139 Ss Coal Generic Redux

Coal Arguments -- Index Coal Arguments -- Index...............................................................................................................................................................1 Railroads 1NC...............................................................................................................................................................................4 Railroads 1NC...............................................................................................................................................................................5 Railroads 1NC...............................................................................................................................................................................6 Australia 1NC................................................................................................................................................................................7 Australia 1NC................................................................................................................................................................................8 Clean Coal CP 1NC.......................................................................................................................................................................9 Clean Coal 1NC..........................................................................................................................................................................10 Clean Coal 1NC..........................................................................................................................................................................11 Coal Prices Volatile.....................................................................................................................................................................12 Coal Peak Coming - 2025...........................................................................................................................................................13 Coal Prices High Now.................................................................................................................................................................14 Coal Prices High Now.................................................................................................................................................................15 Coal Prices High Now.................................................................................................................................................................16 Coal Demand High Now.............................................................................................................................................................17 Coal Demand High Now.............................................................................................................................................................18 US Coal Demand High Now.......................................................................................................................................................19 US Coal Demand High................................................................................................................................................................20 Renewables Links – Coal............................................................................................................................................................21 Renewables Links – Coal............................................................................................................................................................22 Renewables Links – Clean Coal..................................................................................................................................................23 Cap and Trade Links – Clean Coal.............................................................................................................................................24 Credit Trading Link – Coal.........................................................................................................................................................25 RPS Links – Coal........................................................................................................................................................................26 RPS Links – Coal........................................................................................................................................................................27 RPS Links – Coal........................................................................................................................................................................28 RPS Links – Clean Coal..............................................................................................................................................................29 PTC Links – Coal........................................................................................................................................................................30 Wind Links – Coal......................................................................................................................................................................31 Wind Links - Coal.......................................................................................................................................................................32 Wind Links – Coal......................................................................................................................................................................33 Wind Links – Clean Coal............................................................................................................................................................34 Solar Links – Coal.......................................................................................................................................................................35 Solar Links – Coal.......................................................................................................................................................................36 Solar Links – Coal.......................................................................................................................................................................37 Solar Links – Coal.......................................................................................................................................................................38 Solar Links – Clean Coal............................................................................................................................................................39 Nuclear Power Links – Coal.......................................................................................................................................................40 Nuclear Power Links – Coal.......................................................................................................................................................41 Nuclear Power Links – Coal.......................................................................................................................................................42 Nuclear Power Links – Coal.......................................................................................................................................................43 Nuclear Power Links – Railroads................................................................................................................................................44 Railroads Profitable Now – Coal................................................................................................................................................45 Railroads Profitable Now............................................................................................................................................................46 Railroads Profitable Now............................................................................................................................................................47 Railroads Profitable Now............................................................................................................................................................48 AT: Railroads Losing Market Share Now...................................................................................................................................49 Coal Key to Railroad Profits.......................................................................................................................................................50 Coal Key to Railroad Profits.......................................................................................................................................................51 Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure.............................................................................................................................52 Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure.............................................................................................................................53 Profits Key to Railroad Infrastructure.........................................................................................................................................54 AT: Railroad Profits Resilient.....................................................................................................................................................55 Infrastructure Key to Solve Derailment......................................................................................................................................56 Derailment Impact – Nuclear Terrorism.....................................................................................................................................57 Derailment Impact – Mobile Chernobyl/Dirty Bombs...............................................................................................................58 Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse...................................................................................................................................59

Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse...................................................................................................................................60 AT: Nuclear Shipments Low.......................................................................................................................................................61 Derailment Impact – Toxic Chemicals/Environment..................................................................................................................62 Turns the Case – Infrastructure Decreases Emissions................................................................................................................63 Turns the Case – Railroads Decrease GHGs...............................................................................................................................64 Railroads Key to Readiness.........................................................................................................................................................65 Railroads Key to the Economy....................................................................................................................................................66 Railroads Key to the Economy....................................................................................................................................................67 Railroads Key to the Economy....................................................................................................................................................68 Railroads Key to the Economy....................................................................................................................................................69 Railroads Key to Agriculture......................................................................................................................................................70 Railroads Key to Low Food Prices.............................................................................................................................................71 Food Prices Impacts – Starvation................................................................................................................................................72 Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan...................................................................................................................................................73 Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan...................................................................................................................................................74 Food Prices Impacts – Economy.................................................................................................................................................75 US/Australia Relations High Now..............................................................................................................................................76 US/Australia Relations High Now..............................................................................................................................................77 Australia Economy High Now....................................................................................................................................................78 Australia Economy High Now....................................................................................................................................................79 Australian Coal Exports High (Asia)..........................................................................................................................................80 US/Australia Competition for Market Share...............................................................................................................................81 US/Australia Competition for Market Share...............................................................................................................................82 AT: US Not a Coal Exporter.......................................................................................................................................................83 AT: Coal Not a World Market....................................................................................................................................................84 AT: Coal Not a World Market....................................................................................................................................................85 High Coal Prices Good for Australia..........................................................................................................................................86 Coal Key to Australia’s Economy...............................................................................................................................................87 Coal Key to Australia’s Economy...............................................................................................................................................88 Coal Key to Australia’s Economy...............................................................................................................................................89 Economy Key to Relations..........................................................................................................................................................90 AT: Relations Resilient...............................................................................................................................................................91 AT: Relations Resilient...............................................................................................................................................................92 Relations Key – Afghanistan Module.........................................................................................................................................93 Relations Key – Iraq Module......................................................................................................................................................94 Relations Key – Iraq Module......................................................................................................................................................95 Relations Key – Deterrence.........................................................................................................................................................96 Relations Key – Heg...................................................................................................................................................................97 Relations Key – Prolif Module....................................................................................................................................................98 Relations Key – Prolif Module....................................................................................................................................................99 Relations Key – Prolif...............................................................................................................................................................100 Relations Key – Asian War Module.........................................................................................................................................101 Relations Key – Terrorism........................................................................................................................................................102 Relations Key – Regional Security Module..............................................................................................................................103 Relations Key – Regional Security Module..............................................................................................................................104 Relations Key – Regional Security...........................................................................................................................................105 Relations Key – Regional Security...........................................................................................................................................106 Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts................................................................................................................................................107 Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts................................................................................................................................................108 Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts................................................................................................................................................109 Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts................................................................................................................................................110 Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts................................................................................................................................................111 Relations Key – Failed States....................................................................................................................................................112 Relations Key – Laundry List...................................................................................................................................................113 AT: Relations Bad.....................................................................................................................................................................114 Clean Coal Coming Now..........................................................................................................................................................115 Clean Coal Coming Now..........................................................................................................................................................116 Clean Coal Coming Now..........................................................................................................................................................117 Clean Coal Coming Now..........................................................................................................................................................118 AT: Clean Coal not Feasible.....................................................................................................................................................119

