Living up to its name and motto, GreenLaw launched a legal attack against two proposed coal based power plants yesterday.

A coalition of environmental groups filed five challenges in Georgia State Supreme Court, on Monday, hoping to delay or derail the development of two coal power plants in Early County.

The disputed developments are Longleaf Energy Plant, a project developed by LS Power for Early County, and Plant Washington, a medium-sized plant that would be built by an energy consortium in Sandersville, Georgia.

“Innovative, clean ways of producing energy are economically feasible and Georgia has energy efficiency measures to meet the economic growth that we expect,” according to Erin Glynn of the Sierra Club in Georgia.  “Coal is a dirty, dangerous business. From the mine to the smokestack, coal-fired power is outdated, risky, and unnecessary.”

The motions were filed by GreenLaw and the Southern Environmental Law Center acting on behalf of Fall-line Alliance for a Clean Environment, Ogeechee Riverkeeper, Sierra Club’s Georgia Chapter, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

The petitions allege that state regulators failed to classify the proposed 1200 megawatt Longleaf Plant as a “major” source of air pollution, thereby enabling the coal power producer to operate under laxer standards than are appropriate for a plant of its proposed size.  Additionally, they claim that Plant Washington, which would produce 850 MW of power, will discharge harmful air pollutants while posing a threat to water supplies for neighborhoods along the Oconee River sited downstream from the plant.

“Hazardous air pollutants from the plant will compromise the Ogeechee River basin,” Ogeechee Riverkeeper representative Chandra Brown said. “Our recent report, Protect Yourself and Your Family from Mercury Pollution, shows that additional mercury deposition from Plant Washington would prevent people who fish from safely eating the fish they catch.”

The developers counter that the coal plants are necessary to support a rapidly developing population in the region.  They claim that Plant Washington alone, the smaller of the two plants would power over half a million homes within the next 5 to 6 years.

Additionally, the consortium supporting the project claim that the plants would help revitalize the region’s struggling job market by providing over 100 full time jobs once operations commence.

Dean Alford, president and CEO of Allied Energy Services, a development firm that’s part of the consortium believes that the environmentalists’ motions consist of empty rhetoric.

“They’re throwing a bunch of stuff on the wall and hoping that something sticks,” said Alford.

“We think it’s important to find a way to provide environmentally sensitive, reliable and affordable energy in the state,” Alford added. “Georgia’s going to have to build new energy solutions and we think clean coal is one of the best solutions.”

MPC seems likely to pull out of its proposed plans to create a new coal plant in Kemper County.

Mississippi Power Co. (MPC) may abandon construction of a coal plant in Kemper County after receiving a decision from the Mississippi Public Service Commission (PSC) capping spending on the venture at $2.4 billion.

The decision contained several conditions that MPC would need to abide by if they were to construct the proposed 582-megawatt integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) plant.

While MPC initially stated that they could construct the plant for $2.4 billion, their recent findings indicate the project would cost $3.2 billion.

“We are disappointed in this decision,” said company spokeswoman Cindy Duvall.

The PSC conditions “seem to make it impossible for Mississippi Power to finance or construct the Kemper County IGCC Project even if the right to construct had been — or might in the future — be allowed,” Duvall added.  “We put forth the best option available to us to meet our customers’ needs with reliable and affordable energy.”

MPC planned on using the IGCC to burn lignite coal to meet future electricity demand and give the utility 21^st century reduced emissions options for its aging coal plants.

A decision to forego the project could cost the county jobs.  The plant would have created 1,000 jobs during the construction phase and 260 permanent jobs.

“We’re going to keep praying it happens,” said James Granger, president of the Kemper County Board of Supervisors.

The vote came via a 2-1 decision. PSC Chairman Brandon Presley voted against it, warning that the cap would not “sufficiently protect the ratepayers of Mississippi Power Co from the great risks associated with the construction of this project.”

Welcome to the new R-Squared! Our goals here are to provide a place to engage in respectful and thoughtful debate about the very important issue of energy.

I thought it might be a good idea to summarize my positions on a wide variety of energy issues. Here I will attempt to briefly cover my views on oil, coal, ethanol (cellulosic, corn, and sugarcane), renewable diesel (green and biodiesel), nuclear power, solar power, wind power, and then climate change. I don’t intend to cover a lot of ground explaining my positions in detail; I will save that for future essays.

The most important thing to note is that I try to let the data determine my position. But that also means that as new data come in, my position may shift. Therefore, my positions shouldn’t be viewed as being etched in stone.

I try to take a scientific approach in which data have to constantly be sifted through, categorized according to level of credibility, and incorporated into the position as appropriate. Of course the categorization step is important, because there are studies that are funded by interest groups that I put into a vastly different category than independent, peer-reviewed research.

To put my positions into perspective, let me explain how I see the world. First, I view energy as one of the most critical underpinnings of our society. Without energy, modern society falls apart. Thus, I think energy policy is a critically important – and very underrated – issue.

I believe renewable energy is critical to our future. Development of renewable energy is what I do for a living. But I am also an advocate of responsible use of taxpayer money. But what I see a lot of in the world today is taxpayer money flowing to companies that are just out hyping their technologies. I don’t want to see energy policy influenced by gross exaggerations, and yet that is the situation I see today. That is what motivates me to write.

Here is a rundown, with the briefest of explanations, on where I see the world of energy today. I will break this up in transportation fuels, electricity, and then a word on climate change. This list is by no means comprehensive, but I have tried to include the major contenders/pretenders.

Transportation Fuels

Corn ethanol – My position on corn ethanol is often distorted by supporters of U.S. ethanol policy. I am not against corn ethanol. What I am against are some of the policies that we have put in place, such as subsidies on top of mandates. The benefits of corn ethanol are typically exaggerated by various interest groups, and what I try to do is sift the real from the hype to understand what corn ethanol is actually delivering for the taxpayer investments we are making. That usually runs afoul of the hype, and thus I am painted as anti-ethanol. What I would like to see corn ethanol do is get the fossil fuels out of their operations.

Sugarcane ethanol – Has some distinct advantages over corn ethanol. Two of the key challenges for producing ethanol are logistics of getting low-energy-density biomass in, and the energy required to convert to ethanol and purify. These issues aren’t much of a factor for sugarcane ethanol, because clean waste biomass is already at the plant as a result of the sugarcane processing. So they essentially have free boiler fuel, which minimizes the fossil fuel inputs into the process. That enables ethanol production that is relatively cheap, and that is largely decoupled from the impact of volatile fossil fuel prices.

Cellulosic ethanol – More hype than substance. This was the topic of my graduate school research in the early 90’s, and even then there was a very long history. In fact, cellulosic ethanol has been commercialized multiple times around the world, beginning in 1898 in Germany. The U.S. built two plants during World War I and shut them both down after the war due to poor economics. Another was built in the U.S. during WWII in Oregon, never produced ethanol during the war, and was closed down after the war. During the past decade there has been a race to reinvent the wheel and become the “first” to commercialize cellulosic ethanol. Worse, groups doing gasification to mixed alcohols started calling their product cellulosic ethanol. But there are very fundamental differences.

Renewable diesels – There are two major types, biodiesel and green diesel. There are two different ways to make green diesel; gasification and subsequent Fischer-Tropsch or hydrocracking vegetable oils or animal fats. Biodiesel relies heavily on methanol, almost exclusively fossil-fuel derived, and will never in my opinion be viable without subsidies. The green diesels are expensive to produce, but have more long-term promise in being able to make a real contribution to the energy mix.

Algal fuel – A subset of renewable diesel. As with cellulosic ethanol, more hype than substance here. There are a couple of possible routes that could work, but right now algal fuel is a very long ways from the market. Beware of those who promise $2 or $3 fuel from algae.

