This creates a zero sum game in regards to global greenhouse gas reduction goals. Here are some misconceptions put in recent articles about Montana coal and Washington:
Seattle gets most of its power from hydro and the rest from a mix of solar, wind and natural gas. In fact, the entire state of WA only get 17% of its electricity from coal. Seattle does not get coal power from Montana, as Gov Schweitzer says.
Millennium Logistics, a subsidiary of Ambre Energy: "there will be no net increase in GHG emissions in the state of WA." False. You might not be burning the coal, but you will have to increase rail traffic. And, unless they cover the cars (which they won't) you will have a dramatic increase in particulate pollution. While it is not GHG technically, particulates are a public health risk (respiratory illness, etc).
Gov. Schweitzer also said that Montana has "relatively clean coal." False. Montana coal is low-sulfur sub-bituminous, which is one step above lignite. Lignite is practically caked detritus and is terrible in quality. Sub-bituminous PRB coal from Montana burns at around 8,000 BTU, which is much lower than bituminous coal from Illinois Basin or Appalachia. This means they need to burn more of it to achieve the same power output. PRB coal also tends to catch fire when sitting in piles, unless properly stored. The dust from the coal also tends to create secondary combustion, which could cause damage in transport or at the facility. None of that can be remotely characterized as "clean."
No comments:
Post a Comment