Horn River News

Source: SANDIA

The USA is heading for a power showdown that will pit coal against natural gas for electricity generation. According to the Wall Street Journal, electric utilities used coal for 59% of their power generation in 2007, while natural gas was used 13 percent of the time, as reported by the Energy Information Administration. Coal has been less expensive, making it more profitable for utilities to use as a fuel source. But that was 2007 and a lot has changed since that time.

Since 2007, we have seen a major recession depress demand and the prices for all commodities. During the same time, technology advancements in horizontal drilling and fracturing have increase the natural gas reserves across North America putting further downward pressure on natural gas prices.

According to the WSJ, utilities spent $35.1 million on lobbying while the natural gas industry spent less than $3.3 million in the first quarter of this 2009. The WSJ also stated that out of the top 10 industries with a stake in climate legislation, natural gas put the least money into lobbying in the first quarter.

Coal lobbyists want to slow down government plans to cap carbon emissions and make businesses buy allowances for those emissions. While coal and natural gas are the two top sources of fuel for electricity generation, utilities favor coal as a cheaper source fuel which provides higher profits. The massive amount of lobbying by utilities in the the USA has resulted in a bill that makes coal carbon competitive to natural gas on paper instead of looking at the real merits of each fuel source on its true carbon emissions. Natural gas emits about half the amount of carbon for the same amount of power generated as coal does.

Energy is strategic for all countries. And the solution to generating cleaner energy today and for generations to come is by utilizing the most practical energy sources that will have an immediate impact on carbon emissions while investing in technology for both clean sustainable sources such as wind, and solar, as well as investing in technology that makes existing sources like oil and coal cleaner sources (carbon capture etc).

 The problem implementing bills that make certain fuels more carbon competitive on paper takes away any incentive to making those sources cleaner. The $35 million spent on lobbying on behalf of the coal industry, may have been better spent on technology advancement for the coal industry.

Meanwhile, on Energy Independence Day (July in the US, T. Boone Pickens participated in a bi-partisan press conference to introduce the Nat Gas Act in the US Senate along with the original sponsors of the bill; Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).  Yesterday, T. Boone Pickens reported that they now have 70 bi-partisan co-sponsors of the Nat Gas Act (HR.1835)  in the House.

 The “Pickens Plan” is simple. Power more of the grid with wind and power more vehicles with natural gas. The end result is less dependance on foreign oil, and less carbon emissions. However, no where does Mr. Pickens state that coal and oil are not needed. He fully understands that energy independence comes from domestic sources that are cleaner then they have been in the past, or new domestic sources that are simply clean. (Unfortunately, economic conditions and the lack of suitable transmission facilities have lead to some delays with T. Boone Picken’s wind farm in Pampa, Texas)

Why natural gas? Because there is lots of it; its proven; its readily available; its cleaner; and it sets down the foundation for a future energy economy based on hydrogen.

It will take two things to solve our energy needs and reduce carbon emissions. 1) Technology; and 2) Profit. These two parts together are a powerful force. Its too bad that the coal industry is trying to justify its current carbon emissions instead of focusing this lobbying money and effort into tecnology to make it cleaner. Coal is a valuable and needed source of energy. It simply has to reduce it’s carbon footprint at the point of power generation and not on paper and in the halls of the Senate.

Wall Street Journal: At the Centre Ring in Senate Climate Debate: Coal vs. Natural Gas