Group items tagged

The coal industry is attempting to organize bloggers to promote their false "clean coal" propaganda. The Reality Coalition, a group of national environmental organizations, have begun airing the message that "There's no such thing as clean coal," to counter the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by coal-powered corporations to pretend that coal is a "clean" fuel. So the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) and Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), essentially one coal propaganda group with two different faces, is fighting back with an email blast asking people to join their "Blogger Brigade":

A major coal industry group has spent an estimated $45 million on an ongoing advertising campaign promoting the clean energy potential of coal, but its members are spending relatively little on the research that would make the technology a viable solution, a report by the Center for American Progress [CAP] finds. View details of investment in carbon capture and storage by companies backing clean coal front group. The only hope for the coal industry (at least in a world that is itself not suicidal) is a very well-funded effort to demonstrate and deploy carbon capture and storage. This will take at least 10-years from the time the industry (and government) gets serious - and probably much longer (see "Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution?"). That was true ten years ago when the coal industry - and car companies - lobbied against Kyoto saying they needed time to develop new technology. But those complaints turned out to just be an excuse for inaction, as many warned.

Dave Roberts has a good post at Grist on an NYT article on the coal industry - Is America ready to quit the enemy of the human race?. "Is America Ready to Quit Coal?" So asks a must-read story by Melanie Warner in the Sunday New York Times. And so, slowly, fitfully, that possibility -- the possibility not just of cleaning up coal or using less coal but eliminating coal -- creeps its way into the American public consciousness. The headline isn't the only thing worth celebrating. I would quibble with some details, but overall this piece comes closer than anything I've ever seen in the national media to getting the big story right.

Dan Cass has an article in Crikey noting the greenhouse mafia have been performing very successfully under the Rudd government - Democracy and science vs Big Coal: the final round?. Today's news that the coal industry is lobbying Parliament again raises the grave but tedious question -- when will Australia's coal mafia give in to climate science and/or Australian public opinion? Until Guy Pearce's Quarry Vision (Quarterly Essay 33) is released on March 16, we can only read the tea leaves, but the story is worth watching. The Age has a big story today on this week's Copenhagen climate science congress. This meeting of climate scientists will report that impacts already unfolding are far worse than IPCC predictions. The science says we have to switch out of coal, and fast. On the democracy front, a Climate Institute poll released today shows 83% of swinging voters are concerned about climate change. Despite the spin of both major parties, the public knows that nothing is really being done to fix the problem. Then tonight's Four Corners will show that Big Coal is continuing to defy both climate science and public opinion, lobbying for Kevin Rudd to do nothing on climate change.

Police arrested 44 anti-coal activists engaged in acts of civil disobedience today to protest expansion of Duke Energy's Cliffside coal-fired power plant. Those arrested will likely be charged with second degree trespassing. Event organizers Stop Cliffside have declared to protest a success: Duke EnergyScryve Corporate Social Responsibility Rating CEO Jim Rogers has publicly said that all of Duke's coal power plants will be shut down by 2050, but considering that many climate change scientists consider shutting down coal-fired power plants to be the single greatest thing that can be done to curb emissions, Rogers' promises have been received with little fanfare.

In the elusive search for the reliable energy source of the future, the prospect of clean coal is creating a lot of buzz. But while the concept-to scrub coal clean before burning, then capture and store harmful gases deep underground-may seem promising, a coalition of environment and climate groups argue in a new media campaign that the technology simply doesn't exist. The Alliance for Climate Protection and several other prominent organizations-including the Sierra Club and National Resources Defense Council-launched a multipronged campaign to "debrand" the clean part of clean coal, pointing out that there's no conclusive evidence to confirm the entire process would work the way it's being marketed. In the campaign's TV ad, a technician sarcastically enters the door of a clean coal production plant, only to find there's nothing on the other side. "Take a good long look," he says, standing in a barren desert, "this is today's clean coal technology."

The facts are pretty simple, the U.S. Department of Energy said: "Burning coal is the dirtiest way we produce electricity." And yet oddly the Obama administration, which has embraced climate legislation and green jobs, is a supporter of the oxymoronic "clean coal." The White House Web site proclaims that one of Obama's priorities is to, "develop and deploy clean coal technology." And Obama isn't the only who is helping to spread the "clean coal" myth. The new stimulus bill, which just passed Congress, calls for $3.4 million for "fossil energy research," which refers to carbon dioxide sequestration projects (more on the problems with that below) -- the key component in the "clean coal" fantasy.

It's known for being the world's cheapest fuel, but Chinese coal is actually more expensive than ever: a new report estimates that the environmental and social costs of China's coal usage hit RMB1.7 trillion ($248 billion) last year, or about 7.1% of the country's GDP. The other key numbers, according to the report, by Greenpeace, the Energy Foundation and WWF: coal is the source of 70% of the country's energy, 85% of China's sulphur dioxide emissions, 67% of its nitrogen dioxide emissions, 80% of its carbon dioxide emissions, and creates 25% of China's waste water. China's coal mines are the world's deadliest, killing an average of 13 miners a day. For some cough-worthy visual evidence, take a look at the city of Linfen.

