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.
Over at Lincoln Walks at Midnight, Larry Messina, reports that FactCheck.org has taken a closer look at the issue of "Clean Coal" reviewing the content of recent ads that have been aired in support and opposition.
Examining the question: "Is 'clean coal' possible?"
FactCheck concludes, "Probably, though it would come with a big price tag."
It also should be noted that FactCheck doesn't look at other environmental impacts of coal mining such as mountaintop removal, sludge and coal ash.
"And we take no position on the merits of CCS technology and the other issues involved in getting coal to burn without creating a carbon dioxide problem; as we noted earlier, we can only say that it's possible to do, though the cost will be high."
The FactCheck analysis seems to be even handed, but by focusing the question of "clean" only on CO2 emissions, their report seems incomplete to say the least.
***Tonight, January 20th 6:00 PM at the DEP Headquarters at 601 57th Street In Kanawha City, WV***
Sorry for the late notice. The DEP will be holding an informal hearing on the Mason County Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit that would allow AEP to inject up to 165000 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide (that's around 1% of the plant's CO2 output) underground on the West Virginia - Ohio Border.
As you know, this is a bad idea for so many reasons, ranging from the uncertainty of where and how the Carbon Dioxide will migrate over the tens of thousands of years it will remain mobile to the 30% - 40% increase in energy required per plant to sequester all of its Carbon Dioxide leading to more mining and everything that goes along with it.
So come out and tell the DEP that we want clean renewable energy and not this distraction that will never make a meaningful contribution to fighting Global Climate Change. CCS is taking valuable time and money away from research and implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
If you are concerned about the wisdom, safety, or efficacy of carbon capture and sequestration technology, here is your chance to learn more and share your concerns with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly how (or if) they plan to sequester CO2. Also, there's no details on where the waste by-products will go either.
The fancy slide show on the company makes it sound like every bit of toxic stuff in coal can be repackaged as a valuable commercial product. Somehow, I'm a wee bit skeptical about that, too.
For all the sound and fury from Clean Coal advocates, it is worth noting this project is a real loser for job creation. At $3,000,000,000 spent, it will only generate 200 permanent jobs in West Virginia after it goes online in half a decade.
I'm still trying to figure out exactly how (or if) they plan to sequester CO2. Also, there's no details on where the waste by-products will go either.
The fancy slide show on the company makes it sound like every bit of toxic stuff in coal can be repackaged as a valuable commercial product. Somehow, I'm a wee bit skeptical about that, too.
For all the sound and fury from Clean Coal advocates, it is worth noting this project is a real loser for job creation. At $3,000,000,000 spent, it will only generate 200 permanent jobs in West Virginia after it goes online in half a decade.
I don't watch a lot of television, but I did today and saw this commercial in heavy rotation. Good to see someone pushing back on the heavily funded and well-connected coal lobby.
A Siegal has a Diary on DKos today that does a good job of describing Al Gore and friends new website action.thisisrealty.org.
Today, Al Gore and a coalition of leading environmental organizations are launching This is REALITY.org. Simply put, despite all the glowing ads that you've seen and bipartisan romancing of clean coal, "clean coal" remains not much more than powerpoint slides and technological dreams that might (MIGHT) work in 20 years or so, at a very high cost. What is the reality today?
The diary can be read by clicking here. West Virginia's leaders as well as those of us that live here have got to address the reality of electricity without coal. It is going to happen eventually if not sooner. There is no such thing or will there ever be such a thing as clean coal.
As coal industry commentator and author Jeff Goodell puts it best:
"Clean coal" is not an actual invention, a physical thing - it is an advertising slogan. Like "fat-free donuts" or "interest-free loans."
In other words, coal remains more in the realm of illusion than reality and the UCS report highlights the major outstanding questions around the holy grail of the coal industry - carbon capture and storage technology (CCS).
The report found that carbon-capture-and-storage technology, while promising, is saddled with many unanswered questions about scale, safety and cost:
Click-through to the post for more details and a link to the report.
Is the McCain campaign worried about West Virginia, a state that Obama is making a play for but that most experts assumed was solidly in the GOP column?
A reader points out to us that McCain appears to have cut a paid radio ad, and posted it on the McCain campaign's YouTube page, that's specifically geared to run in that state...
The ad claims John McCain supports clean coal while Barack Obama and Joe Biden doesn't. Now as opponents of Obama's stance on clean coal, those of us here know Obama does support clean coal. That's one of the reasons why Obama has the strong support of our union brothers and sisters with the United Mine Workers of America.
John McCain sure surprised a lot of people when he came out the other day against mountaintop removal mining. You could almost hear the backpedaling and side-stepping going on in coal operators' boardrooms and Republican party headquarters all the way up Cabin Creek. They thought they had a friend of coal in John McCain, only to find out that maybe he wasn't so friendly after all.
