An article in The New York Times on Sunday discussed one significant problem in the effort to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide at coal-fired power plants: Much of the technology those plants would use is experimental, and no one wants to go first.
The article cites the case of Appalachian Power and the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) system it wants to use at its Mountaineer Power Plant in Mason County, W.Va. The IGCC technology is expensive, and Appalachian Power's parent company, American Electric Power, wants to recover that cost through a rate increase. The West Virginia Public Service Commission has approved a rate increase, but its corresponding agency in Virginia has rejected the rate increase request, saying the risks for the people who pay those rates were too great because the actual cost of building and running an IGCC plant are too uncertain.
"And in a Catch-22 that plagues the whole effort, the commission said AEP should not build a commercial-scale plant because no one had demonstrated the technology on a commercial scale," the Times wrote.
If we want to reduce pollution from power plants, logic dictates that someone will have to go first. But it's not just an engineering problem. There also are political considerations. Depending on which party wins control of the White House and Congress this fall, the regulatory environment for utility companies could be far different in one or two years than it is now.
You don't have to believe global warming is the most important problem facing humanity to want to see fewer emissions coming from power plant smokestacks. Few people would want to return to the days when smoke came out of stacks virtually untreated. Nowadays, equipment removes much of the pollution that went into the air and eventually into our lungs.
We have to take the next step sometime.
In the coming weeks, we can expect to hear John McCain and Barack Obama discuss their visions of America's energy future. Experts will analyze their visions to estimate how much each will cost the average household in dollars and cents.
The price of all sorts of energy is increasing, and we feel the effects in ways we might not recognize.
The public wants cleaner energy and fewer emissions from power plant smokestacks. Politicians have recognized this and are working on plans to encourage industry to put fewer pollutants into the air.
But new emission-control technology doesn't come cheap. AEP wants to build several IGCC plants, but so far, West Virginia is the only state to allow the company to increase its rates to recover the added cost of that technology.
But then, retrofitting older coal-burning plants doesn't come cheap, either. AEP is spending about $1 billion to install new pollution-reduction systems at its John Amos plant near Winfield, W.Va.
The political class and the regulatory bureaucracy have to figure out what direction government will take. Will it encourage or discourage the installation of expensive new technology? How much can the rate-paying public be expected to pay for this new technology? Who bears the burden if the first plant using this technology does not perform as well as predicted?
We need cleaner technology for producing electricity. For a variety of reasons, coal is the best choice for the immediate future. Lawmakers and regulators need to settle their differences soon so the next generation of power plants can come on line when they will be needed.
Entire article posted -
source.
