|
BBCAT Position Paper and Fact Sheets on Coal versus Clean Energy August 2006 |
Still at issue in August 2006 was the question whether the City would: (1) become a partner in building and operating a coal-burning power plant in nearby Taylor County or adopt some such plan involving coal; or (2) abstain from using coal and depend altogether on energy efficiency, renewable fuels, and natural gas. The Big Bend Climate Action Team (BBCAT) took the position that (2) was by far the better choice. Following are documents that BBCAT released in mid-August advancing that view: Position Paper: Tallahassee can meet energy needs with clean energy, no coal. Fact Sheet: The City's energy survey may mislead readers. Fact Sheet: Pollution from coal-burning power plants harms people's health. Fact Sheet: The climate problem is a coal problem. Fact Sheet: What is BBCAT about? |
| POSITION PAPER: "CLEAN ENERGY FIRST" PLAN |
By diversifying with clean energy Tallahassee can reliably meet our growing energy needs Very affordably Without coal For the past several years, the City of Tallahassee has been developing its plan to meet its electricity needs for the next twenty years—the Integrated Resource Plan, or IRP. Many alternatives have been considered and four plans have been developed and tested, and are now being presented for public comment. All four plans, of course, build on the City’s current system, which consists largely of natural gas generators with some power purchased from elsewhere and small increments of renewable energy resources (hydroelectric and solar). All four plans also include the upgrading of a natural gas generator (Hopkins 2) to make it more efficient, and replacements and/or upgrades of other natural gas generators as older ones are retired. Three of the four candidate plans include a large coal component. The fourth plan continues to rely on natural gas as its only major fossil fuel. TEC plan—Become a 1/5 partner in a constructing and operating a proposed coal-burning power plant in nearby Taylor County, currently known as the Taylor Energy Center. Derive 150 megawatts from this source. PPA plan—Purchase power from a new coal-burning power plant to be constructed in Early County, Georgia. “PPA” stands for “Purchase-Power Agreement,” and the plant is known as the Longleaf Energy Station. Derive 150 megawatts from this source. IGCC plan—Employ advanced coal technology, cleaner than the first two. No-coal plan—Add additional natural gas power plants at intervals as necessary to meet demand. The City calls this plan the “all-gas” plan. BBCAT proposes that this be called the "clean energy plan." All four plans also include a substantial “clean energy” component. Clean energy is non-fossil energy—that is, energy gained by reducing demand, and energy generated from renewable resources such as flowing water, the sun’s heat and light, and biomass. (Demand reduction is called either “energy efficiency” or “demand-side management, i.e., DSM.” Renewable resources may be called “renewable fuels.” Solar energy can be considered either a demand-reducer or a renewable fuel.) During summer and fall 2005, the City hired three consultants to identify reliable DSM resources that could cost-effectively reduce the City’s demand for electricity. The consultants came back with 162 megawatts of these DSM resources (including 1 megawatt of solar energy), and this 162-megawatt DSM package is a component of all four plans. BBCAT strongly favors acquisition of 100% of this reliable, low cost, DSM resource. At the same time, the City began exploring renewable resource options and is now negotiating to purchase some energy from a biomass plant. All four of the candidate plans include at least 30 megawatts of biomass—and the Big Bend Climate Action Team (BBCAT) recommends that the contract include provisions to ensure only clean biomass is acquired. Thus, the City seems poised to commit to a clean energy package of 192 megawatts altogether. BBCAT is pleased that all four candidate energy resource plans being considered by the City Commission include this 192-megawatt clean energy package. In summary, then, the City’s four candidate plans can be tabulated this way:
Big Bend Climate Action Team Recommendation The Big Bend Climate Action Team (BBCAT) favors the City’s no-coal plan, but with three modifications: (1) Commit now to acquiring an additional 45 megawatts or more of clean biomass as soon as possible. The total amount of biomass in the plan would then be at least 75 megawatts. (2) Include a requirement that City staff, with outside expert help as needed, immediately commence a full assessment of the potential for additional efficiency and renewable resources to reliably and affordably meet all or a substantial part of future energy needs. (3) To the extent that steps (1) and (2) suffice to meet energy needs with sufficient advance planning and with the recommended 17% reserve margin, acquire only the clean energy resources identified in (2). Meet the remaining needs with natural gas generation. BBCAT asserts that the timing will be feasible. At the end of ten years, the City can have implemented the planned Hopkins upgrade and most of the energy efficiency portfolio and can have contracted for 75 megawatts of clean biomass. BBCAT considers it very