Strickland on "Clean Coal", but can I eat the fish?

One of Governor-elect Stricklands Turn Around Ohio initiatives is to create "good jobs" through "clean energy" in Ohio. Citing statistics such as Ohio being 6th in the US in total energy consumption and 4th in both the use of electricity and largest industrial energy users, clearly some kind of strategy for our energy intensive economy is necessary for sustainable growth. Oil costs continue to rise in this global economy with the emergence of industry in China, Russia and India and some estimate that the local supply of natural gas only has an economic life expectancy of about 60 more years (do I have time to dump my Columbia Gas stock?)

Governor-elect Strickland has pledged to implement an energy strategy to create jobs and spur one billion (with a "b") in public and private investment in "Next Generation" energy production and consumption by 2010, a surely aggressive and exciting timetable. One of the steps in this strategy is to support "Clean Coal Technologies" by working to ensure that Ohio's regulatory climate provides incentives for investment in a wide range of clean coal technologies, including the development of advanced coal gasification technologies, such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology.

So what is IGCC and will I, the electric user end up being one of these "private investors" every month when I pay my electric bill? If so, will I finally be able to eat the mercury-laced fish that comes out of Alum Creek Reservoir? Well, from what I can tell, the answer to the former is "yes", electric users will pay for it. As for Alum Creek fish, they will remain on my theoretical list of "never eats" along with e-coli inducing spinach, lettuce, and green onions and (for purely psychological reasons) Wendys Chili.

The IGCC process converts Ohios high sulfur content coal into a synthesis gas minimizing sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), mercury (Hg) and other emissions before the gas fuels a combustion turbine generator. The exhaust gas from the turbine produces steam to power another turbine to generate more electricity. The system is touted as having improved thermal efficiency and reduced emissions which may out-weigh the higher capital costs of generating electricity over the economic life of the plant (provided energy prices remain high).

American Electric Power (AEP, formerly locally known as Columbus Southern Power) received approval in 2006 from the Ohio PUCO to recover costs through customer rate hikes of a design study and preconstruction work on the soon to be largest IGCC plant in the nation. After completing the design study, AEP intends to seek approval from the PUCO to recover the costs from consumers to build and operate the plant.

If PUCO approves the plan, AEP will begin construction of an Ohio plant in Meigs County. AEP projects that 1900 construction jobs will be generated and at least 125 permanent and much needed Meigs Co. jobs will be created. AEP has given a target for getting the plant online by 2010, coinciding (coincidentally?) with Governor-elect Strickland's Turn Around Ohio target date.

Yes, I and other AEP customers will be paying for this. Notwithstanding my higher self’s greater good agreement with the proposal, after growing up in NE Ohio listening to my parents complain about the highest electrical costs in the state (Davis-Bessie nuclear energy anyone?), I am a wee-bit concerned about my personal cost-benefit of this venture into the unknown. According to the Ohio Consumers Counsel’s (OCC) calculations, after politically-correctly lauding the potential economic benefits to Meigs County, Phase I preconstruction costs are already costing the average AEP customer an additional $7.82/mo (850 kwh/mo). By my own calculation, I am paying twice that due to my own April to October environmentally unfriendly and non-judicious use of the A/C.

The Phase II construction recovery costs paint a not-so-rosy picture for my electric bill. The estimate weighs in as an additional $39.48/mo for the average bill through 2010. Phase III costs are listed ominously by the OCC as "impact unknown" and will continue from 2010 through the useful life of the plant. The OCC further notes that these costs are in addition to the automatic rate increases of $6/mo that began this year and are scheduled to total out at $9/mo by 2008. So remind me again, why am I against nuclear energy?

Alas, along with higher electric bills, Alum Creek fish are still off the menu (along with every other Ohio fish). According to the Sierra Club, who starts with the gloomy pronouncement that "there is no such thing as clean coal", IGCC may be more environmentally friendly than conventional coal plants, but new coal plants should be linked to the permanent shutdown of older, dirtier plants. They have a point. If I have to pay for this new technology, I should at least be able to eat the fish.