AT: Clean Coal a Long Way Off..............................................................................................................................................120 AT: Clean Coal Construction Costs Kill Transition.................................................................................................................121 Clean Coal Solves Climate Change .........................................................................................................................................122 Clean Coal Solves Climate Change..........................................................................................................................................123 Clean Coal Solves Climate Change..........................................................................................................................................124 Clean Coal Solves Climate Change..........................................................................................................................................125 AT: No Room for Carbon Storage............................................................................................................................................126 AT: Clean Coal Technology won’t Spill Over..........................................................................................................................127 Clean Coal Solves Oil Depletion..............................................................................................................................................128 Clean Coal Solves Energy Dependence....................................................................................................................................129 Clean Coal Solves Energy Dependence....................................................................................................................................130 Energy Dependence Impact......................................................................................................................................................131 Clean Coal Solves Competitiveness..........................................................................................................................................132 Coal Key to the Economy.........................................................................................................................................................133 Coal Key to the Economy.........................................................................................................................................................134 Clean Coal Solves Pollution......................................................................................................................................................135 Clean Coal Solves Acid Rain....................................................................................................................................................136 AT: Clean Coal Doesn’t Solve Sulphur....................................................................................................................................137 Clean Coal Solves Hydrogen....................................................................................................................................................138 AT: Coal Will Run Out.............................................................................................................................................................139 AT: Coal Will Run Out.............................................................................................................................................................140 AFF – Coal Prices Low Now....................................................................................................................................................141 AFF – Coal Demand Decreasing Now......................................................................................................................................142 AFF – Renewables Won’t Trade Off with Coal.......................................................................................................................143 AFF – Renewables Won’t Trade Off with Clean Coal.............................................................................................................144 AFF – Wind Won’t Trade Off with Coal..................................................................................................................................145 AFF – Solar Won’t Trade Off with Coal..................................................................................................................................146 AFF – RPS Won’t Trade Off with Clean Coal.........................................................................................................................147 AFF – Cap and Trade/Carbon Tax Key to Clean Coal.............................................................................................................148 AFF – Railroads Failing Now...................................................................................................................................................149 AFF – Exports Turn..................................................................................................................................................................150 AFF AT: Demand Key to Infrastructure...................................................................................................................................151 AFF AT: Derailment Impact.....................................................................................................................................................152 AFF AT: Derailment Impact.....................................................................................................................................................153 AFF – Australian Economy Low Now.....................................................................................................................................154 AFF – Australian Economy Low Now.....................................................................................................................................155 AFF – Relations Resilient.........................................................................................................................................................156 AFF – Relations Resilient.........................................................................................................................................................157 AFF – US/Australian Relations Decrease Regional Security...................................................................................................158 AFF – US/Australian Relations Decrease Security...................................................................................................................159 AFF – AT: Relations Solve Taiwan War..................................................................................................................................160 AFF – Clean Coal Not Coming Now........................................................................................................................................161 AFF – Clean Coal Not Coming Now........................................................................................................................................162 AFF – Clean Coal Impossible...................................................................................................................................................163 AFF – Clean Coal Impossible...................................................................................................................................................164 AFF – Clean Coal Far Away.....................................................................................................................................................165 AFF – Clean Coal Far Away.....................................................................................................................................................166 AFF AT: Clean Coal Solves Warming.....................................................................................................................................167 AFF – Clean Coal Kills the Economy.......................................................................................................................................168 AFF – Clean Coal Causes Pollution..........................................................................................................................................169 AFF – Clean Coal Causes Pollution..........................................................................................................................................170

Railroads 1NC A. Railroads are booming now because of demand for commodities like coal Alex Roth, staff writer, 6/25/08, “Vote ’08: CSX vs. Activists”, Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121433409393200635.html?mod=googlenews_wsj CSX Corp. and two activist hedge funds with big stakes in the railroad company have bickered for months -- over past performance, profit potential, plans for capital investment and even how to interpret the company's balance sheet.They've fought to a de facto impasse in federal court over securities law.They've even argued about the location of the annual shareholder meeting, a New Orleans railyard that CSX calls a showpiece. The investors have labeled it "a swamp."Now, shareholders are scheduled to decide Wednesday morning whether to give five of 12 CSX board seats to candidates offered by The Children's Investment Fund and 3G Capital Partners LP, the activist hedge funds that control at least 8.7% of the company's stock. Through so-called stock swaps, the funds have an economic interest in a substantial additional block totaling more than 11% of CSX shares.The proxy vote comes at a pivotal time in the railroad industry. Trains in the U.S. are undergoing a boom not seen in decades, spurred in part by railroads' fuel-efficiency advantages over trucking and their ability to bypass the country's increasingly clogged highways.Big-name investors such as Warren Buffett and Carl Icahn have taken sizable positions in some of the U.S.'s biggest railroads, including Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., and Union Pacific Corp. Stock prices have soared. Since the end of 2002, the Dow Jones Wilshire U.S. Railroads Index has increased nearly 240%. By comparison, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Composite Index is up roughly 61% over the same period.Last year, TCI, headed by London financier Christopher Hohn, began accumulating shares of CSX, which operates a 21,000-mile rail network in 23 states, mostly in the eastern U.S. The company reported $2.3 billion in operating income in 2007. Roughly half its revenue comes from freight such as agricultural products, crushed stone and metal; a quarter comes from transporting coal.CSX management says the company is performing well and needs no infusion of outside leadership on its board. The stock has more than tripled under the leadership of Chief Executive Michael Ward, who took the helm in 2003.

B. Alternative energy increases railroad competition for remaining coal shipments, driving down profits Association of American Railroads, 10/07, http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/294.ashx Coal-fired power plants compete against power plants fueled by other energy sources. In 2006, for example, fuel sources other than coal accounted for more than half of U.S. electricity generation. Railroads had little or no involvement with this generation. This “product competition” constrains railroads, since a railroad serving a coal-fired power plant must price its services low enough to make that plant’s electricity competitive compared to electricity generated from another fuel source. Coal-hauling railroads also face strong “geographic competition”---i.e., the ability of a utility to obtain coal from different mines served by different railroads or modes of transportation. Product and geographic competition will continue to be an important means for utilities to constrain rail rates. For years, significant change has been taking place in the electric power industry, including greater competition and interconnection between utilities as a result of “Wheeling”; improved gas turbine technology, and increasingly-restrictive environmental regulations. Electricity consumers often can obtain electricity purchased on the wholesale market or produced from natural has and other fuel sources as an alternative to electricity generated from coal.

Railroads 1NC C. Profits from coal are key to infrastructure investments Richard Freeman is the Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard, “Rebuilding U.S. Rail System Is Top Priority,” 9/6/2002, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2934rail_infra.html Over the last 30 years, the railroads have become radically dependent on transporting coal. Many of the new improvements that rail companies have made, and the new locomotives they have bought, have been on the lines that come from Powder Basin, Wyoming, bringing low-sulfur coal to the East Coast. This raises a real question about American energy policy. While coal is a legitimate source for power generation, its use ultimately should be declining, were the United States serious about developing nuclear power, using high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (and eventually developing the higher energy-flux density fusion power). But instead, coal's use is dramatically increasing: In 1970, of all the goods originated by the rail industry, coal constituted 405 million tons, or 27% of the total; but by 2000, coal constituted 758 tons, or 44% of the total.

D. Poor infrastructure causes radioactive catastrophe Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office, 10/25/04, http://www.nirs.org/press/10-25-2004/1 Detroit, MI -- According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), highly radioactive nuclear fuel rods could travel the same railway that experienced the train derailment involving highly flammable methyl alcohol in Detroit this morning. Concerned citizens' groups fear that if high-level radioactive waste were to be involved in a massive methyl alcohol explosion or fire, as could have happened in Detroit today, a radioactive catastrophe could result. A brand new website shows that the proposed high-level radioactive waste shipping route passes within 0.3 miles of Greenfield Union Elementary School, one of the two schools evacuated today due to the train derailment in Detroit. An address can be typed into the website at http://www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/find_address.php, and a map showing the distance to a proposed high-level radioactive waste transport route will be generated. The website is based upon DOE's high-level radioactive waste transportation route maps which were released in February, 2002 as part of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed national dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. A copy of this DOE map is attached. The Environmental Working Group website also lists schools and hospitals in Detroit that are located next to the proposed high-level radioactive waste shipping route (see www.ewg.org/reports/nuclearwaste/schoolhosp.php?stab=US).

