Q: Do you think proposed legislation, such as cap and trade or a carbon tax, could be the answer? A: Putting a price on carbon is the single most important thing we could do to change the dynamics in the electric power industry. The devil is in the details, however. Some cap-and-trade legislation includes "safety valves" and other loopholes that make them nearly worthless. In the end, we may need both cap and trade and some kind of carbon tax. Q: What do you think about carbon capture and storage? A: I used to be quite hopeful, but the more I learn, the more skeptical I become. It will clearly work on limited scale, in a few places, but it is often pitched as a silver bullet for CO2 from coal. It's not. Very expensive, with problems of leakage, regulatory issues, liability, etc. Q: What steps towards lobbying or finance reform do you see as necessary to limit the influence of the coal lobby? A: Tough question. I think best hope is to change the economics of electric power industry - i.e., figure out ways to price in "externalities" like CO2 emissions and environmental destruction related to mountaintop removal mining. It's already becoming clear to many people, including Wall Streeters, that "cheap" coal is a myth. ... The price of coal-fired power has nowhere to go but up, while the price of clean energy of all types is heading down. Q: I don't blame coal companies or miners for pollution from power plants using coal. I blame the power plants that refuse to install scrubbers to eliminate particulates and other pollutants from the air.
A: Yes, and there is a lot of tension between the coal mining industry and electric power companies about this. It was especially pronounced during the power industry's fight over so-called New Source Review regulations, which would have forced them to install scrubbers on old coal plants, and which the power industry lobbied mightily against. Many coal mining companies were deeply unhappy about this. Q: Do you think that if people knew more about the public health impacts of coal, we would see an outcry of support for cleaner technology? A: Does having a look inside the slaughterhouse or feedlot change how you view your hamburger? For most people, it probably does. The trouble is, the public health impacts of coal mining and burning are not readily visible to most people. Q: Ultimately, we're looking at a return to nuclear power as the carbon-free fuel of the future.
A: I'm not anti-nuke. As long as part of a larger vision that includes a hard push for efficiency, renewable, etc., I think they could play a modest but valuable role in the future. Problem with nukes is that they are expensive, take a long time to permit and build, and tend to be viewed by supporters as a silver bullet for America's energy problems. Which they are not. Q: What about co-generation-gasification plants? A: Coal gasification has been around for a while. It has a number of important advantages, including lower emissions, fuel flexibility. Most important, it's easier to capture CO2 from these types of plants. But as is the case with most new technology, big coal burners argue that the technology is not reliable or well-proven. I suspect the industry's main goal, as always, is to continue business as usual for as long as possible. Q: What are your favorite alternatives? It seems that solar is one of the few that could be low impact, but wind has aesthetic issues, and nuclear has safety, environmental and disposal issues.
A: I'm often asked for my "solution." I don't think there is one, in the sense that we can just switch from one fuel or energy source to another and just go on our merry way. I think the challenges of dwindling fossil fuel reserves, rising demand and the coming of global warming will force us to reorganize virtually everything about our lives, from how we get to work to how we build our homes to how we grow our food.
