WATERLOO -- When Lynn Brant was growing up in Western Pennsylvania in the 1950s, he had to deal with open beehive coke ovens.

For those who don't know what such contraptions are, they were long stretches of chambers which were open at the top and in the front. The chambers would get filled with coal, which was burned to create coke. The coke was then used to power the blast furnaces in steel mills, for example.

The smoke from the coke ovens didn't come out of tall smoke stacks, but rather poured out of the tops of the chambers, carrying with it all the impurities burned off the coal during the coking process.

"It was a dirty situation," said Brant, associate professor of earth science at the University of Northern Iowa.

Fast forward to today, with vastly different forms of coal-burning technology being proposed on an increasingly frequent basis. Competing forms of coal burning plants have started to emerge as well.

Proponents of coal-fired energy tout the improvements made in emissions controls as one reason for continuing to use such fuels.

"The emissions control technology is such that we can produce clean energy with coal, whereas, compared to 30 years ago, it was a much different story," said Mark Milburn, project manager for LS Power.

Opponents say the pollution levels and risks associated with coal-fueled power are still too high. "I think coal-fired power plants should be phased out and we ought to be mining less coal instead of more coal," Brant said.

The debate continues in the Cedar Valley, where LS Power and its affiliate, Elk Run Energy Associates, are proposing a 750-megawatt, coal-fired power plant to be built east of Waterloo. The plant could cost as much as $1.3 billion.

Local impact

Pinpointing the local impact of Elk Run Energy's project is a difficult task. For one, Elk Run Energy has not yet filed applications with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or the Iowa Utilities Board. In those applications, the company will state its estimated emissions.

LS Power is proposing coal-fired power plants in four other locations. The company's Sandy Creek plant in Riesel, Texas is similar in design to what is being proposed in Black Hawk County. The only notable difference is the Sandy Creek plant is permitted as a subcritical cycle, while the Elk Run Energy plant is projected as a supercritical cycle. Milburn said the result is the Elk Run Energy plant would have higher steam pressures and temperatures resulting in better efficiency, but will result in higher upfront capital costs.

Size-wise, the Texas plant is slated to produce 800 megawatts of electricity, making it slightly larger than the power plant proposed here.

According to documents filed with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Sandy Creek plant could annually produce as much as 5,380 tons of carbon monoxide, 1,804 tons of nitrogen oxide, 3,585 tons of sulfur dioxide and 0.075 tons of mercury.

How much of that impacts in the immediate area depends on several factors, including wind. Steady winds can carry emissions from the plant not just down the road, but down the highway.

"A lot of the air pollution that's in Iowa right now is imported," said John Thompson, director of the Clean Air Task Force's coal transition program. "It blew in from somewhere else."

Brant, who previously worked for the Montana Department of Natural Resources, pointed to a few other local concerns, such as fugitive dust coming off the coal being hauled in by trains and the coal sitting at the plant. Still, he said the effects of most parts of the project won't be known until the company files its applications.

"All the things we've been talking about -- the particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, the trace elements, the carbon dioxide -- at times they are more concentrated, but at times they are not concentrated at all near the site and affect a very large area," Brant said.

Outside impact

Another of the environmental concerns regarding the plant has to do with it being a factor in the overall health of the environment. Brant cited findings after the rolling blackouts of 2003 darkened significant chunks of the east coast.

When the power was down, many power plants in the affected areas stopped operating, because there was nowhere for the power to go. A lack of operations meant a lack of emissions.

According to a study released by researchers at the University of Maryland, measurements taken 24 hours after showed large reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

"The visibility over the Appalachians (Mountains), over the eastern United States improved dramatically," Brant said. "So there wasn't the impact of one plant, but the combined impact of a very large area of many plants and, of course, a plant built here in Waterloo would be contributing to this overall pollution."

Milburn points to the technology the company plans to use at the Elk Run plant to show that the emissions will be as controlled as possible. To battle nitrogen oxide emissions, Elk Run Energy will install a selective catalytic reduction system. For sulfur dioxide, the plant will include a scrubber. For large particles, a high efficiency fabric filter will help with control. The filter will also help with mercury emissions.

"But in addition to that, we're going to be installing technology that has recently become commercially verified, which is called halogenated activated carbon injection and that'll be used to further take (out mercury)," Milburn said. "As a result, we're going to have the lowest mercury emissions rate, probably, that has ever been built."

Janet Gellici, executive director of the American Coal Council, said in the past several years, emissions from coal plants have already been reduced drastically.

According to Gellici, the amount of sulfur dioxide being produced by coal fuel generation in 1970 was 4.37 pounds per MMBTU, which is a measure of energy output. By 2004, that amount had been reduced to 0.94 pounds per MMBTU.

Legislation

The numbers should continue to fall, given the legislation passed at reducing emissions. The Clean Air Interstate Rule, issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2005, is aimed at capping the levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The Clean Air Mercury Rule, enacted five days later, was issued to cap and reduce the mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Regarding sulfur dioxide emissions, which have already fallen significantly in the past 30 years, CAIR requires emissions to be down to 0.4 pounds per MMBTU by 2010 and below 0.3 pounds per MMBTU by 2015.

