Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Collapse of the Clean Coal Myth

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
groovedaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 12:26 PM
Original message
Collapse of the Clean Coal Myth
A month of negative news for the Tennessee Valley Authority could lead to positive changes in national policy, including federal regulation of toxic coal wastes and new legal constraints on coal-fired power plants. More broadly, the authority’s recent travails may help persuade the public that coal is nowhere near as “clean” as a high-priced industry advertising campaign makes it out to be.

In December, hundreds of acres of Roane County in eastern Tennessee were buried under a billion gallons of toxic coal sludge after the collapse of one of the T.V.A.’s containment ponds. It was an accident waiting to happen and an alarm bell for Congress and federal regulators.

Senator Barbara Boxer of California noted that coal combustion in this country produces 130 million tons of coal ash every year — enough to fill a train of boxcars stretching from Washington, D.C., to Australia. Amazingly, the task of regulating the more than 600 landfills and impoundments holding this ash is left to the states, which are more often lax than not. Ms. Boxer will press the Obama administration to devise rules for the disposal of coal ash as well as design and construction standards for the impoundments.

Just as the T.V.A. was dealing with this mess, Lacy Thornburg, a federal district judge in North Carolina, ordered the giant utility to reduce emissions from four coal-fired power plants that had been sending pollution into North Carolina.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/opinion/23fri3.html?th&emc=th
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. "a federal district judge in North Carolina, ordered the giant utility to reduce emissions". And....
... the current technologies to reduce emissions will immediately result in increased byproducts, solid waste and liquid waste.

I fully support cleaning up emissions from coal-fired power plants, but it comes at a big cost, and not just in dollars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mudoria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Those emissions from TVA coal fired plants
are destroying the beauty of the Blue Ridge. Not to mention the serious health effects caused by them which is even more of a problem than the destruction of the natural wonders of the western NC mountains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Further enforcing the OP.
But what can you expect? "Clean Coal" is Republispeak and it's always opposite day in Republicworld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. So, are you in favor of the status-quo? It sure seems from your reply you are
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. You really gathered from my reply that I favor status quo?
Huh. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Yes, we cannot trade cost for health, dirty air for waste processing
the industry IS dirty, and where I live NJ, has been suffering pollution from coal clouds for decades. Christy Witless even sued before she got sucked into the B* machine at the beginning of the decade.


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0306-04.htm

How Industry Won the Battle of Pollution Control at E.P.A.

Just six weeks into the Bush administration, Haley Barbour, a former Republican party chairman who was a lobbyist for electric power companies, sent a memorandum to Vice President Dick Cheney laying down a challenge.

"The question is whether environmental policy still prevails over energy policy with Bush-Cheney, as it did with Clinton-Gore," Mr. Barbour wrote, and called for measures to show that environmental concerns would no longer "trump good energy policy."

Mr. Barbour's memo was an opening shot in a two-year fight inside the Bush administration for dominance between environmental protection and energy production on clean air policy. One camp included officials, like Mr. Cheney, who came from the energy industry. In another were enforcers of environmental policy, led by Christie Whitman, a former Republican governor of New Jersey.

The battle engaged some of the nation's largest power companies, which were also among the largest donors to President Bush and other Republicans. They were represented by Mr. Barbour and another influential lobbyist, Marc Racicot, who also would later become chairman of the Republican National Committee.

In an administration that puts a premium on keeping its internal disputes private, this struggle went on well out of the public's view. But interviews and documents trace the decisions in which the Bush administration changed the nation's approach to environmental controls, ultimately shifting the balance to the side of energy policy. Senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, including Mrs. Whitman, became isolated, former aides said, and several resigned.

Thirty years after the first Earth Day, the incoming administration was still confronting power-plant smokestacks spewing fumes. The policy questions were arcane, involving strategies to control polluting particles. At stake, though, were environmental risks to human health and the nation's ability to produce cheap energy, as well as decisions about how the most polluting industries would be monitored for decades to come.

For operators of some coal-fired plants, the stakes were more tangible. Dozens of plants were facing lawsuits over air pollution brought by the Clinton administration and several northeastern states — including New Jersey under Mrs. Whitman before she became head of the E.P.A. The industry, fearing billions of dollars in new costs, set about to undo the suits.

One of the most important decisions was Mr. Bush's reversal of a campaign promise to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that many scientists say contributes to global warming. The administration also has proposed looser standards for emissions of mercury — a highly toxic pollutant — than President Bill Clinton had sought. The most protracted fight concerned the administration's decision to issue new rules that substantially reduced the requirements for utilities to build pollution controls when modernizing their plants. The final policy shift may ultimately help the coal-plant operators shed the lawsuits.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Excellent summary article.
I do not favor less environmental regulation on energy production, nor do I merely shrug off the disaster experienced in Tennessee. However, I know enough to avoid clinching my fist in red-faced anger while demanding more regulation, more enforcement, and the generation of less waste. I want less mercury in flue gases; do you? How do you suppose the mercury will be removed? It must be scrubbed in a fashion that parallels the way sulfur gases are removed. And that scrubbing will generate more waste. Not less -- more. It will cost a lot more, it will generate more waste, it will require more oversight, and it could lead to more problems in containing the waste. Can the energy producers meet the challenge? Absolutely. Just don't fool yourself about what it will take.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I have no doubt the cost of cleaning up our demand for "MORE POWER".


But it must be done or we'll start losing longevity.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnoopDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Add in: 'safe non-radioactive nuclear energy'...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. the simple truth is when you create waste, you have to do something with it . . .
and when you create massive amounts of waste, you have to have massive plans for what to do with it . . . coal sludge, nuclear waste, plastic of all kinds, whatever -- when you create waste, you have to do something with it . . .

I'm neither an economist nor a philosopher, but common sense tells me that the solution to waste of all kinds is to just stop creating it . . . or at least cut it down to manageable quantities . . . but in a country where more is always better, the chances of that happening are slim and none -- unless it is mandated . . .

when faced with two choices -- finding more places to put more massive amounts of waste, or creating significantly less waste in the first place -- the right choice seems pretty clear to me . . . bwdik? . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Waste reduction is excellent.
Beneficial reuse of waste is fantastic -- if we use coal ash for other applications (construction, fill, etc), then we have less of this to put into ponds.

We could consume less, and that would generate less waste.

But, when we put greater restrictions on emissions, that requires cleanup, and cleanup generates more waste. Sad but true.

So, we'll always some waste. Even if we threw away the car keys and blew the tv, we can stop eating. And eating leads to waste, and even that waste requires disposal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. "we'll always (have) some waste" . . .
Edited on Sun Jan-25-09 02:09 PM by OneBlueSky
agree, of course . . . but there's waste, and then there's WASTE!!! . . . unfortunatley, this country generates the latter . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC