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.

Water

Big Coal's Dirty Plans for Our Energy Future (with shocking photos)

By Antrim Caskey, AlterNet. Posted December 14, 2007.


Big coal is hoping for government subsidies to replace oil. But its "clean coal" plan is an ecological nightmare for everyone.
Advertisement

Just as the American people and the world are beginning to recognize the necessity of shifting to renewable energies, Big Coal, in collusion with an out-of-step administration, is pushing its dirty fossil fuel as the solution to our nation's energy crisis.

Big Coal and its cohorts envision a "clean coal technology" future fueled by liquifying and gasifying coal, capturing the carbon emissions and injecting them underground. By 2030 the West Virginia Division of Energy -- a nascent state agency formed in July 2007 -- wants to oust oil and exalt coal by displacing the 1.3 billion gallons of foreign oil the state currently imports every year.

The WVDoE believes "that higher energy prices are providing and will continue to provide market opportunities" for a variety of alternative coal technologies, including "coal waste, coal fines and coal bed methane," according to a document released in December 2007 called "A Blueprint for the Future."

But scientists and environmentalists say "clean coal" does not exist; it is a misnomer and an oxymoron. The National Resources Defense Council says that using the term "clean coal" makes about as much sense as saying "safe cigarettes." The extraction and cleaning of coal inevitably decimate ecosystems and communities.

Citing abundant supplies of quality domestic coal, escalating oil prices that are hoving around $100 per barrel and security concerns raised by dependence on foreign oil, the coal industry is chomping at the bit to secure its stake in the false pursuit of domestic energy independence through a federally assisted, coal-based economy. But as the world wakes up to the climate crisis and people learn more about modern coal mining and the continuing exploitation of Appalachia, which has sickened entire communities, polluted the water and air, and condemned vast sections of an ecologically extraordinary land to death, the coal industry faces an increasingly uphill battle against growing public awareness and concern.

Just this year, plans for a dozen new coal plants in Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Kansas and others have been repudiated by the growing public awareness and concern about the role of coal and other fossil fuels in our climate crisis. Playing on stereotypes and employing scare tactics about the unpredictability of the Middle East, the coal industry is developing a Frankenstein-like future for U.S. energy needs.

In Kansas, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius recently blocked plans for two coal-fired electricity plants; afterward, on Nov. 5, a full page ad in Kansas newspapers explained that now, because of Sebelius' decision, "Kansas will import more natural gas from countries like Russia, Venezuela and Iran." The ad displayed the grinning faces of the leaders of these countries and continued, "Without new coal-fueled plants in our state, experts predict that electric bills will skyrocket and Kansans will be more dependent than ever on hostile, foreign energy sources." In fact, Kansas exports natural gas to other states, and the United States does not even import natural gas from Russia, Venezuela or Iran, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Why carbon capture is no safety net

Nationwide there are grandiose plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants, but they all hinge on being able to sell the public and legislators on outfitting and funding these new plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. This process siphons off or "captures" carbon dioxide before it can escape into the atmosphere, contributing to acid rain, smog and warming the planet. The sequestered carbon would then be pumped and stored underground.

But is it really possible to bury our daily CO2 emission? Australia's renown physicist, Karl Kruszelnicki, who is running for public office on the Climate Change Coalition ticket, told the Sydney Morning Herald on Nov. 1, "One cubic kilometer of CO2 to get rid of every day? It's not possible! But they don't tell you that that's what they've got to get rid of. They make reassuring noises that they're spending millions looking for underground caverns. But I'm here to tell you that they're not going to find it ... The point is that they can only store 1,000th of 1 percent, not all their daily output."

Not only do we not have the capacity to store all the CO2 we produce, but the technology isn't there yet. The coal industry acknowledges that CCS is 15 years away, but continues to promulgate the myth of "clean coal technology" and guide generous government subsidies to themselves and to West Virginia universities, assigning valuable research money to dirty technology. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's 2007 report "The Future of Coal" stated that "there is no standard for measurement, monitoring, and verification of CO2 distribution. Duration of post-injection monitoring is an unresolved issue."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: slideshow, multimedia, appalachia, water, global warming, climate change, coal

Antrim Caskey is a Brooklyn-based independent photojournalist who has been reporting on the human and environmental costs of Mountaintop Removal/Valley Fill coal mining since May 2005.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! 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:
"Clean Coal"?!!!??!??
Posted by: vox persona on Dec 14, 2007 12:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like the same Orwellian bullsh*t we hear everyday in the form of "Clear Skies Act", "Patriot Act", "Leave No Child Behind", et al ad nauseam. Give me a break.

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

Minor correction if I may
Posted by: Nedtheredhead on Dec 14, 2007 2:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Australia's renown physicist, Karl Kruszelnicki, who is running for public office on the Climate Change Coalition ticket..."

Should have read:

"Australia's renown physicist, Karl Kruszelnicki, who RAN for public office 24th November, on the Climate Change Coalition ticket..."

...and we just call him Dr. Karl...

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

» Australia leading the world Posted by: Nedtheredhead
The Truth in Four Words
Posted by: WaldoMaui on Dec 14, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
West Virginia, "The Mountain State." The most eloquent statement I've seen of the coal industry's policy of mountaintop removal is contained in a simple bumper sticker. It's a variation on John Denver's song. The sticker reads, "ALMOST LEVEL, WEST VIRGINIA."

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

Important issue
Posted by: sheena2u on Dec 14, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big Coal largely funded Bush's presidential campaigns, and he has been returning the favor, at America's expense, by promising something like a hundred new coal plants in the U.S. before he leaves office. It is, indeed, an ecological and humanitarian disaster in the making.

The old coal plants that were grandfathered in before requirements that they run "cleaner" are the worst single polluters and contributors to greenhouse gasses and global warming, and the new coal plants will soon be impractical and outdated as it becomes more difficult and expensive to extract and dispose of coal, and as carbon emissions from coal bring life on the planet closer to an early grave.

Big Coal is clearly the wrong direction for life on earth. We must all wake up, and do our part to fight this corrupt and ruthless industry. They would trade their own short-term profits for the health, economic viability, and environment we all need in order to live. The alliance between Big Coal and the Bush administration may be the worst of many vile and destructive actions by the Bush administration.

Renewable energy: wind, solar, small hydro, tidal, and geothermal are in successful use, worldwide. Smart investors are putting their money on renewable energy. But, the outdated monster Big Coal keeps on breathing its foul breath on the United States.

Read "Big Coal, the dirty secret behind America's energy future," by Jeff Goodell, published by Houghton Mifflin (2006). Also read "Missing Mountains, we went to the mountaintop but it wasn't there," written by Kentuckians for the Commonwealth by Wind Publications (2005). And also read "The Buffalo Creek Disaster," by Gerald M. Stern by Vintage Books (1976). They are all available through Amazon or your favorite bookstore.

Rainforest Action Network and many other fine organizations are fighting Big Coal's injustices. Get involved. Our future, our planet's future, and our grandchildren's future, and more is at stake. This article is comprehensive and excellent, and I'd like to see more on this topic. There ought to be an immediate moratorium on all mountaintop removal coal mines, and other coal plants and coal mines. We can all do something. There is much we can accomplish, working together.

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

» RE: Important issue Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Important issue Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
Coal Not The Way to Go, But Reneweable Energy Sources Not Adequate Either
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 14, 2007 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without proven effective clean coal technology and very strict regulation of strip mining, coal is not the way to go. But, we should be under no technological quick fix dream either. Fact is, no amount of solar power, wind power, geothermal, or other modern day technologies in the power field is going to be adequate to meet the needs of a burgeoning population. Somehow, growth must be limited and conservation emphasized. The techie quick fixers want to ignore this reality and pretend that the economy can keep expanding forever. They are not much better than the pollute-all-you-can for cheap energy crowd. Reality must be faced. Either we reign in the ever expanding population and conserve our endless appetite for energy and natural resources, or we are doomed.

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

» Oh, yeah, I forgot... Posted by: monkeywrench
Time to go on the offensive by putting alternative renewables first
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 14, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Solar, wind, geothermal, hemp, algae, tidal, etc ...

Don't expect either party to get off coal given the bribes they have been getting from BIG COAL for nearly a century.

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

Big Problems, Few Solutions...
Posted by: gazooks on Dec 14, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and the fact that the electric power that fuels many computer generated comments posted here began as coal, this one included.

