tagged w/ Clean Coal is an Oxymoron
-
If Senator Barack Obama ever needs a living symbol of change we can believe in, and a hopeful way to transcend the dirty politics of our failed energy policies, he should go and see the future of renewable energy in the Coal River Valley in West Virginia.
Yes, renewable energy in Appalachia.
Something historic is taking place in West Virginia this summer. Faced with an impending proposal to stripmine over 6,600 acres -- nearly 10 square miles -- in the Coal River Valley, including one of the last great mountains in that range, an extraordinary movement of local residents and coal mining families have come up with a counter proposal for an even more effective wind farm.
Mother Jones, the miners' angel, once declared: "Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living."
Having witnessed the destruction of over 470 mountains and their adjacent communities in Appalachia, the Coal River Valley citizens are doing just that. On the frontlines of one of the most tragic environmental and human rights scandals in modern American history, the community-wide Coal River wind advocates have devised a blueprint to get beyond the divisive regional politics and break the stranglehold of King Coal on the central Appalachian economies.
The Coal River Wind Project is the first bottom-up community-based full scale assessment to directly counter the nightmare of mountaintop removal with a renewable energy and economy alternative prior to the actual mining.
We have a choice. It is not simply coal or no coal. Jobs or no jobs. The issue is how do we create jobs and clean energy forever, and begin the transition in Appalachia and America away from dirty coal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is so wonderful. To see residents standing up to big coal to truly bring jobs and health to the Appalachians. Wind is the alternate energy source for this area, and I stand with them in getting this done. And if Barack Obama does care for change, he will stop touting "clean coal" and stand by these residents and their initiative to bring real clean energy and jobs to this part of the country that has been so devastated by the toxic legacy coal has left in its wake.If Senator Barack Obama ever needs a living symbol of change we can believe in, and a... more
-
-
In May 1998, at the urging of the state's coal industry, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill condemning the Kyoto global warming treaty and forbidding state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
Barack Obama voted "aye."
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee now calls climate change "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation," and proposes cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050. But as a state senator, from 1997 to 2004, he usually supported bills sought by coal interests, according to legislative records and interviews.
Obama is not the only politician whose public stance has shifted on global warming, which a scientific consensus says has been caused chiefly by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, who now backs limits on carbon emissions, was among 95 U.S. senators who voted in 1997 to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, an emissions reduction scheme that had been negotiated by then-vice president Al Gore.
Still, Obama, who touts his independence from special interests, made a point of embracing the coal industry as part of his quest for statewide office. When he ran for U.S. Senate in 2004, he was flanked by mine workers to proclaim that "there's always going to be a role for coal" in Illinois.
snip
Obama's other votes on coal in the state Senate included:
• In 1997, he voted to divert sales taxes to a fund for grants to help reopening closed coal mines and "incentives to attract new businesses that use coal."
• In 2001, Obama voted for legislation that offered $3.5 billion in loan guarantees to build coal-fired power plants with no ability to control carbon emissions.
• In 2003, he voted to allow $300 million in taxpayer-backed bonds to build or expand coal-fired power plants.
"You know, I am a strong supporter, I think, of downstate coal interests and our need to prop up and improve the outputs downstate," Obama said on the Senate floor before voting on the 2001 bill.
~~~~~~~~~
I expect to see this from a Republican. I expected better from a Democrat. In May 1998, at the urging of the state's coal industry, the Illinois Legislature... more
-
-
The Center for Disease Control estimates that 12,000 coal miners died from black lung between 1992 and 2002.
Coal plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the US.
For more check out: http://www.coal-is-dirty.com
A special thanks to: http://www.burningthefuture.com/
~~~~~
How can we as Americans sit and watch this happen in our country when there are viable alternate energies to bring jobs to Appalachia and health to its citizens with cleaner water and air? The Center for Disease Control estimates that 12,000 coal miners died from black lung... more
-
-
Today I met a man ( around 60 yrs old) wearing a shirt that read Clean Coal on the front and Abundant, Cheap and Clean on the back. As I passed him I asked " Did Santa Clause bring you that shirt? " He replied "F#*kin' treehugger" I laughed as I walked away. How lucky was this man that I don't believe the marijuana B.S. either. Today I met a man ( around 60 yrs old) wearing a shirt that read Clean Coal on the... more
-
-
My view on clean coal not being safe and to reiterate that if we truly want to bring ourselves into the 21st century, solar power is the answer.My view on clean coal not being safe and to reiterate that if we truly want to bring... more
-
-
The Apppalachian people, along with our oldest mountains, are paying the full price for coal. Coal companies are really good at making promises.
The families and communities of Appalachia have, in fact, been the beneficiary of coal company promises for 150 years, with a lasting peace and prosperity always “just over this next dune,” or in the case of Appalachia…just under our next mountain.
Over the last 30 years in Appalachian coal country we have seen more than 1 million acres of some of the most bio-diverse forest in the world destroyed, more than 1200 miles of vital American headwater streams buried and polluted by mountaintop removal mining waste, and over 474 mountains blasted to rubble by mountaintop removal coal mining (check out Appalachian Mountaintop Removal in Google Earth ).
All the while, coal companies have promised up that while there may be some environmental trade-off to mountaintop removal mining – it was SURE to bring great jobs and prosperity to the region. But while many corporate zillionaires from outside the region have profited mightily off of our resources, the Appalachian people have learned that mountaintop removal does the same thing to our economy that it does to our beloved mountains.
In 1995, Harvard economists Jeffery Sachs and Andrew Warner discovered a clear negative relationship between natural resource-base exports, including agriculture, minerals, and fuels, and GDP growth.
They dubbed this phenomenon "The Resource Curse."
Of the 95 countries they investigated, only two achieved a 2% annual GDP growth rate between 1970-1989. A more common occurrence was increased poverty, warfare, and civil strife.
Electric power generation pulled in more than $380 billion in 2005. More than half of that electricity generation came from coal.
If we’ve been mining coal for 150 years...why are the people of Appalachia among the poorest in the country?
The Apppalachian people, along with our oldest mountains, are paying the full price... more
-
-
For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground.
President George W. Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of "clean coal." All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology.
But it has become clear in recent months that the nation's effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.
In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.
Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.
Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming.
"It's a total mess," said Daniel Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.
snip
Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere.
Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is exactly why I have criticized and will continue to criticize the presidential candidates. They are lying to the American people about this. All of them have given campaign stump speeches intimating that this technology is already perfected and only a couple of years away.They use this lie to validate the fact thar they will allow coal companies to continue to spew their toxic and climate change causing garbage into our atmosphere for the next twenty years without real penalty under the guise of a "cap and trade" system that I am almost certain will be manipulated to benefit them.
We don't need carbon sequestration, and i personally believe it would be detrimental to underground water systems and acquifers. What we need is AGGRESSIVE action regarding bringing solar, wind, and other alternate energies to market.
I feel as though I type this over and over and over again, and still see nothing happening. We have deserts in this country that could hold enough solar arrays on them to power the homes of hundreds of thousands of people, and here they sit in Congress and on the campaign trail talking about "clean coal."
Like nuclear plants and desalination plants, carbon sequestration is a risky expensive bandaid to allow busniness as usual with the illusion of moral courage. That is all. I will not believe this Congress is serious about tackling climate change until they stand up to these toxic industries to wean us OFF of them and give the people what they want and what this planet must have in order to adequately sustain us and our children: CLEAN, affordable, SAFE alternate energies.For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They... more
-
-
1. CLEARING
Before mining can begin, all topsoil and vegetation must be removed. Because coal companies frequently are responding to short-term fluctuations in the price of coal, these trees are often not even used comercially in the rush to get the coal, but instead are burned or sometimes illegally dumped into valley fills.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. BLASTING
Many Appalachian coal seams lie deep below the surface of the mountains. Accessing these seams through surface mining can require the removal of 500-800 feet or more of elevation. Blowing up this much mountain is accomplished by using millions of pounds of explosives.
Click here for a photo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. DIGGING
Coal and debris is removed by using this piece of machinery, called a dragline. A dragline stands 22 stories high and can hold 24 compact cars in its bucket. These machines can cost up to $100 million, but are favored by coal companies because they displace the need for hundreds of jobs.
Click here for a photo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. DUMPING WASTE
The waste from the mining operation, also known as overburden or spoil, is dumped into nearby valleys, burying streams. According to an EPA environmental impact statement, more than 1,000 miles of Appalachian streams were permitted to be buried as of 2001.
Click here for a photo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. PROCESSING
The coal is washed and treated before it is loaded on trains. The excess water left over from this process is called coal slurry or sludge and is stored in open coal impoundments. Coal sludge is a mix of water, coal dust, clay and toxic chemicals such as arsenic mercury, lead, copper, and chromium. Impoundments are held in place by mining debris, making them very unstable.
Click here for a photo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. RECLAMATION
While reclamation efforts such as stabilization and revegetation are required for mountaintop removal sites, in practice, state agencies that regulate mining are generous with granting waivers to coal companies.
Most sites receive little more than a spraying of exotic grass seed, but even the best reclamation provides no comfort to nearby families and communities whose drinking water supplies have been polluted and whose homes will be threatened by floods for the hundred or thousands of years it will require to re-grow a forest on the mined site.
Click here for a photo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coal is a dirty, destructive, antiquated form of energy. It blackens our skies, pollutes our water, and sickens our people. We must wean ourselves from it to save ourselves and look to solar, wind, and other alternate energies to provide our energy needs for the future. What coal companies do to get coal is immoral and their ad campaigns are the height of deception and propaganda. I'm ready to stand up to them. Are you? We must because we are running out of time to do what we must do to keep us at 350ppm. 1. CLEARING
Before mining can begin, all topsoil and vegetation must be removed.... more
-
-
In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in America. In another, white and black, young and old, male and female, and even someone in a doctor's green scrubs, stare into the camera and soulfully declare: "I believe" American know-how will make coal clean and stop it from contributing to climate change. Not sold? Maybe you missed the newspaper ads and billboards warning that turning away from coal could mean blackouts, unemployment and higher electric bills.
These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and related industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear as prospects for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told the Christian Science Monitor is a "de facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more environmentally friendly president may lead to the first federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Even red states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants. Last year, 59 new plants were either canceled or halted across the nation.
When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiral right now."
The coal industry's woes have risen as worries over climate change have increased. Today's coal-fired plants emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. One new plant planned for Iowa, for example, would dump 5.9 million tons of the stuff into the air in just one year. Two proposed Kansas plants would add 11 million tons annually.
snip
As the coal debate continues, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced April 23 that global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 19 billion tons in the last year. The worldwide concentration is now 385 parts per million. The level that is expected to tip the world into disaster is 450 parts per million.
But climate change isn't raining on the coal industry's campaign. In April, Barack Obama acknowledged a voter sporting one of the industry's hats at a campaign stop in Dunmore, Penn., and then used the industry's own terminology to talk about his support for investing in carbon storage research. In an appearance in Charleston, W.Va., Hillary Clinton also used the industry's own words to pledge her support for doing the same.
Obama, Clinton and John McCain all favor legislation to fight climate change. The nearly identical programs proposed by the two Democrats are more far-reaching than that put forth by McCain. However, none of them support a moratorium on building new coal-fired plants.
Meanwhile, the Clean Coal marketing machine keeps rolling. As one commercial declares, coal powers "our way of life." On the soundtrack, Kool and the Gang sing, "Celebrate good times, come on!"
~~~~~~
What an insidious campaign. And all the presidential candidates go along with it! It is time to tell them to stop this pandering to those industries who care about nothing but their own balance sheets. CO2 levels are now the highest they have been in 650,000 years and it is because of the very garbage being spewed by coal plants.