Petroleum – While I have a background in the oil industry, I don’t wish to see the world continue to rely on petroleum. There are many reasons that I will detail in a future post, but I think we have built a society that is far too dependent on oil. The consequences of oil shortages in a petroleum-dependent world are severe, and that is a risk that I don’t believe we can afford in the long run. On the other hand, I recognize the reality that the world has long run on cheap petroleum, and we will need petroleum for many years to come. Thus, I don’t favor punitive legislation that causes artificial shortages while demand is still high.

Natural gas – Much cleaner than coal for the production of electricity, and the U.S. is in a pretty good position with respect to supply. Can be used to produce electricity, heat homes, or even fuel cars. A key question for me in the corn ethanol debate is whether it makes more sense to directly fuel cars with natural gas instead of converting the natural gas into fertilizer for the corn and then steam for the distillation of the ethanol.

Electricity

Wind power – Cost effective in some locations, but hindered by the intermittent nature of the source. Some issues with bird kills and noise, but my overall impression of wind has always been favorable.

Solar power – I love the idea of solar power, but costs and intermittency are a problem at present for solar PV. Solar thermal may be a more cost-effective option, and it also has the advantage of being able to produce power after the sun sets (up until the temperature of the thermal mass gets too low).

Geothermal – One of my favorite clean electricity technologies. In the right location, geothermal can be a very cost effective and clean producer of electricity. Deep geothermal is another matter, as it has been linked to triggering earthquakes.

Hydropower – Same class as geothermal for me. While there are some issues, this is the case with all energy sources, and hydropower’s issues are mild compared to some other energy sources. Comparatively, hydropower ranks very high on my list.

Coal – Very similar situation to oil. We have created a society that is very dependent on coal, and there are numerous environmental issues associated with coal. On the other hand, it is easy to see why we are so coal-dependent: It is very cheap relative to other fuel sources, and it provides reliable power. In the minds of consumers, cheap and reliable has historically won out over environmental concerns.

Nuclear – If you look at the projections for the growth of electricity demand – combined with the desires of many to see coal plants phased out – there is no other option than nuclear that can deliver the desired amounts of electricity. So I think we are going to need to expand nuclear power in the years ahead.

Climate Change

This is really too complex to summarize briefly, and in doing so I am afraid my position may be misunderstood. Whether you accept the idea that man is contributing to climate change, I don’t believe it is a good idea to conduct such a grand experiment on the atmosphere because the ultimate consequences can’t be predicted. However, I can’t see any trajectory that will result in a global decline in CO2 emissions. Despite all of the best efforts (e.g., Kyoto Protocol), global CO2 concentrations continue to increase. As China and India continue to industrialize and improve their standards of living, they will demand cheap power. Any way I look at it, global CO2 concentrations will continue to head up until we start to run short of fossil fuels.

None of that is to imply that I don’t think it is very serious issue. My position has long been that I am not an expert in the field, and so I defer to the experts. The consensus has always seemed to me that atmospheric scientists believe that the activities of mankind are contributing to climate change.

On the other hand, I also believe that the issue should continue to be debated. There is far too much rancor over climate change, with each side hurling accusations and insults. Let the debate take place in a respectful manner, and let’s not try to shout down the other side, or suppress information. But at the end of the day, it just seems to me that our efforts to stop rising carbon emissions are futile.

I have certainly left out a lot, and major details are missing. Most of the energy options I mentioned above will be expounded upon in future essays. Or, if you don’t want to wait, feel free to start that conversation yourself.

DOE’s CCPI Helps Commercialize Process That Also Reduces Costs and Potentially Harmful Emissions

Washington, D.C. — An innovative coal-drying technology that will extract more energy from high moisture coal at less cost and simultaneously reduce potentially harmful emissions is ready for commercial use after successful testing at a Minnesota electric utility. The DryFining™ technology was developed with funding from the first round of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).

The United States has about 280 power stations burning high-moisture coal, generating more than 100 gigawatts of electricity, which equates to about one-third of the electric power generated by coal in the country.

