is rising, the costs of its transportation, of construction materials (steel and concrete) for coal plants, and of construction of transmission lines are also rising. China is coming on strong as a competitor for energy and materials. China has plenty of coal within its borders but will increasingly compete for construction materials.

Beyond the immediate future, in the long term, there will likely have to be taxes on, or other penalties for, carbon dioxide emissions—and no fuel emits so much carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced as does coal. These costs will have to be passed on to rate payers.

Oil and natural gas may cost more than coal, but renewable fuels often cost less. So does energy efficiency. Not using energy costs less than burning any kind of fuel.

BBCAT'S position on coal

The Big Bend Climate Action team finds all uses of coal as fuel unacceptable, no matter how "clean" the coal may be, primarily because of the associated carbon dioxide emissions. The threat of climate change is simply too great, and we need to reduce, not add to, atmospheric carbon dioxide. Coal technology will become acceptable only if it matures to the point where all carbon dioxide emissions can be captured and sequestered. Then the other emissions (mercury and the others) would have to be acceptable, too.

An excellent summary of the dilemmas we face with all fossil fuels can be found in this article from the University of Michigan.

The Clean Air Task Force website is also informative.

Types of coal plants compared

The coal plant Tallahassee didn't buy in 1993. The coal plant that was proposed for Tallahassee in the early 1990s was a first-generation "clean coal" plant. It involved "fluidized bed combustion (FBC)," which is described by the U.S. Department of Energy this way: "Fluidized beds suspend solid fuels on upward-blowing jets of air during the combustion process. The result is a turbulent mixing of gas and solids. The tumbling action, much like a bubbling fluid, provides more effective chamical reactions and heat transfer." Read more here.

The coal plant now proposed for Tallahassee. The currently proposed coal plant represents an improvement on the CFB technology by conducting the combustion process under high pressure: "pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC)." It generates steam that can drive a gas turbine (this makes it a "combined cycle" generator), thus increasing the efficiency of the energy capture from coal." Read more here.

Both CFB and PCFB coal plants, despite the name "clean coal," entail substantial pollution as described above. Jacksonville's Northside Station (read) is one of these, and is responsible for poor air quality over much of the city.

Coal gasification.This is a more advanced coal technology and has the potential to be both cheaper and cleaner than conventional fluidized bed technology. Our source says, "When coal is brought into contact with both steam and oxygen, thermochemical reactions produce a fuel gas, mainly carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which, when combusted, can be used to power gas turbines." Air pollutants are much more easily controlled in the gasification process and the hydrogen byproduct can be captured and used as fuel in many emerging technology. Read more here.

Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology. A further improvement is achieved when the gasification technology is coupled with steam-driven turbines to generate electricity and the pollution from this process is claimed to be still less--comparable to that from natural gas. However, in April 2007, a Minnesota judge reviewed the evidence and recommended against the purchase of power from an IGCC plant on the basis that "The Project and its technology do not meet the definition of a Clean Energy Technology under Minn. Stat. §216B.1693(c) because they do not significantly reduce all the statutorily identified emissions in comparison to traditional technologies."

The most significant drawback to all of the above coal technologies, though, is that they all emit uncontrolled quantities of carbon dioxide. As a result, all are unacceptable in this time of climate crisis.

Carbon capture and sequestration. Efforts are under way all over the world to develop a means of capturing the carbon dioxide from coal combustion and stow it away somewhere where it cannot escape—for example, deep underground. When this is achieved, it will doubtly raise the cost of coal, but will make it an acceptable fuel for generating electricity.

Coal for Tallahassee

Tallahassee's earlier (1990–93) history with a coal proposal

Proposals to burn coal to meet Tallahassee's growing energy needs have surfaced periodically since the1960s or before, but the one most of us remember best was made in the early 1990s. The U.S. Department of Energy was experimenting with a new coal technology, which it called "Clean Coal," and offered Tallahassee a $75 million subsidy to build such a plant.

Arguments ignited and burned for weeks. The Tallahassee Democrat published hundreds of letters and columns pro and con coal and other energy sources.

The City Commission voted 3 to 2 in favor of the coal plant and the citizens rose up in revolt. They circulated a petition calling for an amendment to the City charter and got enough signatures to pass it. The charter now states, in part, that "The City of Tallahassee shall not contract for, buy, build, own or otherwise acquire any interest in any electricity producing facility that burns or uses coal in Leon County or any county adjacent thereto unless the general plans have been first approved by a majority of the city's electors voting in a referendum on such plan."

Sixty-nine percent of Tallahassee's citizens voted in this referendum. and sent the coal plant down to defeat. Tallahassee stayed with natural gas and promised to deliver 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources in the future, a promise it did not keep. And for about a decade the price of natural gas did not go up as coal plant proponents had threatened it would.

Tallahassee's current (2005) coal plant proposal: Taylor Energy Center (TEC)

In early June, 2005, it was announced that an 800-megawatt coal-burning power plant was planned for north Florida and was to be located in Perry, in nearby Taylor County. Some 20 partners were to be involved, among them the Jacksonville utility and Disney World, and Tallahassee was invited to take a 1/5 share, so as to draw 150 megawatts from the plant. (Of the 800 megawatts, 50 would be used to run the plant itself, leaving 750 megawatts to be divided among the partners.) A fact sheet spelled out details of the coal plant plan.

The Tallahassee City Commission was not required to hold a referendum on the issue because Taylor County is not directly adjacent to Leon County. This may be one reason why the partners chose Taylor County as a site for the coal plant—to avoid the requirement that the City's residents be allowed to vote on the plan. The Commission, under pressure, did finally hold a referendum in November 2005—but not to ask the citizens whether they were in favor of the coal plant. The referendum language was confusing, but the gist was to ask, "if the coal plant were to be built anyway," whether the citizens would permit the commissioners to make the decision to join the partnership.

Present status of Taylor Energy Center (TEC)

Events since late 2005 are provided on the BBCAT Events page. Here is the most recent event:

July 3. The partnership in the Taylor County coal plant project suspended permitting activities and issued a statement saying that they would take time "to assess how best to meet . . . customers' electricity needs in ways consistent with growing concerns about greenhouse gas emissions."

Other Proposed Florida Coal Plants