West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
* West Virginia is not just being left behind the rest of the country in developing alternative energy, we're not doing so well compared to our neighborhood, either. Here's a nearby state that is making a move in alternative energy projects: DOE Approves Volunteer State Solar Initiative.
Finally, on a lighter note. There's yet another "stupid criminal" story to file from the Eastern Panhandle. This time it's crime scene Facebook usage that tripped up the perp.
Flickr image credit: Black Water Falls by DrewMyers
The pre-speech press totally missed this one. Other than on this here blog, no one else mentioned what turned out to be the first major policy element of last night's speech: Gov. Joe Manchin's energy plan.
One of the world's most-pressing issues is a growing demand for energy. Our nation needs West Virginia's energy resources to climb out of this recession. The opportunity for us to take the world stage in new energy development is now. Companies from around the globe are prepared to invest in West Virginia to make this kind of development a reality.
If we want to be a leader in renewable resources, we must commit to investing in the energy sources of the future. Throughout our history, our state has powered this nation. West Virginians know energy better than anyone. We must build upon our past successes and uncover even more efficient and cleaner energy sources.
That means not just coal, but natural gas, and renewable resources, including wind, solar, hydro and biofuels.
Tonight, I am introducing a bill, called the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act, which will put West Virginia at the forefront of new energy development. It sets a realistic timeframe for us to develop alternative and renewable energy resources.
Beginning in 2015, at least 10 percent of the electric energy sold to electric customers must be generated by alternative or renewable energy sources. And, by 2025, we will require that 25 percent of electricity sold in West Virginia must be generated from alternative or renewable energy facilities.
Our bill will provide incentives to locate new alternative energy facilities in West Virginia, which will encourage the development of renewable energy resources and create jobs in the Mountain State.
This is within reach. With the growth of wind technology, by recycling waste heat from our industrial facilities, by cultivating biofuels like switchgrass, by harnessing the power of our rivers and the sun, and by expanding our clean coal efforts, we can meet our energy needs, create new jobs and improve our environment at the same time.
Electricity doesn't always come from the power plant. Today we have the technology to generate electricity at our own homes and businesses, but there has been little incentive to invest in this technology because there is no way to get credit for the power you return to the electric grid.
My alternative and renewable energy bill will also require electric utility companies to provide net metering to residential, small business and industrial customers who generate their own electricity. This bill also requires the Public Service Commission to expand the availability of net metering to West Virginia electric customers.
It will encourage private investment in renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, biomass, hydropower, waste heat recovery and even landfill gas. It is another step toward expanding our state's energy portfolio.
We must also continue to keep in perspective the energy resources and technology we are using today. We can't simply abandon the way we live and generate electricity, but we must find newer and cleaner ways to produce energy with the abundance of resources we already have.
It will take investment and research. We are on the verge of discovering cleaner, greener ways to use coal and we can continue to be a low-cost producer of energy if we believe in ourselves and embrace our energy expertise.
There's been a lot of debate about clean coal technology. Whether you agree or disagree with the concept, one thing is certain: We can improve the way we use coal and reduce the carbon that is released into the atmosphere.
One new technology that has promise is carbon capturing. West Virginia can be at the forefront of this experimental method of capturing the carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil fuels by finding ways to add value to this waste stream.
This week I will present a bill that will allow for permits for carbon sequestration projects. It will establish regulations for monitoring carbon sequestration sites and clarify ownership of the space in which the carbon is stored. Carbon sequestration is not the only solution to controlling power plant emissions, but we should explore its potential.
Energy independence must move from talk to action, and these proposals do that. By broadening our definition of energy beyond just fossil fuels, we position ourselves to continue producing the nation's energy by any and all means.
These are all first steps that build on my vision for energy independence. They open the door to the future of new energy development in the Mountain State.
I'll have a lot more to say about the Alternative and Renewable Energy Portfolio Act (after I read it). For now, kudos to Gov. Manchin for following through on hiscampaignpromise.
During his recent re-election bid, W.Va. Gov. Joe Manchin touted plans for a comprehensive energy bill in the 2009 legislative session. He promised to make alternative energy a key facet of his next state of the state address.