important not to invest, now, hundreds of millions of dollars in a coal plant but instead to retain the freedom to make alternative investments later. Taking this course, the City can adjust to the environmental, economic, and political changes that are rapidly taking place today. Along the way, natural gas dependency can be further minimized through the generous use of proven, cost-effective, clean alternatives. A major opportunity would be lost if the City were to commit now to either of the plans that use conventional coal technology (that is, either the TEC or the PPA plan). The reason is that these plans commit the City to adding 150 megawatts of coal in the very near future—either in 2011 (the PPA plan) or in 2012 (the TEC plan). Then there would be no further need for new capacity until well beyond 2016. As a result, it would be unnecessary and unjustifiable to meet new demand, as it arises, with clean energy technology. BBCAT therefore urges that the City not commit to coal-generated electricity at any time in the next twenty years. Tallahassee should diversify with clean energy and no coal. Cost Comparison BBCAT’s plan to diversify our energy mix with clean energy and no coal is very affordable. Three of the four candidate plans are virtually indistinguishable on the basis of cost. The only one that costs significantly more is the IGCC plan. Putting that plan aside, costs are a wash. The choice should not hinge on cost. Diversity Comparison A year ago, the City put forth its proposal to add coal into its energy plan on the basis that we were too heavily reliant on natural gas. The rationale was that 150 megawatts of coal would add fuel diversity. However, since then, the City has learned of lower cost efficiency and biomass resources that will reduce energy bills, and seems poised to add 192 megawatts of clean energy. This addition accomplishes a better kind of diversity—energy resource diversity. As a result, even if no coal is acquired, our energy mix will still have appreciable diversity. And clean energy diversifies with resources that are immune from the infamous volatility of fossil fuel markets – since efficiency requires no fuel at all and biomass requires non-fossil organic matter. Health/Environmental Comparison Without question, coal comes with major negative health and environmental impacts. BBCAT’s August, 2006 fact sheets (notably “Coal and Health” and “Coal and Climate”) describe these impacts and provide a forceful argument against coal, whether generated by the City or purchased from elsewhere. Reliability Comparison All four candidate plans are more than adequately reliable. The City’s energy planners competently designed them to meet future capacity needs with a 17% reserve margin. One is very slightly more reliable than the others: that is the City’s no-coal plan, because its fleet of generators, in place of one large coal unit, includes several smaller, individual natural gas units. To sum up, then, the four plans differ very little on cost, diversity, and reliability, but they differ in major ways on health and environmental impacts. Considering these, the no-coal plan is far superior to the others. Fringe Benefits The City uses only the four factors—cost, diversity, health/environment, and reliability—to evaluate its planning options. BBCAT holds that citizens should keep additional considerations in mind:
BBCAT also asserts that a clean energy plan will help make Tallahassee a leader, will bring our community prestige, and will be a source of civic pride. Elsewhere in the United States, in the west, southwest, northwest, midwest, northeast, and middle Atlantic regions, dozens of cities, counties, and states are adopting substantial clean energy portfolios, but in the Southeast no community has yet stepped forward to lead the way. Tallahassee has a tremendous opportunity, right now, to become such a leader. Finally, a clean energy plan such as the one BBCAT advocates here will help our community to prepare to deal with global warming, a real and accelerating crisis. In the process, it may help to save more money than planners now realize is at risk. The nation’s chief climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, has advised BBCAT that it would be a major economic mistake to commit too firmly now to any of the coal plants under consideration. Instead, he says, we should “milk efficiency and renewables for all they are worth during the next decade or two, by which time new policy should be agreed upon and new clean energy options may exist.” For all these reasons and many more, BBCAT asserts that Tallahassee should diversify with clean energy and no coal. |
| FACT SHEET: Don’t be misled by the City’s energy survey |
