"First they laugh at you,
then they ignore you, then they fight with you, then you win." -- Ghandi
"Mankind's future depends
on America's energy choices. Let's clean house and abandon the
phony solutions that result in war, environmental ruin,
poverty, hunger, hatred and disease.
We must lead. We must set the example and Build A World That
Works!"TM -- Richard D.
Masters
Hydrogen or
Coal? Tunnel coal mining has proven
far too dangerous, surface mining far too destructive, and the power
plants far too polluting.
Yet there is a way to harvest the energy from coal - the hydrogen -
without mining it.
Could Underground Coal
Gasification and
Underground Carbon Sequestration muscle
aside natural gas to become the new bridge
to a vibrant hydrogen economy?
TABLE OF CONTENTS -- EXPLORE THIS SITE
Hydrogen or Coal?
Linc Energy, the world leader in
Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) technology, and AFC
Energy (LSE:AFC), the world’s leading developer of low-cost
alkaline fuel cells, have successfully trialled hydrogen
fuel cell technology to produce electricity at Linc Energy’s
Chinchilla Demonstration Facility in Queensland.
Linc Energy’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Peter Bond said his
company’s exclusive agreement with UK-based AFC Energy for
application with UCG and the delivery of an Alpha Unit
Hydrogen Fuel Cell to the Chinchilla facility had been
completed. “This is a major
innovation and the first time that a hydrogen fuel cell has
been successfully trialled with UCG,” said Bond. “It
represents a huge step towards the worldwide opportunity of
combining UCG and alkaline fuels cells as a breakthrough
technology for creating the cleanest possible power
generation from coal.”
Initial testing with the hydrogen fuel cell unit at Linc
Energy’s Chinchilla Demonstration Facility was performed
following successful trials at AFC UK facilities of mock
syngas of comparative composition to that generated at the
Linc Energy facility.
The trial demonstrated the successful ability to generate
clean electricity from alkaline hydrogen fuel cell
technology from syngas derived from UCG operations.
“What is so remarkable about this trial is that the fuel cell
configuration was able to produce reliable and efficient
clean electricity from a much lower percentage hydrogen
content gas than other fuel cells require,” said Bond. “This
effectively demonstrates that combining the AFC Fuel Cell
technology with hydrogen from Linc Energy’s syngas produced
from the world-class UCG at Chinchilla is a feasible route
to achieve the ultimate in clean electricity from stranded,
sub-economic coal, of which there is an abundance in the
world.”
more
You wouldn’t think so by looking
at it, but grimy, smudgy coal -- the driver of world
economies, the black-carbon bane of environmentalists --
could well be the next big stepping stone in South
Africa’s clean, renewable-energy ambitions. Following in
the footsteps of the more experienced Russians, Eskom
has been running a pilot project since 2007 in which it
taps into vast but deep-lying seams of coal that
wouldn’t be mined by conventional means. Instead, in a
process known as underground coal gasification, it sets
the coal alight and extracts the resulting synthetic
gas, or syngas. Syngas is made up mainly of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen, but also contains nitrogen,
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, plus trace amounts of
other gases. But it’s the steam of hydrogen,
specifically, that interests the South African Institute
for Advanced Materials Chemistry at the University of
the Western Cape. Dr Ben Bladergroen wants to perfect
the production of hydrogen from coal and (later) other
sources.
NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL REPORT CASTS DOUBT ON DECISION TO PRODUCE ELECTRIC CARS IN ABSENCE
OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE
"...When the damages attributable to the other parts of the lifecycle were
included, especially the emissions from the feedstock and the fuel
(emissions from electricity production),
the aggregate damages for the
grid-dependent and all-electric vehicles become comparable to, or somewhat
higher than, those from gasoline."
-- page 146
DESPITE ITS TITLE, THE REPORT
OMITS THE GREATEST HIDDEN COST OF ENERGY: THE MILITARY SECURMENT OF MIDDLE
EAST OIL FIELDS FOR U.S. TRANSPORTATION
A new report from the National
Research Council examines and, when possible, estimates "hidden" costs of
energy production and use -- such as the damage air pollution imposes on
human health -- that are not reflected in market prices of coal, oil,
other energy sources, or the electricity and gasoline produced from them.
The report estimates dollar values for several major components of these
costs. The damages the committee was able to quantify were an estimated
$120 billion in the U.S. in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health
damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and
motor vehicle transportation. The figure does not include damages from
climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as
mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but
does not monetize.