He could do worse than checking in with fellow Democratic Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia for innovative ideas.
Gov. Tim Kaine unveiled more details of his plan to create "green jobs" on Monday, calling for new incentives -- including state tax breaks -- to encourage production of biofuels and clean energy sources and greater use of renewable energy sources.
[snip]
Kaine is putting an emphasis on energy and the environment during this final year of his four-year term, despite a $2.9 billion budget shortfall that will require cuts in virtually every state program.
"Creating green jobs and a renewable energy sector of the Virginia economy is one way we can create opportunity from our current economic challenges," said Kaine, who announced his proposals at a Virginia Beach company that installs solar panels.
[snip]
Kaine also called for tax incentives to encourage the use of renewable energy sources. He proposed an income tax credit for individuals and corporations to install solar energy systems, with the credits varying according to the size of the system installed.
In addition to income tax breaks, Kaine also called for sales tax exemptions on solar and small wind systems.
State Sen. Creigh Deeds, D-Bath County, will sponsor bills to create the sales tax exemption and expand the clean energy manufacturing incentive.
"As we address the challenges of this economy and put in place a recovery package that gets us moving again, green jobs for hard-working, middle-class families are going to play a big role," Deeds said.
Tim Kaine is a fellow centrist who, like Gov. Manchin, has been criticized for being too friendly with corporations at the expense of progressive policy. If Gov. Tim Kaine can embrace alternative energy, so can Gov. Joe Manchin.
Flickr image credit: sej_photos. SEJ2008 Opening Reception (L-R): Charles Steger, Virginia Tech president; West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin; and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine. Photo courtesy Kate Lutz.
During his recent re-election bid, W.Va. Gov. Joe Manchin touted plans for a comprehensive energy bill in the 2009 legislative session. He promised to make alternative energy a key facet of his next state of the state address.
He could do worse than checking in with fellow Democratic governor Bill Ritter of Colorado for innovative ideas.
For a governor who vows to make renewable energy the state's "calling card," it wouldn't be a legislative session without a initiative from Gov. Bill Ritter on that issue.
That moment came last week during his State of the State speech, in which Ritter threw his support behind a proposal requiring homebuilders to offer buyers the option of putting solar panels on their home or having the home pre-wired for the panels.
Now, you're probably thinking this idea is so "out there" for a state like West Virginia it would never work... that's all the more reason why Joe Manchin should get on the phone with Bill Ritter--to learn what steps A, B and C are to get alternative energy kick-started for the citizens of West Virginia.
Flickr image credit: ostaff1. Solar powered house in Morgantown, West Virginia.
Gov. Manchin is saying he's going to make his next State of the State address all about alternative energy. See here and here for more details.
I'll have a lot more to say about this soon. Meanwhile, I'm interested in your comments. What do you think? What would you like to see in a comprehensive energy bill for West Virginia?
The Orwellian named clean coal is a myth spun by Big Coal. Don't believe the hype. There is no such thing as clean coal.
There are two types of coal: toxic coal and even more toxic coal.
There are two ways to mine coal: mining with debilitating social, ecological and environmental effects and mining with merely devastating damages.
There are two ways to burn coal: by letting all the toxic stuff spread out into the earth, water, and air (long term consequences be damned) or by concentrating the toxins into difficult to contain, difficult to store, and highly dangerous pollution stores (long term consequences be damned).
Coal, in any form of extraction and production, is arguably the most environmentally damaging source of energy. No matter how hard Big Coal tries to green-wash itself, coal remains toxic.
It is toxic to mine, toxic to extract, and toxic to burn.
There are a number of adverse environmental effects of coal mining and burning. These effects include:
- release of carbon dioxide and methane, both of which are greenhouse gas
- waste products including Uranium, Thorium, and other heavy metals
- acid rain
- interference with groundwater and water table levels
- impact of water use on flows of rivers and consequential impact on other land-uses
- dust nuisance
- subsidence above tunnels, sometimes damaging infrastructure
- rendering land unfit for the other uses.
The mining of coal by mountaintop removal has turned large swaths of Appalachia into a national sacrifice zone. The extraction of coal creates toxic sludge. The burning of coal creates toxic pollution.
