A recent article appeared in the Mc Clatchy newspapers (August 21, 2006 Fresno Bee) on why the state of California should stop purchasing electricity from out of state coal burning power plants. The article refers to coal as a “dirty little secret”,” dirty coal power”, “high-polluting coal”, “dirty coal plants”, “dirty coal again”, “dirty coal again” and finally, “no to dirty coal”. Do you get the idea that the paper doesn’t like coal and that the reader and the writer of this article might be prejudiced before coming to a conclusion about the disadvantages or advantages of coal? This is poor journalism if I ever saw it. The article points out that solar, natural gas and wind power are other choices. Natural gas is not cheaper than coal plants and how long do you think it would take to replace the 20% of the state's electricity that comes from coal at the present time? The article does not mention nuclear power which is cheaper than coal and gas and is non –polluting. The answer might be that all these sources: natural gas, solar, windmills, nuclear, coal are all needed to provide the required energy that this state needs.

      The facts are the following:

• Coal is one of the nation’s most abundant natural resources and is used to provide approximately 50% of its electricity needs.
• Nuclear power and natural-gas fired plants place a distant second in the generation of electricity in the U.S.
• There are capacity restraints on nuclear generation and high prices on natural gas and oil.
• New markets for coal are emerging via Btu conversion initiatives:
  1. Coal to natural gas and coal to liquids greatly expand coal’s long –term potential.
  2. Conversion techniques are available to transform coal into a range of high-value clean energy forms and reduce reliance on foreign oil and liquified natural gas. The Germans invented the process of converting coal to transportation fuels nearly 75 years ago.
  3. Low- sulphur PRB (Powder River Basin) coal supplies are being sought by a growing number of utility plants due to the EPA and this is a favorable factor. Much research is being done to reduce emissions and it is in the best interest of the coal companies and plants to continue this research.

      It is obvious to me that the Sierra Club had a hand in writing this article on coal and as usual the solutions that they propose are unrealistic. There is never any compromise with this group because they feel that they alone have the answers. If we turn off coal as an energy source, then we should all go back to horses, kerosene lamps and bicycles as our way of handling the energy problem. Unfortunately, many of the liberal environmentalists in California believe that this might be the way to go. I am a great fan of solar generation but it will take many years to replace other fuels such as coal for our power generation.

Gary E. Marsella

Return to Home Page