A little while back I praised Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for opposing new coal plants in his home state. Now he's clarified his position: he opposes new coal plants anywhere in the world. Word.
One grumpy note. Look at this:
Michael Yackira, president and chief executive officer of Sierra Pacific Resources, said his company "respectfully disagrees" with Reid's position. His company is seeking approval to build one of the plants.
"We believe what we'll be building is the cleanest coal-fired plant in the world" because of new technology, Yackira said.
"We must also have fossil fuel plants for reliability because wind and solar power is variable. We need all sorts of energy supplies to meet the needs of our customers," he added.
Here we have -- unchallenged by an opposing perspective -- two common myths propagated by the coal industry:
1. Coal is cheap and new technology can make it clean! Left unstated: once you add the new technology to make it "clean," it is no longer cheap. (For more on this, see Sean.)
2. Wind and solar are variable so we have to build new coal plants. Left unstated:
There is no ecologically or economically sound case for building lots of new coal plants. It's a quick, easy buck for some large corporations -- that's it. It screws the rest of us and our descendants.
No more new coal. Period.
This post first appeared on grist.org.
Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts
Not only will the new technologies make coal more expensive but so will a greater demand.
AND we will be postponing the inevitable. Some day all fossil fuel runs out.
Sure, we aren't going to see it happen, and our children won't either. Still, now that it is evident, it is no longer a theory do we just say too bad, they'll figure it out when the time comes?
uh oh.
I think I'm rambling.
Nice work.
Variability.
This is a problem?
No.
Mainly because it is predictable.
Yes, wind has patterns.
And the forecasts of those wind patterns are pretty damn accurate.
When they say the wind is going to blow, it blows.
This is almost 100 percent red-herring, when taken with proper planning.
On the other side of the system, the "use" of power is also variable.
And, when we study these patterns, guess what?
We build a system to match them.
With proper planning, "variability" is not a problem.
Now, coal.
Yes its a problem.
But its not as big a problem as either the "no-coal" or the "yes, nukes" factions are portraying.
For one thing, a rational writer has raised the spector that we cannot just shut down the coal plants we now have.
However, most rational people would favor an IMMEDIATE closing of ALL of the 1970's Clean Air Act exempted dirtiest coal plants now operating.
And if we decided to do that today, we would need many Gigs of new power, which should, and really must, come from new technology IGCC coal plants.
So, yes, we do need to continue to use coal to clean up the environment. And, a trade of IGCC for the dirty CAA-exempt stinkpots puts the biggest and the quickest avaialable dent available in our country's CO2 footprint.
Because nuclear is really a military use that they tried to convert to peaceful use, without success, I say, sorry, Dave, but we do need more coal.
But, as to tax breaks for doing "whatever" to bring about climate change improvements, I definitely disagree.
There MUST be a flow of funds from one source to another.
I believe in government support of public policy solutions, so naturally much more with all renewables and efficiency of electric use, which is a battle I led successfully.
Once we would decide that we needed to do something NOW to get a jump on carbon reductions, of course the government using taxpayer and ratepayer funds would be a just argument to provide that funding.
As a source of this funding, I favor a carbon tax over the BS cap-and-trade system that environmentalists have accepted in the past.
So, its a public need, and we tax the public for funding whatever solution is in the plan.
I say clean coal belongs in the plan.
IGCC right now to trade for closing the stinkpots.
That's a REAL trade, with REAL benefits.
In 10-15 years, we may have sequestration of carbon from burning coal, like we do now with nuclear radiation - you know bending the pipe back into the ground.
But we could have IGCC coal plants on line in just a few years and close down the CAA-exempt polluters.
If there is aother technology that can meet the base-load substitution here, then let's do it.
But, again, I favor REAL solutions to tons of
feel-good rhetoric.
Although I am a lifelong Mother Jones-ish Friend of the Earth, I am afraid that the no-nukes, no-coal posture will result in both nukes and coal.
Its time to do something now.
Think about it - would there be anyone requesting more coal plants if our population growth was zero, or better yet, negative?
We are no where near zero population growth. Projections are for another 100 million in the next 30 years in this country. From 200 million in 1970, to 300 million in 2006 to 400 million in 2035. No more coal, period??? That's a fantasy.
And with only one phone line in the control room, the expert engineers weren't able to call in. (No cell phones in that century.) Besides, it’s an issue of design and procedures that went wrong, not communication as such.
Stupid seems to be genetic, so there are no guarantees of change.
The few plants we would add here would at least have some scrubbing technology - I'm no expert, I understand CO2 would still be the main problem. The HUNDREDS GOING ON A THOUSAND coal plants being built in China under the Clinton free trade laws (the ones the paranoid madman anti semitic bigot Perot was against) will have no such technology at all. The mercury they spew out will carry into the ocean and into your tuna salad.
Naturally we will do nothing. We will however argue endlessly about a few coal plants in the USA
http://nativeunity.blogspot.com/2007/05/mining-law-dilemma-for-sen-harry-reid.html
As for the "clean" coal myth: Go to Google maps and type in "Avawam, KY," then zoom out slightly and switch to Satellite view for a reality check. Nothing “clean” about mountaintop removal.