No technology exists to magically make coal less toxic. No technology exists to clean toxic coal. We can move the toxins around, but we can't make them disappear.
Really, just getting to the coal in the first place makes a real mess of things.
Mountain Top Removal
We have covered the social, economic, and environmental damage of mountain top removal coal mining extensively on this blog.
"I introduced Senate Bill 588 because I fervently believe that God did not intend for us to destroy the mountains, the streams, the forests and His people in order to mine coal," Sen. Hunter said.
"Senator Hunter's bill would stop mountain top removal operators from continuing to use West Virginia's mountain streams as giant garbage cans to dispose of billions of tons of mining waste," said Joe Lovett executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment. "West Virginians overwhelmingly oppose mountaintop removal, and I hope that the Manchin administration and others in the Legislature will stand with Senator Hunter to stop the permanent destruction of a huge swath of one of the oldest mountain ranges in the world. It is time for the madness of mountaintop removal to come to an end, and Senator Hunter's bill is an important step in that direction."
In addition to the ecological destruction, coal mining -- accelerated by the major job reductions due to Mountain Top Removal coal mining practices -- has been an economic disaster for Appalachian communities.
Even though the US coal industry has reaped billions of dollars in revenue - Peabody Energy reported $5.2 billion in revenues in 2006 - the coal-rich regions have some of the worst poverty in the country. According to the US Census, the median income for Twilight and the surrounding region is less than $20,000 a year, and more than a quarter of families live below the poverty line.
Twilight is simply a line of double-wide trailers with no general store, set in the folds of steep hills, on a road that ends at a mountaintop coal operation.
"The coal industry just wants to keep what's happening here a secret," said Steve "Spankey" Webb, 51, of Twilight, who now works in an underground coal mine, a 33-year veteran of the business. "I know the country needs coal, but they don't worry about the people who live in these areas. They just don't care, I reckon."
Coal mining causes a number of harmful effects. When coal surfaces are exposed, pyrite (iron sulfide), also known as "fool's gold", comes in contact with water and air and forms sulfuric acid. As water drains from the mine, the acid moves into the waterways, and as long as rain falls on the mine tailings the sulfuric acid production continues, whether the mine is still operating or not. This process is known as acid rock drainage (ARD) or acid mine drainage (AMD). If the coal is strip mined, the entire exposed seam leaches sulfuric acid, leaving the subsoil infertile on the surface and begins to pollute streams by acidifying and killing fish, plants, and aquatic animals who are sensitive to drastic pH shifts.
Coal mining produces methane a potent greenhouse gas. Methane is the naturally occurring product of the decay of organic matter as coal deposits are formed with increasing depths of burial, rising temperatures, and rising pressures over geological time. A portion of the methane produced is adsorbed by the coal and later released from the coal seam and surrounding disturbed strata during the mining process.[1] Methane accounts for 9% of greenhouse gas emissions created through human activity.[2] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane has a global warming potential 21 times greater than that of carbon dioxide on a 100 year time line. While burning coal in power plants is most harmful to air quality, due to the emission of dangerous gases, the process of mining can release pockets of hazardous gases. These gases may pose a threat to coal miners as well as a source of air pollution. This is due to the relaxation of pressure and fracturing of the strata during mining activity, which gives rise to serious safety concerns for the coal miners if not managed properly. The buildup of pressure in the strata can lead to explosions during or after the mining process if prevention methods, such as "methane draining", are not taken.[3]
No technology exists to magically make coal less toxic. No technology exists to clean toxic coal. We can move the toxins around, but we can't make them disappear.
The Orwellian-named Clean Coal
There are two "families" of not-so-magic technology Big Coal touts under the Orwellian-named moniker of Clean Coal.
First, they bundle any technological improvement in the coal extraction, production, and burning process into the term Clean Coal. In this manner, they give themselves credit for doing what they should have been doing all along -- keeping dangerous pollutants out of the air, water, and ground around coal mines and coal-burning factories.
"Cleaner" coal technologies actually produce more toxic coal ash in the resulting solid waste than "dirty" coal technologies, says Jeff Stant of the Clean Air Task Force. These technologies pulverize low-grade fuels in a way that releases fewer pollutants into the air. But those pollutants have to go somewhere, and they end up as ash.
