The cons: Surry County coal plant

The $4 billion Cypress Creek power plant would be big, and it would burn coal.

And those are problems, say opponents who argue that there are better ways to deal with rising energy demands.

If built in Surry County to provide 1,500 megawatts, Cypress Creek would be Virginia's largest coal-burning plant, topping Dominion Virginia Power's Chesterfield Power Station near Chester.

The effects of coal

Cypress Creek's estimated annual emissions would include 3,685 tons of sulfur dioxide, 3,085 tons of nitrogen oxides, 2,722 tons of particles such as soot and 118 pounds of mercury.

The pollutants contribute to smog, haze and other environmental ills. State regulators would have a say in the ultimate levels of those emissions.

Officials at the Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, which proposes to build the plant, say it would be one of the cleanest and most efficient in Virginia.

Much of the opposition centers on the expected annual release of 14.6 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is not regulated. Coal-burning plants are among the top producers of the greenhouse gas.

ODEC officials say the Cypress Creek site would include space for machines that someday would remove the gas from the plant's emissions.

But that technology might not be available for a decade or more, said Glen Besa, director of the Sierra Club's Virginia chapter.

"We cannot be building massive new coal plants if we have no idea how we're going to capture and store the carbon," he said.

Patrick G. Hatcher, an Old Dominion University geochemist, laid out the challenge: "We need energy, and we need to decrease our carbon footprint."

Some opponents also worry that digging coal for the Cypress Creek plant could involve mountaintop-removal mining, in which machines push rocks and earth into streams below to get at the coal.

"You have to look at the use of coal from cradle to grave," said Cale Jaffe, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, a conservation group.

ODEC officials say it is too early to know how the coal would be produced.

C. David Hudgins, ODEC's director of external relations, said a lot of the opposition boils down to "global warming, killing polar bears, the earth is dying. Seriously."

Hudgins said he is more concerned about providing reasonably priced power now. "I'm kind of worried about the retired guy being able to afford his oxygen machine."

Possible alternatives

Researchers nationwide are looking into ways to capture carbon dioxide from large power plants and store it underground. But ODEC says Surry's soil and bedrock are inadequate for holding the carbon.

The utility contemplates a costly -- and as yet undeveloped -- system that involves turning the carbon dioxide into a liquid and hauling it away.

Hatcher, who has led high-profile research on converting algae to fuel, suggested another approach -- building ponds of algae that would consume the carbon dioxide.

Hatcher said he would like to talk to ODEC about the idea. There are kinks to work out, but it's possible the system could be in place when the plant opens, Hatcher said.

Opponents say the cooperative can address much of its rising electricity demand by putting more emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable fuels.

ODEC officials say they have been encouraging efficiency for years by providing coupons for low-power light bulbs, among other programs. They see renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, as helpful but not sufficiently abundant.

Our energy future

Coal might be a fairly cheap way to generate electricity now, but it almost certainly will cost more in coming years if the federal government carries out plans to regulate carbon emissions, said Mark White, a University of Virginia expert in finance and sustainability.

A coal-burning plant can keep costs down now because it isn't being charged for releasing carbon dioxide, White said.

Decades ago, factories simply dumped their waste into rivers. Then the government required pollution controls, which increased the factories' costs but also cleaned the rivers.

"It's the same principle exactly" with carbon releases from power plants, White said. The river, in this analogy, is our atmosphere.

ODEC officials say consumers' electricity costs would go up because of carbon regulations or, should the Cypress Creek plant be delayed or killed, because the utility would have to buy more expensive power on the open market.

ODEC officials said they can't estimate precisely how much those costs might go up.

But Hudgins said: "My God, if you're struggling with a $200 bill, then all of a sudden it's a $600 electric bill, and you're on a fixed income, and you're a retired firefighter, schoolteacher, military -- that's tough medicine."

Looking at the overall energy debate, Hudgins said: "It's about: How do you provide energy to 300 million people? It's about scale. It's about: Do you have an American lifestyle, or do you want to be like" poor countries where power is off several hours a day?

Ultimately, Americans are going to have to scale back their consumption -- meaning smaller homes and fewer flat-screen TVs -- to reduce energy use, White said.

"Think of Europe. They get by with a pretty high standard of living and quality of life, but with just less stuff."

Contact Rex Springston at (804) 649-6453 or .