Villagers say no to coal-fired power plant

By Lauren Heaton

"The moral and economic cost of coal is too great," was the prevailing sentiment in the room of more than 50 people who came to Village Council’s special meeting Tuesday, Jan. 15, to talk about coal-fired power generation.

Council members scheduled the special meeting to get more information before the decision they are scheduled to make on the 50-year contract with AMP-Ohio’s proposed AMPGS coal plant next Tuesday, Jan. 22. Council heard a presentation from AMP-Ohio leaders recommending their new plant last September, and this week, Council heard from representatives of the Natural Resource Defense Council, Green Energy Ohio and the Smart Growth Task Force, all of whom oppose the plant. The discussion was moderated by Len Kramer.

The true price of coal

NRDC attorney Shannon Fisk opened by urging Council to join the growing trend of communities saying no to coal because of economic, environmental and health risks associated with it.

Economically, coal is expensive partly because of the escalating cost of building a power plant, which has grown for AMPGS from an estimated $1.2 billion in 2005 to $2.9 billion in 2007. Coal is also risky due to the soon to be implemented tax on carbon emissions, which by AMP’s conservative standards could by 2030 be between $10 and $35 per ton for a plant that plans to release 7.3 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Coal is considered one of the key contributors to global warming because of its associated CO2 emissions, which if not reduced by at least 50 percent by mid-century could cause severe economic, health and even national security problems, Fisk said.

As a resident of Meigs County, Elisa Young, who spoke at Council’s meeting, has first-hand experience with the impacts of coal-fired plants. In her county alone there are four existing power plants and five more proposed within a 10 mile radius of each other along the Ohio River.

“For our community it means increased contamination and cancer rates, and it’s an unfair burden for us to bear; we’re saturated,” Young said. “It may be a couple of cheap kilowatts for some people, but it means a way of life for us. Would you want this in your county?”

What are the alternatives?

There are alternative power sources, Fisk said, citing increasing energy efficiency as the number one way to reduce fuel demands. According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, conserving energy through efficient appliances, new building codes, retrofitting homes, education and smart metering over a 20-year period can reduce energy demands by 24 percent. Wind, biomass, cogeneration (power produced as a byproduct of industrial processes) and natural gas combined cycle are other sources of power that have half to none of the emissions impacts of coal.

But alternative solutions will only become available when carbon taxes begin to subsidize the research and development, Council member Kathryn Van der Heiden said. In the meantime, Council member Karen Wintrow said, purchasing some coal power from AMP-Ohio would not prevent the village from establishing both conservation methods and alternative energy sources.

“If I recommend this plant, it would only be with the understanding that we’re going to pursue alternative energy sources with as much vigor as we possibly can,” Wintrow said.

Though AMP-Ohio has said it would implement carbon capture and sequestration technology when and if it becomes available, Pat Murphy noted that sequestration is not proven and may never become a reality.

Villagers with ideas

Villagers had a wealth of alternative solutions to offer on Monday. Dimi Reber proposed the village try something like the town of Manchester, Vt., which purchased 40,000 energy-efficient light bulbs for its villagers. Thermal imaging, according to Paul Abendroth, can locate heat sinks residents can block in their homes, and villagers can also pay a little extra to ensure their power comes from renewable sources.

Benji Maruyama suggested the village declare itself a “green village” and thereby attract the new businesses and residents the village wants while at the same time investing for its own self-interest in green initiatives.

Yellow Springs should be a model and a leader for clean energy solutions, Kathleen Boutis said. “I want to be part of a community that’s moving forward and making good decisions, not a community that’s moved by fear and scarcity thinking,” she said.

Reber encouraged the community not to submit to a “mindset that cultivates complacency” by choosing coal because it’s easy, she said. “The human and ecological cost of coal for the next 50 years is just too big,” Reber said.

Contact: lheaton@ysnews.com