Coal transition is an enormous challenge for impacted communities. These often small, rural communities have excelled at one thing for decades: producing energy for our growing country. But now they are faced with a full-scale transition of their economies and workforce, significant revenue loss, and a shift in identity and culture. Most would like to continue to function as energy communities, and have a key advantage in attracting new energy development: their grid infrastructure. However, transmission capacity is not endless and not every energy type is the right fit for every community. So how do communities decide which types of energy development to pursue with their limited capacity and resources? This is a major challenge in and of itself.
Identifying a Need
In the world of energy development, there’s no shortage of specialists and detailed studies. However, one common challenge we’ve heard from coal communities involved in the Building Resilient Economies in Coal Communities (BRECC) initiative is that much of the available information doesn’t speak directly to the factors that matter most to them. Metrics such as permanent local job creation, revenue potential, timing, and feasibility often get lost in technical jargon or are only indirectly addressed.
To bridge this gap, Community Builders undertook the task of gathering and distilling the information that communities need most when evaluating different energy options. This graphic is the result of our research, and it’s designed to be a starting point for conversations within these communities. We do not advocate for one technology over another; our aim is to provide a neutral, fact-based comparison so that coal communities can identify energy options that best align with their unique needs, values, and resources.
Understanding the Limitations
While we’ve worked hard to ensure that the information in the graphic is accurate and comprehensive, there are a few important caveats to keep in mind. First and foremost, we at Community Builders are not energy experts. Our role has been to compile data from trusted expert sources, and where needed, make informed estimates to help simplify complex topics. For example, there are many types of nuclear reactors that all have slightly different costs, outputs, jobs, etc – but we’ve focused on the most common technologies for the sake of clarity. Where appropriate, we’ve also used ranges to reflect these differences. Sometimes the available data does not offer a perfect “apples to apples” comparison due to evolving technologies, different data collection years, etc. While we’ve done our best to standardize this information, there are always nuances in energy data. This resource relies on a variety of technical sources that have been generalized into something that is more digestible.
We are grateful to our peer reviewers at Rocky Mountain Institute, the Energy Communities Alliance, and Los Alamos National Laboratory who helped ensure the validity of the graphic.
Technologies Explored
The technologies we’ve compared include a range of renewable and non-renewable energy options: wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, nuclear, and fossil fuels paired with carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). We’ve also included emerging technologies like hydrogen (with distinctions for green and gray/black hydrogen) and provided some context around each technology’s readiness for deployment.
For each energy type, we’ve highlighted:
- Geographic and Siting Needs: The criteria communities need to determine if they are a good fit for an energy technology, like ideal climate, siting needs, attractors, and potential for coal plant conversion.
- Key Characteristics: These are the more simple fact-based specifications for various energies, including capacity, cost, land usage, and readiness.
- Potential Benefits: Perhaps most importantly, these are the potential assets a new energy technology can provide communities like estimated jobs, wages, and revenue. This section also includes a pros and cons list, compiled from the criteria throughout the graphic.
In Conclusion
Ultimately, this graphic is meant to serve as a guide—a starting point for coal communities exploring their energy futures. While much of the decision-making power around energy projects lies with energy developers, utilities companies and public utility commissions, communities have their own levers they can pull, from local resolutions and incentives, to shoring up community infrastructure and marketing themselves to energy developers. It’s important to approach these decisions with a clear understanding of both the opportunities and the limitations of each energy type. We encourage coal communities to use this graphic as a tool to begin informed discussions, raise questions, and engage with stakeholders, including utilities, developers, and policymakers.
Click on the graphic below to open in it in a new tab and enlarge:
Community
|
Economy
|
Environment