Coal's ship... (Kindler - 1/20/2008 2:04:02 PM)
...is heading toward one of those icebergs breaking off of the North Pole...
I'm not sure what to make of today's letter to the editor of the Bristol Herald Courier by Del. Terry Kilgore (R-1). Aside from the faulty grammar ("I and others") and lame writing in general (rambling, incoherent), my main question is this: does Terry Kilgore have any idea what he's talking about? Given that the subject is coal, and given that his district is a major coal producer, one would think he'd have a clue. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. Where to begin? How about this, in response to the Herald Courier's comment that coal's "ship has sailed?"
I can attest that the coal's ship has sailed; it is sailing to a new clean frontier. A frontier where new breakthroughs on carbon storage with Virginia Tech are almost a reality, a frontier where the region's rivers will become cleaner because waste coal piles are removed and a frontier where Southwest Virginia is a place where cutting edge technology is developed for the entire world.As far as I can tell, every word in this paragraph is wrong, and that includes the words "can," "has" and "the" (by the way, "the coal's ship" is faulty grammar). First, the notion that there's a "new clean frontier" for coal anytime soon is ludicrous. According to a Greenpeace fact sheet on this issue, there are a bunch of "myths" here:
*MYTH # 1 Efficient Combustion Technologies can increase efficiency and reduce emissions.
The fact is that efficiency increases at coal-fired power plants can be increased by a few percentage points using advanced pulverized fuel technology, but widespread adoption of that technology is years (decades?) away, will be expensive, and will only slightly reduce carbon emissions.
*MYTH # 2 : Coal washing lowers the level of sulphur and minerals in the coal.
I'll simply quote Greenpeace on this one:
Coal washing results in the formation of large quantities of slurry. This is placed in waste piles. Rain drains through the piles, picking up pollutants which end up in rivers and streams. This runoff is acidic and contains heavy metals.Mmmmm...yummy waste piles and slurry! Acidic runoff with heavy metals (not the rock band, either)! Wonderful.
*MYTH # 3 During combustion, "clean coal" technologies utilize pollution controls for existing power plants to reduce emissions of pollutants.
True, various technologies -- Electrostatic Precipitators (ESPs), Low-NOX Burners -- are used to remove sulfur dioxide, NOX, and particulates from the flue stream. Unfortunately, these technologies don't remove the pollutant -- carbon dioxide -- that's melting the polar ice caps, killing the Chesapeake Bay, and wrecking havoc with ecosystems around the world.
Also, as Greenpeace notes, "waste material that is trapped is then used (despite containing a number of toxic elements) or dumped as landfill." Even worse, "there are no commercial technologies available for mercury capture at coal-fuelled power plants." That's a big problem, because "mercury and its compounds are highly toxic and pose a 'global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.'" Again, wonderful.
*MYTH # 4 Carbon capture and storage (CCS) can trap C02 from fossil fuel combustion and "storing" it in the sea or beneath the surface of the earth.
This is probably the biggest whopper in Terry Kilgore's rambling letter, that "carbon capture and storage" (CCS) is right around the corner. Back to the factsheet (yes, facts, those pesky things!):
CCS is cost intensive. It increases the costs of power generation by 40 to 80% compared with conventional power plants, depending on the location of the plant and the storage site, and the transport and capture technology used. [...] CCS is not a technology of today nor of the immediate future because of technical uncertainties as to whether it will work or not.So, there you have it. Terry Kilgore can tout the wonders of "clean coal" 'til kingdom come, but that won't make it so. He can praise Dominion Power and claim disbelief that such a company "would do harm to state residents or its own employees working at the facility," but that only shows he's either naive, disingenuous, or utterly clueless. Lastly, he can try to shoot the messenger -- the Bristol Herald Courier's editorial section -- but that won't change the bottom line. And that bottom line is simple: "coal's ship has sailed," but not in the way Terry Kilgore claims it's sailed.
Not only do we need to educate the voters and the GA on the facts, but if this message came from our two national candidates it would be so much more powerful. Neither of them have an acceptable position or answer/plan on coal-powered fuel, imo.
The newspaper's position on the plant, which Dominion Virginia Power wants to build, has evolved from cautious, conditional support to opposition.NOW, DELEGATE Terry Kilgore is taking me - and this newspaper - to task for this shift. Has he never heard of growth?...
[...]
Much has changed since summer 2006. Concerns about climate change, the health effects of poor air quality and the environmental degradation caused by mountaintop-removal mining have intensified. Across the nation, a significant number of coal-fired power plant projects have been scrapped as state regulators and regular people wrestle with these dilemmas. A recent list indicates 59 planned coal-burning plants have been abandoned or rejected by regulators.
WHAT DO those other states and other power companies recognize that Virginia leaders and Dominion officials do not?