The City is asking citizens to respond to its candidate energy resource plans, either at its open houses or on its website. Citizens are asked to rank the plans on four criteria—cost, diversity, reliability, and health/environment. The City’s own experts have already ranked the plans on these criteria themselves, as you can see on the City’s website: http://www.talgov.com/you/electric/pdf/irp_present 071206.pdf, Survey choices may be hard to understand COST. By asking if you think “cost” is important, the survey implies that there are big cost differences among the plans. Yet the City’s own figures show that between two main contenders, the Taylor County coal plant and the City’s no-coal plan, cost differences are negligible. The choice doesn’t hinge on cost. DIVERSITY. As for “diversity,” the City is right: diversity is important. On the “don’t keep all your eggs in one basket” principle, the more different energy resources we depend on, the better. And coal would help to diversify our fuel mix, which now consists mostly of natural gas. Coal would add fuel diversity. But there’s another kind of diversity—energy resource diversity. Clean energy resources include conservation, efficiency, and renewable fuels and diversify our energy mix better. Coal just adds another fossil fuel. Clean energy adds a whole new demand-side resource (efficiency) plus a non-fossil fuel (biomass). RELIABILITY. The City will maintain sufficient reliability whatever mix of energy (coal, gas clean) is chosen. Every candidate energy plan is designed to reliably meet future capacity needs with a 17% margin for safety. And a City evaluation shows reliability hardly distinguishes among the plans. HEALTH/ENVIRONMENT. In this one area, the plans differ a lot. The three plans with coal have major negative impacts on both health and the environment. The clean energy plan is more benign, and if the City adds another unit of clean biomass as recommended by the Big Bend Climate Action Team, the clean energy plan may turn out to be the lowest-cost plan as well. Recommendation of the Big Bend Climate Action Team We suggest you not try to answer the questions. Rather, enter your views in the “comment” section. Say what you’d like the City to do—for example, “I’d like to use clean energy to the greatest extent possible. I’d like to have no coal in the City’s energy resource mix. I’m willing to pay $(how much more a month?) than the minimum to buy a future energy supply for the City that is clean . . .” You get the idea. Tell them what you think. Don’t let the survey distort your views by giving you the wrong questions to answer. |
| FACT SHEET: Coal Plant Pollution Harms People's Health |
Tallahassee is considering getting involved with either of two coal-burning power plants of the ‘conventional,’ pulverized coal type. Both are in the planning or permitting stages. One is the Taylor Energy Center in Taylor County, which would generate 800 megawatts. Tallahassee would own one-fifth of the Taylor plant, and would net 150 megawatts from its share. The other is the Longleaf Energy Station in Early County, Georgia, which would generate a total of 1,200 megawatts. Tallahassee would purchase 150 megawatts from the Longleaf plant. Pollutants Are Numerous and Abundant: Coal is a dirty fuel and pollutes the air, soil, and water in and around coal-burning power plants with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, fine particulate matter, mercury, and carbon dioxide, among others. The proposed pulverized coal plants are not state-of-the-art coal plants. They are ‘conventional’ plants, cleaner than ‘older’ plants in Florida that are responsible for many pollution problems, but not the cleanest coal plants available. Some claim the plants will emit fewer pollutants than most plants of their kind and will meet all federal and state emission standards. But the regulatory standards are not strict enough to protect our health. And carbon dioxide, which causes global warming, is not at present regulated at all! The City’s figures show that either one of these pulverized coal plants would, each year, continuously pour hundreds of tons of power plant pollution into the air and waters, making it hard to breathe, poisoning fish, shortening lives, and making us more vulnerable to infectious disease and heat stroke. (In comparison, the plan without a coal plant -- called “all gas” but which includes 192 megawatts of efficiency, solar, and biomass -- emits “only” about 2,000 tons of power plant pollution each year.) Trains loaded with coal, each 100 to 200 cars long, would roar through the affected communities, emitting noise and toxic dust all along their way. These effects would continue for the whole 30−60 years of the coal plant’s life. The City’s figures about the air pollution from each candidate plan include only Tallahassee’s share of the Taylor County coal plant or the southwest Georgia coal plant. But the actual pollution from each plant is far more than Tallahassee’s share. The Taylor County coal plant would mostly serve population centers, including Jacksonville and Orlando, that are far from Tallahassee. Similarly, the southwest Georgia coal plant would mostly serve populations outside our community. But local residents could expect to receive the vast majority of the pollution. People living in Taylor, Jefferson, Wakulla, Gadsden, and Leon County, and in the areas, such as Tallahassee, that are downwind of the Georgia plant would be impacted by pollution from these plants. Local Residents Would Suffer These Health Impacts: Shortened lives. Sulfur dioxide forms fine particulate pollution (soot) in the air. Breathing soot shortens people’s lives and is responsible for an estimated 1,430 premature deaths each year in Florida. People who exercise outdoors, children, and the elderly, especially those with asthma who live near power plants, are most affected