It should have come as no surprise. John McCain has been on the attack against the coal industry for years, starting with legislation he proposed in 2003-Senate Bill 139, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003-that would have just about wiped out the coal industry in southern West Virginia and elsewhere in Appalachia.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration released an analysis of S. 139 in May, 2004, which said the reductions in coal production under the McCain legislation was estimated to be 78 percent by 2025. Since it takes coal miners to produce coal, that would mean a drastic reduction in employment, most of which would have fallen heavily on more labor-intensive mines like we have in Appalachia, especially West Virginia.
But Sen. McCain was just getting warmed up. He teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) just last year and proposed climate change legislation-Senate Bill 280-that once again took a meat-axe approach to Appalachian coal. In that bill, McCain specifically targeted Appalachian coal production for cuts of 30 percent or more, while encouraging production of coal from Wyoming, according to an analysis done of the legislation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
snip
With the coming development of clean coal technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS), America is on the brink of being able to use coal to generate energy without contributing any more greenhouse gases to the environment. Sen. McCain pays lip service to CCS, but the record shows that coal has a very limited future in John McCain's vision of America. And that's a direct threat to tens of thousands of West Virginia families.
Sen. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is from a coal state and clearly understands the long-term role coal can play in our nation's energy future. He has pledged to fund development of CCS technology so that it can be deployed as soon as possible. He has said that America is the "Saudi Arabia of coal" and that we ought to be working as hard as we can to figure out how to use it for decades to come.
So the choice for coal miners, their families, their neighbors and everyone living in the coalfield communities throughout Appalachia and especially in West Virginia is clear. Barack Obama is for the long-term future of your job and John McCain is not. Keep that in mind when you vote on Nov. 4.
So what does it tell us that McCain not only is worried about the state but also so worried he has to lie about his record and Obama's?
At an appearance at Maumee Ohio last Wednesday, Senator Biden got off message when asked about his support for "clean coal".
I'm sure McCain will try to use this against Obama-Biden in WV, but it should be noted that Biden talks about investing in figuring out how to make coal "clean" so that the China coal plants are safer. The same investment will help WV coal miners. He's not saying no to coal - just no to new coal powered plants.
h/t to Macgregor Thomson for putting this together. Some factual corrections/updates on the candidates statements.
1) Last I heard, China is no longer opening one coal factory a week. China's widespread usage of coal is a huge environmental issue, but with coal shortages and a growing environmental movement, the rate of new plant openings is slowing.
What we should be talking about for energy policy is things like energy efficiency, negawatts, and micro-power generation, not yet another set of large scale centralized energy production solutions that further concentrate corporate power with large-scale high-risk hugely expensive government investments.
* John McCain has some real branding challenges. Rolling Stone provides a visual history of the evolving John McCain brand this campaign. Choice quote, "The branding of John McCain is an embarrassing work in progress."
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 M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.
Now, I'm not sure I agree that coal, when all the social and environmental costs are considered, is all that cheap or abundant, but it's hard to argue with any of the other facts presented. Right now there's a lot of noise and not much action in the clean coal arena.
Follow the link for the full setup. Here's the payoff (all emphasis mine):
The counter-message should be equally simple: cutting emissions will rescue American families. Right now our economy is lashed to a sinking ship, the USS Fossil. The price of fossil fuels is rising (yes, that includes coal). For reasons that are structural and unlikely to change, gasoline, heating oil, and coal electricity are going to get more and more expensive for the foreseeable future. Worse, prices are going to be volatile and unpredictable.
Unless we want to go down with the ship, we need to start building an ark. By freeing us from fossil fuels, climate legislation is designed to avoid a future of high and volatile prices. It's designed to make sure we have a shot at building the best lifeboat (several other countries have a head start).
That's the simple message: fossil fuels and their patrons are a threat to American families. They want to keep us on the ship. It may be going down, but they're making money hand over fist. They want to paralyze Americans with fear of the new and doubt about their ability to innovate and adapt.
It's the fossil lobby vs. American families. A future of rising prices and sordid geopolitical entanglements vs. a future of stable energy sources, vibrant domestic industries, and healthy American people. Timid, decadent Late Empire vs. a nation renewed.
Fear vs. courage.
Hey, that reminds me of some other campaigns going on. It really is time to choose hope over fear, isn't it?
While perusing diaries on DailyKos this morning I came across a diary by A Siegel. The link to the diary which is not on the recommend list at this time can be found by clicking here. Take a minute and give this excellent diary some recommends.
Siegel also highly recommends a new web site that has a great team behind it called coal-is-dirty.com. This site can be viewed by clicking here. The premise of both A Siegel's diary as well as Coal-is-dirty is that it has become too easy for folks to use the term "clean coal", and that it is high time to expose the bs behind that term. Check 'em both out... it's worth your time.
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.
