One suggestion to address Alaska’s coming energy shortage is to revisit using coal, a dominant fuel source in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s.
Alaska’s leaders are concerned about a natural gas shortage hitting the Railbelt, the populated area stretching from Fairbanks to the Kenai Peninsula, by the year 2030.
For many years, the Railbelt has relied on abundant and inexpensive natural gas from nearby Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula. However, these resources are dwindling, similar to a finite oil well nearing depletion.
Facing a natural gas shortage by 2030, Railbelt leaders are exploring two options. First, they’re looking for ways to support increased exploration and production in Cook Inlet. However, they also recognize the need for a backup plan if that fails.
This situation might lead to a renewed focus on coal as a potential energy source.
While Alaska boasts enormous coal reserves, utilizing them faces significant challenges. Environmental concerns, high costs, and logistical difficulties pose substantial obstacles, akin to the unyielding force of gravity. However, these hurdles don’t seem to deter proponents of coal-fired energy.
Recently, a questionable report promoting coal as the solution to the Railbelt’s energy woes surfaced. It’s worth noting that this report was funded by an Alberta coal company with interests in Alaskan mining.
The proposed solution seems simple: build a coal mine, power plant, and transmission lines. But capturing the harmful carbon dioxide emissions from the plant and burying them underground (a key part of the plan) is a significant challenge. The federal government is offering substantial financial incentives for companies willing to tackle this complex and crucial step.
Coal is a thing of the past, not a solution for the future.
Coal used to be the kingpin of electricity generation in most US states, but its reign has significantly dwindled. Two decades ago, two-thirds of states relied heavily on coal, whereas now only a dozen do. The US hasn’t built a large-scale coal plant in over ten years, and the last sizeable utility coal plant in the country opened in Fairbanks just a few years back in 2020.
While coal is one option, another long-standing dream (dating back to the 1970s) is transporting natural gas from the North Slope to Railbelt communities. This pipeline would be a game-changer for energy security, but the cost is astronomical. Imagine building an 800-mile pipeline across a brutal Alaskan landscape – tundra, permafrost, rivers, mountains, snow, ice, and earthquake faults. It’s a daunting and expensive proposition.
Adding to the challenges, there’s the major question of how the roughly half-million residents of the Railbelt would afford the enormous cost of this project.
The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), after years of pursuing a multi-billion dollar pipeline project to export gas to Asia, has proposed a new plan. They suggest focusing on a more modest, $10 billion pipeline solely for transporting gas within Alaska to meet Railbelt needs. This marks a significant shift in their strategy.
The AGDC’s proposal for a domestic pipeline seems more like a tactic for survival. The state Senate, no longer convinced of the export plan’s viability, recently voted to cut funding for the agency. This new proposal might be a way for the AGDC to stay afloat.
