Pollution-Free Coal?
Ordinarily, we at the Sierra Club would not encourage readers to go to a coal-industry funded Web site. But these are not ordinary times.
Clearly, with everyone and their sister talking about global warming, the coal industry is nervous. As they should be. Coal may be abundant, but it contributes more to global warming than any other fuel.
So a consortium of coal companies have founded a national nonprofit called, “Americans for Balanced Energy Choices,” and created a bunch of commercials starring cute racially diverse kids and a slick Web site at learnaboutcoal.org. It's scary.
The industry is claiming that “within the next 10 to 15 years, the ability to produce pollution-free electricity from coal will be a reality.”
Pollution-free.
How?
Well, the plan is to capture and then “sequester,” that is, bury underground, billions of tons of carbon dioxide.
And how will they accomplish this? Through “significant government support of carbon capture and sequestration technologies,” according to The Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group.
So Big Coal want the taxpayers to pony up research dollars to find out how they can burn more coal and keep it from heating up the atmosphere.
Seems to me that if we’re going to be spending all those dollars on researching and developing new technologies, we might want to focus them on renewable technologies like wind and solar that don’t pollute in the first place. But that's just me.
Visit learnaboutcoal.org. And don’t forget to put on your skeptics cap.
Clearly, with everyone and their sister talking about global warming, the coal industry is nervous. As they should be. Coal may be abundant, but it contributes more to global warming than any other fuel.
So a consortium of coal companies have founded a national nonprofit called, “Americans for Balanced Energy Choices,” and created a bunch of commercials starring cute racially diverse kids and a slick Web site at learnaboutcoal.org. It's scary.
The industry is claiming that “within the next 10 to 15 years, the ability to produce pollution-free electricity from coal will be a reality.”
Pollution-free.
How?
Well, the plan is to capture and then “sequester,” that is, bury underground, billions of tons of carbon dioxide.
And how will they accomplish this? Through “significant government support of carbon capture and sequestration technologies,” according to The Coal Based Generation Stakeholders Group.
So Big Coal want the taxpayers to pony up research dollars to find out how they can burn more coal and keep it from heating up the atmosphere.
Seems to me that if we’re going to be spending all those dollars on researching and developing new technologies, we might want to focus them on renewable technologies like wind and solar that don’t pollute in the first place. But that's just me.
Visit learnaboutcoal.org. And don’t forget to put on your skeptics cap.
4 Comments:
Sadly, it looks like the coal companies are gaining support on both sides of the political isle... as witnessed by your previous bog about Obama and by a scan of several financial websites...
pollution free -- never mind those relocated mountain tops. or the gas for the machines it takes to remove them.
Hah. That would be a good spoof of Luntz language. MTR = "mountain top relocation"
It's so sad that Obama has compromised himself so early-- in what would possibly have been a brilliant career. It's clear he's no different from the classic politician, who makes business deals behind closed doors and then says he's representing his constituency. Well, numerically very small but financially very influential!
If the Sierra Club really wants to do something about fossil fuel pollution, it will need to change its anti-nuclear energy policy.
The renewable resources that the Sierra Club promotes [wind, solar energy, and biomass] are great, but they simply do not have the multiple thousands of megawatts of capability to displace the demand for electricity.
A simple electricity generation chart shows that nuclear energy, followed by hydroelectric, is the largest source of non-fossil-fuel electricity. Non-hydroelectric renewable sources like wind/solar/biomass are only 2.3% vs 6.5% for hydroelectric and 19.3% for nuclear energy. Do you really think that 2.3% is going to replace coal? I'd be a lot more willing to bet on trying to increase the 19.3%.
If the Sierra Club is truly concerned about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming,
you need to realize the need to stop opposing nuclear energy...I doubt that new dam sites are an answer! [not many are to be found, anyway].
The net effect of the anti-nuclear blockades and frivolous lawsuits of the last 30 years has been to increase fossil fuel use and to increase the associated environmental problems including sulfur dioxide [acid rain], mercury pollution [from coal emissions], particulate emissions [largely from coal], and carbon dioxide emissions [from all fossil fuels, including natural gas as well as coal].
Right now, Germany is running into a serious problem with its emissions reduction goals because of its official "nuclear phaseout" policy. Deutsche Bank just released a report about this issue. Germany isn't as 'environmentally conscious' as it's played up to be. Germany still gives massive subsidies to unprofitable coal mines.
The Sierra Club has a huge decision to make in this era of global warming and limited petroleum supply:
Do you:
1. Endorse massive expansion of wind power and solar to substitute for fossil fuels, which implies covering the landscape with enormous numbers of wind turbines and solar panels, because these are low-density energy sources? Of course, in reasonable amounts and reasonable locations, these are wonderful sources of carbon-free and emissions-free energy.
2. Do you endorse continuing along the present fossil fuel path with its associated pollution problems? Personally, I am disgusted by Obama's endorsement of coal.
3. Are you willing to consider dropping your official anti-nuclear power policy in order to substantially offset carbon emissions and fossil fuel pollution? This, along with a strong conservation plus wind and solar energy program, is the way to address the problem.
I am a lover of hiking and photography. I believe deeply in issues such as land conservation and control of air pollution. I drive a Toyota Prius and I have CFL's throughout my house. I would join the Sierra Club in a heartbeat - - - - except for your anti-nuclear power policy! I refuse to join your organization until I see that you understand the mathematics of why nuclear energy is necessary to displace pollution and CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
I'm not in love witb nuclear power plants. A big hunk of concrete isn't very pretty. But, the air a mile down the road is a lot better near a 1,200 MW nuclear power plant than it is anywhere downstream of a coal-fired power plant.
If you make a couple of reforms like dropping your anti-nuclear power policy, I think that you would gain members who are sincere nature conservationists.
Another reform that I suggest is to use less paper in your membership recruitment mailings.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main