In a further effort to bind us to the past, Kilgore points to this newspaper's history. He notes that one of its founders made his fortune in coal. That much is true. But how can that link bind our hands more than a century later?
In other words, nice try, Del. Kilgore, but you've completely failed. Perhaps that's because, as Andrea Hopkins writes, "The past isn't as rosy as Kilgore would suggest." Or perhaps Kilgore's just miffed that Hopkins et al. have "revealed that he - like many of his colleagues - has taken campaign cash from Dominion."
Speaking of donations from Dominion, according to VPAP, the company where "global warming starts" has given more than $4 million to Virginia legislators since 1996. Legislators of BOTH parties, I might add. Next time you wonder why so many legislators are afraid to buck Dominion, just look at this list and your questions will all be answered.
Now, from what I gather on Google, Obama has collected over $194,000 from Exelon, a big, big energy outfit that is also heavily into coal. Look at Exelon's corporate make-up/structure on Google and see! Exelon is Obama's 6th highest contributor, and not far behind the 5th and 4th and 3rd. Somehow, and I may be wrong, I have the faint impression that there may be a payback, a quid pro quo, down the line, because I also have the idea that Exelon is totally uninterested in helping elect Obama because he'll be our first black president. OK, Lowell, call me an old fool cynic, but as I said, it's just a feeling I have, and I DO have close knowledge of black lung disease.
Supporters of Obama have said that the 194K wasn't from Exelon but from the workers there. Again, excuse my faint smirk at their separation of Exelon, the corporation, from its employees. My birthdate was a long time ago, not yesterday.
Before I get trashed, a mitigating word. All the pols do what Obama does, accept money from slightly or greatly dubious sources, and then the excuses fly in beautifully crafted words (as those of Barack), shifty sentences difficult to parse (Hillary's), or "straight-talk express" words, as by Cheney (Go F--K yourself!!).
So be cynical and don't believe you are voting for a paragon of ...whatever: virtue, environmental friendliness, etc. Remember this lesson, that near the end of the race between Gore and the "uniter," the Sierra Club (and I swear I remember this well, if not the exact words), stated that they were not certain of whom to back, Bush or Gore, because they weren't certain of their allegience to environmentalism! Gore or Bush? SCOTTY, BEAM ME UP!
Then you turn around and proclaim a big endorsement for Obama by the rep who pretty much cemented Wise County's new coal plant for that region two years ago (Boucher).
Then next post you make it sound as though, Wise County is a problem conservative Republicans have caused. And so what if name "clean coal" isn't entirely physically clean; if its the name you have a problem with, is "new coal technology" any better? If so, is the bottomline different? No.
And just where was our effort to promote EEC just last year? The SCC just reviewed matters and all we get now is another lame pilot project from Dominion, for which we already know what the outcome is. Who knows what it would be like, had every post about anti-Dominion and more wind and solar for VA in RK been one of EEC.
Then there's a post about the clean energy future for VA, for which Miles writes how the political climate has to change before we can have true political change. This is what I have been saying which both of you reply with only a "0" or "1" for a rating. B.s. bashing is just singing to the choir here in RK. I'm sure with every post you write bashing Repubs and big energy, readers like Miles are going to go out vote more than once!
It a good thing that Chap Peterson recognizes what I have been calling for, political unity and more energy efficiency, for our state.
While I wish him and his legislation the best of luck, 20% on renewables not including EEC is a tough task for our state due to our geographic & environmental realities. We shall see this summer.
While it appears evident that Va will help power the NE, (maybe its not to you since you haven't read any of my posts) is it fair to burden Virginia with being the utility grounds for other states, then charge its citizens 50% more for the electricity produced here? Seems like Viriginia has to be penalized because other states' problems are being made into a larger national agenda. This is why I am in favor of a national RPS.
Virginia isn't Arizona (solar); Virginia isn't North Dakota (wind); Virginia also isn't Nova Scotia (tidal); nor the midwest (biomass), or the Pacific NW (wave). All we have here in Virginia, is coal, nuclear and a 50th place ranking in the nation for the lack of conservation and efficiency in our state's electricity grid. Since new coal and nuclear have a physical footprint, why not implement EEC as much as possible, first and foremost?
Perhaps we are no different in our political beliefs, but when it comes to having solutions implemented, why say anything which alienates political elements and state voters who are already moving away from the right? That attitude, Lowell and Miles, fosters division.
Other tips:
- When it comes to global warming, there's no such thing as "clean coal". In fact, unless you've somehow managed set an oil well ablaze, burning coal is just about the most carbon-intensive thing you can do.
- We're now staking our children's future on a technology that's "almost a reality". Keep in mind flying cars were considered "almost a reality" in 1955. Enjoy the rising sea levels, Hampton Roads. At least the water will be warmer.