Sour grapes for enviros

Last week, a group of environmental special interest groups launched an ad attacking clean coal technology.  Some of the environmental activists who frequent our site (why they visit, I'm not sure since they seem to already have their minds made up on this topic) seem to believe that commercial represents the greatest contribution to cinematography since Gone with the Wind. 

This week, we've had a fun little Web feature with the Clean Coal Carolers, and these same activists have found some negative things to say. 

 Here's the problem:  These folks were in no way prepared to have the clean coal message so strongly embraced during the 2008 election.  You'll recall that both Barack Obama and John McCain (who was not known to be a strong supporter of the coal industry) continuously talked about how the use of coal promotes energy independence. And both talked about their commitment to investing in new advanced clean coal technologies to help meet the challenge of reducing CO₂.

Since the election, President-elect Obama has shown no sign of backing off the commitments he made on the campaign trail. 

As for us, we're going to continue to talk about promoting energy independence, keeping energy costs affordable and investing in the technologies that will make coal an even cleaner energy option for America.

Comments

[Aaron Huertas]

Joe,

My employer, the Union of Concerned Scientists, is one of the groups that didn't like your singing lumps of coal. Why? Because "clean coal" doesn't exist and "clean coal technology" isn't as developed as you claim.

For the record, UCS advocates for the federal government to fund several carbon capture and sequestration demonstration plants while declaring a moratorium on constructing coal plants that do not capture carbon dioxide. Right now, you are defending an industry that plans on building 100 new coal plants without such technology.

However, even if coal plants were able to capture carbon dioxide, the data below suggest that coal would still be a dirty way to produce power. How exactly is your product "clean" given that the 1,430,000 tons of coal burned in a typical 500 megawatt coal plant produces:

--3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide
--10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide
--10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide
--500 tons of small particles
--220 tons of hydrocarbons
--720 tons of carbon monoxide
--125,000 tons of ash
--193,000 tons of sludge
--225 pounds of arsenic
--114 pounds of lead
--4 pounds of cadmium
--many other toxic heavy metals, including mercury
--trace elements of uranium?

[Megan at ACCCE]

Aaron:

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to post a comment.

Our position on this is that we can’t allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. We already know that we can take clean plants and make them even more efficient over time, including the capture and storage of carbon. The other option is to wait for the perfect energy resource, and if we’re going to be waiting on that, we’d better be prepared to sit around in the dark, because there is no such thing as the perfect energy resource. Every one of our energy resources has its challenges.

Furthermore, developers planning new power plants know they’ll have to operate the facility for about 30 years to pay off the costs. In addition, it will take about 10 years to site it and build it. Developers know that sometime within that 40-year timeframe, there is going to be a regulatory requirement for plants to capture and store carbon. They are planning for that technology to come about, and current plans for new power plants make sure that the schematics leave room for the carbon-capture control of the future to be installed. In the meantime, our increasing electricity demands dictate that we must start the process of building new plants now, which is why developers leave room in the schematics for future technology.

[Ben]

Megan & Joe - if you are interested in becoming more effective stewards of the planet you depend on, then why employ the persistent defensive antagonism toward "enviros" in your communications? Seems to me that in the bigger picture you are all on the same team, albeit reading from different playbooks. The coal industry certainly has far more resources at its disposal than any interest groups do. Why are all of the dismissive and combative gestures necessary?

[Joe Lucas]

Ben:

I do appreciate your comment and honestly try very avoid the direct confrontation.

I consider myself an environmentalist — I think we all do.

However, with respect to your claim that we have more resources, I beg to differ. In 2008, the Alliance for Climate Protection was reportedly ready to spend $100 million on their campaign efforts (and that was just one group).

Now, I don't know what they will actually end up spending, but this is definitely not David vs. Goliath as your comment suggests.

But again, I agree with you -- this is not a "we" versus "them" dialogue. In the end, I do believe we all want the same thing: affordable, reliable energy (with as much of that being supplied by domestic energy resources as possible) and a clean environment.

I promise to do better (and Megan will help me!) keep my passion about these issues in check.

Thanks for calling me out on that one.

[Teri]

I say NO NEW COAL PLANTS. Coal is Dirty. It't that simple. We need to focus on Goethermal, Wind, and Solar.