Shouldn't the facts matter?

I know that there are just some people who are opposed to coal, and opposed to using it, regardless of the facts. I guess that is their prerogative, but does that mean they can say things are clearly untrue?

Last week in an interview on PBS, anti-coal author Jeff Goodell said that a coal plant built today is really no different that a coal plant built 30 years ago.

Then, last night on the Ed Shultz show, Dan Weiss from the Center for American Progress and I were both being interviewed on the subject of clean coal when Dan Weiss made the same statement. While I was quick to try and point out why Dan was wrong, I didn’t have to—Ed Shultz himself challenged Dan on that point.

The fact is, both Jeff Goodell and Dan Weiss are wrong. New coal plants built today emit fewer pollutants in terms of traditional pollutant emissions (those currently regulated under the federal Clean Air Act ) and are more efficient in terms of CO2 (fewer emissions per unit of energy produced). As I said last night, this is the same principle as driving a more fuel-efficient car (something that I’m sure Dan and Jeff both think is a good idea, but their anti-coal bias keeps them for seeing why this matters when it comes to coal plants). In the long-run, this is important because increased efficiency will ultimately mean less CO2 will need to be captured and stored.

The facts do matter. That is why we are very careful to provide substantiation for the facts we use as we promote this dialogue. And you can keep us honest in that regard. But when you post to the blog, we’re also going to hold you to the same standard. If you’re just sharing your opinion, be prepared that we’ll probably ask you to back it up with some facts.

Comments

[Jeannie Danna]

Happy Earth Day: I would like to make a comment here if I may. Clean coal does not exist Yet, am I correct? So why are you so determined to invent it?
I live in western,NY., and we have a high instance of Respiratory diseases, Asthma, Bronchitis, and Emphysema. I live ten miles from a small town that wants to sequester coal by drilling a mile down into the earth and burying it ! You know, I'm not a rocket scientist, but it doesn't take a genius to question this idea. What about the ground water. What about the fault we live near ? What about our Earth ?
I ask you to please look at redirecting your efforts to solving our energy crisis with ,Wind, Solar, and Hydro... Thanks and again, Happy Earth Day.

[Edward Oliver]

I am pro-coal. However I also believe in the truth. There is no such thing as clean coal and I resent all the ads I see on TV that imply that electricity from clean coal technology is being produced anywhere in the US. It is not happening. If I am mistaken, please email me with the proof.
Stop the lies, there is no clean coal!!!

[JN]

I'm still trying to figure out why all this is necessary. Global temperatures have been declining since the year 2000. Why the dire need to kill coal fired electricity generation?

I love these people who tout wind power as the alternative to fossil generation. I say why don't you take the lead and put up a windmill in your backyard and unplug yourself from the grid? Oh that's right, the wind doesn't blow all the time.

[Jeff Goodell]

Joe,
You say you want honest debate. OK, here's a challenge -- will you allow this posting to appear on your website?

I'm happy to provide backup for my claims about power plant technology. But first it is important to point out that the reason traditional pollutants (not CO2, which continues to rise) have declined from coal plants in recent years is because of something called The Clean Air Act, which forced the industry to reduce emissions, and which, as I'm sure you'll recall, the industry fought kicking and screaming.

Now let's talk about power plant efficiency.

Here are some facts drawn from a 2007 report authored not by an environmental group, but by the fossil fuel industry and the U.S. Dept. of Energy (see link below):

Fact: Efficiency of the US coal plant fleet has been essentially flat since 1960.

Fact: Replacing the current coal fleet with new plants is likely to have minimal impact. And because of new requirements for pollution controls on coal, plant efficiency will actually decline in the future. As the report concludes:

"Retrofitting and refurbishing of the aging US fleet will likely yield only
minimal efficiency improvements (5-10%). Counteracting this, emission control retrofits will lead to a decrease in efficiency due to their parasitic load."

As you said yourself: facts do matter.

Thanks for the chance to respond.

Link: http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/4-DTG-ElectricEfficiency.pdf

[Ed in Wolf Hole, AZ]

I breath air almost everyday. Therefore I like it clean. Coal does not afford me this luxury(it shouldn't be a luxury but we take it for granted). So I don't like coal. Also affecting my dislike of coal is the fact that I get no money from lieing to people about it and breathing polluted air. Maybe the big paychecks is how they are able to look themselves in the mirror. If you also happen to be a person that breaths air maybe you should reconsider your stance on coal. It doesn't even matter if global warming is happening, OUR AIR is still being polluted by coal.

