Sierra Club leader, Christopher Childs, poses in
southern Minnesota during the Walk for Wind
promoting investment in clean energy and
rural economies.
Midwest Coal Rush
Investment in Minnesota's Clean Energy Future at RiskMinnesota is poised to invest in a new energy system. What will be the future of energy in the heartland? The state is at a crossroads between continuing to import dirty, old coal or investing in safe, clean, affordable energy harvested on our farms and plains.
Currently, Minnesota is overly dependent on coal to achieve its energy needs. While the U.S. averages 55% of its energy from coal, Minnesota weighs in at a hefty 75% of its energy from this polluting fossil fuel. The result of such a dirty habit is apparent. Coal is the single, largest source of mercury emissions in the state and nation. Minnesota has a statewide advisory on how much fish is safe to eat due to mercury contamination. In addition, across the state, communities have witnessed an increase in air quality alert days. During these alerts, children, the elderly and other at-risk people (including athletes) are warned to avoid prolonged exposure to outdoor air which can increase the risk of respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses. Continuing to operate and invest in dirty coal plants only contributes to these growing health concerns, global warming, and environmental degradation.
Although clean energy solutions exist to power Minnesota, utilities continue to propose investment in more of the same:
- Great River Energy proposes to build a 250-500 MW facility using coal or coal gasification near Rosemount;
- Xcel Energy is looking to build a 550 MW coal burning facility in Rosemount;
- Excelsior Energy continues to move forward the Mesaba plant, a 450 MW coal gasification plant proposed for construction on the Iron Range; and
- Otter Tail Power plans to build Big Stone II, a 600 MW expansion of the existing Big Stone facility, a mere 4 miles over the border from Minnesota.
Clean energy solutions exist today that can power our homes, support our local economies, and bring an end to our dependence on fossil fuels. It is up to Minnesotans to decide which energy future is worth their investment.
Community members display their Clean Energy Now!
lawnsigns in front of High Bridge coal plant in
St. Paul. They successfully urged Xcel Energy to
clean up pollution from three metro area coal plants.
Coals Many Faces: Pulverized Coal and Coal Gasification
Traditionally, our energy comes from pulverized coal plants which burn the coal to produce energy. Coal Gasification, a more advanced technique, breaks down coal into a gas rather than burning it directly.[1] Typical coal burning is only 33% efficient (meaning we lose 2/3rds of the energy we produce before it even leaves the plant); gasification (IGCC) may increase efficiency by up to 50%.[2] Coal gasification also has the potential for lower pollution emissions than conventional coal plants, but the coal industry's claim that coal is "increasingly clean" should be carefully scrutinized. While nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and global warming gas emissions are expected to be lower than conventional, filthy coal plants, clean technologies that do not produce global warming gases or mercury pollution are better energy options. Further, it is unclear how global warming gases will be addressed at IGCC plants in the long term. When IGCC plants are proposed, they must include carbon capture technologies to minimize global warming gas emissions. Further, mercury, emitted by both types of coal plants, is so toxic that even very small amounts risk contaminating a lake and its fish. The real energy solution is clean technologies that do not produce global warming gases and mercury in the first place, which is why any option that relies on coal risks the health of our communities and the environment.
If a conventional coal plant is proposed we should demand that IGCC with carbon-capture technology be reviewed as "Best Available Control Technology." Conventional coal plants can no longer be an option. Even with the best control technology possible, investing in coal plants is investing in environmental degradation and risks to human health.
Clean Energy Makes Sense in Minnesota
Every time we build a new coal plant we decide to use dirty fossil fuels for generations to come. We need to invest in wind, solar, biomass, energy efficiency, and other clean energy options.
Clean energy is also good for Minnesota's economy. Wind power creates more jobs than new coal plants. Clean energy sources also help diversify our sources of energy, which can help protect against fuel price fluctuations. Further, dirty coal plants are costly. Consider the costs of treating asthma, heart problems, and mercury contamination, including treating children exposed to mercury for autism or learning and behavioral problems. The public health costs are immense — we need to invest in clean energy now.
Get a PDF version (pdf, 244k) of this factsheet.
1 — http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/
2 — Ibid.