Big Coal Fingerprints All Over Change In Strickland's Energy Plan

[hatrack]

COLUMBUS — At first blush, Gov. Ted Strickland’s commitment to clean energy last week sounded even better than environmentalists had dreamed. One fourth — yes, a full 25 percent — of all the electricity Ohio produces should be made using alternative energy sources by 2025. Even Environment Ohio, the most vocal renewable energy proponents in the state, had asked only for 20 percent by 2020.
Then came the catch: Only half of the target the Democratic governor laid out in his new energy policy will be required to come from renewable energy — that is, water, solar, wind or biofuel made from combustible farm products.

The remainder could take the form of advanced nuclear or clean coal technologies — in other words, variations on the technologies dominating the electric market now. The operable phrase had changed from “renewable energy” to “renewable and advanced energy.”
Strickland, a former congressman from Appalachia, is well aware of the facts: The number of coal mining jobs in America has fallen from 335,000 in the 1950s to just 79,000 today. Three thousand of those jobs are in Ohio, mostly in the state’s southeastern section where Strickland grew up.

It was highly unlikely that Ohio’s first governor in a generation to hail from that part of Ohio would have carved the coal industry out of his administration’s most significant energy policy statement.

Still, a 12.5-percent target for renewables had Environment Ohio executive director Erin Bower crying foul. She noted that 87 percent of the state’s electricity comes from burning coal, compared with a national average of 53 percent. Ohio is ranked fourth nationally in its contributions to the country’s carbon dioxide emissions problem, Bower said. Ohio ranks second nationally in the amount of those emissions coming from coal-fired power plants. “The important thing is that the Legislature and our governor really listen to Ohioans across the state who are clamoring for alternatives to being so dependent on fossil fuels, which are putting Ohio at the top of the list for mercury pollution and smog and soot pollution,” she said.

EDIT

http://www.chroniclet.com/2007/09/03/stricklands-ties-to-coal-coat-environmental-policy/

[mod mom]

1. What vision our democratic leaders have for our children's future. Putting the short

sighted industry's goals (in the false name of Ohio jobs) ahead of our environmental concerns. Bad air for Ohioans (and those living down wind from us) = more corporate contributions. :(

[philb]

6. Ohio is coal mining state, plus has lots of coal plants

[Kolesar]

7. Ohio only has 3000 coal miners, so the "jobs thing" is not the issue...eom

[BridgeTheGap]

2. Yeah, that just happened in Kentucky with the energy bill

and for the past several years - they're trying to pass off coal to gas schemes as "alternative."
"Clean Coal" is another oxymoron. Usually, when they refer to coal in this way, they are completely leaving out the extraction process and what it does to the environment (i.e. mountaintop removal).

What the PR/spin doctors won't try!

[greenman3610]

3. there is a need to find out if Carbon Sequestration can work

Having recently visited a large wind facility, I think that
Wind is going to explode even faster than it is
today as farmers and rural people find out
about its advantages.
There are, however, some applications that require
large amounts of concentrated electricity and
heat or process steam, and currently we don't have a way to
supply that other than fossil or nuclear fuel.

A large scale push on deep geothermal may eventually
put coal out of business for good.

[Kolesar]

4. A "clean coal solution" without carbon sequestration is no solution at all

And carbon sequestration technology does not exist. With a deadline of 2020, Strickland is going to have to fund and emphasize the real alternative energy solutions if he is going to hit that 20% target--because clean coal won't be there.

[Nihil]

5. Agree with your first sentence ...

> A "clean coal solution" without carbon sequestration is no solution at all
> And carbon sequestration technology does not exist.

... but not the second:

> With a deadline of 2020, Strickland is going to have to fund and emphasize
> the real alternative energy solutions if he is going to hit that 20% target

Strickland isn't going to give a shit as he'll not be around in 2020 but will
have cashed in his bribes from the poxy coal industry, allowed them to carry
on raping the planet and "done his bit" for damning the future of today's
youth. He can just carry on as before knowing that, in the extremely unlikely
event that anyone calls him on his lack of progress, he can always resign
to "spend more time with his family".

:grr:

[philb]

8. No such thing as clean coal; GW may not be bigger problem than toxic metals

Toxic Metal Content in Appalachian Coal (one 2 unit power plant)

parts---- tons per---- tons per---- ---------------- pounds pounds in ash
per million million tons year *------ ---------------- per year in per year
of coal------ ---------------- ---------------- ash & emissions (assumes 5 million tons per year)
Mercury 0.2 0.2 1 2000
Lead 14 14 70 140000
Arsenic 15 15 75 150000
Cadmium 8 8 40 80000
Aluminum 17000 17000 85000 170000000
Barium 2600 2600 13000 26000000
Berylium 3 3 15 30000
Chromium 23 23 115 230000
Copper 16 16 80 160000
Manganese 80 80 400 800000
Nickel 18 18 90 180000
Selenium 3 3 15 30000
Thallium 25 25 125 250000
Thorium 3.1 3.1 15.5 31000
Uranium 1.8 1.8 9 18000
Vanadium 5.7 5.7 28.5 57000
Zinc 0.8 0.8 4 8000

Total 19,817 99,083 198,166,000

* assumes plant burns 5 million tons per year (2 large coal units)

source: Radian Corporation, "Estimating Air Toxics Emissions from Coal Sources",
U.S. EPA, 1989, NTIS PB89-194229


There would be almost 100,000 tons per year of toxic metals with no plans to
isolate any of it from the environment.
This would include 1 ton per year of mercury. The most important forms of mercury- elemental and methyl are gas at room temperature- so you can't control it even if you take it out of smoke stack-
bacteria convert other forms to methyl over time and its outgased or taken up in the food chain.
Documentation in the record showed that of those in Florida tested for mercury, 50% of S. Floridians had levels over the EPA health standard, and over 33% of all Floridians had dangerous levels of mercury.
Accompanying data tables by State and Metropolitan Statistical Area
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/addendum-to-mercury-report