POINT/COUNTERPOINT: COAL-FUELED POWER PLANTS: THE RIGHT MOVE?

Published Oct. 19, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Point: Makes necessary power

As you read this, the government is considering plans to put more than one hundred coal-fueled power plants into place across 42 states.

Coal has been used since the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century as a fuel in factories and for steam engines in ships, trains and even some cars. For many years, it was touted as one of Earth’s natural wonders, its gift to mankind.

Then environmentalism was born and coal was denounced as a vile, murderous pollutant. It burned dirty, smelly and covered its surroundings with a black layer of soot.

The drive to replace coal as the fuel of choice found plenty of support.
Many of the plants added to the grid in the 20th century, therefore, were designed to be fueled by petroleum, wind turbines and water-powered generators in dams. Yet now, nasty, dirty coal is once again being considered to power the nation’s electric grid.

I have no problem with it.

The main reason that new power plants are being considered in the first place is an explosion in electrical use and demand. The population of the U.S. has surpassed 300 million, and people are using more kilowatts of electricity per capita than ever before. There’s only so much stress that the existing system can take before breaking down.

This was demonstrated dramatically in 2003, when seven states in the northeast and the Canadian province of Quebec experienced a multi-day blackout.

Some of the busiest cities in America, including Detroit and New York City, were plunged into darkness and untempered summer heat. All electrical activity was literally at a standstill.

This massive outage was initially caused by an overload-induced shutdown at a single plant. The North American electrical grid is so interlinked that the shutdown soon spread.

In the current situation of exploding demand, how quickly the much-needed electricity is generated is also extremely important. Since the power grid is already strained, power plant designs that take much time to construct and put into operation are not prudent solutions to our current predicament. This includes nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams.

Environmentalists often tout wind farms as the energy method of the future, as it is powered by the natural, no-pollutant force of wind.

Wind farms, however, are notoriously expensive, and often require years of continuous operation just to recoup the costs of construction. And wind is an extremely variable force.

Even very windy areas will experience extended times of atmospheric calm.

This, of course, renders the wind-powered turbines inoperable.

Therefore, for maintaining a steady flow of efficiently generated electricity, wind turbines are of little use. This leaves power plants that rely on fuel oil to generate electricity.

Fuel oil is derived from petroleum, which is still relatively plentiful on the planet and inexpensive. The problem is that most of it is located in other parts of Earth — parts inhabited by countries with which the U.S. does not always enjoy the best of relations.

It is not the ideal source for a steady supply of energy-producing fuel. In times of actual or potential conflict, the supply of fuel oil should not be trusted to the very powers that the U.S. might be in conflict with.

Without this precious black gold of a fuel, the power stations in question cannot function, thereby bringing us back to the proverbial square one when it comes to alleviating the electricity supply dilemma.

So, where does that leave us with respect to coal?

Well, it leaves us with coal as our only viable option to fixing the problems that exist with current electricity delivery. Yes, I realize it’s a non-renewable fossil fuel. No, it doesn’t burn cleanly with water as its only byproduct. And no, it won’t make you feel warm and cuddly as a protector of the environment.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t advocate gas-guzzling SUVs, slash-and-burn farming, exotic hardwood dentures or any other form of wanton destruction of the environment.

It is important, however, to maintain a balance between environmentalism and common sense. The pollution that would be prevented by not using coal-powered plants would be more than made up for by the disruptions that the other types of power stations would cause.

For example, do you really think fish can swim through thick concrete walls in the middle of a lake to get to their breeding grounds?

Since virtually any power plant will have significant effects on the environment, we must choose the one fuel that will produce the greatest benefit for the greatest number. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is coal.

It’s nasty and smelly, but it’s also cheap, reliable and not stored beneath the soil of a country ruled by a foreign autocrat.

So, let the coal fires burn.