Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Coal-Fired Power on the Way Out?
WASHINGTON - The past two years have witnessed the emergence of a powerful movement opposing the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the United States. Initially led by environmental groups, both national and local, it has since been joined by prominent national political leaders and many state governors.
Coal power plant in Datteln, Germany. What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power quickly evolved into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organisations. Despite a heavily funded ad campaign to promote so-called clean coal, the U.S. public is turning against coal. (Wikimedia Creative Commons - Arnold Paul) The principal reason for opposing coal plants is that they are changing the earth's climate. There is also the effect of mercury emissions on health and the 23,600 U.S. deaths each year from power plant air pollution.
Over the last few years the coal industry has suffered one setback after another. The Sierra Club, which has kept a tally of proposed coal-fired power plants and their fates since 2000, reports that 123 plants have been defeated, with another 51 facing opposition in the courts.
Of the 231 plants being tracked, only 25 currently have a chance at gaining the permits necessary to begin construction and eventually come online. Building a coal plant may soon be impossible.
What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power quickly evolved into a national tidal wave of grassroots opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organisations. Despite a heavily funded ad campaign to promote so-called clean coal (one reminiscent of the tobacco industry's earlier efforts to convince people that cigarettes were not unhealthy), the U.S. public is turning against coal.
One of the first major industry setbacks came in early 2007 when a coalition headed by the Environmental Defence Fund took on Texas-based utility TXU's plans for 11 new coal-fired power plants. A quick drop in the utility's stock price caused by the media storm prompted a 45-billion-dollar buyout offer from two private equity firms.
However, only after negotiating a ceasefire with EDF and the Natural Resources Defence Council and reducing the number of proposed plants from 11 to three, thus preserving the value of the company, did the firms proceed with the purchase. It was a major win for the environmental community, which mustered the public support necessary to stop eight plants outright and impose stricter regulations on the remaining three.
Meanwhile, the energy focus in Texas has shifted to its vast wind resources, pushing it ahead of California in wind-generated electricity.
In May 2007, Florida's Public Service Commission refused to license a huge 5.7-billion-dollar, 1,960-megawatt coal plant because the utility could not prove that building the plant would be cheaper than investing in conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. This point, made by Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental legal group, combined with strong public opposition to any more coal-fired power plants in Florida, led to the quiet withdrawal of four other coal plant proposals in the state.
Coal's future is also suffering as Wall Street turns its back on the industry.
In July 2007, Citigroup downgraded coal company stocks across the board and recommended that its clients switch to other energy stocks.
In January 2008, Merrill Lynch also downgraded coal stocks. In early February 2008, investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi, and J.P. Morgan Chase announced that any future lending for coal-fired power would be contingent on the utilities demonstrating that the plants would be economically viable with the higher costs associated with future federal restrictions on carbon emissions.
Later that month, Bank of America announced it would follow suit.
In August 2007, coal took a heavy political hit when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had been opposing three coal-fired power plants in his own state, announced that he was now against building coal-fired power plants anywhere in the world.
Former Vice President Al Gore has also voiced strong opposition to building any coal-fired power plants. So too have many state governors, including those in California, Florida, Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin.
In her 2009 State of the State address, Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan argued that the state should not be importing coal from Montana and Wyoming but instead should be investing in technologies to improve energy efficiency and to tap the renewable resources within Michigan, including wind and solar. This, she said, would create thousands of jobs in the state, helping offset those lost in the automobile industry.
One of the unresolved burdens haunting the coal sector, in addition to the emissions of CO2, is what to do with the coal ash - the remnant of burning coal - that is accumulating in 194 landfills and 161 holding ponds in 47 states. This ash is not an easy material to dispose of since it is laced with arsenic, lead, mercury, and many other toxic materials.
The industry's dirty secret came into full public view just before Christmas 2008 when the containment wall of a coal ash pond in eastern Tennessee collapsed, releasing a billion gallons of toxic brew. Unfortunately, the industry does not have a plan for safely disposing of the 130 million tonnes of ash produced each year, enough to fill one million railroad cars.