Great River Energy of Maple Grove, Minn., has selected the WorleyParsons Group to exclusively distribute licenses for the technology, which essentially uses waste heat from a power plant to reduce moisture content in lignite coal. Great American Energy, a 50-50 joint venture of Great River Energy and the North American Coal Corporation, will also market the technology, whose first user will be the utility’s Spiritwood Station under construction near Jamestown, N.D.

In addition to using power plant waste heat to reduce moisture, DryFining also segregates particles by density. This means a significant amount of higher density compounds containing sulfur and mercury can be sorted out and returned to the mine rather than oxidized in the boiler. The end result is more energy can be extracted from the coal while simultaneously reducing emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, major potential pollutants that result from coal-based combustion.

As part its CCPI-funded project, Great River Energy tested a 115-ton prototype dryer in the company’s 546-megawatt Coal Creek Station Unit 2 in Underwood N.D. Following a successful increase in boiler efficiency and reduction of emissions, Great River Energy expanded the project by building full-scale dryer modules for the entire Coal Creek Station. The Office of Fossil Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory manages the CCPI program.

Lignite is one of four major coal types produced in the United States, accounting for about 7 percent of annual production, and is an important energy source for electricity generation. In general, lignite has a higher moisture and ash content, resulting in a lower power efficiency and higher rate of emissions than coals with less moisture. Great River Energy’s innovative technology reduces the cost of drying coal by using the waste heat and segregating particles by density, thereby generating energy with less coal while reducing emissions and emission-control costs.

At the Coal Creek Station, the technology increased the energy content of the lignite from 6,200 to 7,100 Btus per pound, thereby reducing fuel input into the boilers by 14 percent. At the same time, sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions were reduced by more than 40 percent, nitrogen oxide by more than 20 percent, and carbon dioxide by 4 percent.

These results are important to energy consumers because the United States has about 280 power stations burning high-moisture coal, generating more than 100 gigawatts of electricity, which equates to about one-third of the electric power generated by coal in the country.

Release: National Energy Technology Laboratory

One of the triumphs of modern life is our ability to distance ourselves from the simple facts of our own existence. – Jeff Goodell

Big Coal by Jeff Goodell is a book I have had on my reading list for a long time, but I only got around to reading it during my recent trip to Europe. It has taken me a very long time to finish this review for a number of reasons, but one is that I had a hard time deciding what to write. Normally, when I read a book I will dog-ear the pages that I want to revisit either because 1). There was something significant that I did not know; or 2). I want to reference a particular point in the book review. By the time I finished reading this book, I probably had 50 pages dog-eared.

My introduction to Jeff Goodell came a couple of years ago when he was writing an article for Rolling Stone about ethanol. He contacted me and we talked a few times, I got to know him a bit, and he published a pretty scathing article during the early days of the ethanol euphoria. For more on that episode, see Rolling Stone Article, Jeff Goodell Debates the Rolling Stone Article on CNBC, or Bob Dinneen Responds to Rolling Stone.

I wish I could write like Goodell. I really enjoy his writing style. I sometimes disagree with particular points, but in Big Coal he makes a very compelling argument that we don’t come close to paying the societal costs of coal usage when we pay our electric bill.

Even though we don’t often see it, coal is a part of daily life for most of us. It produces a great deal of our electricity. But we don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the implications. As Goodell notes on the first page, “We love our hamburgers, but we’ve never seen the inside of a slaughterhouse.” Isn’t that the truth? I have always imagined the number of people who would become vegetarians if they ever saw the inner workings of a slaughterhouse.

When we fuel up our cars, we don’t think (much) about the ramifications of our oil dependence. When we flip a light switch, we do not associate that with the coal-driven mountaintop removals in West Virginia. In this book, Goodell thrusts those associations right in your face.

The book is divided into three parts: Extraction, conversion to power, and the resulting emissions. He covers the history of the industry, tells the stories of the people in and around the business, and while most of the book is based on U.S.-happenings, he does spend a chapter on China.

I would imagine the coal industry was none too pleased with Big Coal, because it paints a really ugly picture of the industry.  Goodell contrasts the coal industry with the individuals whose lives have been negatively impacted by coal in one way or another. He details corruption and politics that allowed the industry to delay implementation of pollution control equipment. And on a big picture level, he argues that continued usage of coal poses a serious threat to the earth’s climate.

