I received a letter and memo yesterday from Alcoa, summarizing the discussion at Alcoa Warrick Operations' recent environmental open house. The memo contained the most common questions raised at the open house, as well as the company's answers to the same. Apparently, I was not the only one who was a little taken aback with the fact that Alcoa will have to burn substantially more coal in the future than it does currently, in part to operate the scrubbers that are supposed to clean pollutants out of the coal being burned. Alcoa indicated that it cannot rely on alternative energy to supply its power needs at its Warrick Operations given that it "needs nearly 600 MW of electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year." Although Alcoa has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions from its smelting and rolling operations, its power plant greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise. Alcoa claims that the largest wind turbines would produce approximately 2 MW of electricity, 40% of the time (due to an absence of reliability and wind speeds). In addition, hydroelectric power is deemed unsuitable for the area near Warrick Operations. In the memo, Alcoa then goes on to a huge discussion of a hydroelectric power operation at some other plant, which to me seems overboard and distracting. After all, the open house was designed to address issues at Warrick Operations, not what's going on in Tennessee or North Carolina.

Upon reading this memo, I considered the dilemma that Alcoa faces, in that alternative energy is unlikely to satisfy its enormous energy demand. Yet, it seems that Alcoa is unwilling to use a mix of alternative energy and coal. The memo also begs the question of why hydroelectric power is not "viable" in the area of Warrick Operations, given that the plant is practically on the river. Is there not enough current there? No room to build a dam? Is it unfeasible due to boat traffic? The memo doesn't answer these questions. It also tosses wind power aside, without indicating its source for the unpredictability determination of wind. Perhaps Alcoa is correct that these alternative sources just will not work for Warrick Operations. The next question I have then is why can't the plant be made more efficient, such that the smelting operations and scrubbers can use less power? When a company spends about $400 million on scrubbers, you wonder why they cannot help with the efficiency of the plant. I am certainly no engineer, yet I wonder why burning 20-some truckloads of coal per hour is an acceptable practice, even in the power-intensive aluminum industry. Is the technology really so antiquated that these plants have to be as inefficient as they probably were when first built? I am not oblivious to Alcoa's predicament, as they are trying to turn a profit in a relatively flat aluminum market. I also appreciate the company managers' accessibility to the public and efforts to improve Alcoa's environmental performance. However, I still think it takes outsiders to challenge the company's enormous power usage and attitude towards alternative energy sources. After all, what will happen to Alcoa in the future when the coal reserves are tapped out?