The dangers are such that the Department of Homeland Security tried to put 44 of the most vulnerable storage facilities on a classified list lest they fall into the hands of terrorists. The spill of toxic coal ash in Tennessee drove another nail into the lid of the coal industry coffin.
In April 2009, the chairman of the powerful U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, observed that the United States may no longer need any additional coal or nuclear power plants. Regulators, investment banks, and political leaders are now beginning to see what has been obvious for some time to climate scientists such as NASA's James Hansen, who says that it makes no sense to build coal-fired power plants when we will have to bulldoze them in a few years.
In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is both authorised and obligated to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.
This watershed decision prompted the Environmental Appeals Board of the EPA in November 2008 to conclude that a regional EPA office must address CO2 emissions before issuing air pollution permits for a new coal-fired power plant. This not only put the brakes on the plant in question but also set a precedent, stalling permits for all other proposed U.S. coal plants.
Acting on the same Supreme Court decision, in December 2009 the EPA issued a final endangerment finding confirming that CO2 emissions threaten human health and welfare and must be regulated, jeopardising new coal plants everywhere.
The bottom line is that the United States now has, in effect, a de facto moratorium on the building of new coal-fired power plants. This has led the Sierra Club, the national leader on this issue, to expand its campaign to reduce carbon emissions to include the closing of existing plants.
Given the huge potential for reducing electricity use in the United States by switching to more efficient lighting and appliances, for example, this may be much easier than it appears.
If the efficiency level of the other 49 states were raised to that of New York, the most energy-efficient state, the energy saved would be sufficient to close 80 percent of the country's coal-fired power plants. The few remaining plants could be shut down by turning to renewable energy - wind farms, solar thermal power plants, solar cell rooftop arrays, and geothermal power and heat.
The handwriting is on the wall. With the likelihood that few, if any, new coal-fired power plants will be approved in the United States, this de facto moratorium will send a message to the world. Denmark and New Zealand have already banned new coal-fired power plants. Other countries are likely to join this effort to cut carbon emissions.
Even China, which was building one new coal plant a week, is surging ahead with harnessing renewable energy development and will soon overtake the United States in wind electric generation.
These and other developments suggest that the Plan B goal of cutting net carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020 may be much more attainable than many would have thought.
22 Comments so far
Show AllYea!!!!!!
Oh, I realize that many people will be out of work.
But who's fault is that/ Those in power in business and government who were informed long ago of the need for change, but, who choose short term profit over long term sustainability...
Anyone at the bottom of the coal mining industry who will be jobless and probably nothing to replace it, just realize who to blame.... Hope you make out some how.
But realistcally,
Sioux Rose had it right in another post.
Sioux if your out there, thanks for the response on the Joe Stack article. Yes, I have looked at a lot of what you put into detail.( I'm alwaqys rushed so don't get to type all my thoughts in) I have read a lot of good articles in "The Mountain Astrologer", over the last few years, explaining much of what we are experiancing and will experiance. It's really going to be something when the rest of the US people and those around the world - wake up to the fact that this is NOT OVER YET... IT HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN....
Today I think I'll get to talk alot. My job closed due to snow.
shit - another feel good story....
the problem is that Obama just announced huge funds for the "clean coal" industry - he had to redefine coal as "Clean and green" in order to prove he is really really in favor of "green energy"
and how about MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL - where is Obama on that?
all for it!
the sierra club and other private NGO's better come to the realization that we have to fight the Obama admin just as hard as we fought against the bush crime family.....
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-17-obama-interior-department-surrenders-to-the-coal-interests
There's no such thing as "clean" coal. Who is Obama kidding?
3 comments so far on this important story.
How many comments would this story have recieved if it was about nuclear power generation?
Maybe more if it hadn't disappeared from the front page almost immediately. I check in the morning and a noon (and at night) and never saw this one. I had to find it on "favorites" which going by the number of comments, it certainly was not.
I too live in coal country, but we strip-mine, which produces less dust so fewer cases of black lung. But it is still a dirty business, and ruins the land as reclamation is more talked about than practiced -- and you can't reclaim a microsystem ecology,
They want to build more coal-fired plants in Kentucky, but there is not much opposition to them here. Big Coal has too many "friends" in the legislature and the media. One can protest but it appears in vain. We need some help from outside groups who seem to be giving Kentucky a pass.
Maybe they will come soon before the permits are given.
Gary
"Everyone except the far right wing of the Republican Party realizes that oil, gas and coal burning are the main activities that have sent the climate into bigger floods, droughts, hurricanes, and El Ninos."
-- Donella Meadows
The idea of using innovative techniques to save electricity seems to have escaped most large businesses. All you have to do is look at all the lights that are left on in skyscrapers at night in the big cities. I wouldn't want to go that far, but really poor countries such as N Korea don't even show up on the world night map. I was pleasantly surprised when I read about how the city of Austin had developed ways of saving so much electricity that one coal fired power plant wasn't built. But remember, Austin is where most of the intelligent people in Texas live. Most of the others keep getting themselves mixed up with Jews and think they are God's chosen ones. And boy, what an Attitude!
Yes I see that there are not many posts here on this article... Maybe that says more about the fact that there should be more poeple on sights like this... I have tried to do my part in spreaading the news about news sources like this... but I must try harder. IF anyone is on here that I may have brought into the fold, that would feel really good. In other words, you would be from " The coolest little town in America"... YOu would have gotten a Common Dreams or a Democracy Now article from me either walking the streets of this town or on the corner while we did the protests on MOnday...
Spread the word, EDUCATE.
"There is also the effect of mercury emissions on health and the 23,600 U.S. deaths each year from power plant air pollution."
If a radical crazy person came here, or somewhere, and blew up 23,600 people period, there would be an even bigger war and an outcry that would shake the world every day for a hundred years. And if he did it every year, it would be nuclear bombs til destruction covered half the planet.
BUT NO...we let this continue and let these people die and let these companies continue making money off the deaths of those people and never say spit about it.
WHY ISN'T THERE MORE OUTRAGE OVER THIS?
TS Eliot..."this is the way the world ends...not with a bang, but a whimper."
What a load of crap. This article is not based on science at all; it is merely rhetoric. No argument that we should be more energy conscience; it will help us to become more efficient and to become less energy dependent on foreign nations.
We need to use coal to supply the industrial baseload that is required for industry to operate. Without cheap, dependable, electricity our country can't compete. Yes we do need manufacturing jobs to support the economy. We can't all eat Tofu and live on a government check.
Should we do everything REASONABLE to curb pollution, Yes. Should we strive to become energy independent, Yes. Should we encourage increased use of renewable resources such as wind and solar, Yes... But not at the expense of ruining American industry. We need to be thinking in more positive ways to achieve our goals, not punative measures against millions.
I for one appreciate electricity at my fingertips 24/7 at a reasonable price. We all benifit from the infrastructure that the USA has; it is an essential component of the quality of our lives that we as Americans enjoy everyday. I have traveled throughout the world and have seen so much poverty and pollution that it is difficult to imagine. The USA is a pretty darn clean place compared to many countries that I have visited.
Let's follow the American spirit and build something positive and improve on what we have, not impose taxes and burdons that only drag us all down.
As for global warming, I would like to see some about now. I have noot seen grass at my house in 3+ months now and it is pouring down snow again today at a whopping 22 degrees. Let's build America strong and clean for the future... Not tear it down and become a second teir nation.
I just have to jump in here and say that i"lived in a coalmining town in penna. we lived across the road in a hous rented to my dad, by the mine owners a good song to listen to is a song by tennessee ernie ford. 16 tons of #9 coal , i owe my soul by the company store. MY dad moved us away from there to my grandfathers home over the mountain from that mine. my died an early death from black lung disease. you don't need to be exposed very long to die from the exposure. The savings from medical problems and insuing death, would pay for the switch to clean renewable energy, let alone the heartache. coal is filhy,fine,black dust that invades every crack and crevice. Help save coal river mountains, they already have a viable plan for clean renewable wind energy. But,if the coal companys blast off the tops of the mountains the state fo west virginia will be forever stricken with poverty. when the coal industry leaves the land, mts, and the streams will be unuseable And the people will die....so sad. WAKE UP AMERICA,your life is at stake....Q
Thanks qwikslvr
You put Coalman in his place. The reason that the US is not "as" dirty or poverty stricken as some other countries, is because WE USE AND ABUSE THE PEOPLE AND ECONOMIES OF THOSE COUNTRIES FOR OUR OWN BENEFIT...or the poor in this country who have no power to wield. Whenever I hear the statement "protect american interests" I actually feel shaky and guilty...I hate that phrase. To think that I am living in my country and that government is going to anther country to kill people just so that I can get to have electricity and what ever else that keeps this life syle going, makes me furious... I am trying to seperate myself as much as possible from this. I have a ways to go. I was never much of a consumer to begin with. Even using this computer is a guilty sin.
The bottom line is that we should be EVOLVING into beings that know what is precious, what is needed to live, but not luxury, who is important in our lives... a whole new type of human can be born. We need to evolve SOCIALLY. RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER AND FOR MOTHER EARTH...
ONe problem that I have always dealt with is the struggle I see between the life issues of Practicality and idealism. I was told most of my life that I am very idealistic. But that came with the conotation that idealistic people are not realistic or responsible. So, I always worked on being responsible - to show that idealism can work even in practical ways. I believe that we can practically and realistically bring about the change to a whole new world culture. Going back to nature more than depending on total technology... There is a balance that we have lost... Yes, I like this computer, I like toilet paper and if my child were seriously ill I would like for some medicine that would cure that. But, we have gone to far to the articficial... we think that techno solutions are the only way.... It's almost like we don't even like being human, we don't like being biological beings. We'd rather be robotic totally structured, no fuss, no mess programed things... Which way will we evolve - or wil we split into two or more species... those who go techno or those who develop the more intuitive-psychic side of our selves. Can you see it?
Thank you Quikag and Initiate both. My family moved here from the coal mines of France to work the coal mines of south Ill, and in Kansas. They all died of respiratory problems. I see Coalman is another mouthpiece for the ignorance of some Americans that actually believe that since they don't get a government check they are superior and worthy of the elitist rhetoric they spew, laughably also believing they are amongst the wealthy upper class because they agree with them. Their facts are skewed and their narrow view of things is laughable. They can't hardly bring themselves to look at the real facts, they have to deny any other person's view or facts the way the teaparty oopseydaisy Paliners talk. They just sound goofy.
Michigan is battling a push for a huge coal plant on the west coast and more than enough info is slowing it down because it will upset the balance, spew mercury, and destroy many square miles of farmland already struggling to survive. Not to mention the increase in asthma rate that won't be covered by that carbon trade nonsense or any health care program.
Everyone is going to be screwed in all of this. The rich and power mongers will suffer eventually.
Back at cha' stonepig and initiate Methinks coalman is still pissing off his front porch and behind trees. some people never learn. We are making inroads. michigan is not issueing permits and several coal companys have pulled back their permits for four new plants they were going to build.
coalman, i sincerely apologoze for stepping on your toes, but you have to understand that industry is working hard to inovate and to clean up their act . but not coal companies.
they have the same greedy agenda they've had forever, rape,and pillage and leave unusable, and that is not acceptable. they could jump into wind energy or solar.but they are in love with FILTHY DIRTY COAL....even the miners want them to stop.
I don't believe that there is such a thing as clean coal either, and I've signed lots of petitions and written lots of letters re: " NOT blowing up mountains," but in the end, what happens to the coal miners?
I've read several pieces which talked about how the miners want to have a job, and the coal companies use that threat of " no job" all the time to keep the friction going in the communities.
