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.
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.
Former President Bill Clinton campaigns for his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in Chesapeake, W.Va. Wednesday, March 26, 2008.(AP Photo/Bob Bird)
Bill Clinton was in West Virginia earlier this week. Here's a quick round-up of press coverage.
With West Virginia among eight remaining primary contests, former President Bill Clinton blasted critics who say his wife should quit the race for party unity.
Clinton told crowds in Parkersburg, Chesapeake and Beckley that complaints about the divisiveness of the Democrats' long-running primary contest are overblown.
"Let's saddle up and have an argument," he told an audience of hundreds in Parkersburg. "What's wrong with that?"
[snip]
Bill Clinton, the last Democrat to win West Virginia's electoral votes in a presidential contest, played on the crowds' blue collar sympathies by calling his wife's critics in the party "glitterati" and "elites."
[snip]
"When Hillary's gaining on him, they say, Oh, let's shut this down, let's not be divided," he said. "Don't you think your vote ought to count as much as the votes of people in Iowa?"
Obama holds a 1,603-to-1,497 lead in overall delegates for the nomination. The race is so close that the party's "superdelegates" -- hundreds of high-ranking Democrats assured a vote at the convention -- could swing the nomination to either candidate.
[snip]
But Clinton told crowds they shouldn't vote for his wife based on his administration, but should take into account her plans for the country.
"It's not just my record, it's Hillary's conviction," he said.
Clinton touted his wife's proposals on the economy, health care, education and the war in Iraq. With coal trucks driving by outside his Chesapeake stop, he made the same pitch for developing clean coal technology that he made in Parkersburg and Beckley.
Saying clean coal technology could be exported to major coal-burning countries like China and India, Clinton insisted he makes the same pitch in non-coal states like California.
"This is a way we can save the planet and bring good jobs back to West Virginia," he told a cheering Beckley audience.
It was standing room only inside the Chesapeake Community Center as hundreds gathered to get up close and personal with a former President.
"Folks I like West Virginia and I'm glad to be back. I want to begin by saying how grateful I am to the people of this state for giving me a chance to serve as President in 1992 and 1996. Thank you for voting for me," said Clinton just after he reached the podium.
[snip]
Most of his message centered on senior citizens - the fastest growing segment of the country's population.
"Hillary will support policies to help more and more of our seniors to live independently including having someone come in and help them a few hours a day," Clinton told the crowd.
[snip]
In a small town like Chesapeake, visits from former Presidents are certainly few and far between and for some, Bill Clinton's stop here created memories that will last a lifetime.
Former President Bill Clinton found a supportive crowd at Chesapeake's senior center on Wednesday, telling a packed house his wife can defeat Republican John McCain and she can change the health-care system.
"She will be the next president of the United States if you nominate her," the former president said during one of his three stops in West Virginia on Wednesday, campaigning for his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in her presidential effort.
[snip]
"This thing is a long way from over," he said.
[snip]
"The political elite have danced on her grave already two or three times," Clinton said to the crowd of about 600 people inside the center.
While there were earlier calls for her to abandon race, the former president said no one should expect that.
"My family's not big on quitting, you probably noticed that," he said.
Clinton also said his wife will take on big drug companies and ensure health care for every person.
"This is the only rich country on the face of the earth that hasn't figured out how to do it," he noted.
Update: In a nearby region of Pa. Bill Clinton had this to say in a visit yesterday:
In a brief speech outside St. Joseph Catholic Church, Clinton told the throngs that his wife supports investments in clean-coal technology in hard-hit coal states like Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.
Like many towns in the coal region, Girardville, population 1,800, has struggled to recover economically from the demise of widescale anthracite mining.
"If we led the world to the moon, we ought to be able to lead the world to clean coal," Clinton said. "I know a certain candidate who is absolutely committed to that."
I think it's safe to say that Hillary and Obama are going to be competing in Pa. and W.Va. over who is more pro-coal, not who is more firmly grounded in reality.
?Merle Wertman, now 62, was diagnosed with Polycythemia Vera five years ago. He had no idea what Polycythemia Vera was. That isn't surprising, considering less than one in 100,000 Americans a year are diagnosed with the extremely rare form of bone marrow cancer, that causes an abnormal increase in blood cells. What is surprising is that Wertman is one of 131 people near his hometown of Tamaqua, Penn., now battling this rare cancer.
In eastern Pennsylvania's Carbon, Luzerne, and Schuylkill counties, that surround the Tamaqua borough, the rate of the rare blood cancer is 4.5 times the national rate, according to data from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a federal public health agency of the Dept. of Health and Human Services. The cancer "cluster" (shown on the map below) follows along Ben Titus Road, next to the Big Gorilla coal combustion waste dump of the Northeastern Power Co. The area is also home to the Superfund sites McAdoo Associates, Air Product & Chemicals Inc., Expert Management Inc. and ICI Americas Inc.
[snip]
While multiple environmental factors could well be at play, much evidence points to the waste produced by coal-fired energy plants. "Although the ATSDR did not report a specific link between polycythemia vera and fly ash [a type of coal ash]," said Dante Picciano, a local scientist and environmentalist active on the issue of coal ash dumping, "we believe that the relationship between the two should be at the top of the list for any investigations into the specific cause of the rare cancer."
[snip]
According to the Environmental Protection Agency's own research, coal ash dumping can lead to higher rates of cancer, developmental problems in children and adverse effects in women of child-bearing age. Despite the fact that coal ash contains mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium, beryllium, and other toxic metals, the EPA has yet to categorize coal ash as hazardous waste. In addition, coal ash has been found to be up to 100 times more radioactive than nuclear waste, due to the concentrations of uranium and thorium that increase 10-fold after coal is burned.
Okay, so far no big surprise, right? Coal ash is bad stuff. Read the whole article... you won't even be surprised to find out that the Bush-Capito Republican administration has ignored all evidence linking coal ash dumping to health hazards.
Now, here's the really bad part. Do you think "clean coal" technology makes this environmental hazard better or worse?
The solid waste side of coal is being overlooked as environmentalists focus their attention on air pollution and as government agencies and coal companies push "clean" coal technologies. "Cleaner" coal technologies actually produce more toxic coal ash in the resulting solid wase 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.
Stant was a contributing author for a recently released report investigating 15 mine disposal sites in Pennsylvania, most of which are dumping sites for ash from Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC), a "clean" coal technology.
The study, entitled "Impacts on Water Quality from Placement of Coal Combustion Waste in Pennsylvania Coal Mines," found coal ash to be contaminating the groundwater and surface water at levels exceeding federal drinking water standards by 30 to 40 times.
"Clean" FBC plants produce at least five times more coal ash by volume than standard plants do. These plants inject limestone into the burn chamber to capture more emissions and therefore release fewer emissions-thus the misnomer, "clean." But, the limestone leaves behind a burned residual, which ends up in the ash. The bigger problem is that "clean" plants burn more waste-coal than actual coal. Waste-coal consists of the impurities removed from coal in addition to some coal itself, and it contains an ash content that's three times higher than regular coal. Most of the new "clean" coal plants proposed in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and other states will be located next to mines expected to serve as dump sites for coal ash.
Jim Motavalli at E/The Environmental Magazine writes about "The Myth of Clean Coal." There is one view that strong coal advocates like West Virginia's own Rep. Nick Rahall (WV-03) promotes.
Can coal be clean? Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV), who has proposed legislation to subsidize "clean coal," says it can. He thinks the answer to foreign oil dependence is right here at home, buried in West Virginia's ancient mountains. He envisions $35-a-barrel oil produced from a homegrown resource: abundant coal. With very little prompting, Rahall will tell you that with coal-to-liquid technology we can "revolutionize our way to a new energy era."
Greenhouse gas emissions won't be a problem, he says, because the new plants Rahall's legislation envisions would sequester the carbon dioxide (CO2) so it never reaches the atmosphere. The resulting liquid fuel, he says, will be cleaner than required by the Environmental Protection Agency's strong Tier II standards.
And, then there is the more scientifically sound view that others promote.
Alas, the dirty secret is that "clean coal" is anything but. The process involves heating coal to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and mixing it with water to produce a gas, then converting the gas into diesel fuel. Although the industry-sponsored Coal-to-Liquids Coalition says that CO2 emissions from the entire production cycle of liquid coal are "equal to, or slightly below, those of conventional petroleum-derived fuels," its claims are based on a single federal study, now six years old.
Jim Presswood, federal energy advocate of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says, "Liquid CO2 emissions are twice as much as emissions from conventional petroleum-derived fuels." He says that even if CO2 emissions are sequestered as part of the process, at best liquid coal would be 12 percent worse than the gasoline equivalent. As some environmentalists have put it, liquid coal can turn any hybrid Prius into a Hummer.
Of course, any discussion of "clean" coal is incomplete without mention of the social, ecological, and environmental costs of coal mining.
The flipside of the coal lobby's empty promises and ready cash (the Bush campaign secured $530,560 from coal companies and electric utilities in the 2000 cycle, reports EarthJustice) is the harsh reality of mountaintop removal mining. This now-standard practice in the Southeast coalfields is efficient only in delivering coal companies windfall profits. It has left an incalculable toll in shattered lives, permanently destroyed environments and polluted groundwater.
I agree with Rep. Rahall on many issues -- he's been great when it comes to Iraq, for example -- but he risks undermining his credibility if he continues to serve as an uncritical booster of all things coal.
Following up on yesterday's post on coal-to-liquid subsidies, here's a graphic depiction of just one of CTLs challenges. It is a fundamental problem--even so-called clean coal just ain't very clean.
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.