West Virginia is as politically corrupted, environmentally despoiled and as economically dependent on coal as any place on Earth. Whatever new tech alternatives to carbon based energy exist are many, many decades away from supplanting our current sources of energy supply even with accelerated new tech efficiencies applied. That's the reality.

We're a day late and many dollars short for broad development of alternatives, and where is the national political will to turn it around? Wind power is even controversial in West Virginia as it is elsewhere largely for view-shed considerations. And then there's the issue of what do people in West Virginia do for an economy, post coal?

The United States is a carbon based economy and it's consumption is enormous. There's insufficient funding for all forms of practical alternative energy, largely due to the politics of big oil and big agriculture who've succeeded in monopolizing development money for fuels like corn based ethanol that can't stand alone without huge, long term subsidies.

There's also the unfolding constraint that's just starting to hit home in a serious way in the capital markets, and the planning nightmare for large hardware and infrastructure development due to accelerating monetary inflation that's just entering a parabolic phase. (Many thanks to Alan Greenspan and his Fed cohorts for their largesse to commercial banking interests and abandoning any sense of economic principle, discipline or personal responsibility for the drunken boardroom gang rape of the middle class, even if she is a wanton slut of a class.)

We better get real in our assessment of what's possible in a practical sense without a violent intervention, otherwise we're pissing in the wind of a fast passing Peabody's coal train.

We better be prepared to pay four or five times what we presently pay for electric power even without the inevitable effects of monetary dilution. We better realize that it's not anyone other than job holding West Virginians doing the current landscaping who will have something to say about not having a job, even if it means poisoning their own water and air and the occasional landslide fatalities.

And we better face facts about the long held putrid tendencies of political allegiances in the state and in Congress, and the history of ruthless disregard doled out to the poor of Appalachia.

Until that time, we've got big problems, few solutions.

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

» You said it better than I did. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Why is it so rare... Posted by: whathaway
Use cans to store spent fuel
Posted by: jsong123 on Dec 14, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
24 fuel bundles per can. Every 1 1/2 years you need 5 cans to store the spent fuel from 1 reactor. each can is put in concrete storage vaults about the size of a small garage...

or you can keep burning coal.

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

In The Short Term: Nuclear Plants?
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 14, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a controversial subject on the Left. However, I know attitudes are starting to change about it. I was vehemently against nuclear plants, like most liberals, until recently. Now, I think in certain circumstances, it is not a bad thing. Of course, you have safety issues, the nuclear waste which is a problem, and increased heating of water around nuclear plants (which can impact aquatic populations), but you don't have the emissions of greenhouse gasses. Another objection (before I would really support it) is that in the absence of conservation and other energy reducing measures, nuclear plants will just add to the ideology of an endless supply of energy and therefore the continued wasteful use of it. Governments need to outlaw SUV's and require energy efficiency, and (as in Europe) build adequate mass transit instead of depending on the stupid automobile for everything. Bottom line, the quest for endless consumer goods and an ever expanding economy is poison, no matter what.

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

A land fit for profits ...
Posted by: Litespeed_Stu on Dec 14, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... nothing else.

Murray Brookchin once wrote, ""The very notion of the domination of nature by man stems from the very real domination of human by human."

These corporate pirates are doing more than plundering americans' quality of life, they are reinforcing the sense of powerlessness that pervades the ordinary people of this country.

As Peter Finch said in the movie Network, "I'm a human being, goddammit, and my life has value."

We are more powerful than we allow ourselves to think. We can stop this shit.

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

coal mines
Posted by: Joe on Dec 14, 2007 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the nastiest coal mine i've ever seen is in stonega, va. are there any technologies that people can invest in to power their own homes and take themselves off the grid?

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

» RE: no coal mines Posted by: fearn
Alternatives?
Posted by: jak on Dec 14, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I read the list of ingredients in the chemical soup described as coal slurry, I can't help but wonder if there are commercial possibilities in this crap. Certainly all of the issues and abuses documented in the article concern me. I've personally seen the negative effects of strip mining in other states as well.

Perhaps, with a little more imagination, we can figure out a way to a)extract the coal in a more environmentally friendly manner; b)reclaim that land which is adversely affected; c)reclaim the water polluted in the process; d)fairly compensate those adversely affected; and e)devise safe, commercially viable uses for ALL of the byproducts.

Obviously, as it stands, 'Clean Coal' is an oxymoron...but must it be so?

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

What is up with Alternet?
Posted by: Tombo on Dec 14, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok so they have a story here about the horrible effects coal has on the environment and then right below that they have a campaign to send coal to corporate media figures for Christmas. What gives?

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

THE FRIGHTENERS
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Dec 14, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal~~"OH, NO, it's dirtyyyyyyy!!"
Oil~~"OH, NO, it's this, that & everything else we like to whine about!!"
Nuclear energy~~"OH, NO, it's unsafe and we'll blow up & get contaminated!!"

"OH, NO, WHAT CAN WE WHINE ABOUT IF EVERYTHING IS GOOD AND CLEAN??"

AHA!! HOW ABOUT RUBBER BANDS TO WIND UP THE EARTH!!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

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

» RE: THE FRIGHTENERS Posted by: fearn
» RE: THE FRIGHTENERS Posted by: donl51
» zzzzzzz about sums it up Posted by: Beck
The price of electricity could drop with safe nuclear power.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 14, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please read this book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6
order from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
Read a review of this book by the American Health Physics Society at:
http://www.comby.org/media/
articles/articles.in.english/
HealthPhysics-NUC-July2002.htm

www.ecolo.org
Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy [EFN]

Fossil fuels such as coal oil, and gas, massively pollute the Earth's atmosphere
(CO, CO2, SOX, NOX...), provoking acid rains and changing the global climate
by increasing the greenhouse effect, while nuclear energy does not participate in
these pollutions and presents well-founded environmental benefits.

Renewable energies (solar, wind) not being able to deliver the amount of energy
required by populations in developing and developed countries, nuclear energy is
in fact the only clean and safe energy available to protect the planet during the XXI
st century.

This book answers essential questions about nuclear safety, the Chernobyl
accident, the public health problems our society has to face, viable solutions for
nuclear waste, the benefits of clean nuclear energy for the environment, and
important information about the future of our planet.


Book Review by the American Health Physics Society:

"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
English edition, 2001, 345 pp. (soft cover), 38 Euros
TNR Editions, 266 avenue Daumesnil, 75012 Paris, France;
ISBN 2-914190-02-6

www.ecolo.org

Reproduced from the journal "Health Physics" with permission from the Health
Physics Society.
Subject book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
AT A TIME when most of the media and politicians seem to be brainwashed by
antinuclear cults, it is refreshing to encounter a book that presents the issues
regarding nuclear energy in a clear and dispassionate manner. In plain non-
technical language, the author, a French environmentalist trained as a nuclear
engineer, presents a primer, in large letters, of the essential facts regarding all the
major areas of controversy about nuclear power.

The first half of the book, titled "The Atomic Paradox," describes in layman's
language the risks of nuclear power, its environmental impact, quality and safety
standards, waste management, why a power reactor is not a bomb, energy
alternatives, nuclear weapons, and other major global and environmental problems.
In each case the major conclusions are framed for greater emphasis. Although
examples are taken from the French nuclear power program, the conclusions are
equally valid elsewhere.

The second half of the book is titled "Information on Nuclear Energy and the
Environment" and briefly provides a historical survey, an explanation of the
different types of radiation, radioactivity, dose effects of radiation, Chernobyl,
medical uses of radiation, accident precautions, as well as a glossary of terms and
abbreviations and a bibliography (…)

Its simple language makes the book suitable as a primer for high-school classes,
teacher training courses, or environmental discussion groups.

Despite the slightly provocative title, it is a well-balanced if unapologetic
exposition of the competitive advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy as a
power source. It should appeal to all readers with an interest in the subject who
have not already closed their minds.

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

» But there is no such thing... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
Book review: "Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy" continued
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 14, 2007 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PART I :

THE ATOMIC PARADOX

CHAPTER 1: Nuclear energy: it's cleaner than you think.

CHAPTER 2: A well-designed nuclear power plant has little effect on the
environment.

CHAPTER 3: The risk of accident is reduced by strict quality and safety standards.

CHAPTER 4: Safe management of nuclear waste.

CHAPTER 5: A nuclear power station is not an atomic bomb.

CHAPTER 6: Managing the planet's energy as best we can.

CHAPTER 7: The economic and strategic advantages of nuclear energy.

