Putting the dirt on coal power

Since when has a colourless, odorless gas been considered DIRTY?

Only since the greenhouse warriors figured that calling carbon dioxide a pollutant, was a good way to scare the populace.

News from Australia policy makers show that carbon dioxide can't be called a pollutant

Red tape cut for greenhouse reports


Something in the air


"Coal Rush" To Threaten Environment, Challenge America's Energy Security

Over 150 Proposed Plants Would Boost Global Warming Pollution By 10 Percent, Coal Consumption by 30 Percent; Dirty Technologies Predominate
PORTLAND—Energy companies are planning to build over 150 coal-fired power plants in locations across the United States, according to a report released today by Environment Maine Research & Policy Center. 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 Jennifer Andersen, Environment Maine Research & Policy Center Advocate. “Expanding our dependence on coal will only worsen coal’s impact on global warming emissions and intensify the other environmental impacts and economic risks from coal.”Here in Maine, no new coal-fired power plants are planned. However, Maine is located at the end of the “nation’s tailpipe” and already suffers disproportionately as a result of pollution from coal-fired power plants as the pollution blows into the state on prevailing winds. With the addition of what could be over 100 new coal-fired power plants, Maine’s wildlife and people will suffer even more as increased amounts of mercury and air pollution contaminate the state.In addition, the early effects of global warming are evident across Maine and worldwide. Left unchecked, global warming threatens to cause wide ranging problems, such as flooding of coastal areas, drought, species extinction, and disease outbreaks. Recent evidence that the tick vector for Rocky Mountain spotted fever is now in Maine confirms that global warming’s effects are already being felt in the state. The Environment Maine Research & Policy Center 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 7 percent of Appalachian forests, buried 1,200 miles of streams, 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 will come at a high price,” said Joe Lovett of the Appalachian Center. “New mines will 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 efficiency and 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 versus business as usual – obviating the need for the all of the coal plants on the drawing board. “We could avoid the need to build any new coal plants if we simply invested the same amount of money in energy efficiency, said Andersen, “and we’d save money at the same time.”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.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 megawatts 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.Environment Maine Policy & Research Center calls for several steps to stem the “coal rush.” First, our leaders in Maine should support all efforts to establish a moratorium on new coal plants across the country, in order to evaluate the environmental and economic impacts. Second, they should support the current regional proposal to enact a cap on carbon dioxide pollution from existing power plants, to be lowered over time; third, they should support at the national level the policy that no public money be spent on coal technology; and finally, Maine leaders should dramatically and swiftly 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 Andersen. “What’s more, these steps would be good for America’s economy; creating jobs and improving productivity. But not if we stake our energy future on coal.”“Our leaders must take decisive action to stop the rush to build new coal plants and avoid the worst effects of global warming,” concluded Andersen.###Environment Maine Research & Policy Center researches problems and engages the public in the interest of clean air, clean water and open spaces across the state.The report is available at http://www.environmentmaine.org/