CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


CO2 Emissions utah-supreme-court-nixes-new-coal-fired-power-plant

Published on December 5th, 2009 | by Tina Casey

6

Utah Supreme Court Puts Kibosh on Coal Plant

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

December 5th, 2009 by  

You can put a fork in a gigantic new coal fired power plant proposed for rural Sugard, Utah, because it’s done.  Yesterday the Utah Supreme Court struck a major blow against the plant by ordering it to start back at square one in the pollution permit application process.

[social_buttons]

As reported by Paul Foy in an Associated Press story, the do-over exposes the pie-in-the-sky mentality behind so called “clean coal.”  Among the reasons for the court’s decision was the failure of regulators to look into gasification, a cleaner coal technology.  They went along with Nevco, the company behind the plant, which proposed a more polluting conventional pulverized-coal burn method because gasification was too expensive.  In other words, without some big help from some deep pockets, clean coal is a no go.

What if We Built a New Technology and Nobody Came?

The failure of the Sugard plant underscores one of the main problems behind so-called clean coal (and the reason why dozens of proposed coal fired plants are on hold).  Aside from being not altogether clean, and aside from involving catastrophic mining practices such as mountaintop removal, and aside from involving a huge carbon footprint and infrastructure investment for transportation alone, “clean coal” technology is phenomenally expensive to build and operate.  It spells an end to the days of ultra-cheap coal-generated energy, and that puts coal squarely in competition with renewable resources including biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal.

Coal, Competition, and Government Funding

Fossil fuels have long enjoyed a headlock on the marketplace, but now the field is wide open and power companies also have to consider the potential for competing feedstocks in their financial planning, along with the potential for inter-industry synergy that is practically nonexistent with coal. For example, just this week a power company in Michgan announced the conversion of an existing coal plant to biomass, which will power a nearby ceiling tile factory and also burn scrap from the factory, recycling tons of waste that were formerly landfilled.  As for government subsidies, coal and other fossil fuels are facing new competition especially from solar power, which is winning support from federal stimulus funds and from states like Arizona that are actively competing to attract solar industries.

The Coal that Broke the Camel’s Back

According to  Western Resource Advocates, the conventional burn method proposed for the Sugard plant (to be built by Sevier Power, an affiliate of Nevco) would potentially emit at least 100 tons of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide annually, along with carbon dioxide.  For a coal-loving state that already gets 95% of its energy from the fossil, that would seem like just another drop in the bucket, but apparently the citizens of Utah and its judicial branch have decided that enough is enough.  It looks like Utah could be the canary in the coal mine for, well, coal.  The fuel will be with us far into the future, but as an increasingly marginalized and exotic resource.

Image: Grandfathered coal plant in Illinois by Senor Codo on flickr.com.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , ,


About the Author

Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.



  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DHCCFCPBZBID7QSLEYX6VC256U thepcnerd47

    COAL is ONLY more EXPENSIVE now because GOVERNMENT has ARTIFICALLY FORCED UNNECESSARY COSTS upon the COAL industry. THAT can be REVERSED.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Um, you must be kidding me.

      The US still pays $500 billion a year in external costs of coal not accounted for in its price.

      In other words, it is UNDERpriced.

  • Stephen

    great piece, but i think it’s “supreme,” not “surpreme.” then again, in Utah you never know.

  • Stephen

    great piece, but i think it’s “supreme,” not “surpreme.” then again, in Utah you never know.

  • Stephen

    great piece, but i think it’s “supreme,” not “surpreme.” then again, in Utah you never know.

  • Stephen

    great piece, but i think it’s “supreme,” not “surpreme.” then again, in Utah you never know.

Back to Top ↑