OPINION: Alaska’s ‘clean coal’ misadventure shows dangers of jumping aboard energy hype

Alaska is a poster child for the catastrophic impacts of climate change, with permafrost melting rapidly, villages falling into the sea, salmon and crab resources collapsing, and much more is in store. Yet, the governor, legislators and our congressional delegation want to continue charging full speed ahead with increasing oil and gas production and now a huge proposed coal plant in some of the wilderness closest to the state’s population center.

This became very evident when the governor’s bill authorizing carbon sequestration, a method of capturing carbon emissions and injecting them deep underground, came for a vote in the Alaska House. The original bill was designed to provide a method for Alaska to gain revenues from sequestration on state land, but it was amended to provide a way for Alaska to expand oil, gas and mining activities. The bill was passed by a 32-8 margin in a deeply divided House.

During floor debates, the remarks of two House leaders were revealing.

Rep. Tom McKay, R-Anchorage, said he views the bill as critical to the eventual construction of a trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline. Natural gas produced at Prudhoe Bay contains large amounts of carbon dioxide, which must be removed before shipping. “Because of the perceived climate crisis … we can no longer vent CO2,” McKay said, referring to the process of releasing the greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, referred to the idea as “climate change nonsense” and said the bill isn’t about climate at all but is “merely the state of Alaska trying to take advantage of what some big companies’ boards of directors have told them that they must do.”

The amended bill was viewed by legislators as a method to increase oil, gas and even coal production while addressing climate change impacts. The debate failed to address the state of sequestration technology, which is known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) in federal and scientific lingo.

CCS is a long way from being a proven technology. CCS technology aimed at removing carbon from the atmosphere is considered too expensive to develop, while sequestration sounds more promising. Yet, the only two sequestration projects in North America have struggled.

The world’s first sequestration power plant, a large coal-fired power plant in Saskatchewan, Canada reportedly has experienced mechanical problems and captured substantially less emissions than its official target. The $1.3 billion plant, however, has been able to capture and store considerable amounts of carbon.

The Petra Nova facility in Texas, started in 2017, was the first and still only fossil-fuel-fired power plant in the U.S. using CCS. The plant captured and stored more than 1 million tons of carbon per year until it ceased CCS operations in 2020 after suffering chronic mechanical problems and for financial reasons. The natural gas-fired plant cost $1 billion to construct and operators secured a $190 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The shuttered plan was purchased by a Japanese company, which plans to reopen it by the end of the year.

Nevertheless, a proposed massive 400-megawatt coal-fired power plant in the Susitna River Valley is gaining momentum as an answer to declining gas production in Cook Inlet. The plant, proposed by Texas-based Flatland Energy, would build a 60-mile pipeline to Beluga to transport carbon emissions for injection into depleted gas wells.

The University of Alaska Fairbanks has secured a $9 million grant from DOE to study the proposed Susitna coal fired power plant, which would be matched by a $2.2 million grant contained in the capital budget pending Legislative approval.

Important to note is the Canadian project cost $1.3 billion to produce 115 megawatts of power, and the Texas plant produces 240 megawatts of power for $1 billion. At 400 megawatts, the Susitna plant, with Alaska’s higher construction costs, would presumably cost much more.

In 1991, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) led a $300 million “clean coal” project including the Usibelli coal mine in Healy, Golden Valley Energy Authority (GVEA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the state of Alaska. AIDEA invested $150 million, DOE $120 million, the state of Alaska $25 million, and Usibelli and GVEA each invested $1 million.

The $300 million project had numerous problems, was dormant for much of its lifespan, and GVEA, which now owns the Healy coal plant, decided to shut down the project this year.

I hope Alaska will invest more carefully in “clean coal” technology in the future than in 1991.

Rodger Painter can trace his Alaska roots back to 1798, when an Alutiiq woman married a Russian trader. He is a former journalist, legislative aide and played a major role in Alaska seafood politics for decades. He now is retired and lives in Douglas.

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.