You're taking a number of options off the table by opposing drilling, nuclear, and coal... but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, provided you have alternatives in mind.

Since you're seeking an office where you will make laws impacting the entire state, here's my question...

What new green jobs can the coal miners in Southwest Virginia be trained in, and how can the state expedite such a process?

If we do indeed transition off of coal as a nation, there is some concern about who will cover the costs of retirement and health benefits for mine workers. The UMWA, federal government, and coal companies worked to guarantee retirement and health benefits for their members for life... and that promise is still kept to this day. Under the Coal Act of 1992, all companies (including those that had abandoned their retirees) are required to pay for the cost of their retirees. Orphan retirees, or those without a surviving employer, are paid out of transfers of surplus pension assets and interest from the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fund.

If we do indeed see these coal phased out and the coal companies go out of business, do you believe the federal government would see to it that the promise of health and retirement benefits for life is kept to mine workers and retirees? If not, how do you think the state government could work to assist displaced mine workers?

Devilstower has a great post to that affect here.

His #1 recommendation: Stop mountaintop removal.

The areas with the most strip-mining and mountaintop removal have some of the highest poverty rates in the country. Our own Wise County is a great example. 25% of all the land has been strip-mined, but the poverty rate is 20%. The more strip-mining and mountaintop removal we do, the more traditional coal-mining jobs we lose to heavy machines.  

that was a thoughtful post to read, and I think Devilstower is on to something. I couldn't agree with you more on mountaintop removal, though I'm still not entirely sold on biofuels as a means to diversify the economy, particularly in the coalfields region of Southwest Virginia.

I've driven through quite a few of the hollows and valleys in Dickenson, Buchanan, Wise, Russell, and Tazewell... and I honestly can't think where there's enough flat or even gently sloped land to run a commercial operation.

I think the healthcare issue cited in my first comment has some relevance, even up in Arlington. If the coal companies do go under, the government will either have to step up and subsidize more of the healthcare promised to these retirees in the original public-private-union compact (in which case taxpayers foot the bill), cut the benefits (in a region with already sorely lacking health care delivery), or break the promise (in which case already devestating povery rates will only go higher).

is a straw man. The hills of east TN and western NC are thriving and the economies are booming compared to coal country. There is plenty of room for all kinds of development, especially the smaller more localized kind.

I don't know too much about biofuels myself and would be curious what you and others think about them.

Many of your postings are from the activist black and white perspective.  Thats fine as a private citizen but you have to realize that these issues are much more complicated with many factors to consider.  It will be interesting to see you grow as a candidate and if any of your stances change.

I know how you think changing my stances would benefit oil and coal companies and a rapidly dwindling number of workers in a few pockets of Virginia. That's how the game has worked in Virginia, especially as Dominion feeds contributions to candidates in every corner of the state.

But I'm running for delegate representing the 47th district in Arlington. If you can explain how more coal and more oil use benefit the residents of Arlington, especially after our power bills went up 18% this year primarily because of the skyrocketing price of coal and our region continues to be a nonattainment area for air quality due to both coal burning and inefficient vehicles, I'm all ears.  

Neither realist nor I talked about changing your stances to benefit oil and coal companies, or using more coal or natural gas. I still contend that the "rapidly dwindling number of workers" you refer to should be a pressing issue for Arlingtonians.

Let me frame it this way.

1. If coal companies go out of business and we uphold the government-union-coal company compact of guaranteed health benefits and pensions for life, whose money do you think will cover the difference? Arlington residents pay into the same tax coffers as the rest of us.

2. If we break the government-union-coal company compact and leave these folks without their pensions or any safeguards for health problems, poverty rates will jump even further, in which case even more of a tax burden falls on Arlington and the rest of Northern Virginia to subsidize the rehabilitation of these economically devestated downstate communities.

3. If we reduce the benefits offered by the compact, we have a slow-motion version of the second scenario and break our promise and the values labor unions have fought for.

Again, I put the question to you... how do we preserve and improve the quality of life of both the present mine workers and retirees in the absence of coal?

I believe it can be done, and indeed should be done. If we get the region to become more economically self-sufficient, Northern Virginia will have to subsidize it less and both regions would benefit.  As someone advocating for a change in our state's energy policies and seeking to write some of those policies throug legislation, I'd just like to hear more about your approach.

