Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

A Nasty, Four-Letter Word for Our Energy Crisis

Posted by Bruce Nilles, Sierra Club at 2:51 PM on October 9, 2008.


Coal. It is time to kick the habit, starting with Michigan.
coalpowerplant

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Environment in your
mailbox!

 

While coal generates about half of America's energy -- it's also responsible for about 30 percent of our global warming pollution. Coal is the problem. And yet, as other industrial Kyoto-Protocol countries are working to cut their global warming emissions, the U.S. coal industry is pushing to build more than 100 new coal-fired power plants across the country.

Michigan is at the center of the coal versus clean energy debate. The state already:

  • Has 19 technologically-outdated coal-fired power plants.
  • Is sending $3 billion a year out of state to buy coal from Wyoming and Montana.
  • Is lagging far behind many of its neighbors on clean energy investments.
  • Has high unemployment.

Now the coal industry is pushing to build eight more old-fashioned coal-fired power plants in Michigan.

Just this week Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed into law a new energy efficiency and 10 percent renewable energy bill, the first step in her efforts to move the state toward a clean energy economy. The governor has also voiced support for requiring 25 percent of the state's energy to come from clean, renewable sources by 2025.

So how can Michigan move toward a clean energy economy while still increasing its use of coal? It can't -- Gov. Granholm's promise to create clean energy and cut pollution in Michigan will go up in smoke.

If just three of the eight plants are built, almost 15.5 million tons of CO2 pollution will be emitted each year, effectively nullifying all activities by the state to reduce global warming pollution. If all eight coal-fired power plants are built, they will emit as much new pollution as seven Northeast states are proposing to cut from all of their power plants.

That doesn't make much sense if you ask me.

The Sierra Club and other local groups are calling on Gov. Granholm to halt the construction of any new coal-fired power plants in the state until global warming regulations are in place -- a move that has broad public support.

In the meantime, Michigan has the technology today to begin meeting its energy needs with clean energy -- a transition that could have great economic benefits. Investing in the clean energy field could create over 61,000 jobs in the state, significantly lowering the unemployment rate.

The same is true across the U.S.: investing in clean energy will create jobs and boost the economy, all while fighting global warming. (It's already doing so in other states -- Iowa alone has 5,000 new jobs building windmills.)

And what's better: many clean energy jobs, such as those windmills builders, cannot be shipped overseas and use skills that workers already have.

The question facing Michigan is the same question facing many other states, and the same question facing our nation's leaders:

Do we put our ingenuity to work to power our future cleanly and create job ... or do we continue with business as usual, increasing our dependence on the fossil fuels that got us into this mess?


Holding TVA's Feet to the Fire in Coal Ash Spill
It was a tragedy of epic proportions, and this massive spill reminds us that coal is not clean, and coal is not cheap.
Post by Bruce Nilles. January 6, 2009.
Are the 'Winds of Change' Coming to Iran?
Activists in Iran are hoping to replace nuclear power with wind power.
Post by Karl Burkart. January 5, 2009.
Dynegy Abandons Plans for 5 New Coal Plants
Dynegy is recognizing that new coal plants are an economic mistake and the wrong direction for their shareholders and the country.
Post by Bruce Nilles. January 2, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The proper way to write a law to limit CO2 output:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 9, 2008 10:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The proper way to write a law to require the use of non-fossil-fuel
energy to make electricity is to cap and lower the carbon dioxide
put into the air per 1000 megawatt years. It is now 14.7 million
tons per 1000 megawatts in one year for a coal fired power plant.
Lower the amount of CO2 allowed per 1000 megawatt years each
year. Allow the private sector to figure out how to do it. If you
just require that a certain percentage of power come from
renewable resources, the production of CO2 will diminish only
slightly because of the "Spinning Reserve" problem, described
below.

Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that
a "spinning reserve" is required in most locations. The coal fire
has to be kept burning so that the steam turbine will keep spinning
fast enough to generate electricity instantly when the wind dies.
If you are running the steam powered generator at the spinning
reserve rate, you may as well use the steam as your energy source
and forget about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not
sources of energy for the grid until we have room temperature
superconductors or super batteries. There are special locations
and circumstances where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot
replace coal and nuclear any time soon. The object of the new
law must be to shut down coal fired power plants by replacing
them with base load sources that don't make CO2.

We don't have batteries that are good enough and cheap enough to
solve the problem of wind variability yet. We need research into
energy storage and room temperature superconductors. The
research will take an unknown amount of time. We don't have
that time. Batteries and room temperature superconductors have
been under research for a very long time already, so don't expect
any breakthroughs next week.

There is one and only one practical way to replace coal fired
power plants at the present time. That one way is nuclear power.
Nuclear power works for base load and nuclear power is clean and
safe. Nuclear fuel is recyclable. There is no such thing as
nuclear waste. Since we need to build 10,000 new nuclear power
plants worldwide to replace coal fired power plants, there will be
more thasn enough jobs. Nuclear power is the greenest.

I am NOT connected with the nuclear industry in any way. I am
a retired Department of the Army civilian engineer and scientist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Recycling nuclear fuel:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 9, 2008 10:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yucca Mountain contains an enormous supply of nuclear fuel that
should not be wasted. We don't recycle nuclear fuel because
spent fuel is valuable and people steal it. The place it went that it
wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small town
near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in
the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job
there, designing a nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [The
army offered me more money to work on nuclear weapons
effects.] [A nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting
many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor.
Numec "lost" a quantity of reactor grade uranium. It wound up in
Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their nuclear power plants
and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear "waste." See:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/
x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreport
s/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html
It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United
States. It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste"
that you have to do the difficult process of enriching uranium,
unless you have a Canadian "CANDU" reactor or a British
Magnox reactor, both of which run on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel
in the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution
at that time, given that private corporations did the reprocessing.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO
plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion
would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

I have no financial stake in the nuclear power industry, and I
never have. Nobody is paying me to say this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Price of electricity:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 9, 2008 10:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.00 times nuclear's
price

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.28 times nuclear's price

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.36 times nuclear's price

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.7 times nuclear's price

Wind fits in here.

solar in a sunny place 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.79 to 23.26 times
nuclear's price

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[Batteries not included but required for wind and solar. Why did wind and solar
operate so far below capacity? Simple: Wind power never works when the
wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at maximum during the noon hour. Is the
sun shining the most when you are cold? Of course not. It is winter because
the days are shorter. Is the wind blowing the most when you are the coldest? I
don't know, but chances are 3 to 1 that it is not.]

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Toxic solar cells:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 9, 2008 11:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by
Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear
power. Gwyneth Cravens is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 249: "The manufacture of photovoltaic panels requires highly
toxic heavy metals, gasses, and solvents that are carcinogenic. ........
If a residential fire burns a solar panel, people would be at risk for
exposure to toxic vapors and smoke, ... . If modules are dumped
into municipal landfills, then heavy metals such as arsenic and lead
can leach into the soil and water table. Hundreds of thousands of
years from now, some of those substances will still not have
decayed: their life spans are essentially eternal."

Page 250: "Solar farms big enough to supply 1,000 megawatts per
year [sic] or more would cover over fifty square miles and produce
a quantity of toxic waste that would be significant."
"For the 70 to 80 percent of the time when nature isn't cooperating
[with your solar power scheme], you need the grid or a fossil-fuel
generator."

Page 251: Solar power requires cutting down trees to keep the
trees from shading your solar panels.
"Wind tends to fail during heat waves. ... Wind power turned out
to be highly unreliable, with capacity plunging from its usual 33
percent to 4 percent during the time of peak demand."

Page 257: World CO2 emissions from electricity generation come
to 9,500 million metric tons a year. Using a small footprint,
hundreds of nuclear plants in more than thirty countries cut carbon
emissions by 600 million metric tons every year."

Page 269: "[E]very day the collective households and industries of
America throw away nearly a million tons of garbage containing
toxic heavy metals and dangerous chemicals, as well as plastics that
will never break down. That garbage will be our culture's real
legacy, enduring for millions of years after all the present nuclear
waste has decayed."