The coal ash spill at a Tennessee power plant in December 2008 has been making headlines for almost two weeks - but only a few local journalists realize that coal-ash stories abound in many communities. Here are some clues for finding them. There are roughly 1,500 coal-burning electric power plants spread across the United States today (and more coming), and each one of them produces coal ash, also known as "fly ash" or even "coal combustion products" (CCP). Not all of these wastes are poised above houses behind shaky earthen dams. But most do raise significant environmental issues.

Pharyngula has some great video of a containment wall in Tennessee failing, releasing a vast flood of toxic coal sludge - Let's talk about clean coal. When power plants burn coal to produce energy, the coal doesn't just vanish into the atmosphere to cause global warming. No, there's a substantial amount of left-over sludge called coal ash, a nasty mess that is enriched for toxic heavy metals. It is seriously nasty stuff. This glop has to be stored, somewhere, usually piled up and walled-off, because it's not healthy for anything. Behold what happens when the containment walls fail.

15 states appear to have three or more Tennessee-like unlined "Surface Impoundment" sites For toxic coal-fired power plant waste. (WASHINGTON, D.C.) - Could another major coal disaster happen at one of the many Tennessee-like power plant coal pollution dumping sites across the United States? How much toxic arsenic, lead and other heavy metals that endanger drinking water are being dumped into those unlined "surface impoundment" sites each year? How did federal regulation of coal pollution break down to allow these threats to exist … and what needs to happen if the public and environment are to be protected against future Tennessee-like disasters, as well as the "slow-motion" leaching of toxic metals into drinking water, rivers and streams?

While UCG may lose out to CSM in Queensland's coal fields, the unhealthy Chinese interest in coal to liquids (and plastics) continues unabated, with their latest move being an interest in taking Linc Energy's UCG technology to the Chinese coal fields - Linc inks UCG deal in China. Linc Energy Ltd has signed a deal with Xinwen Mining Group to develop underground coal gasification (UCG) and gas to liquids (GTL) projects in China. The Queensland-based group has signed a letter of intent with Xinwen, the same company which agreed to acquire a package of Linc's Australian coal exploration permits for $1.5 billion.

Compared to, say, the pitched battles over Yucca mountain, the storage of toxic fly ash produced by coal-fired plants has gotten virtually no coverage, even though it's arguably a far, far bigger health and safety risk. So I suppose one upside-if you can even call it that-of the recent (and massive) ash-spill disasters in Tennessee and Alabama is that we're starting to see more investigations like this one, by Shaila Dewan of The New York Times: The coal ash pond that ruptured and sent a billion gallons of toxic sludge across 300 acres of East Tennessee last month was only one of more than 1,300 similar dumps across the United States-most of them unregulated and unmonitored-that contain billions more gallons of fly ash and other byproducts of burning coal.

Two interesting observations: 1. 50% of U.S. power generation (in MWh) comes from coal, while only 20% comes from natural gas. 2. 32% of total U.S. power generation capacity (in MW) is coal-fired, while 42% is gas-fired. When it runs, the natural gas fleet emits just 50% of the CO2 of the coal fleet, which raises a rather interesting question: what would we have to do to make it run harder? And how big a difference would that make in our national CO2 footprint? MW vs. MWh So why, if we have more natural gas generation capacity, do we get more of our power from coal?

For years, residents of the tiny lakeside community near Kingston, Tennessee, watched as the local power plant mixed tons of leftover coal ash with water and pumped the heavy mud into a massive pond just up the road. "We never gave it a second thought," says resident Diane Anderson. To read more of Kelly Hearn's reporting on the TVA spill, check out "Toxic Coal in Tennessee," "Tennessee's Dirty Data" and "The Dredge Report." Share this article * * * * Add to Mixx! * * * Related * Also By * Radioactive Revival in New Mexico Environment Shelley Smithson: Navajos say "No!" as the return of uranium mining threatens to despoil their lands and health. * The Most Important Number on Earth Environment OntheEarthProduction : Bill McKibben, Noam Chomsky and Terry Tempest Williams discuss the urgent need reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million. » More * Tennessee Spill: Regulation Hazards Environment Kelly Hearn: The recent coal ash spill in Tennessee reveals the toxic fallacy that states should regulate industrial waste. * Letters Subscribe Our Readers & Kelly Hearn * Tennessee Spill: The Dredge Report Environment Kelly Hearn: The TVA's efforts to clean up after its massive coal ash spill may create even more health hazards. But on December 22 the pond collapsed, triggering a billion-gallon mudslide that knocked houses off foundations and roiled into the Emory River. State officials and the Tennessee Valley Authority, the federally funded utility responsible for the spill, scrambled to allay fears, saying that the ash wasn't toxic and that the drinking water was safe. But residents also heard about the litany of harmful substances in the ash, like arsenic and lead, and about studies linking it to cancer.

