By Brian K. Sullivan

Jan. 3 (Bloomberg) -- More than 1,000 people in the U.S. will die for every degree Celsius the atmosphere warms because of carbon dioxide, according to a computer model at Stanford University in California.

Each degree of warming will lead to about 21,000 deaths worldwide. In the U.S., there will be 1,000 more fatalities from asthma other non-cancer causes linked to air pollution, as well as 20 to 30 more cancer-related losses, according to a paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters.

The health effects of climate change would become more profound in areas of the country that already experience high rates of air pollution, such as southern California, according to Mark Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor who developed the model used to write the paper.

``Ultimately, you inhale a greater abundance of deleterious chemicals due to carbon dioxide and the climate change associated with it, and the link appears quite solid,'' Jacobson said in a statement today. ``The logical next step is to reduce carbon dioxide.''

Carbon dioxide also causes air temperatures to rise faster than those at the surface, Jacobson found. The result is that pollution tends to stay near where it originates and doesn't disperse so easily.

Ozone production in urban areas will also rise because of increased carbon dioxide, Jacobson wrote. Ozone is known to cause respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, according to a statement released by Stanford.

``It is a very corrosive gas; it erodes rubber and statues,'' Jacobson said in a statement. ``It cracks tires. So you can imagine what it does to your lungs in high enough concentrations.''

Emissions Rules

California, New York and several other states adopted new vehicle emissions rules to limit the amount of carbon getting into the atmosphere. On Dec. 19, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denied the rules, saying an energy bill signed by President George W. Bush already seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions through new auto-mileage standards.

The California standards were more stringent than the bill signed by Bush. Earlier this week, California and several of the other states sued the EPA.

Jacobson's work lends credence to California's need to control its air pollution, the Stanford statement said.

``With six of the 10 most polluted cities in the nation being in California, that alone creates a special circumstance for the state,'' Jacobson said.

Jacobson developed a computer model of the atmosphere to look at the effects of increased pollution and changes in the climate. Among the variables that go into the model are the amount of sunlight, the effect of rain, wind and clouds, and how pollutants are formed and move and change in the atmosphere.

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian K. Sullivan in Boston at bsullivan10@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: January 3, 2008 15:29 EST

January 6, 2008
By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau
DENVER - An old adage says oil and water don't mix.

But they do. So do coal and water, and ethanol and water.

There's a connection between water and energy that many water planners don't appreciate, said Melinda Kassen with Trout Unlimited.

"It goes both ways. There's water needed to produce energy. But there's energy needed to develop and deliver water," said Kassen, who sits on a high-level water panel called the Interbasin Compact Committee. "If you talk about this, I think, you need to talk about both sides."

Coal power plants need water to generate steam for their turbines and to cool off excess heat in their towers. Ethanol requires water for irrigation and to process corn into a useable fuel. Oil shale needs water to scour the underground rocks and refine the product into fuel for vehicles and jets.

Fast-growing Phoenix will build five more power plants, Kassen said, yet none of the water demand estimates she's seen for the Western United States take the increased demand for power into account.

By 2030, U.S. power plants could be using as much water as all domestic users in the country were in 1995, according to a Department of Energy report called "Energy Demands on Water Resources."

Closer to home, water planners are keeping their eyes on the large conditional water rights of Shell and Chevron, but the largest conditional water right in Colorado is for a future power plant. The Colorado River Water Conservation District owns the right to store more than 1 million acre-feet of water a year in Juniper Reservoir. Like the oil companies' reservoirs, Juniper does not exist yet.

The Eastern Plains are producing energy, too, thanks to the ethanol boom. But today's ethanol plants use corn, and Colorado corn usually requires irrigation.


Ethanol made from irrigated corn takes about 1,400 gallons of water per one gallon of ethanol produced, according to the Department of Energy's report.

However, a lot of the acres used for ethanol are already under cultivation, and some of the water used for irrigation seeps into the ground and eventually migrates back into the river for use downstream.

It takes energy to move water, too, Kassen said. Farmers and suburbs need power to run their well pumps.

Fort Collins entrepreneur Aaron Million has plans for a 400-mile pipeline from Southwest Wyoming to the Front Range. It will require lots of energy to run the pumps, Kassen said. Million, though, said he's looking at using wind turbines and solar cells. And because the pipeline loses elevation on its way into Colorado, he can use it for hydroelectric power.

Originally, he estimated the yearly operation costs would be $50 million to $75 million, but that cost will drop if the project uses renewable energy, Million told state legislators in September.

Digging deeper

By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER
Star-Tribune energy reporter
Now that Wyoming coal producers have a higher-capacity set of rails to export more of the black rock, continued growth could depend on the construction of new power plants.

In recent years, coal-burning utilities steadily increased operating capacity from an average of 85 percent to about 92 percent, according to one industry official.

"That's about as high as one could reasonably expect (utility operating capacity) to get. The only way for coal demand to grow is to build new coal facilities," said Thomas A. Johns, vice president of development for Sithe Global LLC, an independent power producer.

That means the prospect for nationwide growth in the near-term is minimal. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration expects national demand for coal to decline 1.7 percent this year, "in all coal producing regions."

That notion was at least partially solidified recently when PacifiCorp announced it was pulling coal out of its bag of potential new electrical generation sources for its next 10-year planning cycle, including two previously announced coal projects in Wyoming.

"The issue right now is there's so much uncertainty for greenhouse gas regulations, and it's made a lot of people in the market take a pause on what they're going to do," said Johns. "But there's absolutely a need for new generation."

While regulated utilities including PacifiCorp become more hesitant to build new coal plants within a changing regulatory atmosphere in each state, unregulated independent power producers see an opportunity.

Three coal plants are proposed in Nevada, including Sithe Global's Desert Rock project. And more are in the queue in Texas and elsewhere across the nation. Many plan to use Powder River Basin coal.

With the exception of mine-mouth plant proposals, Powder River Basin remains the coal of choice, according to Johns.

"If there's an issue with Powder River Basin coal, it's the escalation of rail transportation costs," Johns said.

That's largely a function of paying off more than $1 billion in investments by railroads in recent years.

"No one can compete with Powder River Basin production costs, but it's the delivered cost everyone looks at," Johns said.

It's a growing concern for Powder River Basin coal producers, particularly in Eastern states where greenhouse gas regulations are tightening. The basin's low-sulfur advantage over higher-heating-content Eastern coal helped Wyoming's industry expand its Midwest and Eastern market share during the 1980s and 1990s. Johns said that as utilities there are forced to add scrubbers to meet more stringent pollution standards, Powder River Basin coal loses that low-sulfur edge.

Wyoming Mining Association Executive Director Marion Loomis said he believes Powder River Basin coal will remain competitive.

"I hesitate to say we are the lowest-cost provider, but we're competitive with lowest-cost suppliers," Loomis said.

Meanwhile, Wyoming coal producers continue to invest in operations, particularly coal load-out facilities to maximize train loading opportunities.

The utility industry's current "pause" on coal comes in the midst of changing regulations, but it is in contrast to growing electrical demand.

Although the nation's electric utilities are expected to rely slightly less on coal as a fuel stock -- down from 51 percent in 2003 to 48 percent in 2015, according to the Energy Information Administration -- it has more to do with the volatility of natural gas prices than concern over greenhouse gas emissions.

The long-term outlook for coal remains steady. Shifting from natural gas, utilities are expected to rely more on coal after 2015. Coal could fuel 57 percent of the nation's electrical generation by 2030, according to the EIA.

"(Utilities) still have to decide how they're going to meet growing demand," Loomis said.

Energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 577-6069 or dustin.bleizeffer@trib.com.