This book will leave you shaking your head, wondering why we use coal at all if the overall picture is as troublesome as Goodell suggests. I found myself wondering as well, which was actually what led to my post on the cost of various energy sources. There at the top of the list for the cheapest source of energy was Powder River Basin coal, which is why we continue to heavily use coal despite the issues Goodell spells out.

We humans aren’t very good at willingly making sacrifices today in order to potentially improve the situation a few years down the line. We want instant gratification and coal fits the bill. (I would argue this is also why the U.S. is so deeply in debt and our personal savings rate is so low.)

I noted in my book review of Crude World that Peter Maass didn’t present a balanced picture of the oil industry; it was all bad. His book was intended to highlight the negative aspect of our oil dependency. Big Coal is the same in that respect. It is hard to argue that coal hasn’t improved the lives of a great many people around the world, and I know a number of people who would argue that these improvements outweigh the negatives. Further, it is fair to say that the coal industry has come a long way in cleaning up their emission profile over the past few decades.

But it is clear which side of that argument Goodell would come down on. To be honest, I come down on that side as well. I would like to see us limit our coal consumption and boost electricity generation from other resources. I know a great number of people who feel this way, but coal is like oil in that replacing it will likely entail economic sacrifices that individuals don’t like to make. Coal produces half of the electricity in the U.S., and I would have a hard time arguing that anything – outside of nuclear power – can scale up and take on the role that coal currently plays.

The realist in me thinks that we will eventually use up all of our coal, as will China, Australia, India, and all of the other major coal producers. This is primarily why I sit out the debates on climate change; I can’t realistically envision anything that will get the world to collectively NOT burn up all the coal. In an energy-constrained future, prices will rise and people who feel morally opposed to coal will suddenly find their moral fiber weakening as high energy prices bite into their budgets.

I don’t discount that renewable energy can eventually make a bigger impact (I hope so, because that’s what I am doing for a living), but it is starting from a very small basis compared to electricity generated from coal. While coal produces about half of the electricity in the U.S., renewables other than hydropower account for only about 3.5% (per the EIA).

So I think Big Coal will continue to be a very big part of our lives for many years to come – although with a strong political commitment the nuclear option could put a dent in our coal dependence.

Last year I saw a presentation that projected very strong growth in wood pellet shipments from Canada and the U.S. into Europe. My first thought was “That doesn’t sound very efficient. Why don’t we just use those here in North America?”

It didn’t take very long for me to find out the answer to that. It is because wood pellets are much more expensive than natural gas in North America. On top of that it takes more effort to use wood for energy than it does natural gas. That combination means that wood has a tough time competing with natural gas in North America.

When I was looking into that issue, I compiled a list of the price for various energy types on an energy equivalent basis. The price is as current as possible unless noted. I have converted everything into $/million BTU (MMBTU), and the sources are listed below.

My preference is to use EIA data over NYMEX data because the former is an archived, fixed number. I have included energy for heating and for various transportation options. For comparison I also included the cost of electricity and the cost of the ethanol subsidy/MMBTU of ethanol produced.

Current Energy Prices per Million BTU

Powder River Basin Coal – $0.56
Northern Appalachia Coal – $2.08
Natural gas – $5.67
Ethanol subsidy – $5.92
Petroleum – $13.56
Propane – $13.92
#2 Heating Oil – $15.33
Jet fuel – $16.01
Diesel – $16.21
Gasoline – $18.16
Wood pellets – $18.57
Ethanol – $24.74
Electricity – $34.03

Observations

It isn’t difficult then to see why wood pellets have a difficult market in the U.S. For people with access to natural gas, they are going to prefer the lower price and convenience of natural gas over wood. For Europe, their natural gas supplies aren’t nearly as secure, so they have more incentive to favor wood as an option.