CHAPTER 8: The real environmental issues lie elsewhere: starvation, malnutrition,
political unrest in third world countries, drugs, alcohol and cigarette addictions,
destruction of tropical forests, chemical pollution of the environment, urban
wastes, overpopulation…

CHAPTER 9: The example of France, the world's leader in nuclear energy.

CHAPTER 10: Nuclear fusion: an almost unlimited supply of clean energy for the
future?

CHAPTER 11: No to nuclear war: for an end to nuclear weapons and the specter
of nuclear war.

CHAPTER 12: The environmentally friendly solution to transportation problems:
electric vehicles.

CHAPTER 13: Modern, efficient, and intelligent environmental program: pro-
nuclear green movements for tomorrow.

CHAPTER 14: Errors to avoid.

CHAPTER 15: For better information - and against disinformation.


Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy PART II:

IN FAVOR OF BETTER PUBLIC INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR ENERGY

Principal dates in the history of nuclear power. What is an atom? The principle of
nuclear fission. The principle of nuclear fusion. What is radioactivity? What is
radiation? How we can protect ourselves from radioactivity and radiation.
Different types of radiation. The difference between irradiation and radioactive
contamination. The natural disintegration of uranium 235 to lead. The natural
disintegration of uranium 238 to lead. Units of measurement of radioactivity and
irradiation. How do we measure radioactivity? Permitted and lethal doses of
irradiation. The effects of intense irradiation on the human body. Authorized limits
for human irradiation. A few examples of received doses. Natural radioactivity is
considerably different from region to region. Average natural irradiation by region
in France. The Chernobyl accident. International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) -
classification of nuclear accidents and incidents. Irradiation resulting from the
Chernobyl accident. The medical use of radiation. Doses of radiation delivered
during some medical radioisotopic examinations. Comparison of the effect of
nuclear arms, of nuclear medicine and of the nuclear power industry. How a
nuclear power plant operates. Diagram of a PWR nuclear power unit. Nuclear fuel.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. How to prevent accidents in a modern nuclear
power plant. Three successive confinement barriers isolate nuclear fuel from the
environment. Countries possessing nuclear arms and the problem of their
proliferation. The half-life of some radioactive substances. The irradiation of food
products. Authorized food irradiation table. What to do in case of a nearby nuclear
accident war (or atomic bomb explosion).

 
CONCLUSION:

LET'S BUILD A BETTER WORLD NOW.

Some useful addresses - Abbreviations - Bibliography.

About the Author - Acknowledgments - Other publications by Bruno Comby

Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. http://www.ecolo.org/

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

And in case nobody knows, HEMP can replace OIL and COAL 100%
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 14, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PYROLYSIS IS THE TECHNIQUE of applying high heat to organic matter (ligno-cellulosic materials) in the absence of air or in reduced air. The process can produce charcoal, condensable organic liquids (pyrolytic fuel oil), non-condensable gasses, acetic acid, acetone, and methanol. The process can be adjusted to favor charcoal, pyrolytic oil, gas, or methanol production with a 95.5% fuel-to-feed efficiency.

Pyrolysis has been used since the dawn of civilization. Ancient Egyptians practiced wood distillation by collecting the tars and pyroligneous acid for use in their embalming industry.

Methanol-powered automobiles and reduced emissions from coal-fired power plants can be accomplished by biomass conversion to fuel utilizing pyrolysis technology, and at the same time save the American family farm while turning the American heartland into a prosperous source of clean energy production.

Pyrolysis has the advantage of using the same technology now used to process crude fossil fuel oil and coal. Coal and oil conversion is more efficient in terms of fuel-to-feed ratio, but biomass conversion by pyrolysis has many environmental and economic advantages over coal and oil.

Pyrolysis facilities will run three shifts a day. Some 68% of the energy of the raw biomass will be contained in the charcoal and fuel oils made at the facility. This charcoal has nearly the same heating value in BTU as coal, with virtually no sulfur.

Pyrolytic fuel oil has similar properties to no. 2 and no. 6 fuel oil. The charcoal can be transported economically by rail to all urban area power plants generating electricity. The fuel oil can be transported economically by trucking creating more jobs for Americans. When these plants use charcoal instead of coal, the problems of acid rain will begin to disappear.