Who's talking about shutting down the coal business? We're talking about moving off of coal here in the US and hopefully developing carbon capture and storage technology somewhere down the line.

that carbon capture is one of those things that will never actually work out.  Nice on paper, very hard in practice.  The economics of it are probably going to be the real deal breakers, and most coal plants don't have reasonable injection sites anywhere nearby.  Keep in mind that coal runs about 100$/ton right now, and burning a ton of coal yields ~3.6 tons of CO2...

The only thing I have seen which even has potential is some sort of photobioreactor to grow algae using flue gas.  In a sense you are converting coal into plant matter.  Even this will adversely affect the economics of the whole thing.

This being said, I don't want to spend the next 20 years studying the matter and doing nothing in the meantime.  We have wind and solar, and the economics of those get better every year.  Of course this won't happen overnight - it will take many years, but if we just sit around and wait it won't happen at all..

If we:
1.  Don't build anymore coal plants
2.  Put in place a cap and trade system making coal fired generation much more expensive
3.  Move our energy infrastructure to rely mostly on wind and solar with (I guess because you have not clarified whether you are for or against natural gas) biofuel backup generation.

Then how does coal not go out of business.  Unless you are saying you would still be okay with us mining coal and exporting it to China and other countries to power their economies.  But I don't think you would support that, right?  You say that clean coal is a fairytale.  You want to end the use of fossil fuels all together, right?  If that is your goal, the result will be companies that rely on fossil fuels for their revenue would be put out of business.  

So, you don't want to put coal out of business?

I think SWVA.Observer is raising a good point, and asking some good questions.  What is "straw-man" about that question?  It is entirely possible, that if we move vigorously to purely alternative non-fossil-fuel energy sources (and I believe we should), that coal companies in this region would close.

If that happens, I think he's asking a very fair question.  Also, I appreciate that SWVA.Observer believes that we can both move to 100% clean energy solutions AND preserve and improve the quality of life for both mine workers and retirees....I agree.

Thoughts?

was due not only to coal, but also to natural gas and uranium prices.  Every single commodity that Dominion bought for fuel went up in price.  But the good news is that commodity prices have fallen since, and next year may see a drop in the fuel rate assuming DVP recovers their cost.

If you want to do all of the things listed in Climate Change Commission's recommendations, then folks' utility bills are going to be higher for many years.  You would be deceiving your potential constituents if you told them otherwise.  The state's power companies are not going to shutter the coal plants overnight.  It will take years to transition away from them.  In the meantime, the cost of purchasing carbon credits, performing some upgrades to existing plants, building new generation, upgrading/expanding the grid, and/or purchasing out-of-state green generation will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher rates.  All cap & trade is a round about way of implementing a carbon tax.

I'm not opposed to those initiatives.  I do think we should be honest with people.  Just because I am willing to shoulder that burden does not mean other people are.  And I think people will be mighty pissed if they are told that this will somehow reduce their electric bills or make energy cheaper and they get sticker shock when they see their utility bill.  As I mentioned in another reply to you, Virginia ranks in the bottom third in terms of electricity cost.  

I don't know that everyone in really aware of the cost.  And I don't know that if they were aware of the cost, that they would be willing to pay that much to hedge the risk of a potential catastrophe decades away.  Especially in light of the dire economic situation we now find ourselves in.  I think a lot of focus is being given to this issue here, but I am highly suspect that this will be at the top of voters concerns next year.  Maybe for the people of the 47th, but you will have to work with delegates from across the state.

Mark Warner on Coal.

Its disppointing that when asked a simple question about whether or not he supported mountaintop removal coal-mining he spewed the Dominion line ("We don't do much of it") and then took the conversation to CCS. Thats no good.  

Do you guys know about this?  What a scary time we are living in when activists are labeled as terrorists.

http://maryland-politics.blogs...

So, I saw you appeared on CleanSkies.TV.  Amazing!  Did you know that the American Clean Skies Foundation is a creation of Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy?  And did you know that Chesapeake is second largest independent producer of natural gas; and they have a big role in the development of the Barnett Shale?  Does this mean you support increased exploration and production of natural gas?

I was also amazed that you mention Clean Coal Tech springing up to make energy prices cheaper.  I thought you said clean coal was a fairytale.  What's up?  I was shocked.

