Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
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

The False Promise of 'Clean Coal'

By Kari Lydersen, The NewStandard. Posted March 16, 2006.


Even a quick glance at coal-producing states like West Virginia shows that the idea of an eco-friendly use for the fossil fuel is far more misnomer than reality.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Kari Lydersen

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On the West Virginia-Ohio border, the tread of the county's coal-burning power industry is expanding, digging into the Appalachian Mountains and kicking up clouds of pollution. While small towns choked by power plants hear the promise of new "clean coal" technologies, mining communities know there is no technological remedy for the destruction the industry is wreaking in their communities.

Though most people probably associate coal with the bygone Industrial Age, the Bush administration considers it an essential part of the nation's energy mix. At least 114 new coal-burning power plants are currently in the building or permitting stages around the country. According to a 2006 report from the US Energy Information Administration, US power consumption from coal is expected to rise 1.9 percent per year through 2030, significantly more than the expected rise in energy consumption from petroleum (1.1 percent) and natural gas (0.7 percent).

Elisa Young, an aspiring organic farmer in Racine Ohio, finds herself surrounded by this growing industry. Up to four new coal-burning plants are proposed for her area, even though her bucolic land is already ringed by smokestacks. Three major coal-burning power plants are visible from her farm, which has been in the Young family for seven generations. Within a short span of 20 miles, American Electric Power Corp. (AEP) operates three power plants, and Ohio Valley Electric Corporation owns another.

Young would like to stay to farm her land, but she is up against an industry that would rather buy out the area than acquiesce to the health and environmental concerns of residents.

A dirty reputation

About 15 miles away from the Young farm is the nearly abandoned Cheshire, Ohio, a stark reminder of the economic power of the coal-burning industry. In 2001, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) reviewed environmental data provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency around AEP's General John M. Gavin plant and concluded that "sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid levels in and around Cheshire pose a public health hazard to some residents, particularly residents with asthma."

Under threat of a lawsuit, AEP bought nearly all the private property in the village for about $20 million in 2002 - a price that gave most residents a deal well above property values.

Despite this record, AEP is proposing a new coal-burning plant in Meigs County and another across the river in New Haven, West Virginia where it already runs the Mountaineer and Philip Sporn plants. American Municipal Power-Ohio has also proposed a new plant in Meigs County, and a consortium of coal and energy companies called FutureGen, which includes AEP and coal giants Massey and Peabody, is considering the area to locate an experimental new facility.

Clean coal?

The plants proposed by AEP would use a new technology known as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) that boasts drastically reduced sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and mercury emissions. The companies advertise the FutureGen plant as a zero emissions project, which would eliminate the SO2, NOx and mercury emissions and also sequester the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2).

In addition to citing the need to build new plants to meet increased demand, AEP also says the state of the art IGCC plants will create hundreds of jobs; for the Ohio plant alone, the company projects more than 1,000 temporary positions to open during construction followed by 125 permanent slots once the facility is running.

Local politicians and many residents welcome the plants.

"The economy's so bad, without the plants there's not much else," Karen Werry, a local historian and friend of Young's, told The NewStandard. "I hate the pollution, but we need the jobs."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Kari Lydersen, a regular contributor to AlterNet, also writes for the NewStandard and is an instructor for the Urban Youth International Journalism Program in Chicago.

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

Advertisement
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:
wishes and wisdom
Posted by: ruthclarice on Mar 16, 2006 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until our citizenry is exposed to the devastation that takes place around coal extraction practices, they will continue to waste electricity like there's no tomorrow. In the city electricity seems clean....nothing comes from our chimineys.

We will be exposing youth and elders to environmental challenges in our WISHES AND WISDOM project. Later this month we will see the promises held out for us by visiting an organic farm. Next we want to visit a mountaintop removal site to show contrasts.

From our field trips we want to put our reactions into culture by developing artistic avenues to show the public about how environment is so important. Participants will use poetry, artwork, scuplture, song, theatre, etc., to get the word out to the community in ways that appeal to the heart, and not just to the head.

One problem: It will cost us so much to get our participants to the coal extraction site, since we have to pay the bus company $100 an hour that the bus is gone.