Second, there is a push to increase investment in coal-to-liquid fuel (and/or coal-to-gas fuel) plants. These huge factory investments -- like the one billion dollar plant proposed for Mingo County -- turn coal into liquid fuel.
So far these plants suffer from three major problems:
1) Considering all the energy it takes to convert coal to a liquid (or a gas), there's not much net gain in energy. It's like using up 90% of your existing coal to turn that last 10% into another form of energy.
2) There's no natural market for the fuel. The two potential buyers of fuel talked about for the Mingo County plant are (a) the US Government for jet engine fuel and (b) coal mining companies to mine more coal(!).
3) The coal liquefaction process concentrates toxic byproducts. Furthermore, major investment institutions will only finance utility projects if they are economically viable under expected future federal caps on carbon dioxide emissions.
No technology exists to magically make coal less toxic. No technology exists to clean toxic coal. We can move the toxins around, but we can't make them disappear.
Toxic Coal
In summary, coal factories pollute our water and pollute our air. It's bad for your health to live near a coal plant.
Yes, we need to make existing coal plants safer. No, we should not build new coal plants.
Coal to liquid fuels is an environmental disaster, a horrible idea. We need to invest in other energy solutions that provide both domestic energy independence and address the global climate crisis.
No technology exists to magically make coal less toxic. No technology exists to clean toxic coal. We can move the toxins around, but we can't make them disappear.
We need to start planning today for a post-carbon economy in West Virginia. We need to diversity our economy beyond natural resource extraction of coal, oil, and natural gas. We face difficult transitions ahead, the sooner we make a realistic, reality-based appraisal of our current situation, the sooner we can begin to solve the challenges ahead.
Instead of postponing that day of reckoning, let's figure out how to invest for a more positive future.
I have the audacity to hope for a brighter future for even the least fortunate among us. Can we give the residents of rural coal country drinking water that won't poison their kids, clean air to breath, and a hope that someday their grand-children will have a good-paying job without moving clear across the country? Instead of investing billions of dollars in corporate welfare lets invest that money in helping the least fortunate among us. They've already suffered enough on our behalf.
Selling a false panacea of non-existence technology to clean toxic coal is a disservice to Appalachia. Get real, West Virginia. Let's start looking forward to a brighter clean, green, alternative energy future.
West Virginia needs to start preparing sooner rather than later for a post-carbon economy. The 100-year run of oil, natural gas, and coal is starting to wind down. (Not that it's worked out so well for the average worker, resident, or property owner.)
By 2012, mountaintop removal will consume 2,200 square miles of the best land in the Eastern US, an area the size of Delaware. That's 2,200 sq miles of the East Coast rivers' headwaters, and the mine waste will send poisons through the nations water supplies from the Chesapeake Bay to the Gulf of Mexico for centuries to come. It's not sustainable - that land won't give any more energy, food, or water ever again.
Only one small quibble with what bernardpliers said. That flat land left by mountain top removal could produce energy as a small solar farm. ;-) Of course, the original taller mountain probably would have made a better wind energy site, but I digress...
Basically, a solar farm the size of Sicily would provide electricity for the entire EU. An area the size of Ireland would power the entire world.
This seems like a lot of land, but remember, we are already on our way to strip mining an area the size of Delaware and it will just keep getting larger and larger. The amount of area we are strip mining for coal continues to grow, our watersheds are being devastated and the damage is permanent. A similar fate is in store for the Rockies in pursuit of oil shale. These areas are slated for permanent destruction on the scale of a nuclear war.
It's tough to compare the projected costs of different technologies, and the hidden cost of fossil fuels is rarely included. But when you look at the area of land permanently destroyed for a jolt of fossil fuels that only supplies part of our needs, versus the area for solar energy to supply all our energy, it becomes a lot clearer. A picture is worth a thousand words, and if its CSP (concentrated solar power) versus mountaintop removal, solar is going to be the clear winner.
With technology advances in solar collectors -- nanotechnology production techniques, for example -- land requirements for solar may be greatly reduced. Unfortunately, there are no similar technology improvements on the horizon for coal mining.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
