Consider potential impacts carefully before building coal plants

July 17, 2007

Spectrum/Bill Erickson

When I first heard of Matanuska Electric Association's proposal to build a coal-fired generation plant, my mind recalled the discussions my father had with others as whether to build a coal-fired plant or the Eklutna hydro system in the early 1950s.

I remembered the comments as to working in the coal mines and the weight of those experiences led (decision-makers at the time) to choose the Eklutna system. After recalling those conversations between my father and the others, I knew a better way than coal-fired power generation needed to be found. So, I began searching for an alternative and would like to share some of my findings.

One of the first things I learned was that 26 per cent of Iceland's power comes from geothermal, and about 74 percent from hydro. Only .02 percent comes from fossil fuel. I was impressed and reached out to find out who developed Iceland's geothermal. It was the company Ormat of Nevada. I called and spoke with a company spokesman, who informed me that Ormat is in the permit stages of a project at Mt. Spur that has the potential of 150 megawatts of generation, and it can have a project ready to come online in five years.

Next I reached out to find just what hydro possibilities might be available. I knew the Susitna Hydroelectric Project engineered in the past was much too large, that environmentalists would sniffle to high heaven and it would lead to a dead end. I reached out to find if the project could be scaled down to fit our local needs, and found Polar Consultants. I ask (a company representative) if he would put some thought into the possibilities of a scaled down version of the Susitna project. A few days later I received an e-mail from him with the attachment &#8220Renewable Hydroelectric Alternative Generation for the Mat-Su,” a report that seems to just fit the bill for the 200 megawatts MEA says it needs.

I also learned about the 350-megawatt Lake Chakachamna Hydro system that TDX Power is in the permit process with and can be up and running in seven years.

Next I reached to find the possibilities of using wind power, and came upon the knowledge that wind is the fastest growing energy sector in the world with total global wind energy capacity to 74,223 megawatts, up from 59,091 megawatts in 2005. To date, Texas has 2,740 megawatts of wind generation and California 2,376. What has impressed me so much to date with wind is that in Argentina there is a project in the works to generate 16,120 megawatts of power to make hydrogen, a project probably a bit too large for the Valley, but nonetheless impressive. I also learned there is sustained wind capacity of at least 200 megawatts in the neighborhood of the MT. Spur geothermal and Lake Chakachamna hydro projects.

One day I got a call from the Mat-Su Port director, who asked me to come to his office. When I got there he showed the calculations as per a report from MIT, &#8220The Future of Coal,” which says that CO2 offset tax for emissions for coal-fired plants could be $32 per ton.

It calculates out to be $1.43 billion over the 40-year life of a 100 megawatt coal-fired plant. I asked him to divide that figure by 50,000 members. It came to $28,705 per member. Didn't sound good to me.

I'll not bury you with all the undercurrent information I've uncovered in this quest to understand why MEA has been so secretive and fast-tracked to get a coal-fired burner up and running, but it runs deep and long.

So please, ask all residents of the Mat-Su Borough to think very carefully as they consider which is the best choice for our Valley's future power generation needs.