Does anyone know what else we can do with coal besides leave it where it is? What other jobs can the miners have? Could they all have WPA type jobs cleaning up the mess that the coal companies have made? ( The clean up cost is , of course, paid by those who made it in the first place) the coal companies.
Since diamonds are carbon too, how much pressure and time is required to make a diamond in the labratory? Could coal in the right labratory circumstance become diamonds?
If so, the miners would have a new venue, and blood diamonds would be passe. Of course, De Beers would be upset, and "miner diamonds" would flood the market, but since diamonds are the hardest substance on earth, I'm sure we could find more uses besides jewelry.
Stardust-There's a book called "Carbon", check it out.Maybe it will give you some ideas. But cleaning up the mess they made on those mountains, building wind and solar plants up top there with a few farms that could live in rock?? Hydroponic pot gardens maybe...sorry...seriously, where there are good people, good people will come to their own rescue. It is a daunting task to be sure.
>>Could coal in the right labratory circumstance become diamonds?<<
HPHT diamonds or CVD diamonds (depending on the method), or synthetic diamonds utilize a complex process. One method even uses carbon containing explosives -- bang -- diamonds.
You generally need purified graphite. It is made into a vapor and pressure applied is special tubes.
But why make diamonds when there is actually a glut of them, many sitting in large vaults? Because synthetic diamonds can be made in any color and have superior characteristics to natural. Industrial grade diamonds can also be made with specialized characteristics.
To answer your question, coal COULD be a source for graphite but this would involve a lot of processing and there are better sources.
Gary
"Coal companies have a lot of power in the media, and unfortunately a lot of information doesn't get out."
-- Kevin Richardson
The article has an interesting quote from Governor Granholm
"the state should not be importing coal from Montana and Wyoming but instead should be investing in technologies to improve energy efficiency and to tap the renewable resources within Michigan, including wind and solar."
We need to focus on that efficiency part.
Americans have sucked up the corporate message and buy into greed-'I need more.'
We can live better lives with less:
1. Energy efficient buildings are a social concern; I've lived in apartment complexes all my life and the landlords pass the cost of huge energy inefficiencies on to the tenants. Typical savings of well over %75 or even %100 could easily be obtained by:
a. Replacing heating and cooling units that are more than 20 years old.
b. Insulating walls, windows and doors.
c. Replacing loose fitting windows and doors.
Replacing high wattage bulbs with lower wattage, energy efficient lighting-this alone would save my current landlord 10-12,000 watts of usage per hour; lights are on in the hallways 24 and 7.
If we have 200,000,000 electric meters spinning in this country and there was a savings of just 100 watts an hour average across all meters that would be a savings of 20,000 Megawatts per hour.
A recommended resource:
Blackout: Coal Climate and the Last Energy Crisis
by Richard Heinberg
Peak Coal is closer than most people realize, that is more likely to actually start a coal phase out than the greenwash from politicians.
And the 2007 announcement of three new coal powered generators (not "plants") in Texas was not a victory for any real environmental groups - since the utility merely announced more plans than they wanted, let the Environmental Defense Fund (a foundation funded entity) claim the credit, and then proceeded with plans to build three new coal powered generators. How is that a victory for any sane solutions?
Coal is the main baseload for the US power grids. Renewables are best, but they are a tiny fraction of "current" consumption. Natural gas also has peaked, oil isn't used for much electricity, and nuclear is also dependent on finite uranium (and is toxic and dangerous). We are all going to be using much less electricity in the coming decades, which is not a popular message but physics isn't subject to politics.
We are working hard in Oregon to get our one coal-fired plant, at Boardman, shut down. Currently, 40% of Oregon power comes from coal, including coal plants in Wyoming. The coal for Boradman comes from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana ... at the rate of 25 LONG trains every day.
I live in Indiana. Coal is strip mined close to where I live. I don't see our Republican Governor Mitch Daniels (former Budget Director for Bush) doing anything to stop Coal Plants while he is in control. I have lived in old houses where the basement is still black from coal dust. I can't say that is why I have Asthma, but I have my suspicions.