Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • 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.

Environment

Will King Coal Be Deposed?

By Amanda Griscom Little, Grist.org. Posted March 15, 2007.


Coal-bashing is a hot new trend in Congress, science circles, and the business world. Are we nearing the overthrow of mighty King Coal?
Advertisement

This article is reprinted by permission from Grist. For more environmental news and humor sign up for Grist's free email service.

Climate scientists, key members of Congress, enviros, and the progressive wing of the business world are plotting a coup d'état. Regime change isn't likely to come soon, but this resistance movement could significantly alter the way the pollution-spewing sovereign wields its power.

The ringleader of this uprising is James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world's top climate scientists. Last week he threw down the gauntlet: "There should be a moratorium on building any more coal-fired power plants," Hansen told the National Press Club.

Coal currently supplies nearly half the electricity in the U.S., and is responsible for more greenhouse-gas emissions than any other electricity source. The Department of Energy reported last month that 159 new coal-fired power plants are scheduled to be built in the U.S. in the coming decade, intended to generate enough juice for nearly 100 million homes.

"If you build a new coal plant, you're making a 60-year commitment -- that's how long these plants are generally in use," explains David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. "So we really need to avoid building a whole new generation of coal plants that use the old technology."

Industry boosters tout the prospect of so-called "clean coal," but right now there is simply no such thing. Zero-carbon coal plants -- ones that will gasify coal, filter carbon dioxide from the vapor, then stow the CO2 underground -- are a long way off from commercial application. A handful of coal-gasification plants are in development, and could eventually be retrofitted with carbon-capture and -sequestration capabilities, but for now this pollution-storage technology is years away from even a working pilot phase.

"Until we have that clean coal power plant, we should not be building them," Hansen told his D.C. audience. "It is as clear as a bell."

Then the esteemed scientist raised even more eyebrows by declaring that, come mid-century, any old dinosaur coal plants that still aren't sequestering CO2 ought to be "bulldozed."

Industry reps are scoffing. "Some of Hansen's suggestions are absolutely ludicrous," energy lobbyist Frank Maisano told Muckraker. "There are fast-growing, rural areas of the country where coal is the only affordable option. Hansen's recommendations would put these areas at risk -- they're a recipe for disaster." Maisano added that the NASA top dog "may be a great scientist, but when it comes to energy policy, apparently he has a lot to learn."

Now You Policy It

And yet a growing number of policymakers are thinking along the same lines as Hansen.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is drafting a bill that would "prevent any plant from going forward that uses old [coal-fired] technology," said the senator's spokesperson Vincent Morris. Kerry, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, expects to introduce the bill in the coming weeks, after ironing out the details on performance standards for advanced-technology coal plants.

"Industry leaders know they are operating in a climate of uncertainty, and that is a very uncomfortable climate for them," Morris said. "They need a clear path charted in terms of the expectations for advanced coal technology, and that's what Sen. Kerry is working on."

The most aggressive climate-change bill in the Senate -- the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, sponsored by Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) -- also includes a provision that would require all coal power plants built after 2012 to emit no more greenhouse gases than a combined-cycle gas turbine electric plant, a type of highly efficient natural-gas plant, by 2016. (A similar clean-as-a-CCGT-plant standard is already in effect in California.) By 2030, the Sanders-Boxer bill would require all power plants to be this clean no matter when they came online.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: james hansen, global warming, climate change, energy, txu, coal

Amanda Griscom Little writes the Muckraker column for Grist Magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


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:
At what cost?
Posted by: edith on Mar 16, 2007 1:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With half of a major economic's power derived from Coal, there seems to be a cavalier attitude about simply mandating clean coal or no coal technologies by dates certain. If it were so easy, why hasn't it been done? Millions of American homes use electicity from coal, and millions of workers have jobs that depend on workplaces, factories and offices' use of coal derived energy.

The pollution and warming arguments against coal use(e.g., Hansen) seem sound. But honesty should be a given when major technological change is imminent: conversion to non-coal sources of energy or creation of carbon-free coal emissions will be expensive. Both significant capital diversion and price increase for energy, it seems, will accompany drastic restructure of the coal industry. Will millions of US jobs be eliminated, especially with China and India adding at least one coal plant per month?

Senator Kerry means well when it comes to enviro issues; it was the one area he was somewhat coherent in during the 04 election and his passion for the environment seems genuine. Since he's foresworn Presidential ambitions, let him be a leader for clean energy solutions, but let him lead with the full disclosure of the cost of "fighting" climate change that pols like Clinton and Obama, who grovel shamelessly for votes, simply eschew.

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

» RE: At what cost? Posted by: maxpayne
King Coal will be put to rest only when some people stop bad mouthing renewable alternatives and
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 16, 2007 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
provides the real funding for it. Currently, public transportation such as railroads completely rely on coal. Most of the electricity produced in the US relies on coal. There are alternatives but only if some people would stop badmouthing the real deals and/or they stop being silent about the defunding and stifling of those alternatives. Given Grist's history, I seriously doubt they're really against Big Coal.