On the sulphur analogy you made, I recall in 2000, the company I worked for had to pay people to take sulphur off our hands, there was so much of it.  It certainly had an affect on refiner margins.  I can't say that it didn't have an impact on retail prices.  Where did you come by that information?

Also, the analogy is a bad one.  The market for gasoline is open to competition.  Electricity, as I am sure you are aware, is not, at least in most states.  And the places where competition exists, energy prices are more expensive.  If you are still holding to the argument that energy prices will be unaffected or go down under a cap & trade system, I really think you need to elaborate on how that is going to happen in greater detail than just investment in new tech will bring prices down.  Do you know utility regulation works?

Here is the way I see it.  Cap & Trade goes into place.  Utilities pay money to buy carbon credits.  The price of coal generation is now greater.  Utilities then start to switch to natural gas for baseload generation to reduce their carbon emissions.  Natural gas prices go up in response to increased demand though moderated if we are allowing the industry to continue to develop shale fields like Barnett and Marcellus.  Fuel price is a direct passthrough to consumers for regulated utilities.  The increase cost of operation due to the purchase of carbon credits would go into their rate case filings for increased rates so that they maintain their allowable rate of return.  You could add in utilities building more green generation, but you are still talking cost and someone has to pick those up.  The way regulated monopolies work is that rate-payers pick up the tab for fixed/sunk costs at a minimum.  

The Wiki article on Coal is excellent, and even talks about energy densities and CO2 emissions data for coal versus natural gas or petroleum. Bottom line, switching from coal to natural gas reduces the CO2 emissions by approx. 1/3 for the same amount of energy produced. At the end of the day, natural gas is a decent intermediary between coal/petroleum and renewables as we move toward 100% renewable sources of energy, but still produces way too much CO2 if we really intend to combat global warming and the buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere and oceans.

And natural gas is more efficient in energy production.  It produces minimal amounts of NOX and close to zero  Sulphur Dioxide.  It produces only 7 pounds of particulates per billion Btu versus 2,744 pounds for coal.  You also don't get toxic spills from natural gas transportation (not that it isn't dangerous though).  

The issue that some may have with it is that you have to drill for natural gas.  And transitioning coal generation to something else will require more natural gas.  The Devonian Shale which covers Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Southern New York, and Southwest Virginia could yield 1,000 tcf of natural gas.  That would mean new wells dotting the landscape in these areas.  And the open question to some of those folk on here is whether they are okay with that.

Although my snarky chemical engineer undergrad sez, "Of course an energy source that produces less CO2 per equal energy output is more efficient in energy production!" :)

Switching to natural gas wells seems to me also to be an effective way of transitioning coal workers out of the mines and into a different type of energy service sector. Wins all around. Better a few wells than the continuing buzzsawing of mountaintops in those same areas.  

has this become the forum to take issue with everything Miles says and relate it to his candidacy for Delegate? If you disagree with what he is saying in his diary, by all means, debate, but this comment seems inappropriately placed. For example, why not ask the questions on his blog where there is actually a related post?  

tx2vadem is the most knowledgable and fair-minded analyst of the various pros/cons related to our conflicts between energy and the environment on this site, and I think it's very appropriate for him (her?) to bring up these points in this forum and in these kinds of threads. Tough choices will have to be made to move us towards the kind of balancing of energy and the environment that our future will require, and tx2vadem has proven time and again that he knows how to marshal the facts in his arguments.

It will make Miles a better candidate to have to face these types of questions now, and one of the purposes of this site is to help raise the debate in this country. I think these types of comments do just that.  

with you that it improves the debate. I think his questions are fair and he has brought up some interesting facts. I'm just suggesting that perhaps he start a new diary instead of tacking it on to something else.  

and he/his/him is the correct pronoun.  =)

I cannot respond to QuickHits.  I don't frequent his blog, only this one.  This is a greater forum at that.  And this very much has to do with the topic in this diary which is climate change.  

I'm just asking questions.  And they are certainly fair considering the volume of posts TheGreenMiles has had on energy and climate change related issues.  Equally, they are fair because he is now a candidate in a Democratic Primary for state delegate and if elected will have some input into what policies the state takes on these issues.  If you find any of my points objectionable, I am happy to debate you or anyone else on them.  

And I would say his posting here and his candidacy are inseparable.  These are his opinions.  I don't see anything wrong with trying to get clarity on these items.  Again considering the fact that he wants to have a greater role in formulating state policy/legislation on these issues.