TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Uncertainty Blurs Energy Future As Utilities Back Away From Coal

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 25, 2007

Major electric companies suddenly are refusing to bet their profits on coal. Trouble is, they aren't sure what option is better.

The national mood clearly favors a reduction in greenhouse gases. But a lack of direction from Congress on what the regulatory rules will be is leading companies like TECO to postpone major investments.

For a growing state like Florida, the congressional indecision and lack of clear standards at the state level could lead to higher electric bills with little environmental benefit.

Plans for two new coal-burning power plants featuring state-of-the-art technology have recently been canceled - one by TECO and the other by The Orlando Utilities Commission.

Both projects would have used a process called coal gasification, which earlier this year was being applauded as the best practical way to produce low-cost energy with minimal environmental impact. Plans for four other coal plants also have been stopped in Florida this year.

The political climate for coal chilled quickly after Gov. Charlie Crist issued an executive order a few months ago. He said that by 2017 the state must cut its emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels.

The Florida Energy Commission endorsed the idea the other day, but gave Florida until 2020 to meet the ambitious target. By 2030, the state must be back at 1990 levels. No one says how.

It is hard to imagine being able to reduce emissions that much, utility spokesmen say, without building more nuclear-powered generators. But given its size and areas of expertise, TECO has no plans for a nuclear plant.

Capturing Carbon

In theory, TECO could go ahead and build its $2 billion coal gasification plant. If later forced to reduce carbon emissions, it conceivably could capture the bulk of the carbon waste using an experimental process, convert the carbon to liquid, and pump it deep underground forever.

But the reality is that the risks are unknown and forever is a long time.

The guidelines for capturing carbon haven't been written. No one knows how high liability would go if damage were done or if carbon dioxide leaked into the atmosphere.

"We can't put customers and investors at risk," explains John Ramil, TECO president.

He's right. The trouble for utilities, and their customers, is that the vision of Crist and other environmental-minded politicians has gotten ahead of the laws and rules. Knowing you want less carbon dioxide in the air is not the same thing as having solid rules to make the transition happen.

There is no consensus on what to do. Environmentalists have opposed plans for burying carbon, called carbon sequestration. It would, among other things, allow for unchecked consumption of fossil fuels, especially coal, instead of forcing a switch to renewable sources, including wind, solar and plant-based fuels such as ethanol.

When the governor heard that the Orlando coal plant wouldn't be built, he said, "I'm very happy for the people of Florida ... We have solar, we have nuclear, we have wind and other alternative opportunities for energy in the Sunshine State."

Crist didn't point out that Florida is a poor state for wind turbines, which work best at higher elevations. Solar technology remains experimental on a large scale and could leave the state short of power on a cold night or cloudy day. And new ethanol plants are running into obstacles, including community opposition to their water use and possible odor.

A Glimmer Of Solar

A solar power plant, using mirrors to focus the sun's energy and create steam that turns a generator, is planned by Florida Power & Light, with construction to begin next year. But the initial capacity will be only 10 megawatts, though expansion is possible if things go as hoped.

In contrast, TECO's coal plant, to have been built in Polk County, could have generated 632 megawatts.

Both Orlando and Tampa are growing and are going to need the electricity the proposed plants would have produced. To make up the loss, TECO's immediate plan is to burn more natural gas, which is cleaner but more expensive than coal.

The company also is expanding conservation efforts. One promising program will offer thermostats that alert consumers when energy is in short supply and at its highest cost.

A customer can save more than $100 a year by temporarily dialing down energy use. TECO also will be promoting solar-powered water heaters.

Clearly, conservation saves money, but experts disagree on whether requiring cleaner energy statewide will be more or less costly, create jobs or destroy them.

Indecision also has costs. As long as energy rules are up in the air, costly new investments won't be made, forcing consumers to pay more for less.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT