OPINION: Mat-Su coal plant study relies on faulty assumptions

The ADN reported on a recent study by the University of Alaska Fairbanks, which recommends coal as a replacement energy source for natural gas in the Railbelt. The UAF study proposes coal as the answer to our Railbelt energy problem because with “clean” coal technology and carbon sequestration storage (CCS), the problem of carbon dioxide emissions can be taken care of, and large coal deposits can be utilized. There are some intriguing aspects of the UAF proposal, such as using CCS in depleted Beluga gas fields, but I question many of the report’s assumptions. I think we should not invest large funding in a) coal, and b) projects, that aren’t sustainable or proven over the long haul.

My main question is: Why would we invest in a big way in coal now? We now know that coal is a major greenhouse gas polluter and has contributed greatly to the planet’s high CO2 levels, a cause of climate change. Coal is a fossil fuel, carbon-rich, and difficult to produce power from in a clean way. The UAF report cites only two working examples of clean coal combustion plants: the UAF plant and Wyoming Dry Forks plant. Also, carbon sequestration storage, as proposed by UAF, is not the ideal solution for disposing of CO2, for many reasons. Coal, simply put, is an outdated energy resource.

Assumptions in the UAF report include the necessity of building a West Susitna Access Road, a controversial proposal. Another assumption in the report is that “re-activating the Susitna-Watana Dam project, would be more expensive than business-as-usual power costs.” Perhaps a large project like Susitna-Watana Dam would be more expensive initially, but the return on investment in hydropower is greater: clean and reliable energy on a large scale (estimated at 2,800 GWh annually) providing most of the Railbelt’s needs, and would provide a stable, clean, long-term power supply, up to 100 years.

Alaska should mobilize a full-scale effort to maximize hydroelectric power resources in the Railbelt. We have great hydroelectric power options. There are existing and potential hydropower sites in the Railbelt. I realize there is controversy over salmon habitat and historic fisheries use in some cases, but in my opinion, these can be mitigated and maybe even improved on. We need to prioritize the need for clean energy quickly. Time is running out.

I am also concerned that we are throwing away much of the good work that has been done on hydroelectric options. Why not leverage the many feasibility studies that have been done over many years on the Susitna-Watana Dam and move forward with that project? Or apply what was learned from Susitna-Watana studies to a Chakachamna Lake project that could be a huge power producer near existing transmission lines. Yes, there may be salmon habitat and seismic concerns, but these issues can be mitigated. Again, we need to prioritize.

We need to change the “business-as-usual” paradigm from fossil fuels to truly clean energy such as renewables. We should channel the billions of dollars a clean coal project as proposed by UAF would cost towards developing clean energy like hydroelectric, wind, and other sources.

In my past career, I was a geologist working in mineral exploration, including coal, in Alaska and Canada; and my father before me was a geologist working in Alaska oil and gas. Our generations were ignorant of climate change and the carbon emission problem. Coal is a past solution that worked in its time, but it is not the solution anymore.

Raised in Alaska, Charles Barnwell is a former geologist with experience in mineral exploration including coal and other resources throughout Alaska and Canada.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.