The Reality Blog

Things we don’t need any more of

Corporate executive bonuses, monthly bills, and income tax deadlines — all things that we have plenty of already. And according to the new Annual Energy Outlook report released by the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), there’s one more item we can add to the list: dirty coal-fired power plants.

There are dozens and dozens of new coal plants being proposed without technology to capture and store their carbon dioxide pollution. But the EIA’s latest Annual Energy Outlook finds we will need very few of them to meet our electricity demand in the next 10-20 years.

The report — which doesn’t even include the impacts from the recent economic recovery bill or any proposed policies for energy efficiency and new clean energy supplies — assumes only very limited additions of new coal plants over the next 20 years. What does this really mean? With the stimulus’ new investments and policies supporting our transition to clean energy currenty being considered in Washington, we could eliminate the need for those new coal plants entirely, and reduce our existing use of dirty coal.

The EIA outlook on electricity flies in the face of coal industry claims that dozens of new, dirty coal plants are immediately essential to meet our energy demand — claims they’ve made recently to justify efforts in Kansas and Michigan to build more coal plants that will spew global warming pollution into the air for decades to come.

Looks like the coal industry can stop worrying about fighting for new, dirty plants, and start investing in the technologies that will help generate electricity without releasing CO₂ — something we could actually use more of.

Coal’s “Clean” Conscience

The American Coalition of Clean Coal Technologies (ACCCE) spokesman — the same one who said “I don’t know” if burning coal contributes to global warming — put up an interesting op-ed last week.

It’s interesting because it makes clear the coal industry’s position — they aren’t willing to reduce their profits by taking real action on CO₂ reduction, and they aren’t too concerned about the high external costs of burning coal (in health care treatment, pollution, and global catastrophe) because they don’t directly pay these costs — we do.

ACCCE argues that “shifting the primary burden for reductions to coal-generated power clearly will drive up the costs and put a further dent into the wallets of families and business owners.” But that’s not true. It will drive up the costs to the coal industry, but it won’t be more expensive for consumers unless the industry passes on all of the costs by refusing to take a bite out of their $57 billion a year profit.

Furthermore, coal is responsible for more than 80% of the CO₂ that is released by producing electricity. No energy producer pollutes with CO₂ like coal. So there’s no “shifting” here — it’s ALREADY the coal industry’s burden, they’re just not accepting responsibility.

What do you think will be more costly to America’s families and business owners?

• A gradual reduction in burning coal, as we move to abundant, free and clean sources of energy and upgrade our buildings and appliances to use less energy.

• Increasing our present rate of burning coal: continuing to depend on an uncertain priced fossil fuel that releases the deadly poisons which, according to a 2004 study cited by the American Lung Association, are responsible for an estimated 24,000 premature deaths, 550,000 asthma attacks, 38,000 heart attacks and 12,000 other hospital admissions per year.

  And continuing to release the CO₂ that is heading us toward a collision with, as Time Magazine recently called it, the “asteroid” of global warming — which without action now “will be far worse — and last far longer — than any natural disaster humanity has ever known.”

ACCCE has told us their answer. What’s yours? If you’d like to comment on this article, you can quickly sign up for an account on the Tribune-Democrat’s discussion feature. Of course, you are always free to leave a comment at ACCCE’s blog, too.

Instead of more industry ads and op-ed articles about “clean” coal to make it seem like they are accepting responsibility, the coal industry needs to step up and do something real to solve this very real problem they have helped to create — without making threats to pass on all costs to the consumer.