Nov 23, 08


Planet

Clean coal future for Austin?


Article Photo

The Austin City Council yesterday authorized land acquisition in Matagorda County for a possible future power plant, specifically a "clean coal" plant. Possible is a key word here, and Mayor Will Wynn says "that one of our best long-term energy options may be clean coal with carbon capture." He goes o to say

The land in Matagorda is important because it's one of the few places that has both salt domes and depleted oil fields. These features could allow for carbon capture and sequestration – a process that has not been perfected yet, but which holds great promise for the future as we battle the growing crisis of climate change.

The fact of the matter is, because this land is so unique, groups from around the country -- and even around the world -- are already in Matagorda seeking purchase options. If we want to preserve this choice for Austin, we need to give our staff the authority to go down there and do the same. Delaying this action would put us at a serious competitive disadvantage and could ultimately shortchange our goals for clean energy and climate protection. So, I believe it is imperative that we move forward.

Paul Robbins had a very good response:

The whole issue is framed in such a way as to make the City Council look irresponsible if it does not vote positively to allow negotiations. The Council has been told that if these negotiations are not authorized today, it will cripple Austin's ability to purchase a site that has contains the geology suitable to sequester carbon dioxide. Austin Energy maintains that it must compete with land purchasers worldwide, and any delay could be both expensive and even environmentally irresponsible if land cannot be obtained because all suitable sites are already sold.

Let me reframe the issue. Why didn't Austin Energy make its intentions known a long time ago? The utility could have held a worksession and public hearing a year ago and gotten input from Council and the public on how to proceed. The item on the agenda would have been expected. There would be no emergency. Hey, they could have started the land negotiations some time ago. But this course was not chosen. Instead, the utility is operating in near secrecy.

The Mayor, in a public statement yesterday, expressed his intention to have a Town Hall meeting to raise awareness of the City's plans and to get input. I think this is commendable, but it does not by itself suffice as a public process. This action needs to be taken up by the entire City Council in the very near future.

It amazes me that the recent bond issue of $567 million went through a long process of public input, but a coal plant that could well cost more that all 7 bond propositions combined has so far received no scrutiny.

Comments

I don't think that is a good response because you can't publicly debate land acquisition for a year when there are competitors vying for the same opportunity.

The land only affords AE the opportunity to build in the future. It doesn't seal the deal. There will be plenty of public debate regarding an IGCC plant in the future. If the IGCC plant is voted down the land will be sold to someone who is interested in carbon sequestration.

Posted by: jc on February 12, 2007 5:18 PM

Our Mission

worldchanging was founded on the idea that real solutions already exist for building the future we want. it's just a matter of grabbing hold and getting moving.

About Worldchanging
Worldchanging Team Members

What else are we up to?
Find Out Now
Feedback

"The most important web site on the planet."

- Bruce Sterling

Speak Up

Have an idea or know about a great new tool or solution? We want to know about it!

Suggest a Story
Submission Guidelines


Contact Us

Editor
Advertising


Credits

Design:
Matt Chapman

Logo Design:
Egg

Hosting, Development, and Technical Management: