How to end America’s deadly coal addiction

[Lionel Mandrake]

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr
Published: July 19 2009
Financial Times (London)

Converting rapidly from coal-generated energy to gas is President Barack Obama’s most obvious first step towards saving our planet and jump-starting our economy. A revolution in natural gas production over the past two years has left America awash with natural gas and has made it possible to eliminate most of our dependence on deadly, destructive coal practically overnight – and without the expense of building new power plants.

Whatever the slick campaign financed by the powerful coal barons might claim, coal is neither cheap nor clean. Ozone and particulates from coal plants kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and cause widespread illnesses and disease. Acid rain has destroyed millions of acres of valuable forests and sterilised one in five Adirondack lakes. Neurotoxic mercury raining from these plants has contaminated fish in every state and poisons over a million American women and children annually. Coal industry strip mines have already destroyed 500 mountains in Appalachia, buried 2,000 miles of rivers and streams and will soon have flattened an area the size of Delaware. Finally, coal, which supplies 46 per cent of our electric power, is the most important source of America’s greenhouse gases.

America’s cornucopia of renewables and the recent maturation of solar, geothermal and wind technologies will allow us to meet most of our energy needs with clean, cheap, green power. In the short term, natural gas is an obvious bridge fuel to the “new” energy economy.

Since 2007, the discovery of vast supplies of deep shale gas in the US, along with advanced extraction methods, have created stable supply and predictably low prices for most of the next century. Of the 1,000 gigawatts of generating capacity currently needed to meet national energy demand, 336 are coal-fired. Surprisingly, America has more gas generation capacity – 450 gigawatts – than it does for coal.

For the rest of the article, browse:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58ec3258-748b-11de-8ad5-00144feabdc0.html

[FreakinDJ]

1. Nuke Fusion

Dr Moses said it could be available in 10 years if made a National Priority

The added benefit would be it would also solve our nuclear waste disposal problem at the same time. Oh but the Greeners are going to jump all over me because I used that cuss word - "Nuclear"

[Lionel Mandrake]

3. Electricity from nuclear fusion is just around the corner

and has been for over 50 years. It's not clear that we will ever reach this goal with or without a crash program. Dr. Edward I. Moses, principal associate director for the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and Photon Science Directorate at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is optimistic, but many physicists are skeptical.

Meanwhile, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., there are things we can and should be doing right now.

[FreakinDJ]

6. Fusion is actually here now

and 100 fold returns of energy are just around the corner. Being able to solve the nuclear waste disposal problem is just a side benefit

You need to update

[Statistical]

7. Nobody has achieved a unity reaction with fusion.

Let me know when (if) they do.

[Lionel Mandrake]

12. Heh heh.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Lionel Mandrake]

9. Fusion has been here for a long time, but that's not the issue.

The Sun has been shining for about 5 billion years, using nuclear fusion. Some weapons also use nuclear fusion. Peaceful use of nuclear explosions (both fusion and fission) has also been explored (e.g., projects ORION & Plowshare) but has gone nowhere for a variety of reasons, including treaty obligations.

Controlled fusion in the laboratory dates from the 1950s. This includes muon-catalyzed fusion, which is of theoretical interest but is not generally considered a candidate for commercial production of electricity. The candidate technologies for supplying electric power in the future are magnetic and inertial-confinement fusion. Each of these technologies has produced measurable fusion and has its advocates and detractors. So-called cold fusion has been debunked and is not taken seriously by most physicists.

I maintain that the economic break-even point for any kind of controlled fusion as a source of electrical power is still a long way off.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Great article!

This is a topic that needs to be discussed.

Kennedy has the credentials to get our attention...

K&R

[Lionel Mandrake]

8. My dear CP

Thank you for the K&R and for your comments. I agree with everything you say.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Politics is the problem

Less coal means less jobs in certain Senators/Representatives districts. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal whether we like it or not. I don't see an easy solution to the politics of this issue.

[Lionel Mandrake]

5. Unfortunately, you're right.

Special interests usually trump the general interest.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. This isn't a case of merely special interests

America as a whole has a diverse economy that isn't dependent on natural resources. But certain areas (mainly in Appalachia and the Mountain West) are economically dependent on coal. Now certainly the coal industry (special interests) will do everything in their power to keep it this way. However, the fact is that if we make the transition away from coal, lots of working class people will be seriously hurt by the downfall of the coal industry because the areas they live in are economically dependent on coal. Certainly I wouldn't refer to the people who will lose their jobs as a special interests. They are ordinary people just like you or I whose livelihood happens to depend on something that is, unfortunately, terrible for the environment.

Now I'm not saying that's a good reason to allow the coal industry to keep doing whatever it wants. Ultimately the planet is more important than the livelihoods of coal miners in West Virginia and frankly West Virginia would ultimately be better off to transition away from a coal-dependent economy. But I think that a lot of people don't understand the reason that the opposition to anti-coal measures is so strong. This is not simply a case of a few rich guys having bought off our Congress and thus Congress acts in their interests rather than the public interest. Certainly their contributions are a factor but not what makes the coal lobby so powerful. The reason it is so powerful is that too many ordinary people have their livelihoods entangled in this mess of a system and to get rid of it would mean that those people lose their livelihoods and they are certainly not going to let that happen without a fight.

When it's merely corporate interests vs environmentalists, the environmentalists stand a chance. When it's labor vs the environmentalists, labor will almost always win because labor will fight harder and have more support since they have much more to lose in the short run. This is especially true with global warming where the effects are still thought of by many in an abstract sense rather than other environmental issues where people have been able to show that certain pollution is directly related to cancer, asthma, or some other disease. In those cases people feel a sense of urgency to change the status quo. With Global Warming, the effects aren't as quantifiable yet and unfortunately they probably won't be until it is too late.

[Lionel Mandrake]

11. Let's quibble over the definition of "special interests", and then move on.

Maybe I'm insensitive, but I WOULD refer to the people who will lose their jobs (if we transition away from coal) as a special interests. Other than that, I agree with everything in your post.

It seems likely that shale gas will compete more and more with coal. Coal mining is a mature industry that we are all familiar with. Shale gas, by contrast, is relatively new and unknown to most of us. IMO the op-ed piece by Robert F. Kennedy Jr should serve to introduce this topic to a wider public. That's why I started this thread.

For more information about shale gas, browse

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/EPreports/Shale_Gas_Primer_2009.pdf

[Hippo_Tron]

13. You would under that definition have to include...

The AFT, AFL-CIO, NAACP, ACLU, and Sierra Club as "special interests". There is nothing wrong with calling every interest group a "special interest" other than the fact that the term has negative connotations and thus you will usually hear right wingers use that term to describe the above groups.

To remedy this and not look like a hypocrite, I use the term "special interest" to mean any group who, for the most part, only represents a few moneyed elites.

[Lionel Mandrake]

14. Fair enough.

The term "special interest" is frequently used but seldom defined. I apply it to groups that have an economic stake, i.e., a vested interest, in the outcome of some proposed legislation, court decision, or rule-making. I would not call groups like the ACLU or the Sierra Club special interests, because IMHO they are altruistic and not greedy.