More on Learnaboutcoal.com
May 16th, 2006Last month I did a posting about learnaboutcoal.org and my suspicions regarding the organization. To summarize, I thought (and still do) this is a ruse by coal energy users and producers to soften up the market to their sale of “clean coal energy” to the general public. My article was challenged in a comment by Joe Lucas, who happens to be the Executive Director of Americans for Better Energy Choices (ABEC) underwriter for learnaboutcoal.org.
Mr. Lucas took issue with my analysis of learnaboutcoal.org and ABEC, arguing that it was possible ”well-meaning people can look at the same exact set of facts and circumstances and still come to differing conclusions.” and that ”We all want a secure energy future and a cleaner environment. ” I would prefer to have a clean environment with a dependable and safe source of energy. I am extremely suspicious of people who promote their positions based on any variation of the word “secure,” and view it as an attempt to manipulate people to the first step of accepting their policy because of its connection to that word.
Now learnaboutcoal.com, (through funding from ABEC) is sponsoring a segment on CNN “Welcome to the Future.” I checked it out, and at first blush it looks pretty innocuous. However, I can’t help but watch with a wary eye a segment promoting alternative fuels that quotes Nathaniel Green of the National Resource Defense Council saying, “Ethanol is great but it is not a silver bullet…” The implication being what is?
Interspersed between these segments are short commercials utilizing those cute scrub-faced kids telling us how they know more about technology, the U.S. has 250 years of coal reserves and who knows? We may eventually be able to burn coal efficiently enough to call it green. Imagine that!
Until I see uncontroverted scientific evidence burning “clean coal” is a reality, I’m not buying it. And I hope you don’t either.
P.S.-
I found Joe’s blog at learnaboutcoal.org and posted two comments last night. I was critical of using the kids for what I (and a lot others) consider less-than-honorable motives. In the second posting, I took issue with his posture that two people can draw different conclusions from the same information. I differentiate between drawing a conclusion and making a leap of faith. I’m curious to see how long it will take for my comments to get “approved.”
May 24th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
no silver bullet isn’t the half of it.
at first blush, ethanol looks great, being made from things that grow, but upon closer examination, it is no silver bullet at all, and may be a red herring of the first order.
a quick google will bring you to several sources pointing out that ethanol is in fact a negative energy source, requiring more energy to produce than it returns in terms of erg/litre.
further, it requires massive amounts of acreage, and thus is probably a dead end, in green terms. leaving the aside its distraction value, it’s a stopgap measure at best.
but as we sit here on the plateau of peak oil, one looks around in vain for any real effort by media or government to get the message across that we are going to have to reduce our energy consumption drastically, and soon, if there is too any quality of life for our decendents remotely resembling the lavish, energy-intensive lifestyle we westerners presently enjoy.
in any case, nrdc’s present campaign “move america beyond oil” is lame-o, and they should know it.
as for coal, well, give me a break.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
I haven’t looked at the NRDC campaign, so I can’t say about that. But otherwise, I quite agree. We have a long way to go, and I would prefer to go around coal to genuinely clean sources of energy, before we make things worse than they would have been in the first place.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:19 am
WITH COMPANIES LIKE RENTECH (FT)CLEAN COAL WE CAN ONLY BE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. SEE THE RENTECH WEB SITE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT CLEAN COAL TECH.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
I went to the site and saw some interesting stuff about solar energy. I saw nothing about clean coal, which I still consider an oxymoron.
That Bullear sent this from Rentech’s site makes me suspicious, but since I am a big supporter of free speech, say what you will.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
I find it particularly disturbing to which lengths some interest groups will go to spread their skewed argument for an antiquated and dirty technology. This polished version of Fox pundit, Steven Malloy’s JunkScience.com is a shameless reaction to the bad press coal has gotten in the wake of press and movies regarding An Inconvenient Truth and global warming. Sadly, companies would not to go to great lengths to sponsor such trash if it did not work. The more confusion about a subject, the less people are going to act for change.
I find it ironic that a ‘clean coal’ website exists when coal is one of the worst methods of energy production. Not only does coal have a pathetically low energy yield, but in recent years, even our neighbor Canada has taken up a lawsuit against the United States regarding its coal produced acid rain and particulates, and the damage they are doing to Canadian cities and forests. I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but not only does coal create extensive land disturbance in its excavation (open pit mines), it accounts for 36% of the World’s CO2 emissions, releases particles of toxic mercury when burned, and releases thousands of times more radioactive particles into the atmosphere per unit of energy produced than does a normally operating nuclear power plant. All of this easily accessible from a mandatory college freshman level environmental science course.
Regarding the future of coal, fluidized bed combustion has been developed to burn coal more cleanly and efficiently and may be phased in over the next several decades, but still does little to reduce CO2 emissions. There is also the possibility of reducing emissions by creating a cleaner burning synfuel via coal gasification, though it is not as clean as many alternatives. Sadly, even with current coal power plants, carbon reclamation technology (like giant catalytic converters) could make a large dent in CO2 and SO2 emissions with relatively little effort outside its initial construction and setup. However, politicians haven’t done much to enforce the use these types of filtration systems, even as cities like LA smother in their own coal related pollution.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:00 am
What a great, eloquent and thoughtful post. I agree with most of what you have to say, but I’m not sure about LA smothering in its own coal related pollution. My understanding is most of our pollution is related to fossil fuels such as gas and oil.
Nevertheless you do raise some good points. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:55 am
Thank-you for clarifying my suspicions and providing meaningful facts. Frankly these coal clowns are so clueless: remember their initial eagle ad? I wish they’d bring it back: it was great anti-coal advertising.
October 8th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Have been seeing the advertisements about coal, having lived 60 plus years at and around the Coal Industry, and having been involved with the Industry for 20 years, I have learned a bit about coal. There is so much Information and misinformation that is, and has been published, a person finds it hard to believe much that is published. There should be Questions asked about the top ownership of our major coal companies now, and in the recent past. Just a comment.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Okay, i am in school and we just got finished having debates about coal and all other kinds of power plants. I dont think we should go for the coal power plant because yea it might be cheaper just because TXU is a little bit high in the prices. I know that putting the coal power plant in wont keep our air clean, i mean we already have bad air from smoking and 18 wheelers we dont need something else to make it worse. I think it would make more people sick from the air and it might even kill people and no one wants that. And yea you look about what i wrote and u think if you are a doctor or some one that helps people with health you will get more money because of the sick people, dont look at it that way because it would be selfish. Me being an 11th grader i hated chemistry and i didnt want to learn about stuff like this but i got in to it and now i know about all kinds of plants and i really think we should stick with TXU and not put plants that could harm people.
Sincerely
Ashley
February 28th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
It is so heartening to see someone from tomorrow’s generation is indeed as interested in having clean air as the latest haircut, shoes, IPOD etc. Welcome to the Millennial Files!!!!!
June 29th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Tapia, et. al., you have been doing a most remarkable job. I am very impressed with the high quality of the comments and discourses.