The cost of the ethanol subsidy is interesting. We pay more for the ethanol subsidy than natural gas costs. However, if you consider that we are paying a subsidy on a per gallon basis – and a large fraction of that gallon of ethanol is fossil fuel-derived, the subsidy for the renewable component is really high.

For instance, if we consider a generous energy return on ethanol of 1.5 BTUs out per BTU in, that means the renewable component per gallon is only 1/3rd of a gallon. (An energy return of 1.5 indicates that it took 1 BTU of fossil fuel to produce 1.5 BTU of ethanol; hence the renewable component in that case is 1/3rd). That means that the subsidy on simply the renewable component is actually three times as high – $17.76/MMBTU. Bear in mind that this is only the subsidy; the consumer then has to pay $24.74/MMBTU for the ethanol itself.

Sources for Data

Petroleum – $13.56 (EIA World Average Price for 1/08/2010)
Northern Appalachia Coal – $2.08 (EIA Average Weekly Spot for 1/08/10)
Powder River Basin Coal – $0.56 (EIA Average Weekly Spot for 1/08/10)
Propane – $13.92 (EIA Mont Belvieu, TX Spot Price for 1/12/2010)
Natural gas – $5.67 (NYMEX contract for February 2010)
#2 Heating Oil – $15.33 (EIA New York Harbor Price for 1/12/2010)
Gasoline – $18.16 (EIA New York Harbor Price for 1/12/2010)
Diesel – $16.21 (EIA #2 Low Sulfur New York Harbor for 1/08/2010)
Jet fuel – (EIA New York Harbor for 1/12/2010)
Ethanol – $24.74 (NYMEX Spot for February 2010)
Wood pellets – $18.57 (Typical Wood Pellet Price for 1/12/2010)
Electricity – $34.03 (EIA Average Retail Price to Consumers for 2009)

Conversion factors

Petroleum – 138,000 BTU/gal
Gasoline – 115,000 BTU/gal
Diesel – 131,000 BTU/gal
Ethanol – 76,000 BTU/gal
Heating oil 138,000 BTU/gal
Jet fuel – 135,000 BTU/gal
Propane – 91,500 BTU/gal
Northern Appalachia Coal – 13,000 BTU/lb
Powder River Basin Coal – 8,800 BTU/lb
Wood pellets – 7,000 BTU/lb
Electricity – 3,412 BTU/kWh

U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary

The primary reason is our huge coal reserves. While we are 12th in oil reserves (Table 5 of the report), our coal reserves are by far the largest in the world. All together, the fossil fuel reserves (oil, natural gas, and coal) of the U.S. are reported at just under one trillion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE). The global total is reported at 5.6 trillion BOE.

While I think you have to take data from some of the listed countries with a grain of salt – especially when talking about categories like “undiscovered technically recoverable” oil and natural gas – it does point to the importance that coal will play when oil reserves start to seriously deplete. I have said this before, but when gasoline is $5/gallon, most objections to coal as a fuel will disappear. At that point I think you will start to see coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants moving forward.

Also from the report, at first glance this chart may seem ridiculous:

But I am also reminded of my amazement at a U.S. oil statistic I once came across. In 1982, U.S. reserves were 27.9 billion barrels. In 2005, U.S. reserves were 21.8 billion barrels. But over the course of that 24-year period we produced 57 billion barrels of oil and pulled our reserves down by only 6 billion barrels. So the graph above seems far-fetched, but so does the evolution of our reserves over past quarter century.

Of course it goes without saying that government policies will heavily influence which resources are developed, and over what time period. My guess is that over the next few years we will favor policies that are intended to wean us off of fossil fuels. While I applaud good intentions – and in fact my new job is all about moving developing fossil fuel replacements – I expect we are going to see more than a few unintended consequences. The one I am most concerned about is heavily disincentivizing domestic production, but not having an adequate answer for the domestic production shortfall. In this case, while more alternative energy may be the target, more oil imports may be the unintended consequence.

This coal ash spill had people up in arms which is leading to the EPA's proposed plan.