by soot pollution. Ninety-seven percent of all sulfur dioxide pollution emitted in Florida comes from power plants. Asthma attacks and emergency room visits. Ozone smog pollution forms when nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds mix with sunlight. Smog can permanently damage and stunt developing lungs and triggers asthma attacks; it may even cause asthma. Ozone smog in Florida triggers an estimated 400,000-plus asthma attacks and sends more than 12,000 Floridians to emergency rooms each year. Power plant pollution already triggers more than 500 asthma attacks in Leon County every year, according to a 2004 report. Toxic local fish. Mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants settle in lakes and rivers. Mercury collects in living things, which can’t excrete it (known as bioaccumulation), and once in the aquatic food chain, it becomes concentrated in fish. More than two million acres of lakes, more than 50,000 miles of rivers, and the entire coastline of Florida have been posted with warnings not to eat the fish due to mercury contamination. Locally, health advisories due to mercury pollution of fish have been issued for Lakes Iamonia, Miccosukee, Munson, Talquin, Piney Z, Moore, and for the St. Marks, Wakulla, Apalachicola, and Aucilla rivers. Eating mercury-contaminated fish can cause neurological problems, including mental and physical retardation in fetuses, infants, and toddlers. EPA estimates that one in six women already has enough mercury in her body to put her child at risk should she become pregnant. Mercury exposure is also associated with an increased risk of heart attacks in adults. Coal-burning power plants are already responsible for nearly one-third of all mercury emissions in Florida. City estimates show that the gas plant being considered in the City’s no-coal plan emits no mercury at all. Infectious disease, heat-related illness. Coal is made of pure carbon, and when burned, it gives off carbon dioxide, a major cause of global warming. Due to accelerating global warming, life all over the planet is increasingly impaired and dangerous climate changes threaten to increase heat-related illness, exacerbate poor air quality, and favor the spread of tropical diseases. The human body is vulnerable to heat and can stand only so much for so long. Heat and humidity are an especially deadly combination, and if not cooled, an overheated person will die in about three days. Tallahassee needs no coal. Clean energy is the better choice. |
| FACT SHEET: Coal and Climate |
The climate problem is a coal problem. —Natural Resources Defense Council We may become the first generation in history to leave subsequent generations a problem they cannot solve. —Carol Browner Stopping the building of new coal plants until they have technology to capture the CO2 is probably the most important thing that can be done to minimize global warming.—James Hansen The decision whether to partner in the construction of a coal-fired power plant will not affect just our community. Coal, of all the fossil fuels (coal/oil/gas) emits the most carbon dioxide (CO2) per unit of energy produced, and CO2 is a major global-warming gas. Scientists agree that we are within only ten years of condemning our planet to a course of irreversible climate change. Global warming has already added 0.8 degree Centigrade to the Earth’s average temperature. Dr. James E. Hansen, who is our country’s leading climate scientist, reports that when the warming reaches 1 degree, the Earth will be warmer than it has been in a million years. If we continue building coal plants to provide energy to our expanding populations, then our CO2 emissions will keep on increasing at 2 percent per year. They will produce another 2 to 3 degree Centigrade rise within this century and will make of the Earth a different planet. The consequences for humanity and all other living things are staggering. Many warming-induced changes began when people began to burn coal, about 150 years ago. The effects are growing more intense today: Between 1960 and 2001, Florida’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by nearly 350%. Emissions from coal and oil were responsible for 35% and 53% of this increase, respectively. Air currents over the Pacific have weakened by 3.5% over the last 140 years. The trend is accelerating. Wind-forced ocean currents are slowing even more. The ocean has warmed significantly and is continuing to warm. Over warm ocean waters, storms and hurricanes are growing more intense. Florida’s storm-damage costs are among the highest in the nation. Since 1980 we have had some $90 billion in damages. In the single year 2005, extreme weather cost our state more than $32 billion. Floridians are facing skyrocketing premiums and thousands of policy cancellations. Insurance companies are going bankrupt and leaving the state. From taking up excess carbon dioxide, the ocean has grown more acid. Small sea creatures are becoming unable to reproduce, destabilizing the entire ocean food chain. The world’s coral reefs are declining due to warming ocean waters. Some 27 percent of reefs worldwide have been degraded by bleaching, and another 60 percent are now highly vulnerable. Heat waves are growing more intense. On August 1, 2006, 19 states were experiencing heat waves