In the 60's we changed things because our music, our poetry, or art reflected troubled times. This is what must be done today to bring devastation into our internal emotions.

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

No Clean Energy,except sun and wind
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Mar 16, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Clean Coal' is as big a farce as 'Clean Nuclear' energy.
Clearing the sulfur Di-oxide out of the air only addresses a small segment of coal emmissions. The truth,that coal and it's supporters 'don't' want you to know,is Mecury,in metric tons, falls on us daily from coal burning. Mercury does more to harm us than SO2 ever could. A whole host of alledgedly congenital abnormalities are connected to Mercury exposure.
Problem pregnancies, birth defects,muscular and neurological
defects,cognitive disorders, and the latest 'troubles' in ADD and ADHD are all rooted in problems in the brain centers that are effected by Mercury exposure. Let us not forget Adolescent Psychosis,labeled as an aspect of teen hemp usage, cognitive disorders like this are really the result of Mercury exposure back of coal burning. Since this disorder seems to be highly consentrated in the bigger metro areas or low lying industrial areas where great amounts of coal are burned, connections to Mercury get downplayed in order for you to have yourself and your children in some kind of drug therapy without addressing the root causes of the problem.
If people really understood the fact that mercury is the root of a host of ailments plugueing humankind,and the source of that mercury IS coal burning,then there would be not another lump of the shit burnt.
The promise of clean energy can be a reality. We need to
stop buying the smoke-screen force fed to us by the Govt and their Controllers,Industry. The way we do that is to put People that truly give a damn about our Life and the Life of all Living things into representitive positions. Get the Fat Cat, Well Wallet, Richie Rich types out of the system along with their spineless weak-kneed phallis vaccuums. It was their lust for power and money that have given us this mess. It must be our lust for a healthy Life for All,that can save us.

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

» Sources? Posted by: Artaraxl
Consumption
Posted by: dagoski on Mar 16, 2006 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just wanted to point to folks here that the other side of the problems associated with power production is consumption. There are things we can do reduce our reliance on destructive forms of power production which, unfortunately, produce more concentrated power than more sustainable ones. I'd like to see an altenet article about realistic ways for people to reduce power consumption at home. I mean I know all about compact flourescent lights, but there's got to be more. As a side note I'm not endorsing the vendor in the link. I just happened to know their url and knew they had some ready info.

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

Wise Coal Use
Posted by: Artkansas on Mar 16, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wisest use of coal would be to keep it in the ground till all other forms of fuel are used up.

It's nasty stuff.

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

Question:
Posted by: magistre on Mar 16, 2006 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With manufacturing on the way out in this country and no "soaring population explosion" going on, just what do "they" need all of this increased generation for? It can't be readily shipped overseas. It can't be stored for future generations. Where is it going?

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

» RE: Question: Posted by: nickptar
Cleaning Coal is like keeping one's food separated on the plate - it all turns out shitty in the end
Posted by: Crackbaby on Mar 16, 2006 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Solar: "Hey Clean Coal, I've seen your type 'round here before. Still searching for that subsidy soul mate?".

Clean Coal: "Whatever, hippie. You do-gooders are all the same, all watts but no amps. You and Wind are never gonna be more than a bit player in this here tragicomedy."

Solar: "So what are you telling your dates now? That you've sworn off toxins? Or that you're not just a breath of hot carbon dioxide anymore but you really have something to say? I remember back in the 70's when you were promising those poor sweet things that you'd changed. All of a sudden, you were concerned about the environment and their health and if they would just go out with you, you would take them up to your private little gassification facility and show them some "clean energy" if you know what I mean."

Clean Coal: "That's not fair. You're not being nice. I have changed. This time it's different, you'll see. I've got a new prescription that really makes me look and feel better."

Wind: "Anyone feel a draft in here? You know what, CC, I think those of us in the alternative energy community have finally figured you out. You're the saccharine of the good old energy boys; you taste sweet, but you make us sick."

Clean Coal: "I'll get you Wind Power. I'll get you yet."

stay tuned.....