It was announced today that the EPA intends on broadening the rules applied to coal-fired power plants to include toxic metal discharge limits. This move would, for the first time, regulate the millions of pounds of arsenic, selenium, mercury, lead, and other pollutants that are released each year – typically, into the waste water ways that are there for this specific purpose. The issue appears because of findings that suggest these metals are seeping into drinking water.

“Current regulations, which were issued in 1982, have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last three decades,” the agency wrote in an announcement.

Traditionally, the EPA only policed the amount of emissions released by the smoke stacks of these coal-fired power plants, but since it’s very easy for the plants to transfer the wastes from the smokestacks to the water, little is being done to aid the environment.

“Treatment technologies are available to remove these pollutants before they are discharged to waterways, but these systems have been installed at only a fraction of the power plants,” the agency went on to say.

According to Federal Law, the EPA can change their rules every year, but has not since 1982 saying that “they are reviewing it.” Now that the reviewing process is complete, they will impose the rule change by 2012 forcing companies to use the technologies readily available to them to clean the water before releasing it.

To speed up the rule-changing process, the Environmental Integrity Project are suing the EPA because of the lack of rules. The EIP stated that if rules were not released within sixty days, they would act on the lawsuit. Although these results are pleasing for the EIP, the want to ensure that the rules get enacted as soon as possible.

There are so many ways to achieve renewable energy.

According to a study conducted by the environmental group Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREG), clean energy will create more jobs than coal. By 2030, there will have been 2.7 million more jobs created than if countries were to stay on their current paths of burning coal and other fossil fuels for energy. These findings are the ammunition needed to urge countries around the world to agree to a new United Nations pact in which the nations combat global environmental issues. They are using employment as a way of steering people towards the pact.

“A switch from coal to renewable electricity generation will not just avoid 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions, but will create 2.7 million more jobs by 2030 than if we continue business as usual,” the report said.

If strong policies for renewables pan out, it is projected that the number of jobs in power would rise by 2 million to 11.3 million by 2030 which would be helped by a large increase in renewable energy jobs: 6.9 million from 1.9 million. That same study found that if governments were to stay on coal as their predominant energy provider, there would be a loss of half a million jobs resulting in about 8.6 million jobs in energy.

Although the cost of labor would rise for companies that use these renewable energies, their cost of production would be reduced, so there would actually be more money made. In the wind industry alone, the report suggested, there could be as many as 2.03 million people employed by 2030, up from half a million in 2010.

The report also suggested that for the first time in 2008, the European Union and the United States produced more energy from renewable sources than from conventional sources such as nuclear, gas, coal, and oil. This has environmental proponents happy. With this study, more attention will be paid to renewable energies from an environmental perspective, but also, more importantly to governments, from an economical perspective.

A natural gas plant.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle say that the new technology being developed to capture the carbon emissions and bury them is a better tactic to employ than the use of natural gas. There is a lot of money that is riding on the coal industry, money that aids many politicians to get elected. It’s because of this that there is a large mixture of science, business, politics, and environment that is making the energy bills going through the House and Senate worth debating.

People are dismayed that an issue that should be so simple is causing such apathy in Congress. The current House bill that was passed in June provided some support to natural gas, but majority power landed in coal once again. They were provided tens of billions of dollars in pollution credits. Because of this, the savings will be passed on to the consumer. Environmentalists are frustrated about this because all of these billions of dollars in pollution credits are not doing a single thing to ensure that the environment is being protected from this overload in greenhouse gases.

A lot of people in the coal industry are arguing that the technology of capturing and burying the emissions in the ground is a great way to ensure that the emissions aren’t getting into the air. The natural gas people are arguing that natural gas is a sure way to reduce greenhouse gases unlike an “untested technology.” Because of this, the battle is continuing over which is the better method of providing both the necessary energy in the United States, but also ensuring that the environment doesn’t get destroyed more because of all these greenhouse gases.

In the end, officials are saying that, although it may be nice to have benefits to coal and natural gas, but also a decrease in greenhouse gases, there is little way to benefit both parties. There will have to be a choice.