John Adams once observed that "[f]acts are stubborn things;
and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or dictates of
our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and
evidence." As the Obama Administration intensifies its push to
"wean" the Nation off its "dependence" on coal
in favor of "green" energy through enactment of the
"Cap and Trade" bill and imposition of onerous
regulations, there are stubborn facts that should be borne in mind
as we weigh the impact of this effort on our Nation and our
State.
Today, the coal industry employs 30,000 individuals in West
Virginia with a payroll of nearly $2 billion per year. It accounts
for over 60% of the State's business tax revenue. In addition,
it generates approximately $70 million in property and $214 million
in severance taxes annually. Coal generates 99% of the State's
total electricity and is the reason why West Virginians have among
the lowest electric rates in the Nation.
Nationally, we have over 273 billion tons of proven coal reserves,
more than any nation in the world. The low cost and abundance of
coal is one of the primary reasons why consumers in the United
States enjoy the lowest electricity rates of any free-market
economy in the world. It is these low energy costs that have fueled
the Nation's economic prosperity over the decades.
Currently, 39% of all electricity worldwide is generated from coal.
Developing nations are increasing their electric use at a rapid
pace in order to improve their people's living standards. They
have made clear they will not abandon those efforts. As a result,
by 2035 electric demand is expected to increase by 87%
worldwide.
Given these facts, is the push to displace coal as a primary energy
source with "green" energy realistic? Is threatening to
bankrupt those who attempt to construct coal fired power plants to
meet our Nation's growing energy demands wise? Is impeding
those who attempt to mine our most abundant natural resource
through regulatory constraints prudent? To answer these questions,
one might first look at the renewable energy source that proponents
of "green" energy have most often touted as of late -
wind.
While the use of wind energy continues to grow, it still accounts
for less than 1% of all U.S. electric generation and is unlikely to
grow much above 6%. This is due to the simple fact that winds do
not always blow. In addition, winds do not always blow when and
where peak electrical demands occur. As such, it is not a
consistently reliable source of energy.
How do planners deal with this? The city of Jiuquan, China,
provides an example. According to the September 28, 2009 Wall
Street Journal, Jiuquan is intended to showcase China's
commitment to "green" energy. Wind turbines with a
combined generating capacity of more than 12 gigawatts are to be
installed there by 2015. To assure there is electricity available
when winds do not blow, however, Jiuquan is also building new
coal-fired generating plants capable of producing 9.2 gigawatts of
power on a consistently reliable basis.
A comparison between the recently completed Mt. Storm Wind Farm and
John Amos illustrates some of the other problems associated with
wind energy. John Amos has a generating capacity of 2,933
megawatts. The Mt. Storm facility is situated along 12 miles of
ridgeline and consists of 132 turbines, each standing 334 feet tall
with a generating capacity of 2 MW for a total maximum output of
264 megawatts. To replace John Amos, one would need to build 1,466
turbines spread across 133 miles of ridgelines. Such a vast
facility would almost certainly be opposed by those who object to
such a permanent change to our mountains, those who argue that the
noise generated by such a facility constitutes a nuisance, and
those who object to the damage the rotating blades of the turbines
would cause to birds, bats and other avian wildlife.
Given our growing energy needs, wind simply cannot replace coal as
a major energy source. Ultimately, we will need to continue
developing all of our energy resources. These include wind, solar,
geothermal, nuclear and coal. To do that, we need to address the
issues associated with the use of each in a serious way. Rather
than demonizing coal and destroying the economies of coal producing
states, we would be better served if our politicians recognized
these facts and focused on ensuring that coal is mined and burned
in a clean and efficient manner consistent with our long-term
needs.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