When this energy system is on line producing a steady supply of fuel for electrical power plants, it will be more feasible to build the complex gasifying systems to produce methanol from the cubed biomass, or make synthetic gasoline from the methanol by the addition of the Mobil Co. process equipment to the gasifier.

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

Thank you, Antrim Caskey, but coal also contains:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 14, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The complete list of impurities in coal includes every element in
the periodic table. The important impurities are: URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Thorium,
Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum,
Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of these
elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable
ores. We should be able to get all the uranium and thorium we
need to fuel nuclear power plants for centuries by using cinders
and smoke as ore. Remember that, to get a given amount of
energy, you need almost 100 MILLION TIMES as much coal as
uranium.

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

We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 14, 2007 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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. [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"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." 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.
Numec is no longer in business. Terrorists can't compete with Mossad and
Israeli dual citizens who are CEOs of companies like Numec. Israeli nuclear
weapons are exact duplicates of American nuclear weapons. All persons who
were "born of Jewish mothers" are citizens of Israel regardless of any other fact.
Since the US can't and shouldn't discriminate, 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.

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

» Breeder Reactors Posted by: gellero
Catherine43
Posted by: Catherine42 on Dec 14, 2007 9:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our governor, Brian Schweitzer(MT), is a HUGE proponent of coal and would like to dig up the state to get at it. I like MT the way it is. Too many out of state mining companies are already trying to ruin it.

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

Too damn many people.
Posted by: thekidde on Dec 14, 2007 10:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Birth control and a realization that a "growing economy", world/US or otherwise, is eating up the planet.

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

» True, 6.5B is hard to deny. Posted by: maxpayne
What to do?
Posted by: fluffmuffinmom on Dec 14, 2007 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This makes me sick and I want to do anything and everything I can to stop it. Does anyone know of any resources I can tap into?

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

» RE: What to do? Posted by: Nick
» start here Posted by: whathaway
Even Worse News
Posted by: sgreen on Dec 14, 2007 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The practice of dumping coal combustion waste back into open mine pits is currently being advocated by several states. The lead state is Pennsylvania. For more in depth information go to YouTube and view "The Mine Fill Report". The more who know the better chance we have to stop the practice.

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

Energy independence is a bogus issue posing as a benefit when it is actually a danger
Posted by: Rune on Dec 14, 2007 3:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the domestic arms of internationally owned corporations raise "energy independence" as a selling point for their destructive industries, usually with open palm begging for cash subsidies and underwriting to go along with permission to harm others without being held accountable, please know that this only means their P.R. staff and consultants are trying to earn their keep. Energy is traded internationally. The price and availability of energy is determined by which forms and what quantities of energy are on the word market, as the early discussion of this article indicates.

While it is true, there can be spot shortages due to country risk, there is nothing about using up more of the energy under your own ground that leads to greater national security or price stability in the long run. Energy flows to the highest bidder (unless a certain country that spends as much on militarism as the rest of the world combined tries to strong arm its way into foreign supplies, but even then, experience shows that the energy available to that country may well be worth less than the cost, in dollars and lives, of trying to leverage it by force).

The multinational owners of big energy stocks have no intention of paying more to clean up their operations, nor are they inclined to sell for less, just to make Americans happy. They have one reason for owning such stocks: to make themselves wealthier. They don't do that by adding costs or cutting revenues if they don't have to, no matter which countries they operate within. Expecting a net benefit just because more energy production is taking place domestically is folly. The only way that works is if the value of the inputs (mostly energy and environmental damages) is less at home than abroad, which it generally is not, or if the companies are subsidized, either in cash or in kind by not being made to pay the true cost of the resources they use and/or damage.

And so it is that the more sure result of relying on environmentally destructive forms of energy pulled out of domestic land is that it will be the environment in one's own country that suffers soonest and most. And that is what we can expect if coal mining is accelerated in the U.S.

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

is it ironic...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Dec 14, 2007 4:30 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that alternet's leading story today is about how bad coal mining is, and yet alternet wants us to purchase lumps of coal to send to the right-wing media? i appreciate the sentiment...but coal is bad...besides, we don't want those right-wingers to be the ones keeping warm this witner...