Requested by Congress, the report assesses what economists
call external effects caused by various energy sources over their entire
life cycle -- for example, not only the pollution generated when gasoline
is used to run a car but also the pollution created by extracting and
refining oil and transporting fuel to gas stations. Because these effects
are not reflected in energy prices, government, businesses and consumers
may not realize the full impact of their choices. When such market
failures occur, a case can be made for government interventions -- such as
regulations, taxes or tradable permits -- to address these external costs,
the report says.
The committee that wrote the report focused on monetizing the damage of
major air pollutants -- sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and
particulate matter – on human health, grain crops and timber yields,
buildings, and recreation. When possible, it estimated both what the
damages were in 2005 (the latest year for which data were available) and
what they are likely to be in 2030, assuming current policies continue and
new policies already slated for implementation are put in place.
The committee also separately derived a range of values for
damages from climate change; the wide range of possibilities for these
damages made it impossible to develop precise estimates of cost. However,
all model results available to the committee indicate that
climate-related damages caused by each ton of CO2
emissions will be far worse in 2030 than now;
even if the total amount of annual emissions remains steady, the damages
caused by each ton would increase 50 percent to 80 percent.
more
Diesel fuel, industrial chemicals, and
steel products showed the largest increases ranging from 46 to 239
percent, with the diesel fuel index peaking at plus 239 percent in July
2008.
RELEASED
Why Exxon Is
Wrong About Hydrogen by David Haberman
Mountain States Hydrogen Business Council
"One of the most important,
frank, visionary and impassioned observations on the
strategy for hydrogen energy that I have heard in the past
35 years. David Haberman's call for coal and water as the
immediate answer to the chicken and egg dilemma of
hydrogen is going to raise debate at the highest levels of
government in this brave new energy world."
Richard D. Masters. Director,
Hydrogen Hawaii
The
International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce is pleased
to announce that the 18 minute video of David Haberman's
address to the Laramie Hydrogen Conference is available for
free download. This is a very large 130.4 MB MPEG-4 video
file that will play on Quick Ttime and iTunes, and is suitable
for full screen video projection to educational groups.
Contact
webmaster@hydrogencommerce.com for more information.
The Mountain States Hydrogen
Business Council (MSHBC) is a national non-profit based in Santa
Fe, New Mexico. The MSHBC Charter is to promote the success of its
members in their efforts to build hydrogen energy based
businesses. We have members from 22 states and have been active
for five years. ACORE challenged us to put forward a near term
(3years) plan to increase renewable fuel production and use.
Obviously we interpret this in regards to H2. The following
approach is offered in the context of managing the risks of
technology, market penetration and financing.
Refocus the nation’s approach toward
hydrogen fueling infrastructure by supporting a coal to hydrogen
pathway. Rather than
subsidize the expansion of the oil refining & industrial gas
business model of using natural gas to produce hydrogen it is
essential that national policy switch to using coal power to
transform water into hydrogen. Natural gas should be prioritized
for use in peak power production because natural gas combined
cycle plants are the only stationary power generation which can be
built quickly in the U.S. with acceptable risks. Natural
gas is subject to extraordinary instabilities due to market
manipulations, cartel actions and current demands for industrial &
home use. It is nonsensical to build the foundations of a new
energy system (hydrogen) on the wildly unpredictable future of an
already stressed resource (natural gas). Coal, an abundant and
economical resource, keeps the lights on in America and dependable
coal based electricity at off-peak hours is the basis of a viable
value chain that transforms a water feedstock into a competitive
H2 fuel source. Splitting water
(electrolysis) is a proven technology that can be energized using
undervalued (off-peak) electricity. Since this electricity comes
primarily from the base loaded coal fired power plants this
approach effectively creates value because the pure hydrogen is a
flexible fuel that can be sold into existing and future markets.
This approach is environmentally neutral since the coal plants are
operating anyway. In order to increase
the use of hydrogen fuel it must be priced competitively against
gasoline and diesel. Since only $.02 worth of water is necessary
to make a kilogram of H2 (equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline)
there is no uncertainty in positioning of H2 to compete.
Electrolysis is a method that assures the H2 fuel purity demanded
by the vehicle and fuel cell manufacturers to warranty their
equipment’s performance and life. The use of electrolysis and grid
electricity assures a freedom of placement for hydrogen generation
that allows distribution of dispensing in proximity to users.
In the near term, this pathway produces hydrogen fuel at the
locations of opportunity without the burden of replicating the
large capital expenditures of reformation based industry including
pipelines and diesel truck fleets.
The implementation of the coal to hydrogen pathway will
involve many states whose economies rely on coal. By illuminating
the economic opportunity of “H2 gives coal legs” there will be a
broader public acceptance of the hydrogen vision. This expansion
of the hydrogen stakeholder community to encompass the large
amount of American’s vested in the coal economy will translate to
a faster penetration of H2 fuel use since H2 fuel will be
available in places other than in two urban areas in California.
This advantage combines with a H2 supply stability based on a
transparent value chain which is not susceptible to instantaneous
changes in the natural gas economy.
This is a national transition strategy to stimulate the
production and use of hydrogen fuel in the near term. As other
electrical generation technologies achieve a scale of economy
(e.g. wind and solar) they will compete as the basis for
electrolysis. The hydrogen economy will only succeed if there is a
broader public experience of the benefits of hydrogen and this
marketing necessity will not wait.
Hydrogen must compete
against biofuels now. The placement of small, scalable production
and dispensing facilities (infrastructure building blocks) in
major cities will enable lead adopters to proceed with hydrogen
energy verifications now because they have access to a dependable
low cost pure H2 fuel supply.
On August 17-19, 2009 the MSHBC will hold its
5th Annual Hydrogen Implementation Conference in Charleston, West
Virginia. This conference coincides with the opening of a new
generation hydrogen production and dispensing facility at Yeager
Airport. See www.mountianstateshydrogen.com
David Haberman is the President of the Mountain
States Hydrogen Business Council. He is the co-Founder and Past
President of the California Hydrogen Business Council. As the
co-Founder and Chairman of DCH Technology (AMEX:DCHT) Mr. Haberman
commercialized hydrogen energy systems, sensors and fuel cells. He
has served as an expert witness on hydrogen in testimony to
Congress and on the Secretary of Energy’s Hydrogen Technology
Advisory Panel. Over the last twenty years Mr. Haberman has
contributed to hydrogen energy activities in 22 states and in 13
countries.
NETL Building Hydrogen Production
and Dispensing Facility at Yeager Airport
DOE National Energy Technology Lab
March 25, 2009
The facility will use grid
electricity to split water to produce pure hydrogen fuel.
The fuel will then be used by Yeager Airport operations and
the 130th Air Wing of the West Virginia Air National Guard.
...The opening of the hydrogen facility will coincide with a
hydrogen energy conference to be held August 17–19 in
Charleston. Information about the conference is available at
www.mountainstateshydrogen.com
China Governor Apologizes for Deadly Mine
Blasts ApP
February 24 2009 GUJIAO, China (AP) — A provincial
governor apologized for China's worst industrial accident in
a year, as sobbing relatives of the 74 coal miners killed in
the underground explosions finished identifying the bodies
Tuesday.
Commentary by Richard D.
Masters, ICHC Last year, the Chinese people lost as
many to coal mining as we Americans did to the 911 atrocity.
And like 911, which would never have occurred if we had
developed our own energy resources instead of engaging in
Resource
Imperialism, these deaths of Chinese
miners could have been avoided
by the implementation of appropriate clean technology.
That technology is Underground Coal Gasification (UCG),
which was developed by Russia's Skochinsky Institute of
Mining, and perfected in the West by the U.S. Department of
Energy's Carbon Management Program and a handful of
pioneering commercial operators. There is no actual coal
mining involved. Rather than extracting the coal from mining
operations, which will be viewed from the future as
incredibly dangerous, inefficient, polluting and stupid,
UCG is an in situ partial oxidation process that collects
four times more energy than obsolete conventional mining at
no risk to miners, while leaving much of coal's harmful
pollutants deep underground.
In the United States, UCG receives little more than R&D
support because it is fought by a powerful but visionless
union that seems incapable of imagining the transformation
of workers from tunnel diggers to renewable energy
technicians. But China, with its centralized authority,
could quickly implement UCG in the areas where it would be
effective, dramatically reducing the numbers of miners at
risk, tripling or even quadrupling its domestic energy
supply, reducing its overall cost of mining and reducing
its terrible burden of pollution while laying a framework
for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).
HYDROGEN MINING
SEEN AS A NEW BRIDGE TO HYDROGEN
ECONOMY
"Game-Changing" Technology Provides Renewed Impetus for Hydrogen Economy
and U.S. Energy Security
HYDROGEN-FROM-COAL
IN-SITU TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVELY QUADRUPLES U.S. COAL
RESERVES!
Process pulls hydrogen-laden gas from unreachable
and unminable coal seams without risk to miners or harm to the environment
More energy in US coal than top 10 oil-producing
countries!
Vast Amounts of Hydrogen
Could be Drawn from American Coal
Using Environmentally Benign
In-Situ Technology from National Lab
-- NO SHAFTS, OPEN PITS OR MINING --
"AUTOMATIC" SUBTERRANEAN REACTION
RELEASES SYNGAS; SYNTHETIC NATURAL GAS
OR HYDROGEN IS PRODUCED
CARBON IS CAPTURED; CO2 IS SEQUESTERED Richard D. Masters
International Clearinghouse for Hydrogen Commerce July 27, 2008
When Dr. S. Julio Friedmann
informed the participants of the Laramie conference that the 50 billion
tons of minable coal reserves in Wyoming's Powder River Basin could be
increased by a factor of six,
to 370 billion tons, you could hear a pin drop. When he said this could be
done without actually mining the coal, without gasifiers, without
significantly disturbing the environment; that it could be financed for
only three-quarters of the typical capital expense and operated for only
half the usual costs; that there would be essentially no pollution, no
release of mercury, no industrial acid processes, greatly reduced water
consumption, no contamination of water tables, no CO2 pollution; that the
actual energy extracted would be greater than any conventional mining
technology and the most prized commodity would be cheap, essentially
unlimited synthetic natural gas -- jaws dropped. A particularly poignant
observation was that one of these power plants incorporating carbon
sequestration would always be cheaper to build and operate than a
conventional coal plant without carbon sequestration -- another nail
pounded firmly in the coffin of conventional, dirty coal power.
It was as if a
benevolent god had descended and announced that America's energy crisis
was over. Manna was falling from heaven.
Wyoming's coal was about to become a national energy
juggernaut. And anyone involved in this new technology was about to become
very busy and very rich. Not only that, but for the participants of the
4th Annual Hydrogen Implementation Conference presented by the
Mountain
States Hydrogen Business Council, Friedmann appeared to be upgrading the
fabled bridge to the hydrogen economy, previously served only by natural
gas, to a double-decker Golden Gate where both natural gas and cheap
synthetic natural gas from coal would work in concert to bring about the
transition even faster.
Curiously, even serendipitously, the promise of a vast new
domestic supply of synthetic natural gas would seem to complement the much
vaunted
plan of T. Boone Pickens, which calls for a massive expansion of wind
power to allow natural gas to dominate transportation fuel and
significantly reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil.
Friedmann is the leader of the
Carbon Management Program at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
which has been researching Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) for 30
years, building 16 pilot plants in the U.S. over that period. Although the
basic technology is not new, it was historically unable to make inroads
against $10/bbl oil or $1.50/therm natural gas. But now, Friedmann claims,
it is cheaper to produce synthetic natural gas from coal using UCG than to
purchase
wellhead natural gas
at $8 per 100,000 BTU.
"There's actually been a power plant in Uzbekistan that's
been running for 49 years, continuously, on this technology," says
Friedmann, referring to the UCG facility in Angrenskaya, Uzbekistan, that
feeds a 650 MW power plant. The Republic of South Africa's Eskom is
building a 2100 MW power plant in Majuba, scheduled to go online in 2011,
using UCG to extend the resource life of the "exhausted" Majuba colliery,
which closed in 1993. This closing forced the existing 4110 MW power plant
near Amersfoort to begin importing higher-priced coal from Witbank,
contributing to South Africa's current energy crisis.
Friedmann cautioned that the UCG process had to be carefully
engineered and managed to avoid subsidence and water table contamination.
He pointed to LLNL's second UCG pilot plant at Hoe Creek in Wyoming,
where, in the 1970s, the water table was contaminated when a gasification
cavity collapsed, connecting coal to a previously unconnected aquifer.
This was a direct result, said Friedmann, of "bad site selection, bad
management and bad operation." Yet he felt assured that the series of 31
successful pilot projects (and one additional failure) following that
pioneering debacle had provided the knowledge to prevent future problems.
"UCG appears to be really promising for hydrogen generation,
especially in Wyoming, in the mountain states," says Friedmann. "The
Powder River Basin is a terrific national endowment. We're nuts not to
think about it in some serious way.
"Wyoming has a terrific sequestration resource. The Powder
River Basin, Rock Springs Uplift, Bighorn Basin, you name it. There's a
terrific opportunity here for combining these technologies for hydrogen
production in some sensible way, not to mention the opportunities in
enhanced oil recovery and enhanced gas recovery as well."
Low-Cost, zero carbon H2 production: Underground Coal
Gasification with Carbon Capture & Sequestration
Dr. S. Julio Friedmann, Carbon Management Program, LLNL
YOUR DRINKING
WATER AT RISK?
WARNING ISSUED
ON BIG COAL'S CARBON SEQUESTRATION
PLANS
If CO2 leaks out, it can lead to leaching of
dangerous trace elements in freshwater aquifers due to lowering of the pH
and can impact soil chemistry. Clearly, massive quantities of CO2 would be
sequestered during a century's-long production of liquid fuels from coal.
Sustainable Fuel for the Transportation Sector March 20, 2007
Rakesh Agrawal, Navneet R. Singh, Fabio H. Ribeiro, and W. Nicholas
Delgass
School of Chemical Engineering and Energy Center at Discovery Park, Purdue
University
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America
British Jury Decides Threat of Global Warming Justifies Breaking Law Michael McCarthy The
Independent (UK) September 11, 2008
"When a jury of normal people say it is legitimate for a direct action
group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does
to our planet, then where does that leave Government energy policy? We
have the clean technologies at hand to power our economy. It's time we
turned to them instead of coal." Defendant Ben Stewart, Greenpeace
On top of the high
price of coal power, studies show that there are hidden costs of $30 per
megawatt hour or more – like respiratory illness, radiation, and hazardous
waste. A UNLV study found that solar, wind, geothermal and biomass
projects would create more than $20 billion in business for Nevada over
the next 25 years. Each new megawatt of geothermal power creates up to ten
new jobs. Each new megawatt of solar-thermal and wind power create at
least 6 new jobs. If just half of Nevada’s potential clean energy
resources were developed, 22,000 new jobs in the next decade would be
created. Does coal compare? Not even close. The $30 per megawatt hour of
hidden environmental and health costs is just the tip of the dirty
iceberg. Fossil fuels are contributing to global warming. We’re
experiencing severe and unpredictable weather, our ice caps are melting at
a record pace, and as we are seeing in Lake Mead, our water sources are in
danger all over America. Big energy companies see these warning signs as
clearly as we, but their solution -- build more coal plants. If the
current proposals for new Western coal plants are built, they would
consume 114 million gallons of water per day. That’s enough water to meet
the needs of 591,000 homes. The only type of power that uses more water
than coal is nuclear. What is the daily discharge from a coal fired plant?
It is waste, contaminated with unsafe levels of arsenic, lead and other
toxins – other poisons. This foul discharge is in our lakes, streams and
water tables. This is the water we drink. This Nevada coal plan is just
one example. The damage caused by fossil fuels, of course, is not limited
to Nevada or the West. Our country burns 1 billion tons of coal every
year. That produces 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Coal
plants release sixty varieties of hazardous air pollutants, among them
lead, chromium, arsenic and mercury. Is it any wonder that tens of
millions of Americans live in areas that fail to meet the EPA’s air
quality standards? Is it any wonder that hundreds of thousands of
Americans every year suffer from asthma attacks, respiratory problems and
heart attacks, all from the dirty air caused by coal plants? Is today – is
tomorrow – the time to invest in new coal for electricity plants -- the
answer is a resounding no.
Senator Harry Reid
PowerGen Keynote Address
February 20, 2008
VICTORY! "The days of
conventional coal
really are over." Mark Brownstein,
Environmental Defense
RENEWABLE ENERGY
STRIKES!
BANK DECISION
HERALDS END OF U.S. COAL THREAT!