[David E. Bruderly PE]

Current coal combustion and emission control technology is NOT clean enough to justify the Clean Coal advertising campaign. When more than 50% of existing coal plants are modified to inject CO2 and other pollutants into secure geologic formations deep underground, maybe the coal industry can legitimately start claiming their electricity is clean. But until then please start practicing truth in advertising. For example, disclose life cycle emissions to customers on their monthly bill. This is easy to do; the California Air Resources Board just published a report stating that the average life-cycle emissions for electricity in California is about 110 gCO2e/MJ. What about the rest of the country; publish life-cycle CO2e emissions for every plant in operation. Show the world how clean coal really is by publishing verifiable life-cycle CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents) emissions data for each coal plant.

[John Wendt]

The mere fact that coal plants are cleaner than they were 30 years ago can be misleading. "Cleaner" does not mean clean enough. The fact remains: burning coal produces carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide levels have risen from pre-industrial revolution levels of 280 ppm to 370 ppm today--a huge increase that is largely accepted to be the primary cause of global warming.

"Clean coal" implies that you are trapping that carbon dioxide and permanently storing it somewhere. That's not happening. Ergo, no clean coal exists. I'm all for research on doing that, but practically speaking, the days of coal are numbered. With China now the world's largest CO2 emitter (primarily due to...coal!) we must choose a new path. I'm all for solar and windpower, and nuclear should be on the agenda--it's successful enough in France.

As for those ostriches who continue to buy into lobbyist-instigated doubts that global warming either doesn't exist or is largely a natural phenomenon--time to get your heads out of the sand. I've heard your arguments for a good decade now, but year after year, the accumulating evidence has left you with increasingly isolated snippets of "fact" that add up less and less. Let's get real about our problems and quit being bought by special interests. Clean (CO2-free) energy may not be in some industry's short-term interest, but is in our collective long-term interest.

[Monica from ACCCE]

John Wendt: As a nation, we cannot ignore coal as a source of energy. (It accounts for almost 50 percent of the electricity generated today.) We cannot be left worrying about how we meet our future energy needs without becoming more reliant on imported forms of energy. We have to invest in our energy future by recognizing that coal is a fuel for America’s future.

With the right investments in technology, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make the science of climate change irrelevant. If we continue to fight about the science, we’re going to be sitting here 20 years from now still arguing about it.

[Monica from ACCCE]

Ed in Wolf Hole: Did you know that today’s coal-based generating fleet is 77 percent cleaner in terms of emissions currently regulated under existing Clean Air Act programs per unit of energy produced? We’re talking about drastic reductions in carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide and other emissions.

Moreover, we rely on coal today (about half of our electricity is produced by coal) and we’re going to need to rely on coal for the foreseeable future, both here in the U.S. and around the world.

As I told John, investments in technology can help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change.We’re off to a great start—just take a look at some of the clean coal efforts taking place all across the country.

[Larry from MN]

It is interesting that everyone wants less coal usage. Ok, then what fuel should we use to replace coal: wind, doesn't always blow just look at Texas in Feb. of 2008 when they lost over 1200MW of wind power. Solar and battery technology are not ready for large scale use either. The US is not the worst offenders of a world wide issue. We can pass a cap & trade TAX but that will not stop the production of the greenhouse gases. Let's be realistic, coal will still be used when my children have kids.

[Monica from ACCCE]

Larry from MN: The Energy Information Administration and many other agencies agree with you on coal’s continued use. That’s why we need support to deploy carbon capture technologies as soon as possible—these investments allow coal, one of our most abundant resources, to remain a part of America’s energy future while helping us meet emissions reductions goals.

[james wheaton]

Monica - per your posting on the Intersection I came to visit your web site. I am not impressed, and frankly I smell a rat. I agree with the host of other responders who are calling the coal industry out on the non-existence if "clean coal". The real truth lies in the enormous technological problems with CCS, and quite frankly I believe it is a smokescreen for the industry. We shall see. Hopefully strong legislation will become law, which will one way or another force polluters (read Coal Industry) to conform or pay.

[Monica from ACCCE]

James Wheaton: I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that clean coal technology refers not to any one technology but to an entire suite of advanced technologies to remove emissions from coal-based electricity generation. Furthermore, many science and climate groups (including environmental groups like the NRDC) agree that deploying commercial-scale carbon capture technologies is essential to achieving global emissions reduction goals. Historically we’ve been able to reduce emissions from coal-based plants; we’re confident we can make the same progress in regard to carbon dioxide.