Yup, at NRDC, we think that the dollars speak for themselves on this plant and others.

We finished this report a few weeks ago. Since then, the financial argument has gotten even more persuasive as business journals have published articles about skyrocketing coal prices.

Cheap coal? The Wall Street Journal pointed out that coal futures on some New York futures markets have already doubled from last year and the trend will continue due to competition for the resource from China and other developing countries. Forbes predicted that the price of coal will double in the next year. Those price increases will be paid by business and home ratepayers---for the next 50 years (pretty scary terms on the agreement)! If Wall Street banks don't want to fund coal, why would ratepayers do it?

The numbers are not lost on smart cities like Oberlin. They brought in outside experts to conduct a study of the overall energy landscape. They weighed all the factors (cost, risk, flexibility, environment) and found that a variety of alternatives were viable and cost competitive to coal. So they pulled out of the plant. Others should follow.

Once we realize the true cost of coal, the other options (like wind, combined heat and power, biomass, and even natural gas) start to look like a bargain. But it all needs to start with energy efficiency. Let's figure out how to make the best use of the power resources that are already in place before jumping to new plants that will be tapping our wallets and darkening our skies for generations to come...

So why is NRDC still heavily advocating for Coal?

The NRDC now shares EPA's giddy optimism toward carbon sequestration. In a letter to a California legislator, NRDC's George Peridas asserts that carbon sequestration can be "perfectly safe." And NRDC scientist David Hawkins was quoted recently saying carbon sequestration can be carried out with "very, very small risks." NRDC has a $437,500 grant from the Joyce Foundation to promote carbon sequestration on industry's behalf.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/10/151448/65

Bill Roe, Coskata Cellulosic Ethanol CEO:
Yes. We talked about the fact that food for fuel is a non-starter in many countries, but some of those countries are rich in other resources, either they have biomass or they have coal, which is a perfect feed stock for these, we just do not talk about much here because of the CO2 footprint being so much different. When you talk about India, or talk about China, those areas were loom large, we believe, and we will be able to use feedstock of that nature, for example, to make liquid fuels locally from their own raw material.

It makes sense from a raw material point of view if you use coal, period. Simply because it is relatively inexpensive. It is very concentrated. It is material handling into gasifiers as well known and well understood. The power of the CO2 footprint isn't as attractive, for obvious reasons, and so as a result, we think it is important to position the company in its early going as a company that can and will produce fuels from truly renewable resources. Now as soon as I tell you that, if you ask, "will these process ever be use to make fuel from coal?" I hope so. It would be stupid not to. So, as not confuse people with where we are headed and what we are really all about, that's next.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/14/autobloggreen-qan ...
http://www.celsias.com/2008/01/15/biofuels-can-do-more-da ...
http://www.alternet.org/environment/76782/
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/03/nobel-prize-winne ...

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/21/ ...

How about this Josh, will NRDC participate in a lobying campaign of all green orgs ro push a simple plan?

10 cents per kwh in subsidy for renewable electricity, and 5 cents per kwh for conservation.

Directly to homeowners, farmers, and busuinesses who invest in geo heat exchange heating/cooling, plugin hybrids, solar pV, wind farms, and biogas from farm waste.  Skip all the trading, capping, and big hedge fund manipulation of the climate.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Yes, grassroot activists have been using economic data well to fight new coal projects for years now. An article in the new issue of Orion magazine on 'no new coal' activists affiliated with the Energy Justice Network spells it out well.

Overland...has a talent for exposing the financial weak spots of proposed power plants, and she has coached others on the list: "If you want to kill a power project, focus on economics."

Overland had for over a year been probing into a proposed coal plant, Mesaba, in northern Minnesota, that most environmental groups were unwilling to challenge because it featured the new IGCC technology...Eventually, Overland discovered that the costs of Mesaba had been quietly escalating...The more information Overland received, the more she became convinced that an aggressive assault on the cost estimates for Mesaba might be the key to derailing the project.

They prevailed on the issue of that Mesabe power plant. Story is here:

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/5 ...

In the discussion forum attached to the article, there are anti-coal activists new to this idea receiving good $ info from some activists mentioned in the story, so that's cool to see.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more