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

If you want mega trucks, big SUV's, gas guzzler cars, then you support Big Coal, Like it or Not
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 14, 2007 6:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see way too much hypocrisy, even here on alternet. Look, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Forget about thinking renewables could be the complete solution to the current need for energy without a total revamping of our economic and political systems. You want your mega trucks, big SUV's and gas guzzler cars? Then, you essentially support the coal industry. Now, if you are ok with a Prius, or other very economical, fuel efficient vehicle, then you support the environmental way. As for all the complainers that I just don't like big trucks or SUV's, my point is they are not yet very fuel efficient. Small cars are just a lot more fuel efficient, like it or not, point of fact. So, you can rant off all you want about the evils of coal and how bad nuke plants are, etc., and also sprout out how some wind farms in everyones backyard or solar panels across the state of South Dakota, etc., are going to solve everything; but, then if you go for a cruise in your mega truck and have to keep your AC at 69 degrees when its 90 degrees outside, you just kept big coal in business. Because, the only way America can get the energy for all of this, is with big coal (or big oil), and no gigantic wind farms are going to solve that issue anytime soon.

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

UPSET AT GORE
Posted by: donl51 on Dec 14, 2007 8:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TOUGH SHIT!!!Gore said we ,our GOV. is standing in the way of our world getting its shit together,then Wolf Blitzer of CNN ,which surprised the shit out of me, ''spins'' those words to Gore blaming global warming on USA!! ,I was stunned when I heard it, if from O'Reilly, or HANNITTY or anyone on FAUX ''that'' I'd beleive, even things comming out of Dobbs of late has been bothering me, sad, so sad! Gore said it like it is, and he's not proud of us, but then we're talking Bush/Cheney here ,surprise !surprise!,I admire Gore for what he's at least trying to get done ,and yeah I' m sure there are questions on why etc. always is always will be question to motives on whoever tries, its human we're a suspicious animal!

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

» RE: UPSET AT GORE Posted by: billfaster
Americans get ready, 4 years left before the down hill slope
Posted by: Missing Piece on Dec 14, 2007 8:54 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of peak oil. Everything else is not worth your attention. We have been set up to fail, and by creating such devastation the americans will except whatever happens. Millions will starve, its time you learn to live off the grid, store seeds, and live with out oil or electricity.

You need to mentally prepare now, otherwise it will seem overwhelming. Remember many of our great grandparents and even grandparents lived without oil, it can be done.

good luck, build an earth home, and learn how to store seeds. Hybrid seeds do not produce seeds that will grow again. Prepare now and in the process you will automaticly fix most of the other problems we waste our time with here on alternet

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

Cheney connection?
Posted by: katiedid on Dec 15, 2007 5:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wyoming is the number one producer of coal in the U.s. Dick Cheney has deep roots in Wyoming. Skeptical as I am (these days in particular), I can't help but wonder how Cheney plays into this devastation. Are his Halliburton royalties not enough for his retirement?

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

who needs the tear-o-wrists?
Posted by: Don Garb on Dec 15, 2007 9:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody has to travel to the US incognito, on a secret mission to destroy the land, economy and long term viability. Those stupid americans will do a better job fucking up their country all by themselves!

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

Nuclear power is not an option
Posted by: PaulC on Dec 16, 2007 7:00 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Earlier, undrgrndgirl made an important point regarding calls for nuclear power to supplant coal that no one else has touched upon yet, the "human factor".

Before 3 mile island went up engineers felt they had planned for all contingencies, that they fully understood the physics involved, and had a fool-proof set of backup emergency systems in case of a failure. When 3 mile island went critical, engineers were dumbfounded when a giant hydrogen (read that "explosive gas") bubble formed in the containment building, threatening to stop the flow of coolant and possibly blow the building sky high. It was only good luck that things didn't go critical, killing hundreds of thousands and poisoning the countryside for hundreds of years.

More recently, at FirstEnergy's Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant, engineers felt they had planned for all contingencies, that they fully understood the physics involved, and had a fool-proof set of backup emergency systems in case of a failure. Then, during a long delayed routine maintenance shutdown, engineers were shocked to discover a football-sized hole eaten through 6 and a half inches of solid steel in the lid of the nuclear reactor core. Investigators later determined that a one-eighth-inch, cracked and bulging stainless steel inner liner was days away from rupturing and spewing reactor core radioactivity under tremendous pressure and temperature into the containment building.