Page 290: There is a mistake: She says that the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant in New Mexico is the only nuclear waste repository in
operation. France has one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Coal contains Uranium
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 9, 2008 11:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
COAL companies have DUPED most Americans into thinking that Nuclear power
is dangerous. Nuclear is the safest. Nuclear has killed ZERO Americans.
Meanwhile, COAL kills 24000 Americans every year. Coal kills more like a
Million Chinese every year.

Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes every
element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where
you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt,
Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur,
Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and
cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial
grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial
grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the
whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze
it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out
of the ground. What would you expect of a rock?
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to
reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load.
See also: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't get this statement at all, author
Posted by: bornxeyed on Oct 10, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While coal generates about half of America's energy -- it's also responsible for about 30 percent of our global warming pollution.

So the other 50% generates 70% of the CO2, but coal is the culprit.

Please check yout statistics, and logic, at the door.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Detroit Edison
Posted by: BlueTigress on Oct 10, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Living in the Greater Detroit Metropolitan area, I know that until Detroit Edison gets re-regulated with laws that have actual teeth, nothing will happen because they are like hell going to do anything that will cut into their profit structure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THERE'S A SUBSTANCE IN COAL... THAT CAUSES THIS:
Posted by: One American Lady on Oct 10, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spontaneous Abortions (miscarriages) in young adult females, who live "within a short distance of where it is being Mined".
Also, there's a substance, in Coal, that is "like that of a Magnet... & anyone who works in it... & is Exposed to this Substance, & this substance is Contracted into the Human Body... THIS SUBSTANCE, "ATRACTS OTHER TOXIC SUBSTANCES, TO ENTER THE HUMAN BODY".
(The Human Body, already has Metals in the Makeup of the Bones & Muscles... & it is Already a Level for that particular body...Anything else, of a Higher Level, can be Deadly to the Body)
MANY OF OTHER METALS, (SOME THAT ARE IN MEDICINES, AT LOW MEASUREMENTS)... ARE "NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE HUMAN BODY Chemicals", of the Brain or the Vital Organs of the Body, & Degeneration of the Vital Organs, Can Take Place.
"The Central Nervous System" is the first to "React / Over-React"... such as PTSD / PMS /
etc.
Over-Exposure to Toxicity in Any Type of Natural Resources, will cause "Adverse Reactions" of the Brain... & Malfunction will set-in, & MENTAL ILLNESS *BEHAVIORS*, will then, take place...
& an Individual, "might not even be Mentally Ill, like the Media & Mental Health Agency workers, diagnose the person with".
BEHAVIORS CAN BE CHANGED & SOME MALFUNCTION OF THE BODY, CAN BE *REVERSED*.
ALL CELLS OF THE BODY, CAN "REPLENISH THEMSELVES" ... EXCEPT THE CELLS OF THE "PITUITARY GLAND" THAT CONTROLS THE "ENDOCRINE SYSTEM"... the 8-Fluids, needed for Proper Balance to the Blood Veins / Pancreas / Liver / Kidneys / Intestines / Stomach / Nasal Passage, etc.
PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW & REALIZE, JUST *HOW THEIR BODY, FUNCTIONS!!* Their Health & Wellness, Might Just Depend on That.
BIBLE VERSE: "BE STILL, & KNOW WHO I AM... I AM THE LIFE... THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB".
THE MINING OF COAL, CAN DAMAGE MANY LIVES... for Miles Around, where it is Being Mined.
Other Natural Resources, are also found to be Harmful to the Human Body to Cause: Birth Defects / Birth Diseases / Blindness... etc.
A person who is ever a Victim of a Cave-In of a Coal-Mine... is Over-Exposed to Toxicity, & THIS TOXICITY, IS "TRANSMITTABLE, INTO THE GENETICS OF AN *UNBORN BABY*.
There is plenty of proof of this... you just have to know where to look.
One American Lady

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]