Some things are most effective if they could smell the sulfuric acid and feel the ... well, the Hell of what a strip-mine looks and smells and FEELS like. My Cherokee kin say the mountains actually breathe. That the rocks actually live and each hill has it's own soul. But not after a strip-down like that.
But screw the future, and forget the past, we need to use it all up NOW and make as much money as we can carry to Hell with us NOW.
I guess they'll never learn, not on this side of the rainbow.
Cool!
You're the FIRST neocon that I know of to EVER provide a link! (and a good, honest one at that.)
I hope you aren’t surprised that we are genuinely interested to learn about clay-foot leaders, regardless of which side of the aisle.
Wrong is wrong.
Thank you, sincerely!
As to the "problem" that solar is intermittant, is a smoke screen. So is the demand for power for air conditioning! Brown outs and Blackouts in the south west, where I live, are most common at peak power demand times. Coincidentally, the exact same time when solar power is also at it's peak availability. We need to invest in not just R&D but in building a strong domestic power industry that integrates all sources not one that rejects any thing other that coal or oil.
Thanks for any info you can provide.
Also, consider that in some parts of the country homes have been "condemned" for being off the grid.
What good is a house if you can't pay out the ass to power it?
I think it's more about "control". "YOU belong to us. And you always will."
Good luck.
NO COAL, NYET, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.... GOT IT?
Dave Roberts is all over it when it comes to energy politics. Great post....tm
The miners killed, injured or living with black lung disease are a cost that nobody seems to want to talk about.
People can decry the "eyesore" of placing windmills on a mountain top (I think they're cute) but at least you have the mountaintop. That's more than we can say for many mountaintop removal mining practices.
But wind power also has an enviromental impact on birds and the aesthetics. In addition, the amount of wind power for a reasonably sized wind farm is quite small, compared to coal.
Wind power requires government subsidies to be economical.
Sure coal is dirty. But it is a production-quality source of energy. No other alternative fuel is truly viable at this point.
The only valid argument you raise is the fact that badly designed and placed windturbines can kill migrating birds. The new generation of turbines turns to slowly to kill birds and global warming will cause the mass extinction of many bird species and other animals and plants as well.
Wind power is working now, so is solar. Conservation sounds simplistic, because "Everybody knows we NEED the private car for all our transportation" and why does "everybody" know this? Because the people who make money from the private automobile spend a goodly share of their obscene profits telling us that we do.
Same with "Everybody KNOWS that solar and wind power won't work".
Same with "Screw the future, Everybody KNOWS that the only solution to over-use of energy is to find more energy, whether we will be able to afford it or not". and for the next post down, Coal HAS lots of government subsidies, from tax breaks to massive giveaways of publicly owned land, all the way to having the National Guard enforce the anti-union mindset of the Mine and power plant operators.
The railroads used to transport the coal are government subsidized, the RR companies got their start by being GIVEN the land to build, more land to sell and half the land belonging to other sovereign nations, like the Cherokee, the Crow, the Cheyenne, the list grows and grows.
Who paid the money and the blood for the Army to go in and get that land? Why, the US taxpayers.
Just like the fiasco in Iraq over oil.
Talk about your basic Corporate Welfare giveaway programs.
Wind is VARIABLE? Where exactly does it go? I was under the impression that wind was largely generated by convection caused by the heat from the sun. Does that mean there's no wind at night? HORRORS?
Solar is VARIABLE? I guess that means there is no SUN at night either! Thanks for the newsflash!
Guess that means we shouldn’t waste our time with solar or wind power on the dark side of the moon, huh?
Natural gas creates carbon dioxide. The same CO2 that coal produces. Actually, the particulates in 'dirty coal' have significantly contributed to lower global temperatures over the last century, if you believe the AGW liars. Natural gas has no such counter-weight.
It's time to stop farting around with the wind and solar power pipe dreams and get on the nuclear bandwagon. And it's time to get some perspective about coal use worldwide.
China's underground coal fires liberate more CO2 every year than all the cars, trucks, and SUV's worldwide combined. It's just burning up. Not one ounce of benefit to anyone. China builds a new coal fired power plant every week. India is trying their best to keep up with that pace.
If someone in the US even PROPOSES to build a single new plant, environmentalists go nuts. It makes no sense to me.
OK. How's this.
HUH?
If you had actually read, you'd know I was refering to the comment by Michael Yackira (brown box), NOT the author of this piece.
I disagree with NOTHING Mr. Roberts says.
"I" missed the point? Again?
I expect an apology, but you may wish to read the whole piece first.
(Do you ever read ANY of the text, or just go straight to bitching?)
Thanks for reading....something at least.
The energy utilities are fighting a holding action now. They're playing three-card monte with us while they do some undefined activity. THAT'S where we need to concentrate our attention. If the SOBs are merely moving coal plants off our shores, then they are doing us no favors. We need to reduce CO2 production GLOBALLY, so let's hobble their efforts to dissemble, obfuscate and inveigle their way to more easy, dirty money at our expense.
Hopefully, you (unlike some) understood that I was ridiculing the "brown box" guy.
Thanks, friend.