The phrase "clean coal" was repeated by virtually every major presidential candidate this year. Now the battle over what it means is heating up. A group of environmental organizations concerned about global warming, including one backed by former vice president Al Gore, is launching an advertising campaign this week to counter the coal industry's efforts to promote what it calls "clean coal."

Dr. Chu's record indicates to me that he easily fills my three criteria. Dr. Chu is currently director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Among his accomplishments there was to secure a $500 million partnership with BP to do alternative energy research. (See this story from Salon for more details.) This suggests someone who can work with industry on next generation energy technologies. I am not sure how quickly he feels we can transition away from oil, and therefore whether we need additional exploration and drilling. I couldn't find anything regarding his position on drilling. However, he has been outspoken over his opposition to coal, and his concerns about global warming. Some quotes on these topics from Dr. Chu. First, his position on coal is pretty clear: "Coal is my worst nightmare." He favors nuclear energy over coal (it should come as no suprise that a physicist like Dr. Chu is pro-nuclear):

Here is a list of energy news items that the WattzOn team found most interesting in 2008: * CO2 is officially a pollutant (maybe) - In a ruling by the Environmental Appeals Board (a panel within the EPA), it was decided that the EPA has no valid reason to not limit CO2 emissions from coal plants. Confusingly, the EPA has recently overruled itself by stating that officials cannot consider greenhouse gas outputs in judging applications to build new coal-fired power plants. So, it's back up in the "air." * We need to be at 350 PPM of CO2 - James Hansen of Columbia University, and NASA's head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, published a landmark paper: "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?" in which he argues for an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 parts per million (PPM) for humanity to be safe on this planet. As some background, pre-industrial Earth had a CO2 concentration of around 275 PPM, and for years policy makers have set a target regulatory goal of 550 PM - twice that number. More recently, 450 PPM has been proposed as a better goal by the EU and a few others. Unfortunately, recent evidence has shown that the Arctic sea is melting at an alarming rate and a giant ice sheet in Greenland is starting to slide into the ocean. This is the reality with the world today at 383 PPM. Hansen points out that this means we set overly lax targets and proposes the 350 PPM goal with tons of paleo-climatic data to back him up. We need to bring the CO2 in our atmosphere back down to this concentration. * Energy scientists primed to enter government - US President-Elect Obama has nominated Steven Chu to be the Secretary of Energy, and named John Holdren as the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology / Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy / Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. As the President-Elect puts it, "Today, more than

The Bush administration chalked up another in a growing list of environmentally ignorant midnight rulings by "clarifying" a rule that could allow the approval of several new coal-fired power plants. Instead of decommissioning America's fleet of coal-fired power plants and making concerted efforts to prevent the construction of any new ones, the United States Government is finding ways to make sure plenty more can be built. In a memo issued by EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson on Thursday, the Bush administration has "clarified" a rule prohibiting any federal agency from denying an operating permit to new or significantly remodeled power plants based on their carbon dioxide emissions.

US Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today the selection of three new projects with a value of $3.18 billion to accelerate the development of advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and storage at commercial-scale. Secretary Chu made today's announcement on a conference call with Governor Joe Manchin, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and President of American Electric Power Company, Inc., Mike Morris. These projects will help to enable commercial deployment to ensure the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable electricity and power. An investment of up to $979 million, including funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will be leveraged by more than $2.2 billion in private capital cost share as part of the third round of the Department's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). "By harnessing the power of science and technology, we can reduce carbon emissions and create new clean energy jobs. This investment is part of our commitment to advancing carbon capture and storage technologies to the point that widespread, affordable deployment can begin in eight to ten years," said Secretary Chu.

US Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today the selection of three new projects with a value of $3.18 billion to accelerate the development of advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and storage at commercial-scale. Secretary Chu made today's announcement on a conference call with Governor Joe Manchin, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and President of American Electric Power Company, Inc., Mike Morris. These projects will help to enable commercial deployment to ensure the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable electricity and power. An investment of up to $979 million, including funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will be leveraged by more than $2.2 billion in private capital cost share as part of the third round of the Department's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). "By harnessing the power of science and technology, we can reduce carbon emissions and create new clean energy jobs. This investment is part of our commitment to advancing carbon capture and storage technologies to the point that widespread, affordable deployment can begin in eight to ten years," said Secretary Chu.

US Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today the selection of three new projects with a value of $3.18 billion to accelerate the development of advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and storage at commercial-scale. Secretary Chu made today's announcement on a conference call with Governor Joe Manchin, Senator Jay Rockefeller, and President of American Electric Power Company, Inc., Mike Morris. These projects will help to enable commercial deployment to ensure the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable electricity and power. An investment of up to $979 million, including funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will be leveraged by more than $2.2 billion in private capital cost share as part of the third round of the Department's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). "By harnessing the power of science and technology, we can reduce carbon emissions and create new clean energy jobs. This investment is part of our commitment to advancing carbon capture and storage technologies to the point that widespread, affordable deployment can begin in eight to ten years," said Secretary Chu.