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

We need nuclear!
Posted by: ace1974 on Mar 16, 2006 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that while we WILL use coal to power our petrol-addicted society for the next couple of generations, but we're also going to have to use nuclear. We're way past oil peak, and if the choice is between breathing in coal dust and nucelar waste or not having power...we're going with choice #1. Period. Think about it: Americans have known for 30 years that oil is basically destroying our air and yet if the choice is to not have the power that oil provides or to have clean air that's not like walking in your own sweage, we took sewage. Get prepared for a lot worse in terms of coal dust and the like as oil becomes less and less available. The coal becomes the portable fuel and the nuclear becomes the power grid.

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

Clean Coal Details?
Posted by: alexj103 on Mar 16, 2006 2:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As noted at GlobalWarmingTruth.org, CO2 processing and sequestration will still represent an additional expense that utilities may be unwilling to bear, unless the CO2 can be sold to a regional oil extraction project that results in permanent storage. This is one thing they don't seem to mention about the technology.

Without some sort of incentive, or the regulation of CO2 as a pollutant, we may end up with a lot of coal gasification plants that allow their CO2 to escape. I don't suppose federal support for such projects will actually require the capture and storage of carbon dioxide? If not, we're just assuming it will be done at some point.

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

Don't like coal? Then don't buy it!
Posted by: wdzeller on Mar 16, 2006 3:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one thing I find interesting is that no one talks about who is really using all of this coal. Yep, the companies are certainly mining it, and the utilities are burning it and building more electricity generators to burn more, but this ISN'T what I'm talking about when I ask the question, "Who's buying it?"
The people of Southern Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia certainly aren't buying all of this electricity generated by the burning of bituminous coal, as their rather meager populations certainly cannot consume all of this electricity.

The truth is that most of the people who are buying it are from the states that like to bitch the most about the evil burning of coal; i.e., the North-Eastern States and the West Coast. This is where most of this surplus electricity is going. You see, these places have shut down most of their older nuclear plants, and most certainly have shut down their own coal-fired power plants. The fuel of choice of the Hypocritical Bitchers(a moniker I like to use when I refer the inhabitants of these "environmentally correct" places who don't want powerplants in their own backyards) is now very expensive natural gas and even more expensive imported oil.
Needless to say, they can't even provide the population centers of these densely populated regions with sufficient quantities of their own expensive electricity, so they buy the difference from the coal generators of the South and Rocky Mountain regions.

Then they bitch more about how the evil mining companies and the evil A.E.P. are "raping the environment".

If the Yankees and Left-Coasters hate the burning of solid carboniferous fuels so much, then stop buying all of this damn electricity! That would be the best way to "save all of us poor white trash" down in "the coal fields".

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

Even with all the removal of worker safety protections and the destruction of the environment,
Posted by: maxpayne on Mar 16, 2006 4:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
jobs were already being shedded and faster. It's amazing how "conservatives" and even some "centrists" and "liberals" will argue about some fake "jobs" being lost due to proper regulations and concern for the environment. So much for being truly pro-life !

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

Light Emitting Diodes
Posted by: Pooty T on Mar 16, 2006 5:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Granted, lighting is just a drop in the energy bucket, but.... check out these LED bulbs. There's a chart at the bottom comparing them to incandescents.

Cheaper and more efficient. So there you have it.

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

re: LED's
Posted by: alexj103 on Mar 16, 2006 6:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LED bulbs are still a bit expensive (depending somewhat on where you get them) compared to compact fluorescents. CFL's have also improved, and with the exception of some crappy cheap ones, they tend to last awhile, even if not as long as LED.

Lighting may be a relative drop in the bucket, but it's still important, particularly in extended use applications. It's a cheap & easy step with a pretty good return on investment at today's energy prices.

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

» RE: re: LED's Posted by: Aposterioriperception
Mountains Flattened
Posted by: harpy on Mar 17, 2006 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's terrible driving through Appalachia seeing the terrible landscapes caused by coal-mining by the latest method, mountain-topping. It looks like it won't take long before these majestic mountains are flattened. But as far as the coal companies, and those just counting temporary profits, the mountains, and the people of Appalachia are just in the way. These propaganda commercials about "clean energy for another 250 years" are sickening. We need a real energy alternative fast.

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