Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Coal Industry; The New "Snake Oil Salesmen"
“Clean Coal” sounds good; in fact, I saw a picture of a clean coal plant on TV this morning while watching “American Morning” on CNN. It was then when I remembered I had read an article yesterday that stated that the technology for “clean coal”, which consists of capturing the CO2 emitted from the burning of coal and trapping it deep into the Earth, hasn’t even been invented yet! Still, I saw a picture of a “clean coal” plant on the commercial. Since no plant like this currently exists, and the plans for one have been scrapped by the US Government, what I saw was probably a “rendering” of what the plant would someday look like. This made me think the coal industry is selling something that doesn’t yet exist.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=us-cancels-clean-coal-plant
Where are the regulations on selling the public on something that doesn’t yet exist? How can the coal industry get away with showing pictures of a non-existent coal plant and sell the public on a concept they already claim will solve our problem (and hasn’t been invented yet) with a fuel that is recognized as one of the prime contributors to global warming? This smacks of fraud. The old adage; if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck, certainly applies here.
The concept of “clean coal” is an oxymoron that reminds me of the old hype about the neutron bomb. This was billed as a “non-destructive nuclear weapon” in that it only killed people, but left buildings intact when used in an air-burst that released deadly radiation that would eventually dissipate. It actually made the prospect of using nukes palatable for some people. These are probably the same people that are investing in the coal industry today.
Some of the problems with coal are besides making the Earth eventually uninhabitable for human beings and other living things, it that it rapes the areas in which it is extracted. Entire mountaintops have been bulldozed and strip mining has left huge holes where animal habitats used to be located. The death toll among coal miners is just about the highest of any profession. If coal mining doesn’t kill you, Black Lung Disease will. It has also left thousands of people crippled and maimed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html
The billions of dollars we will spend to render coal a clean burning fuel can be better spent on finding renewable sources of energy. Coal has just about run its course as a prime source of fuel. If the coal industry wants to fund the research and technology to make it a future source of fuel, they have that right. I believe they lost the right to public funding when I saw that “clean coal” commercial this morning. Trying to sell something that hasn’t even been invented yet is a basic breach of trust. I can’t see funding an industry that is trying to change country’s perception of their product by lying to them isn’t the type of industry I would trust with my tax dollars. Of course the coal lobby, with its lobbyists and campaign contributions that fund our professional politicians, will probably prevail in the long run. I think that Americans should keep a sharp eye on the coal industry. As President Bush once said, “Fool me once than shame on you, fool me twice well than…well don’t fool me again.”
That’s the way I see it.
Comments (6)
Even if we could capture all that CO2, would it be a good idea? After all, when Lake Nyos in Africa suddenly released a concentrated amount of CO2, the results were disastrous. How safe would these sequestered areas be?
Also, did you know that there's enough uranium in the amount of coal required to generate 1 kWhr to generate more than an additional 1 kWhr if it were instead used in a nuclear power plant? Guess where that uranium goes when the coal is burned…
April 7, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt - it is a devious sale.
Even though I live in a coal rich state, Ohio - I am stridently opposed to this BS. Oh they tried to look good when CNN had them co-sponsor the Dem. debates that aired on their network, I found it a tad revolting.
Sure, there's seven or eight coal rich states that now have Dem.s for governors, when a few years ago they did not. But political expediency does not a good bargain make.
No matter how you cut it, even if you clean the coal as much as you possibly can, you are still producing greenhouse gases. And as Ben mentioned - you still have the sequestered Co2 lurking beneath the earth.
To me, it's just another way to delay getting to a more responsible solution.
As goes nuclear power - though I know the concern by Ben was on the entrained uranium in coal - I don't object strenuously to looking into again. Technologies have advanced significantly since the last plan was built here. Plant safety to me is not a HUGE issue, dealing with the by-products of course, is the single greatest detraction.
April 7, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'm also weakly pro-nuclear. It has problems, but I think that we're not yet at a point where we can meet all of our energy needs by solar/wind/other green power. Recently in Virginia, activists prevent a nuclear power plant from being built. Two coal power plants were built instead. I'd rather have the nuclear waste in solid form and have to worry about where to dispose it, then have the nuclear waste already disposed into the air we breathe.
I realize it theoretically doesn't have to be a choice between coal and nuclear, but right now those are the most common choices being made, and I'd much rather have nuclear than coal.
April 7, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah but guys its pretty much pick your poison at the current time. We are agreed searching deeper and deeper and in far more pristine places on this earth for more expensive Natural Gas to power our light bulbs isn't necessarily a great policy.
Revisiting the 70's with Three Mile Island and where to put the stuff that has a half life of 190 years doesn't seem a great alternative.
Windpower is coming on and should be helpful shot in the arm as composite technology grows and the blades can be much larger.
Solar is already in large use and should become to be a requirement in some sectors of the country.
Hydrogen? Is coming along but is a ways away in feasibility but could be a real great alternative but.....again its a ways off.
Electric - We are there the Hybrid revolution has finally reached Detroit which means the rest of world has embraced it already.....
Coal, we control our destiny with it. Add in Oil shale in Canada and you have a pretty good way for us to deal with the current situation that we find ourselves in. I think we'd all agree our world would be a much safer and happy place if the USA found a way to supply its needs for energy in a way that didn't involve invading other countries.(i've always been for invading Canada. John Candy would have agreed :) )
I think we need to look at the Coal industry with a careful eye but the truth is that scrubbing technology has helped quite a bit. Is it a Panacea? No. But for this country we need to find a combined way to meet our future needs......There is no easy answer.
April 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey - we already have a reason for invading the great white north, as we get more oil from them than any one other country in the world - let's just take it.
The total amount of harmful radiation released from the old technology TMI, while not negligible, was not as extensive as many might think. There is no doubt that had things progressed a great deal further, the outcome might have been a bit uglier. Had a particular sensor been installed as recommended by the original manufacturer, the incident would never have even raised an eyebrow.
Currently, there is not an operating plant in the country less than 30 years old. Meanwhile, France gets nearly 80% of its electrical power from nuclear steam generator/electrical generator sets. In fact there are several hundred reactor installations worldwide now and as far as we know... no significant events in the last two decades.
Meanwhile, hundreds have died in the recovery and processing of coal. This doesn't even take into account other health problems being brought by environmental damages caused by the mountain top destroying methods that the OP touched upon. Municipal water supplies in some Appalachian communities have actually been rendered useless, just to cite an example.
Yeah - we have to figure out how to deal with spent fuel and last I knew, the United States and several European countries were funding a project in France to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of fissile type reactors, which deplete the radioactive isotopes in their fuels to near negligible levels.
I think that had the emphasis on alternative energy been applied following the crisis of the early and mid 70's - we might already be far closer to oil and nuclear free power sources.
April 7, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, Obama has "drunk the Kool-aid" on the "clean coal plants" fantasy. Someone on his staff should take a closer look at this and clue the Senator in to the fact that we can do a lot more to reduce carbon emissions by alternative energy and by tax breaks and subsidies for energy conservation measures than we could ever do, even if "clean coal plants" came on line at some unspecified time ten or twenty years from now.
While s/he's at it, the staffer should also clue Obama in on the ethanol/gasohol scam. When even Time has a cover story on the dollar costs and carbon costs of trying to use corn and soy to extend supplies of refined gasoline.
If Obama keeps putting his foot in his mouth on these basic energy issues, he will either commit himself to some very bad energy policies or he will risk tying himself in knots trying to explain why he's dropping campaign promises that he made.
April 7, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment