!

"#$%$& (
Michael Babcock
ENGL 1102
4/20/2014
Final Draft
Climate Change: What About Coal Power?

Disasters waiting to happen was the headline a couple months ago when one of Duke
Energys coal ash ponds spilled into the Dan River, but is coal power really the villain the media
makes it out to be (Barron 1)? I am currently working on a senior project that is improving the
operation of a Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) system for Duke Energy. An FGD is an
expensive system that connects to the back end of a coal power plant and reduces the sulfur
emissions by 99% to protect the environment. When I heard about new EPA regulations coming
down that would effectively ban new construction on coal power plants, I realized that I didnt
know much about the issue of climate change and how it will effect our lives in the future. The
focus of my inquiry into the climate change debate centers on the role of coal power and where it
fits in our energy future. I found many perspectives but was able to narrow them into three major
groups.
The first group consists of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
environmental activists who believe that we must do everything we can and more to reduce our
impact and conserve the environment. The next group consists of power industry companies and
people with an interest in the coal industry that is being regulated out of existence. Obviously,
both of these sides have a large stake in the discussion and will come with biases. The final
group I would like to discuss is the academic researchers who are studying the facts underlying
the issues and speaking on what they are finding. They tend to have a more practical reasoned
approach and promote energy stability and security.
!"#$%$& )
The EPAs stated mission is to protect human health and the environment (EPA 1).
Based on the available data, they have concluded that the emissions caused by humans are the
deciding factor and underlying cause of the climate change trends we are seeing today. They
present evidence of climate change such as melting glaciers, rising sea level, changes in weather
patterns, and acidification of the oceans (EPA 2). Its not hard to surmise that the environment is
their chief concern and that this influences everything they work toward. In addition to the EPA,
there are activist groups that fight for and support regulations limiting corporations. For example,
groups like the Environmental Defense Fund praised the new rule that will prevent the
construction of coal power plants. One of their attorneys, Megan Ceronsky, believes that these
regulations will promote new technologies in the industry rather than hinder the generation of
power in the future; she asserts, Opponents of this rule need to explain why they think its okay
to have unlimited carbon pollution"(Stein par. 2). This quote illustrates the extreme nature of
these activists by implying that energy companies want to be able to pollute the environment as
much as they please. Sweeping statements and unattainable regulations seek to vilify the coal
industry and have influenced the current media climate toward supporting these factions.
Ultimately, the voice represented by these groups contends that the environment is the most
important factor and concludes that humans are the main cause of climate change and we must
be stopped.
Admittedly, both sides of the debate exaggerate the position of their opponent to make
them seem ridiculous. The other group with a large investment in this discussion is the
companies and industry professionals who focus on the economic concerns surrounding coal
power. Obviously, the main purposes of a business are to make money, build wealth, and create
jobs. Currently, coal is the source of about 43% of our power, which makes it the largest
!"#$%$& *
contributor to our energy supply (EPRI fig. 1). Obviously, major changes in regulations affecting
coal power will also have major consequences for the economy and our energy security. Sonal
Patel, an editor at Powermag.com, quoted Environment Subcommittee Chair David Schweikerts
who states; These rules are simply a thinly veiled attempt to prevent new coal power and
eventually take down natural gas (Patel 1). As seen with the environmental activists above, the
coal power industry seeks to paint a picture of the EPA crashing the economy due to
unreasonable regulations and controls on the businesses that employ us. This voice from the
industry argues that an attempt to change too rapidly on the scale of the power industry will
result in huge economic damage and back us into a corner that threatens our security and the
availability of energy.
The final voice consists of researchers and academic groups that are researching the
technology and facts of the issue. The ones I will focus on, like Dr. Tinker at the University of
Texas, advocate that energy and how we get it, is one of the most important issues of our time
because everything in our society depends on the availability and affordability of energy
(Switch). In support of this academic reasoned approach, Bhown and Freeman at the Electric
Power Research Institute published an academic journal on the status of carbon capture
technology. In it they produced a technology readiness level (TRL) rating from 1 to 9 for various
kinds of technology that would allow coal power plants to compete in this environmentally
focused society. A commercial scale technology rates as a 9 and something that is purely
conceptual would rank as a 1 (Bhown 5). Bhown and Freeman concluded that none of the
required technologies rate above a 7, which means none are commercially ready to implement on
coal power plants today (Bhown 6). This means that there is some merit to the industry asserting
that they cant meet the new regulations with current technology. Their conclusions remained
!"#$%$& +
hopeful that a combination of expertise across multiple industries could lead to an attainable
level of emissions control that would please environmentalists and the power industry. Dr.
Tinker, of the Switch Energy Project, believes that one of the largest driving factors is the scale
of energy demand and thinks the solution lies with consumers reducing the total demand on the
system, which would allow for more flexibility in how we produce that energy (Switch). Finally,
these academic voices conclude that because of the scale involved, our energy security must
drive a reasoned balanced policy to avoid facing the looming consequences.
Imagine a triangle with the environment, the economy, and energy security at each corner
and these groups of voices engaged in a three-way tug-of-war. Each voice or groups of voices in
the media fail to see the merits in their opponents arguments and charges ahead with their own
agenda. Pulling the United States too far towards any one corner will result in major
consequences in another. For example, if we over regulate coal and natural gas power the cost of
energy could easily double and cripple the economy. If we only focused on producing energy as
cheaply as possible, we could become over dependant on other nations or pollute the very air we
breathe as has been seen in Beijing and other areas of China. If we focus only on energy security
and using our own natural resources like natural gas fracking, we could pollute our clean
drinking water supplies or ruin local ecosystems. In the end, a balanced educated approach to
this major issue seems like the best course of action. Unfortunately, digging into the facts behind
this issue requires a lot of effort and leads to people giving up their responsibility and trusting the
rhetoric of whatever media personality they have an affinity for. Hopefully, seeing how
differently these voices approach the topic of coal power leads you to do your own research and
to be skeptical of what is presented as fact in the media.


!"#$%$& ,

Works Cited

Barron, Richard. "Coal Ash Ponds disasters Waiting to Happen."Www.journalnow.com.
Winston-Salem Journal, 9 Feb. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.

Bhown, Abhoyjit S., and Brice C. Freeman. "Analysis And Status Of Post-Combustion Carbon
Dioxide Capture Technologies." Environmental Science & Technology 45.20 (2011):
8624-8632. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.

"Climate Change Science Facts." EPA.gov. Environmental Protection Agency, Apr. 2010. Web.
15 Mar. 2014.

Patel, Sonal. "CCS Is Not Yet Adequately Demonstrated, Say Industry Leaders." 13 March
2014. Powermag.com. 18 March 2014.

Stein, Sharyn. "EDF Welcomes Publication of First National Carbon Pollution Standards for
Power Plants." EDF.org. Environmental Defense Fund, 08 Jan. 2014. Web. 02 Apr.
2014.

Switch. Dir. Harry Lynch. Perf. Dr. Scott Tinker. Arcos Films, 2012. Online.
"Where Does Our Electricity Come From?" EPRI.com. Electric Power Research Institute, Jan.
2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.