in 19 states with triple-digit temperatures. Sea level rise is gobbling up Florida coastal lands by four to six feet per year in some areas, killing hundred-year old oak trees. Coastal dwellers are increasingly vulnerable to ever more intense storms and coastal erosion. All of these processes are accelerating and presage immense disasters: Himalaya’s glaciers, now melting, will be gone in 50 years—then, 40 percent of the world’s people will have no drinking water. As the polar ice caps melt, sea level is rising. Seas will rise slowly at first as the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica turn to water, but then the rise will reach a point of no return. The melt will accelerate unstoppably: it will raise sea level some 80 feet—and in centuries, not millennia. How can we avoid this grim scenario? The two biggest contributors to global warming are power plants and motor vehicles, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. That means cities. Cities have to take the lead in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate experts estimate that total carbon emissions from fossil fuels must be cut at least in half by 2050 to stabilize their effect on global warming. It is a monumental task. But if we do nothing to halt the process, emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas will rise 70 percent in the next 25 years. The decisions we make within the next ten years whether to build more coal-fired power plants or not could lock us into a disaster that we cannot undo. The construction of every coal plant pushes us in the wrong direction.
Many communities are already shifting to fossil-fuel alternatives and reducing their carbon emissions—California, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Ithaca, Portland, New York, Boulder, Chattanooga, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City and others. But in the U.S. South, energy planning is racing headlong toward more coal plants. Thus the City of Tallahassee is facing a momentous choice. In Florida, six new coal-fired power plants are being proposed. If built, they will increase the state’s global warming pollution by 20 percent. But St. Lucie County’s citizens have overwhelmingly rejected their utility’s coal plant plan. Gainesville has put its coal plant plans on hold. Which way will Tallahassee go? We are the capital of Florida. If we exhibit the wisdom and foresight to adopt a clean energy plan, still more cities may join in helping solve the climate problem. |
| FACT SHEET: Big Bend Climate Action Team (BBCAT) |
Who We Are – and Our Collaboration in Tallahassee Electric Issues The Big Bend Climate Action Team (BBCAT) is a group of citizens with extensive experience in a variety of fields, including energy, the environment, economics, and law. Due to concern about global warming, we united in a common mission: “to help local governments, businesses, and citizens in Florida’s Big Bend do their share to abate climate change by reducing fossil fuel use and promoting energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable fuels in power plants, buildings, and vehicles.” (Note: “Energy efficiency and conservation” reduce demand and can be read as synonymous with “Demand-side management,” or “DSM.”) BBCAT began meeting regularly with Tallahassee’s Electric Department staff in May of 2005. We had two goals. One was to learn about and participate in the planning process by which the staff selects energy resources for our community. The other was to promote our above-stated mission. At for time, the proposed coal plant in Taylor County had not been announced, and the City was engaged in developing its energy plan (Integrated Resource Plan) for the next 20 years. In June, 2005, the coal plant proposal (then known as the North Florida Power Project, or NFPP) was made public and it became part of our mission to educate citizens on energy issues and try to find acceptable alternatives to coal. When, in July, the commissioners decided to make a down payment on the NFPP, we persuaded them to also provide more than $250,000 in funds for experts in clean energy alternatives—that is, energy efficiency and renewable fuels. Three consultants were hired—Navigant, Sterling Planet, and Synapse Energy Economics. Since then, BBCAT, in collaboration with City staff, has conducted an earnest search for “clean” alternatives to coal and gas. We have researched energy-efficiency measures and programs that are successful in other U.S. cities, and provided reviews on these for the consultants to use in their research. We have made clean energy proposals to the staff, to the City Manager’s office, and to the City Commission and, with the City, offered an informational forum to the public. We wrote, and assisted others in writing, letters and editorials to keep the public abreast of climate and energy issues. After hearing reports from its experts, the City seems poised to add an expanded portfolio of energy efficiency programs and biomass to its energy resource mix. BBCAT is convinced that by maximizing acquisition of clean energy, our growing energy needs can reliably be met, very affordably, without coal. Our recommendation is described fully in our position paper, available separately (the first document above). |
| Back to BBCAT Events page |