The plan - entitled
Intelligent Energy Choices - outlines seven strategies to meet
Kentucky's energy needs while protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse
gas emission. One of the strategies calls for the use of nuclear power for
electricity generation in Kentucky to be examined.
The plan sets a target of 2025 for implementing the proposals, which include
reducing energy consumption by making homes and businesses more efficient and
promoting solar, wind and hydro power. It also calls on the state to encourage
industries to convert coal into liquid fuels.
Kentucky's energy use is projected to grow by slightly more than 40% by 2025
under a business-as-usual scenario. The document says, "Just as we will
experience growth in our demand for energy, our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
will escalate if we continue down the same path. With such a high reliance on
fossil fuels, Kentucky's projected GHG emissions could be more than 40% higher
than they are today if we do not take action. With implementation of the seven
proposed strategies, however, our GHG emissions will be more than 50% lower in
2025 than they would otherwise be. More significantly, GHG emissions in Kentucky
will actually be 20% lower in 2025 than were our 1990 emissions."
The plan says, "To find solutions that address climate challenges, use our
abundant natural resources to gain energy security, and provide the power needed
to drive our economy will require pursuit of a diversified mix of energy
options. In weighing the benefits and limitations of potential solutions we must
be willing to assess and understand the societal, technical, and financial
trade-offs involved." It adds, "Nuclear power is one such option that deserves
our full attention, as its technology and safety have significantly improved in
the last three decades. It also is likely to become a national
priority."
A suggestion put forward by the plan is that "a moderate investment in
nuclear power (eight plants at four sites) could be considered as part of an
overall strategy to diversity Kentucky's future electrical energy portfolio,
reduce emissions, and position the state to take advantage of advanced coal
conversion opportunities. Kentucky could utilize nuclear power to generate a
significant percentage of the state's energy needs, with coal-based and nuclear
power for electricity generation being roughly equal."
State governor Steve Beshear told Associated Press, "We must begin the
discussion now about whether nuclear energy should be part of our energy
portfolio." He added, "It is a very expensive proposition to get into, although
it ends up, depending upon the economy, being a cost efficient way of producing
electricity."
The publication of Kentucky's plan comes as President-elect Barack Obama
pledged to make energy a centrepiece of his administration. He has set a target
of reducing US greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and reducing them
by a further 80% by 2050, with nuclear energy being used alongside other clean
energies.
Legislative changes
needed
Following the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, Kentucky was one of
several US states to introduce legislation essentially preventing new nuclear
power plants being constructed. Kentucky law states that a power reactor cannot
be certified by the state's Public Service Commission (PSC) unless a disposal
site for high-level waste (HLW) either already exists or would be available by
the time that plant needs disposal capacity. In addition, the cost of HLW
disposal must be "known with reasonable certainty."
Kentucky's new energy plan suggests, "Legal hurdles to successful inclusion
of nuclear energy in Kentucky's energy mix should be examined. Specifically,
removal or revision of the legislative ban on new nuclear power plants must be
addressed."
During the 2008 legislative season, two bills were introduced that would
remove the moratorium. The new energy plan notes that these proposed bills did
not make it out of committee, but revised versions will likely be reintroduced
soon.
The plan notes, "Many of our neighbouring states are considering nuclear
energy. Nuclear power production has no direct carbon dioxide emissions and is
already a significant component of the global energy system." However, it adds,
"While the issue of disposal of spent fuel has not been completely resolved,
progress will continue to be made to arrive at a solution that addresses the
nation's needs."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It was inevitable that the increasingly dire threat of catastrophic climate
change would hit coal companies — especially since neither the Bush
administration nor the coal industry have taken climate change seriously, and
therefore they failed to pursue clean coal (i.e. carbon capture and storage)
aggresively.
In fact, they pursued CCS incompetently (see “Can the coal industry be saved in spite of
itself? Should it be?” and “In seeming flipflop, Bush drops mismanaged
‘NeverGen’ clean coal project“).
The 2007 Supreme Court ruling that CO2 is a pollutant began a chain of events
that led to the landmark ruling yesterday by the EPA Environmental
Appeals Board yesterday, which in turn hits coal stocks hard today (see
below).
The AP reported today that, as I suggested yesterday, “The
fate of scores of new coal-burning power plants is now in limbo”:
Environmentalists and lawyers representing industry groups said the
ruling puts in question permits — some being considered, others approved but
under appeal — of perhaps as many as 100 coal plants….
Michael Gerrard, a lawyer not involved in the Bonanza case and author of
“Global Climate Change and the Law,” said the decision “will embolden the
lawsuits” challenging construction of new power plants based on their impact
on climate.
“It means that the appeals board recognizes that carbon dioxide regulation
of power plants is a very live and open issue. It does not ban them. It puts a
cloud over them, by making it clear that this is a real issue,” Gerrard said
in an interview.
And this translates into coal companies losing value today:
Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) 15.86 
2.22 (-12.28%)
Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) 27.07 2.40 (-8.14%)
Foundation Coal Holdings Inc. (FCL) 13.92 1.64 (-10.54%)
Massey Energy Co. (MEE) 16.20 2.33 (-12.57%)
Yanzhou Coal Mining Co. Ltd. (YZC) 5.14
0.52 (-9.19%)
The coal industry is starting to look like a bit like the auto industry. Yes,
it’s richer and more profitable, but it’s just as much in denial and therefore
ultimately self-destructive and generally destructive (see “Why bail out the car companies when they bailed
out on us?“).