Of course, it was assumed that backup cooling systems would control the reactor core, keeping it from blowing sky-high. It was not discovered until after the investigation that none of the backup cooling system pumps would have worked because the debris from the rupture of the reactor vessel would have plugged up the inlet filters to the backup pumps. No one had thought of that possibility yet they had been confident...

Another shocking finding of the Davis-Besse investigation was that the NRC was less a watch dog than a lap dog, bowing to the wishes of the utilities when money was on the line. And the investigation showed that FirstEnergy lacked a "safety culture" at the plant, being driven entirely by a profit motive which was antithetical to plant safety. This complete absence of a safety culture was so profound that it took a major management shakeup, years of retraining, repeated failed safety inspections by the NRC before they were able to petition to bring the plant online again, not to mention, of course, a massive rebuilding of the facility's failed systems.

The truth is, as the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion showed us as well, highly complex systems are exponentially more prone to failure. And more likely than not, it is simple human error that sparks a cascade of events that lead to armageddon-like tragedy. That is why nuclear power will never be safe.

But don't take my word on it, no one would consider building another plant until they got the federal government to underwrite them to the tune of I believe $50 billion dollars and also pass legislation absolving them of any responsibility for a disaster. That, and the outrageous cost of a new plant, in addition to the toxic waste problem, is the little secret they fail to mention when they advertise that nuclear power is safe and affordable.


peace,
Paul

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

America is destroying the planet.
Posted by: UndergroundPirate on Dec 16, 2007 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
China has been putting on line two 1 Gigawatt Coal fired power plants EVERY WEEK for over a year now. They are doing this to supply the stupid greedy American public with all the trinkets they desire. There is no way that the disgusting American public is going to stop their behavior. That would require self awareness which they do not have. They have been on this path for 50+ years, and it is ingrained in them. My only solace is that they will suffer along with the rest of the planet that they are destroying.

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

Nuclear power is the safest option
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 24, 2007 9:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two types of 21st century reactors that cannot melt down no matter how
badly they are treated. Safety is guaranteed by laws of physics.
In the pebble bed reactors, stopping coolant flow removes the space between
fuel pellets. The space between fuel pellets must be filled with moving water.
The water is the moderator to slow down the neutrons so that the reaction can take
place. No coolant flow, no reaction. These pebble bed reactors will never
experience a meltdown. It just can't happen because of laws of nature. The US
has 2 pebble bed reactors.
In the recommended and newly invented helium cooled reactor, the core is
made of high temperature [refractory] materials that simply will not melt if coolant
flow ceases. The core is cooled from a higher temperature by heating the
containment building, which also does not melt. The containment building heats
its surroundings in the case of coolant flow loss. The helium cooled reactor uses
helium as the working fluid to turn a turbine. Helium gas is the ideal fluid to turn
a turbine because it can be made very pure so that the turbine blades will last a
very long time.
Safety is assured in all US built reactors by the containment building, which is a
pressure vessel and which, as in the case of the now obsolete 3 mile island reactor,
can and did contain the overheated core. There were ZERO casualties.

American reactors are now too safe. Nuclear power is overpriced because of the
excessive safety. 20,000 to 30,000 Americans die each year because of those
poisons I listed below that come out of coal fired power plants. It is C O A L fired
power plants that kill 20,000 to 30,000 Americans each year. Nuclear power
plants kill ZERO Americans each year. It is COAL burning that will make us go
extinct in about 200 years if we keep doing it.

The problem is that we OVERSHOT on safety design because of people who
protest nuclear power. American reactors are TOO safe. It is C O A L fired
power plants that give you 100 times as much radiation. Coal is almost pure
carbon, except for the 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 that are coal's impurities.
We could fuel our nuclear plants from the uranium and thorium in the smoke and
cinders from coal fired power plants. Coal cinders are an economically viable ore
for several of the listed impurities.

French reactors use American technology that is about 3 decades old.
Environmentalists For Nuclear Power

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

Coal = extinction
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 24, 2007 10:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive
source of electricity. Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The
comparison has to be with extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct"
means? If we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY
PERSON will be DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS.
EXTINCTION means NO MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the
worst possible nuclear war, a "general exchange" between the United States and
the old Soviet Union could achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would
mean exploding 40,000 H bombs all at once in the old days or may