"So those are the types of compliance levels that our industry is going to be meeting," Gellici said.

Power plants that use coal as their fuel source don't get exceptions to following emissions standards. If plants don't meet certain standards, punishments can ensue and companies can be ordered to clean up those plants or else. In Laughlin, Nev., the Mohave Generating Station, a 1,580-megawatt, coal-fired plant, was put up for sale last month by its four owners after ordered upgrades became too expensive to keep the plant operating.

"They shut their plant down in January because they didn't have the money to put the pollution control equipment on," Gellici said.

However, current emissions rates don't appear to be the final stopping point for regulators. Further legislation will continue to affect plants both currently operating and still in the planning stages.

Another emission that may be addressed by governmental regulations in the near future is carbon dioxide, considered a key factor in global warming.

Should a limit be placed on carbon dioxide, plants could be faced with the decision to install expensive emissions control equipment or shut down.

"That's an issue too," Gellici said. "We're supplying 52 percent of the electricity in the United States through coal generation at this point, so any decisions to limit CO2 is likely going to mean a number of those power plants will have to close down."

Alternatives

Thompson, who appeared as a witness in opposition during the permitting process for LS Power's plant in Texas, isn't against all forms of burning coal. Actually, he believes there is a way to continue to use coal while reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Burning coal is a bad thing," Thompson said. "Coal does not necessarily have to be a bad thing and that's the good news. There is technology that is being proposed much more widely now in the Midwest involving coal gasification that would basically radically reduce the environmental impacts of coal."

Rather than burning coal directly, gasification breaks down the coal and turns it into syngas. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, in integrated gasification combined-cycle, or IGCC, plants, the syngas is cleaned of several pollutants, then burned as fuel in a combustion turbine. The combustion turbine drives an electric generator. Hot air from the combustion turbine can be channeled back to the gasifier or the air separation unit. Exhaust heat from the combustion turbine is then used to boil water, which creates steam for a steam turbine-generator.

Thompson said the emissions difference between conventional coal plants and IGCC plants is pronounced because in an IGCC plant, many of the harmful emissions are captured in the beginning phases of power generation. In a conventional plant, the emissions controls work towards the end of the process.

A report done by the American Gas Association said the emissions put out by an IGCC plant would be significantly lower than a supercritical pulverized coal plant, such as the one proposed by LS Power, with regard to certain particulates.

Sulfur dioxide emissions would be five times lower with an IGCC plant. Carbon monoxide emissions would be four times lower. Mercury output would be half as much. Nitrogen oxide showed to be about the same.

Despite the lower emissions by the IGCC plant, only a handful of the roughly 150 coal-fired power plants currently proposed in the country are designed with IGCC technology. Two of the largest concerns have to do with the technology's feasibility and costs.

Gellici said there are basically two plants in the United States using IGCC technology, one in Florida and one in Indiana.

"Those are smaller facilities, and those are basically demonstration projects, so the technology, while it's advancing, isn't quite at the stage at this point where it's commercially proven," Gellici said.

Cost was a primary concern when the technology was included in a proposal by Wisconsin Energy Corp. to add generation at its Oak Creek Power Plant site. The company proposed two supercritical pulverized coal plants and one IGCC plant. In 2003, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission granted the two pulverized coal plants, but denied the IGCC plant.

The commission found the IGCC plant would cost $1,579 per kilowatt to build, while the pulverized coal units would cost $1,400 to $1,440 per kW. Also, the guaranteed heat rate for the IGCC plant was considered inferior to the pulverized coal units.

"IGCC technology, while promising, is still expensive and requires more maturation," the order read. "For these reasons, the application to construct the IGCC unit is denied."

Milburn said such projects will become more prevalent as the technology improves. But right now, it just isn't up to the level it needs to be.

"The economics are improving, but it hasn't yet been commercially proven to a point where we can rely on it for a project that makes sense from an economic point of view," Milburn said.

Some of the other companies going the IGCC direction include American Electric Power, the nation's largest coal consumer. In August 2004, the company announced plans to construct an IGCC plant and have it in commercial operation by 2010.

Advances are also being made in wind-powered generation, but the technology is still many years off from being a legitimate replacement for coal plants.

Coal-fueled generation is considered baseload generation, which means plant operators control how much power the plant produces, up to the capacity of the plant. Wind power is intermittent power, meaning the amount of power generated by the plant cannot be controlled. Storage capabilities for wind power are not advanced enough to be able to tell a customer to expect a certain amount of generation at a given time.

"There is some storage that can be done, but it's very expensive and its only in the short term," Milburn said.

Advancements are being developed that would allow wind generation to serve as a more reliable source of power.

"When that happens, it's really going to change the economics of wind, but right now, I don't see wind providing much more than 10 or 15 percent of the power needs over the next 20 years," Thompson said.

Contact RC Balaban at (319) 291-1418 or rc.balaban@wcfcourier.com.