A Small Bit Of Good News About Energy

The coal industry has been running some rather disingenuous television ads recently that tout "clean coal" energy. But anyone with even a small bit of knowledge about energy knows that there is no such thing as "clean coal". Coal is the dirtiest of all the fossil fuels, and when burned produces more particulate matter and other pollutants (including the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change). And while the newest coal-powered energy plants pollute less than older coal-powered plants, they still produce an unacceptable level of pollution.

But here in the United States, we have a huge supply of coal and it is very cheap. For that reason, the United States still produces a large amount of the electricity generated by burning coal (and both the coal and electric industries are spending tons of money to make sure that doesn't change). They put their corporate profits before both the public's health and the preservation of the environment.

But there is a little bit of good news on this front. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is reporting that the generation of electricity by burning coal is down this year. In the first quarter of 2011, about 44.6% of electricity generated was from the burning of coal. In the first Quarter of 2012, that has dropped to about 36%. That's a 19.3% drop in coal generation. It represents an 8.6% drop in coal generation's portion of total electric production (a figure that EIA expects to grow to about 14% by the end of 2012).

The major reason for this is the reduction in price for natural gas. The portion of total electric production done by burning natural gas has increased by nearly the amount coal generation has decreased. Natural gas is not a completely clean electricity producer, but it is much cleaner than coal and will result in less total pollution. Taking old coal plants off line and increased use of renewable sources of energy are also contributing to less coal generation. Here is how Think Progress sums up this situation:

The U.S. coal industry is facing major headwinds. The current drop in generation is mostly due to competition from natural gas. But there are other factors that will assist in pushing coal out of the electricity mix: An aging fleet of plants, cost-competitive renewables, new clean air regulations, and a strong anti-coal movement are working together to reduce the attractiveness of coal. Since 2010, plant operators have announced 106 retirements of coal facilities — representing 13 percent of the U.S. fleet, according to the Sierra Club.

The continued decline in domestic coal generation is good news for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuel sector are expected to decline by almost 3 percent this year — continuing the 1.9 percent decrease seen in 2011. Emissions from natural gas will rise by 5.5 percent, while emissions from coal will fall by almost 12 percent.

Has Seliger Flipped Out Or Sold Out ?

The Texas Panhandle is high, flat, nearly treeless and the wind is always blowing there. It is the perfect place for a renewable energy source to be exploited -- wind energy. In fact, wind farms are already beginning to pop up all over the Panhandle. But one thing the area does not have is coal. So why is Panhandle Senator Kel Seliger pushing a bill that would result in the building of new coal-powered energy plants in Texas? Has he lost his mind?

Instead of pushing renewable wind energy which would help the Panhandle economically, Seliger has decided that "clean coal" is the wave of the future. His bill would promote the construction of several large-scale coal-burning power plants in Texas. "This legislation represents a very important first step in making clean coal technology in the state of Texas," Seliger said, and added, "One day, others will look to Texas as the leader in a clean coal world."

That may sound good to some people, but don't be fooled. There are two different definitions of "clean coal". Most environmental groups and the general public think "clean coal" is where a power plant catches all the pollutants (including carbon dioxide) and stores them underground, so that none of them add to air pollution or global climate change.

This kind of technology is not currently available and, if possible at all, would be so expensive that it would make coal power more expensive than any other type -- including renewable energy power.

But the energy industry has a different definition. They think a "clean coal" plant is any power plant that releases less pollution than a plant built before 1990 regulations were put in place. That means a power plant could release tons of pollutants into the air and still be classified as a "clean coal" plant.

This is the definition that Seliger is using. His bill would only require new plants to cut pollution by up to 60%. This type of "clean coal" plant is little more than a public relations campaign that would let the power plants keep on polluting.

And that's not all of the bad news that comes with "clean coal". In addition to its continuing pollution of the air, it also would pollute our soil and water. Consider the case of the Tennessee Valley Authority plant in Harriman, Tennessee (pictured above). At that plant, a retaining wall of a 40-acre pit containing a slurry of coal ash collapsed and covered several hundred acres of land, destroying several houses. The pollution it released was 100 times greater than that from the Exxon Valdez disaster.

"Clean coal" produces just as much of this coal ash as an old-fashioned coal-burning plant, and each new plant would have one of these unlined slurry pits to hold the coal ash produced. This ash contains heavy metals like arsenic and mercury along with known carcinogens. Thomas Burke, an environmental risk expert at Johns Hopkins University, says, "This is hazardous waste, and it should be classified as such." This waste could leach into ground water, even if the pit walls don't collapse.

And we haven't even discussed the scarring of the landscape by strip mining, or the health problems associated with deep-earth mining. Frankly, it seems to me that the so-called "clean coal" plants are not much better than the old-fashioned coal-burning plants. They came up with a new name that makes it sound better, but it's not any better.

Seliger should be ashamed of what he is proposing. Once again, a Republican is putting his corporate buddies before what's good for the people of Texas and his constituents in the Panhandle. Has he gone crazy or just sold out?