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

Nicola Tesla--Disclosure Project
Posted by: disgusted on Mar 16, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the early years of 1900 Nicola Tesla, the inventor scientist who gave us alternating current was working on a free energy source. His theory of zero point energy is real. At that time he went to J.P. Morgan for 150K to build a tower to harness and broadcast free energy. When Morgan discovered that he could not meter and charge for the power he defunded and destroyed the project. Tesla died poor and broken in 43. His research was scooped up and hidden by the us govt.
This science is still there and viable. However capitalism still wants no part of funding a free, clean energy source. This would upset the fossil fuel applecart and make no money for
capitalists.Eminent physcist/electrical engineer Tom Breaden and others talk about this on Google. It is surmised that our
military has developed this technology for space based weapons. Dr. David Greer presented this information to congress in 2001, I believe, and has been ignored and ridiculed. Free, clean, energy technology is there. Why is it not being developed?

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

» Baloney Posted by: Klaxton
I don't think King Coal is going away. In fact,
Posted by: bhuttro87 on Mar 16, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from what I've heard, more coal plants are being built even as we speak. The worst that could happen is buying in to the idea of coal gasification which would horrendously damage the landscape

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

solar
Posted by: edpell on Mar 16, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A single photovoltaic installation of 300 miles by 300 miles in the southwest will supply 100% of U.S. energy needs. It would cost about 4 trillion dollars to install. So the 2 trillion dollars for the Iraq invasion would have paid for half the cost of complete energy independence for America.

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

» RE: solar Posted by: Klaxton
solar
Posted by: edpell on Mar 16, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A single photovoltaic installation of 300 miles by 300 miles in the southwest will supply 100% of U.S. energy needs. It would cost about 4 trillion dollars to install. So the 2 trillion dollars for the Iraq invasion would have paid for half the cost of complete energy independence for America.

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

» Excellent Post! Posted by: Douglas
The more we consume, the more waste we excrete.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 16, 2007 2:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are drowning in our s**t. What we cannot seem to turn off or to turn down is our level of consumption. More is not better when it is poison to us. E.g., cancer's job is more.

For those of you for whom the fabled '60s are ancient history, simple living was a goal then. The investment/ruling class didn't like that. How could they maintain their extravagant standard of living if simplicity took hold.

The average American didn't like the idea of giving up "shop til you drop" either. Living simply means knowing how to enjoy each other's company, to get along intimately, to be human. It was abandoned as impossible.

So we look for gimmicks--gotta keep the folks distracted from what is really going on. Think of it: if people spent time teaching and learning from each other, they might understand who has set up the rat race.

I don't know if rats foul their own nests. As a kid I recall the science project white mice needing their cage cleaned, so I expect that rats can live likewise. So our future is to live like the rest of the rodents. Ah yes. We return to our origins.

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

how cheap is coal?
Posted by: mwildfire on Mar 16, 2007 6:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The province of Ontario decided to stop using even its existing coal-fired power plants because they calculated that the health costs of the pollution from coal-fired plants--by far the dirtiest--was so high. The cost of the coal itself is the smaller part of the equation. An official involved in that decision spoke before a group interested in energy solutions here in West Virginia. He noted that Ontario does not have a coal mining industry, "or this would not have been politically possible"--and he said that other Canadian provinces, which do, would therefore not be following suit...even though they also bear the health costs of their citizens.
His calculations showed that the cost per MWh from coal in Ontario was $37—but with healthcare costs it was $164. However, this $164 included only buying and burning coal, and the the healthcare costs of citizens affected by the smog.
Today on Grist they have a post from Google Earth which lets you check out, up close and personal, the scale of the ravaging of my state of West Virginia from coal mining. Because Ontario has no mining, they didn't need to caluclate the costs of permanently destroying land. And then there are the coal trucks, now allowed to run at 120,000 pounds, a special privilege due to the coal industry's clout in our legislature. Any other trucks are limited to 80,000 pounds. The WV DOH estimated a cost of repairing roads and bridges in the billions--we taxpayers will pick up that tab. Don't worry, it won't show up on your electric bill.
Then there's the waste from power plants, which equals about two thirds that from households and businesses--an enormous volume of mildly toxic stuff, often dumped into unlined pits. With what affect on our waterways?
And then there's global warming, which looks to dwarf everything else in the long run.
The first poster here said we can't let go of coal realistically because it's so cheap.
That's because you're getting away with paying about 5% of the real cost in your electric bill. Yeah--"realistically," you can get away with this for now. You can allow people who live in coal country, and miners, and people who live downstream and downwind, and especially future generations, to pick up the rest of the tab.
But that doesn't mean coal is honestly cheap!

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

Only Independents and Dems
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Mar 17, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The most aggressive climate-change bill in the Senate -- the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, sponsored by Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)"

No Republican sponsor for this bill. No Republican backers.

Elected Republican officials are not on board with this in ANY FASHION WHATSOEVER.

Why do Republican lawmakers HATE America so much???

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

» Read the bill Posted by: gellero
how can this be?
Posted by: Blade on Mar 19, 2007 1:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
`Mountaintop removal mining, how can this horrendous practice be permitted in the USA?! I just read this from APF Reporter.
http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF2202/Levy/Levy.html

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

Blade??
Posted by: gellero on Mar 20, 2007 2:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's just eliminate it so thes folks and their ragamuffin lookn' kids can move to the big city on welfare and maybe get a job at Wal-Mart. The Black n' White imagery makes it all look sooooo terrible. And strip mining???Just a small % of the land in this country. Unless you're for Nuclear, how do you expect to get the energy out?? These folks don't want to ride bicycles to work.........they LIKE their gas guzzln' 4WD's. And why shouldn't they?? They WORKED for it.

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