"Clean coal" is an assault on reason! Shame on Obama, Clinton, and McCain for giving it credence to get votes while people die from its effects.
In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because... more
-
-
US Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are talking more about "clean coal" and less about global warming as they woo voters in West Virginia and Kentucky - two states that sit at the heart of the nation's coal economy.
In a bid to draw voters ahead of Democratic primaries in West Virginia tomorrow and Kentucky on May 20, both candidates are playing up the ascendant role of commercially untested and so far economically nonviable ways of converting America's plentiful coal supplies into electricity without spewing massive quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
"We need some big investments right now in figuring out how to capture and store carbon dioxide from coal," Senator Clinton told a rally in the rural town of Clear Fork.
To get there, she took a windy road through the Appalachian Mountains that passed at least four big coal mines cut into the mountainside.
Not to be outdone, Senator Obama's campaign has distributed flyers in Kentucky stating that "Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal." The flyers show a picture of giant barges carrying coal down the Ohio River.
Coal-fired power plants generate about half of US electricity supplies, and account for about 40 per cent of US greenhouse gas emissions - the biggest single industrial source.
US Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are talking more... more
-
-
Let's be real: "Clean coal" is a marketing slogan not a technological reality. Coal does currently provide us with a reliable source of electricity but at an astronomical price that is hidden from us consumers.
Maybe you pay for it with your child's asthma. Maybe you paid for it with your father's heart attack or your grandmother's stroke that took her speech away. Maybe you lost a baby to SIDS on a particularly bad air day.
Emissions from coal-fired power plants are a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, air toxins - and premature deaths. The EPA estimates that over 30,000 Americans are dying prematurely each year due to emissions from power plants, the majority of which are coal-powered.
This doesn't even address the high mortality rates associated with the mining process.
Thus, coal kills more people annually than homicides (16,000 in 2000) or AIDS (14,000) and nearly as many as traffic accidents (42,000). So when coal industry advocates like Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal, and Bountiful resident Bruce Taylor, co-owner of the proposed coal plant in Sevier County, say "cleaner coal," what exactly do they mean?
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a typical coal plant annually generates:
* 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2),
the primary human cause of global warming,
* 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2),
* 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death,
* 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), equal to what would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs,
* 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease,
* 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone,
* 170 pounds of mercury, an extremely potent neurotoxin; just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe for human consumption. The Great Salt Lake is already heavily contaminated with mercury.
* 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who regularly drink water containing 50 parts per billion,
* 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
None of these numbers sounds "clean" to me. So, does coal advocate Lucas consider a "clean" coal plant to produce only 7,000 pounds of annual sulfur dioxide emissions instead of 10,000 pounds? Does he consider 2 million tons of carbon dioxide instead of 3.7 million tons to be "clean" or how about 120 pounds of mercury instead of 170 pounds? Does "clean" coal only cause 20,000 premature deaths annually as compared to 30,000?
The reality is coal is dirty and will likely remain so.
Let's be real: "Clean coal" is a marketing slogan not a technological... more
-
-
In a word, yes. There is no such thing as "clean coal" and pumping the Co2 into the ground at the pace it would have to be pumped in order to truly make an impact is simply not feasible based on future population increases, electricity usage per person, and the fact that the more this government claims it wants to fund alternate energies, we NEVER SEE THEM. What of Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Where are their subsidies in Congress? And of course, the Bush administration and I am sure the next one will continue to push for carbon sequestration knowing this to make people think they care while actually giving the coal industry more time to pump more of their sewerage into the atmosphere. It is time for a bold new vision to go beyond coal and nuclear. Unfortunately, leaving the solution up to politicians will only doom it every time. And also, Co2 is not the only GHG we have to worry about, and there is not nearly enough attention being paid to that.In a word, yes. There is no such thing as "clean coal" and pumping the Co2... more
-
