Today, Matt Wald at The New York Times wrote an article about “clean coal” that made King Coal very happy.
In the article, besides basically pulling language from press releases from coal companies about how environmentally friendly CCS will be and how it could be the greatest way to solve global warming, he also talks about the BILLIONS of dollars the same dirty energy companies received in the stimulus package to further promote this non-solution.
Luckily, our coalition partners had some things to say and fired off great letters to the editor. I’ve pasted a sampling below. You should write one too. Send your 150 word letter to letters@nytimes.com. Don’t let the Times be a mouthpiece for the coal industry in promoting lies and false solutions to the American public.
“Clean Coal technology is an expensive oxymoron and a dangerous concept to advocate on a prominent newspaper. The price of coal generated electricity was steadily rising before the recession and you can be sure it will continue to soar as soon as we dig ourselves out of this financial mess. Adding capture and sequestration technology to existing and new coal plants will only increase the price of coal generated electricity, burdening consumers and harming our competitiveness with other nations who are investing in renewable energy instead. All we are doing by throwing money at Clean Coal is propping up another failing industry that is unwilling to adapt to modern challenges. Why burden ourselves with expensive and dirty electricity when there are cheaper, cleaner alternatives like wind and solar?”
Tommaso Nicholas Boggia
Washington,D.C. Climate Advocacy Associate
Campus Progress, Center for American Progress
“Rajendra Pachauri, head of the International Panel on Climate Change, noted that we have seven years to stabilize emissions of global-warming gases. To achieve this, we must stop construction of all new coal plants immediately and start closing down old coal plants. “Stimulus Money Puts Clean Coal Projects on a Faster Track” touted so-called “clean coal” technology. This technology is unproven, expensive, slow and dirty. The cycle of mining, shipping and burning coal is extremely dirty; taking out the carbon dioxide reduces the efficiency of the plant; there are no plants that use this technology; and it will cost billions. We cannot risk investing our limited resources in dirty technologies like this that may not work and are not ready to implement. We need national climate policy that invests in proven clean and renewable resources that are ready to be implemented today such as energy efficiency, wind, solar, and geothermal.”
Liz Veazey
Director, Southern Energy Network
Knoxville, TN
“While experts argue that CCS is “the most significant way to tackle global warming” I beg to differ.
The most significant way to tackle global warming is to cap the amount of carbon emitted by the United States through a bold federal energy bill in 2009 that dramatically and immediately reduces emissions, transitions America to 100% clean energy in 10 years,and creates 5 million green jobs. We have the technology to do this, it costs far less than experimental technologies like CCS that enrich coal companies and destroy mountain communities and pollute our air and water.
We also have the political will to make it happen: just a few weeks ago more tha 12,000 youth from across North America gathered in DC and participated in Power Shift 2009, and held the largest lobby day on climate in history on Monday March 2nd. The youth of this nation, and other too, know that now is the time for real solutions.
Wake up, America! We have smart, efficient technologies that can reduce emissions to science based targets- why wait? The fossil fuel lobby needs to take a back seat to public interests to ensure a clean and just future for us all.”
Cheers,
Hilary Coleen Lufkin
Virginia Campus Organizer, Chesapeake Climate Action Network
“In “Stimulus Money Puts Clean Coal Projects on a Faster Track” (news article, March 16) Matthew Wald claims that Duke Energy will construct “the first environment-friendly coal-fired power plant in the nation.” This sounds like a quote taken straight from a Duke Energy PR campaign. Unfortunately, even if we are able to develop a coal plant that sequesters all of the carbon dioxide emitted, there are other irreparable impacts coal mining has on our landscape and our communities. Mountains in Appalachia will have been destroyed, streams filled in, water supplies poisoned with arsenic and other heavy metals, and lives damaged or lost as a result of coal dust, coal ash, and coal sludge. There is no such thing as clean coal. Just ask the kids at Marsh Fork Elementary in Raleigh County, WV and the people affected by the coal ash spill in Kingston, TN.”
Austen Levihn-Coon
Energy Action Coaliton
Washington, DC
Here’s my “letter” to Matthew Wald (going at up at Huffington Post soon as well).
I have heard Matt Wald speak at events. My impression was that he is pro natural gas…
I agree with the following:
“In “Stimulus Money Puts Clean Coal Projects on a Faster Track” (news article, March 16) Matthew Wald claims that Duke Energy will construct “the first environment-friendly coal-fired power plant in the nation.” This sounds like a quote taken straight from a Duke Energy PR campaign. Unfortunately, even if we are able to develop a coal plant that sequesters all of the carbon dioxide emitted, there are other irreparable impacts coal mining has on our landscape and our communities. Mountains in Appalachia will have been destroyed, streams filled in, water supplies poisoned with arsenic and other heavy metals, and lives damaged or lost as a result of coal dust, coal ash, and coal sludge. There is no such thing as clean coal. Just ask the kids at Marsh Fork Elementary in Raleigh County, WV and the people affected by the coal ash spill in Kingston, TN.”