Wall Street Shows Skepticism Over Coal
Banks push utilities to plan for impact of emissions
caps Jeffery Ball Wall
Street Journal February
4, 2008
Three of Wall Street's biggest
investment banks are set to announce today that
they are imposing new
environmental standards that will make it harder for companies to get
financing to build coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley say they have
concluded that the U.S. government will cap greenhouse-gas emissions from
power plants sometime in the next few years. The banks will require
utilities seeking financing for plants before then to prove the plants
will be economically viable even under potentially stringent federal caps
on carbon dioxide, the main man-made greenhouse gas. ...The
banks say they will encourage energy-efficiency and renewable-energy
pushes before backing new coal plants. And they say they will help
utilities push for new government policies that make efficiency programs
and renewable energy more practical.
more
Renewable hydrogen, widely distributed and consumed locally, threatens
centralized energy in the same way that the personal computer threatened
IBM's mainframe monopoly. Like Big Oil's ill-fated attempt to corral the
wide-open hydrogen future with petroleum reforming, today's cancellation
of the bizarrely expensive political payoff to Big Coal -- "FutureGen" --
puts another nail in the coffin of centralized energy's desperate hopes to
keep distributed hydrogen energy in the bottle. Next to fall will be
nuclear energy's unaffordable and dangerous nightmare of thermochemical
hydrogen. -- RDM
DOE Kills FutureGen Coal-to-Hydrogen Boondoggle Steven Ashley Scientific
American February 4, 2008
...Green energy watchers always
suspected that the government was not ready to pony up the necessary
billions it would take, including the ballooning $1.8-billion estimated
budget for FutureGen, which many environmentalists charged was a mere
payoff for the politically connected coal industry.
COAL DEATHS AND
MINE TRAGEDIES
DOES COAL MAKE SENSE IN THE 21ST CENTURY?
Exploiting Wind Versus Coal Mark Z. Jacobson and
Gilbert M. Masters Science
Much of the
recent energy debate in the United States has focused on increasing coal
use. However, the cost of wind energy is now less than that of coal.
Shifting from coal to wind would address health, environmental, and energy
problems.
The Great Coal Hole David Strahan New Scientist
January 17, 2008 A number of recent reports suggest
that coal reserves may be hugely inflated, a possibility that has profound
implications for both global energy supply and climate change.
In power projects, the hydrogen would be
used to fuel a gas turbine for generation of industrial-scale supplies of
electrical power. Full integration with CCS technology would ensure that 90 per
cent of the carbon dioxide which would otherwise have been emitted to the
atmosphere would be safely captured and stored.
COAL:
Resources & Future Production
Energy Watch Group
March 28, 2007
According to this analysis it is very
likely that global coal production will peak around 2020 at a production rate
being about 30% higher than at present. However, it must be noted that the
quality of coal will continuously decline.
Energy companies are planning to build over 150 coal-fired power plants
across the United States, according to a report released today by U.S.
PIRG, the National Association of State PIRGs. Far from enhancing
America’s energy security, the wave of proposed plants – most of them
powered by dirty, last-generation technologies – would dramatically
increase global warming emissions and pose energy security and economic
problems.
“We’re lining up for a sprint in the wrong direction on U.S. energy
policy,” said Rob Sargent of U.S. PIRG. “Expanding our dependence on coal
would only worsen its impact on global warming emissions and intensify the
other environmental impacts and economic risks.”
The U.S. PIRG analysis, based on information from the U.S. Department
of Energy and published reports, documented the potential impacts of
completing the 150 plants proposed across the U.S. Among the impacts would
be the following:
A 10 percent increase in U.S. global warming emissions. This increase
would occur amid urgent scientific warnings about the dangers posed by
global warming and growing consensus that, to avoid the worst
consequences, America and the world must achieve steep cuts in global
warming emissions by the middle of this century.
A 30 percent increase in U.S. coal demand, which would require the
opening of new mines and expanded infrastructure for delivering that coal
to power plants. The increase in coal demand would exacerbate the
environmental devastation caused by coal mining, which has already denuded
more than seven percent of Appalachian forests, buried 1,200 miles of
streams in fill, and resulted in the release of hundreds of millions of
pounds of toxic chemicals. It would also increase the likelihood of future
cost increases for coal.
Expanding America’s coal demand would come at a high price,” said Joe
Lovett of the Appalachian Center. “New mines would level more mountains,
permanently bury hundreds of miles of pristine mountain streams under
billions of tons of mining waste and continue to devastate local
communities located near the mines.”
$137 billion invested in dirty, outdated coal-burning technology.
