Opinion: Alaska’s ‘clean coal’ misfortune shows the dangers of jumping on energy hype

Alaska is a prime example of the devastating effects of climate change, with permafrost rapidly melting, villages falling into the sea, salmon and crab stocks collapsing, and much more to come. But the governor, lawmakers, and the Congressional delegation want to stay committed to increasing oil and gas production, and currently have a huge project planned for some of the wilderness areas closest to the state’s population centers. Plans are also underway for a coal-fired power plant.

This became abundantly clear when the Alaska House of Representatives voted on the governor’s bill authorizing carbon sequestration, a method of capturing and injecting carbon dioxide emissions deep underground. The original bill was intended to provide a way for Alaska to generate revenue from sequestering federal lands, but it was amended to provide a way for Alaska to expand oil, gas, and mining activities. The bill passed by a 32-8 vote in the sharply divided House.

During the floor debate, the statements of the two House leaders were revealed.

Rep. Tom McKay (R-Anchorage) said he believes the bill is important for the eventual construction of the Trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline. The natural gas produced in Prudhoe Bay contains large amounts of carbon dioxide, which must be removed before transport. “We can no longer emit carbon dioxide because we recognize the climate crisis,” McKay said, referring to the process that releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Rep. Kevin McCabe (R-Big Lake) called the bill “climate change nonsense,” saying the bill is not about climate change at all and that “the state of Alaska is trying to get the opinions of the boards of some large corporations.” I’m just trying to take advantage of it.” Directors have told us that we must do so. ”

Lawmakers see the amended bill as a way to increase oil, gas and even coal production while addressing the effects of climate change. The discussion failed to address the current state of sequestration technology, known in federal and scientific parlance as carbon capture and storage (CCS).

CCS is far from a proven technology. CCS technologies aimed at removing carbon from the atmosphere are considered too expensive to develop, but sequestration seems more promising. But only two sequestration projects are struggling in North America.

A large-scale coal-fired power plant in Saskatchewan, Canada, the world’s first isolated power plant, has reportedly experienced mechanical problems that have caused emissions to fall significantly below official targets. But his $1.3 billion plant was able to capture and store significant amounts of carbon.

Started in 2017, the Petra Nova facility in Texas is the first, and to date the only, fossil fuel-fired power plant in the United States to use CCS. The plant captured and stored more than 1 million tonnes of carbon annually until CCS ceased operations in 2020 due to chronic mechanical problems and economic reasons. The natural gas-fired power plant cost him $1 billion to build, and the operating company secured a $190 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The closed project has been acquired by a Japanese company and is expected to reopen by the end of the year.

Nevertheless, a proposed massive 400-megawatt coal-fired power plant in the Susitna River basin is gaining traction as a solution to Cook Inlet’s declining gas production. The plant, proposed by Texas-based Flatland Energy, would build a 60-mile pipeline to Beluga to transport carbon dioxide emissions for injection into depleted gas wells. .

The University of Alaska Fairbanks has secured a $9 million grant from the DOE to study the proposed Susitna coal-fired power plant. This is matched by a $2.2 million grant included in the capital budget awaiting approval by Congress.

The important thing to note is that the Canadian project costs $1.3 billion to produce 115 megawatts of power, and the Texas power plant produces 240 megawatts of power for $1 billion. . The 400-megawatt Susitna power plant will likely cost even more, as Alaska is more expensive to build.

In 1991, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) led a $300 million “clean coal” project involving Healey’s Usiberi coal mine, the Golden Valley Energy Authority (GVEA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the State of Alaska. did. . AIDEA invested $150 million, DOE $120 million, the state of Alaska $25 million, and Usibelli and GVEA each invested $1 million.

The $300 million project has had many problems and has been dormant for most of its life, with GVEA, which currently owns the Healey coal-fired power plant, deciding to close the project earlier this year.

I hope Alaska will invest in “clean coal” technology even more carefully in the future than it did in 1991.

roger painter His Alaskan roots date back to 1798, when an Altiq woman married a Russian trader. He is a former journalist and legislative aide who played a key role in Alaska’s seafood policy for decades. He is now retired and lives in Douglas.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a wide range of viewpoints.To submit your work for consideration, please send an email Commentary(at)adn.com. Submissions of less than 200 words should be sent to: Letters@adn.com or Click here to submit from any web browser.Read all guidelines for letters and comments here.