Moreover, it was coal, gas and oil greed that killed the development of hydroenergy from ocean currents and tides back in the mid 1940′s when JFK dreamed of providing hydropower to all of New England from the energy of Passamaquoddy Bay. \
Look at all the harm they’ve caused over the years. Millions of bronchial victims, trillions in medical expenses and not a step closer to energy independence. The Obama Administration will truly fail the “Change”/”Tranformation” test because it panders to fossil fuels rather than biting the bullet during this extraordinary Global Warming Crisis and focusing resources on renewable technologies like the Gorlov Helical Turbine, distributive energy, and smart grids based not on nuclear and coal but on solar, wind, and hydrokinetics.
We only have seven to eight short years to neutralize effects of Global Warming on the the Arctic’s permafrost which houses gigatons of methane hydrates that if heated beyond the range currently in their stability zone, could release massive amounts of methane creating a “Ring of Fire” starting with the Russian Arctic and spreading north to the Canadian and American Arctic and south to Scandanavia’s arctic zone.
The fossil fuel folks have been aware of this since they began drilling for the WW II effort in the early ’40′s. Now everyone could pay the ultimate price for their negligence and greed.
The 1st paragraph immediately above is a quote from:
Austen Levihn-Coon
Energy Action Coaliton
Washington, DC
From where I live, Matt Wald’s article on CCS misses a pretty critical point: Coal’s inherent risks to human life and health. While the coal industry is fighting to stay in power, those living under the stacks are literally fighting for their lives. Anything industry does to prolong coal dependency, prolongs our challenge to live healthy, productive lives.
While a readily available concentration of coal-fired power plants may strike industry as the perfect opportunity to experiment with connecting coal to CCS life support (there are currently 4 coal-fired power plants in an 11.5-mile radius with 5 more proposed in the immediate area), CCS will ultimately be used to keep the old power plants on line and to justify the construction of even more. This proliferation, regardless of “clean” coal claims, costs coalfield communities dearly: more mining, more chemical coal prep plants, more transport issues, more toxic emissions, and a seemingly endless array of coal waste, landfill, and coal ash impoundment construction.
Here across from the Mountaineer site in Meigs County (Ohio), we currently boast the highest lung cancer death rate in the state, the second highest combined cancer death rate in the state (#2 only to Perry County which is permeated with coal extraction), we have the shortest life expectancy according to Harvard University, and the highest asthma rate in the state – while our children are the least likely to be insured. There is no hospital or emergency room in the entire county – the nearest is 45 minutes away from us, driving the speed limit. The air quality by our schools was recently ranked by USA Today as being in the top 3rd percentile for the worst air quality in the nation based on volatile organic compounds alone.
When Mr. Wald asked how I felt about the CCS experimentation near us, my response was meant to express my opinion about the inadequacy of any scientist to say they KNOW the CO2 will remain sequestered at these experimental test sites, or that they have the ability to keep long-term leaks from occurring.
I did send him CCS risk assessment studies which includes not injecting in areas with underground mining (we have both abandoned and active underground mines on both sides of the river adjacent to the injection site) because of the risk to human life.
The purpose of Batelle’s risk assessment was to prioritize “areas for which there are not readily available mitigation options.” Take a look for yourself. There is no such thing as homeowner’s insurance to cover induced seismic activity (which injection is known to cause). The assessment includes prioritization of risks up to and including loss of life:
http://pdf.wri.org/ccs_risk_log_2007-09-24.pdf
Sleipner (the CCS site touted as industry’s grand success) is leaking despite scientists identifying it as a suitable site. Injection has been happening over the last 15 years, to the tune of a $45 million/year to sequester 1 million tons of carbon. No it’s leaking and it can’t be stopped.
http://www.precaution.org/lib/prn_ccs_success_stories.090718.htm
Mr. Wald’s article sounds as if a $100 million investment on AEP’s part to experiment with sequestering 1.5% of their annual carbon emissions underneath us is an act of good faith. MIT’s report says closer to $10 million, $7.2 million in taxpayer funding; $1.2 million from Alstom. Here’s the link: http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/aep_alstom_mountaineer.html
Maybe we should stop digging the hole deeper and be investing in real solutions instead of throwing our money and our children’s future into a bottomless pit.
~Elisa