Despite recent hype about the promise of “clean coal” – including the
prospect of capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from power
plants underground – only 16 percent of the proposed plants nationwide
would use coal gasification technology, and none would incorporate carbon
capture and storage. The rest would use older technologies that are
already responsible for massive global warming emissions and the release
of large quantities of pollutants responsible for human health problems.
Lost opportunity for investment in cleaner technologies. Investing the
$137 billion slated for new coal-fired power plants into cleaner
alternatives would yield economic and energy security benefits for the
United States. If invested in energy efficiency, those funds could reduce
U.S. electricity demand by about 19 percent in 2025 vs. business as usual
– obviating the need for the all of the coal plants on the drawing board.
If invested in wind energy, the United States could develop 110 gigawatts
of the best wind energy locations in the western U.S., which could produce
electricity at an overall cost comparable to coal.
“We could avoid the need to build any new coal plants if we simply
invested the same amount of money in energy efficiency,” said Travis
Madsen, a policy analyst who authored the report for USPIRG, “and we’d
save money at the same time.”
Economic risks for ratepayers, utilities and generators, who could be
liable for the cost of complying with any new rules to limit global
warming emissions from power plants – rules that are increasingly likely
as evidence mounts of the potential environmental and economic impacts of
global warming.
“Companies that build coal-fired power plants today are gambling with
their investors’ money,” said Leslie Lowe of the Interfaith Center on
Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of investors promoting social
responsibility. “They are betting that operating coal fired power plants
will continue to be cheap, despite the near certainty that global warming
pollution will be regulated within the lifetime of the plants.”
Despite these problems, the “coal rush” appears to be accelerating
across the United States. In April, TXU Corporation announced plans for
eight new coal-fired units in Texas, adding to three previously announced
projects, for a total of 8,600 MW and $10 billion in capital investment.
In June, NRG Energy announced six new coal-fired projects from Texas to
Connecticut. And in July, PacifiCorp announced plans for two new
coal-fired facilities to serve markets in Oregon.
The report,
Making Sense of the Coal Rush: The Consequences of Expanding America’s
Dependence on Coal, calls for several steps to stem the
“coal rush.” First, our leaders should join Idaho officials in
establishing a moratorium on new coal plants in, in order to evaluate the
environmental and economic impacts. Second, our leaders should establish a
cap on carbon dioxide pollution, to be lowered over time. Third, public
money should not be spent on coal technology. Finally, our leaders should
dramatically expand programs to develop energy efficiency and renewable
energy resources.
At the federal level, on June 20, Rep. Waxman introduced the Safe
Climate Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. It would require the
U.S. to reduce its global warming pollution 15 percent by 2020 and by 80
percent by 2050. To achieve these targets, the bill calls for improved
energy efficiency and a greater reliance on clean, renewable energy
sources, while providing companies flexibility in meeting the
pollution-reduction goals through a “cap-and-trade” program. Senator
Jeffords of Vermont is introducing a similar bill in the Senate today.
“America could substantially reduce its global warming pollution using
existing technology to improve energy efficiency and increase the use of
clean, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and
biomass,” said Sargent. “What’s more, these steps would be good for
America’s economy; creating jobs and improving productivity. But, none of
this is possible if we stake our future on coal.”
U.S. PIRG, the National Association of State PIRGs
(Public Interest Research Groups) , is a network of state-based,
non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations with a national
advocacy office in Washington, D.C. We uncover threats to public health
and well-being and fight to end them, using the time-tested tools of
investigative research, media exposes, grassroots organizing, advocacy and
litigation. U.S. PIRG’s mission is to deliver persistent, result-oriented
activism that protects public health and the environment, encourages a
fair, sustainable economy, and fosters responsive, democratic government.
In some states, the PIRG's environmental work is housed in partner
organizations: Environment California, Environment Colorado, Environment
Illinois, Environment Maine, Environment Maryland, Environment Michigan,
Environment North Carolina, PennEnvironment and Environment Texas. For
more information, see
www.pirg.org.
COAL OR RENEWABLES?
YOU DECIDE.
STATES FINALLY REBEL AGAINST CUMULATIVE MERCURY POISONING FROM COAL POWER
PLANTS
Nearly half of the nation has voted, or is about to act, on state-specific
plans rejecting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's flawed Clean
Air Mercury Rule to control emissions from coal-fired power plants. "The
fact that so many states are choosing a different course clearly shows
that the federal rule does little to protect the environment while it puts
residents -- especially children, pregnant women and unborn babies -- in
jeopardy of continued damaging exposure to mercury," Environmental
Protection Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty said.
Pennsylvania is not alone. Because of
the toxicological effects that mercury has on humans, wildlife and the
environment, other states have announced their intention to do the same.
Mercury is a persistent, bio- accumulative neurotoxin that can remain
active in the environment for more than 10,000 years. Mercury accumulation
in aquatic ecosystems in Pennsylvania, and 45 other states, has caused
$1.6 billion worth of pollution damages to the state's recreational
fishing industry.
...According to EPA's April 12 Toxic Release Inventory
report, Pennsylvania moved from third to second in 2004 in the total
amount of mercury pollution spewed from power plants. The commonwealth
previously had been third behind Texas and Ohio, respectively. Texas
remains first.
THE WAR AGAINST
RENEWABLE ENERGY - WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO KID?
"Uh, did I forget something?"
OPEN PIT COAL MINING ERADICATES THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
"FutureGen is a partnership between
government and the private sector to develop innovative technologies for
an emissions-free coal plant that will remove
all environmental concerns over
coal’s use, including climate change concerns, by sequestering
carbon emissions from coal-based power plants." Steve Miller,
President Americans for Balanced Energy Choices
ABEC Newsletter Spring 2006
CARBON PUPPET MITT ROMNEY. THIS IDIOT
THINKS PEOPLE WANT A COAL PROSTITUTE FOR PRESIDENT. BUT VOTERS ARE
STARTING TO REALIZE THAT
MERCURY POISONING,
ACID RAIN
AND
POLLUTION ARE WAYS UTILITIES
TRANSFER THEIR CLEANUP COSTS TO CITIZENS.
ROMNEY'S RESPONSE? TO FORCE ALL BUSINESSES
IN HIS STATE TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE - A STATE-MANDATED TRANSFER OF
COSTS! BLIND TO A PUBLIC DEMANDING CLEAN, SAFE ENERGY,
ROMNEY'S ARROGANT STANCE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE ONGOING SUICIDE OF THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY.
--
RDM
"There seems to be no logical
explanation for Romney's rejection of RGGI [Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative] other than that he wanted to
capture the support and campaign dollars of the coal and utility
industries." Dale Bryk, a senior attorney at Natural Resources Defense
Council Bowing to big business, the GOP governor
and
presidential hopeful flip-flops on clean air for New England
Mitt Romney's MistakeAmanda Griscom Little Salon Jan 28, 2006
The country's most important renewable energy project is in
danger of being sandbagged in Congress. An amendment to a spending bill
for the US Coast Guard would grant veto power over the plan for a wind
farm off Cape Cod to Governor Romney, an outspoken opponent. As important
as funding for the Coast Guard is, Congress should reject this bill and
stop playing games with the nation's hopes of weaning itself from fossil
fuels and the greenhouse gases they emit.
...If Congress accepts the bill with the veto power for Romney, it
would be a victory for the project's well-heeled opponents on the Cape and
Islands, who have funded the lobbying campaign waged against Cape Wind in
the backrooms of Congress. The veto provision is also a blatant example of
the kind of special-interest earmarking that subverts the democratic
process in Washington. more
THIS
WEBSITE IS SUPPORTED
BY SALES OF
HYDROGEN
HAWAII
Telly Award Finalist
Director: RD Masters
90-minute DVD from Amazon.com or watch it now with
Amazon On Demand
"It could well be that the first country to
seriously address the issues of creating a market for renewables would
become the central location for a major new international business
sector - with all the positive consequences that carries in terms of
economic activity and employment." ------------- Rodney Chase
CEO BP --------------
"We all share the responsibility for carrying out this project, for the
assumption of responsibility is part of the dignity of human beings."
------------ Juergen Shrempp
Chairman
DaimlerChrysler
-----------
"Energy sources like coal and oil once overcame an economy based on
horsepower. So, I suspect, our carbon-based economy may itself pass from
the scene to be replaced, perhaps, by hydrogen."
------------- Spencer Abraham
Secretary,
US Dept of Energy -------------
"General Motors absolutely sees the long-term future of the world being
based on a hydrogen economy.” ------------ Larry Burns
Director of R&D
General Motors
-------------