Railroads 1NC E. Another nuclear accident will cause extinction Charles Hyder, B.S. and M.S. degrees in physics from University of New Mexico and PhD in astrogeophysics from the University of Colorado, formerly employed by NASA, UCLA, UNM and the Southwest Research and Information Center, 2001, “Human Extinction on this Chernobyl-Contaminated Planet”, http://members.fortunecity.com/osservatorio/charleshyderbook2.html Herein a mathematical and empirical model involving a cause-and-effect relationship between Chernobyl's Radioactive releases, Species' Extinctions (Amphibia first!), and Human Survival is presented. It is a powerful statement. What is needed to specify and clarify the true nature of the global extinctions is to take definitive measurements of radioactive Pu, Sr, Cs, U, Br, Kr, Rb, I and Xe concentrations in all Amphibia, Humans, etc. and in their environments, predators, and prey worldwide. These measurements would be the basis for the definitive empirical models for the quantitative relationships between Chernobyl radioactivity, species Extinctions (Amphibia first!) and Human Survival. The sooner that these global measurements of radioactive isotopes in Amphibia, Humans, environments, etc. are taken, the sooner we can determine what steps really need to be taken over what time-scales. Never forget: One of the 450 operating nuclear reactors is the world's next Chernobyl racing toward its explosive extinction and the next wave of worldwide, radioactive mass extinctions of Humans, more amphibia and most other vertebrates. There is no compromise with nature! We must comply with nature's laws or fail. As a species, we pursue imaginative, unlikely, and remote doomsday scenarios when the inevitable repeat of Chernobyl explosions, and their immediate and chronic releases, will complete the purge of Amphibia started at Chernobyl. The rest of us earthlings will be engulfed too. I have developed a much deeper respect for Sternglass, Gofman, Gould, Tamplin, et ilk who have had the courage to calculate, address, observe and think about the real costs of the Global Nuclear Folly in real numbers. I have taken that step that glimpses the specific horrors that will befall the untold billions of Chernobyl's victims, 1986-2075 AD (Cs-137 globally plus Pu and Sr90 locally). We must do all that can be done to minimize, then to end, the global horrors that the unbridled nuclear technologies have brought down on our heads.

Australia 1NC A. Australian coal exports booming- Asian demand Phil Mercer, VOA News Correspondent in Sydney, 25 June 2008, “China to Pay Record Prices for Australian Minerals”, http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-25-voa17.cfm [Bapodra] Australia's resources boom shows no sign of slowing down, thanks largely to demand from Asia. This week Anglo-Australian minerals company Rio Tinto has been negotiating with China's biggest steel maker, Baosteel, which has traditionally set the international iron ore price for China's other steel producers. In 2007, the Chinese imported 383 million tons of iron ore, up 17 percent from the previous year. In the past, China has paid Brazilian and Australian exporters the same amount for minerals. But this year Australian miners demanded more, insisting their iron ore is higher quality and - because Australia is closer to China - is costing less to transport.

B. Alternative Energy will replace coal – tops experts agree Ethan Goffman, politics correspondent, 6/17/08 (“Renewable Energy Likely to Overtake Oil And Coal Sooner than You Think” Gather, ) Renewable energy is expanding voraciously and will do so even faster, according to experts at a Worldwatch Institute panel (Tipping Point). Wind power is already in the midst of an explosion, under-remarked on in the mainstream media, and other renewable energies, such as solar and cellulose ethanol, are likely to follow. Worldwatch President Chris Flavin explains that we are at an amazing moment in the history of energy, a transformational moment, driven by historic high energy costs, concern about climate change, and the worldwide impact of government policies. Wind, solar, and other renewables are likely to replace oil and gas sooner rather than later. Renewable energy has accelerated greatly in the last three years, and the scope and import of this expansion are severely under-reported, according to Worldwatch fellow and energy expert Eric Martinot. Investment in new renewable capacity hit $71 billion dollars in 2007 and continues to exceed expectations. Government policy has been a key driver, Martinot says, overcoming resistance to renewable energy. If current policies supporting renewable energy are simply maintained, he believes that the momentum will be unstoppable. Venture capitalist Michael Liebreich, an expert in renewable energy investment, explains that the implications of current growth are far bigger than people think. Conventional energy use is growing only incrementally, as opposed to the exponential growth of renewable energy, which is accelerating with stunning speed. Conventional thinking, which sees oil and coal as virtually unchallenged, is all wrong, according to Liebreich. This is because the big curve upward of renewable energy will inevitably beat the little curve of conventional energy.

C. Coal is key to Australia’s economy – they compete with the US for market share Paul Graham and Tom Waring, 9-7-98, Abare Conference Paper, Junaid Australia’s fundamental cost advantages have led to the development of a large export oriented coal industry. It is Australia’s largest commodity export industry, doubling its export earnings over the past decade to reach A$9.5 billion dollars in 1997-98. It is also a very competitive industry. In 1997 there were 118 mines producing 217 million tonnes of coal. The Australian industry is characterised by a large number of companies competing vigorously with each other and with overseas rivals for market share.

Australia 1NC D. Australian economic growth is key to Australia’s role in the alliance ROD LYON, lecturer in International Relations at The University of Queensland, formerly Head of the Strategic Analysis Branch in the Office of National Assessments, Australian government AND WILLIAM T. TOW, Professor of International Relations at The University of Queensland, December 2003, "THE FUTURE OF THE AUSTRALIAN-U.S. SECURITY RELATIONSHIP," URL: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/austraus/austraus.pdf Some Australian officials also speak of Australia’s continuing impressive economic growth as an important determinant of a larger strategic role. As the Australian economy continues to show good growth figures over a long period, when many of the world’s major economies have been stagnant, it has offered Australian policymakers both a larger sense of Australia ’s role in the world and the resources necessary to underpin an expanded role. The Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999 constituted a harbinger of that larger role; in the post-September 11 world an expansive policy of Australian global and regional engagement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Solomon Islands is even more evident. All of these factors have been important in driving Australia towards an energetic level of strategic engagement, made more noticeable by the hesitancy of other, larger, Western allies to become part of the coalition of the willing in Iraq. This heightened level of engagement, however, has brought into sharper and more contentious relief the doctrine, force structure, and procurement plans currently underlying Australian defense policy.

E. US/Australia alliance prevents nuclear war Desmond Ball. PhD Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. 2001. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 235–248. The strategic essence. However, it has been reckoned by Australian governments on both political sides that the maintenance of the ‘joint facilities’ is, on balance, very much in Australia’s interests. The deterrence of nuclear war is an important national interest, and successive governments have determined that the risk of the facilities being nuclear targets is worth taking since their operations significantly reduce the probability of any nuclear exchange. More importantly, and at a less abstract level, it has been considered that hosting the installations, and accepting the attendant risks and costs, represents Australia’s most meaningful contribution to the alliance, in return for which the United States provides the sophisticated technology necessary for Australian self-reliance in credible defence contingencies. Moreover, beginning in the early 1980s, there has been increasing participation by Australians in the operation of these facilities, and increasing use of the facilities for direct Australian purposes. The North West Cape communications station ceased being a vital element of the US strategic nuclear posture in 1982, when the Polaris submarines were retired from the Pacific, and although it has continued to be important to the United States for communications with its attack submarines, as well as during defence operations in the Indian Ocean, its principal user became the Royal Australian Navy (RAN), which uses it for communications with both its submarines and its Indian Ocean Fleet more generally. The station transferred to RAN control in October 1992, although it was maintained as a joint facility until 1999, when it became a fully Australian facility.

Clean Coal CP 1NC Text: The United States federal government should substantially incrase incentives for the development of clean coal technology Contention 1: Competition – Counterplan competes through net benefits Contention 2: Solvency Increased incentives would accelerate the development of clean coal Andrzej Zwaniecki, Washington File Staff Writer, 11/30/06, “United States Advances $1 Billion for Clean Coal Projects,” Washington File, http://news.findlaw.com/wash/s/20061130/20061130172755.html Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, who made the announcement, said that the energy content of abundant U.S. coal resources is higher than that of nearly all the oil in the world. These tax credits will help us find ways to use coal in an environmentally sensitive way, he said. Because coal is both plentiful and relatively cheap in the United States and in some other countries such as China, it is expected to remain the main source of electricity generation for decades to come, the department said. The portion of power generated from coal in overall electricity production is projected to increase in the United States from the current 50 percent to 57 percent by 2030 as demand for electricity grows. The department said it believes that incentives such as tax credits will accelerate the widespread use of advanced technologies that allow electricity to be generated from coal more efficiently and with fewer harmful environmental effects. IGCC and other advanced technologies are expected to extract 55 percent to 60 percent of coal’s energy content compared to 35 percent in existing, modern coal-fired plants, Connaughton said. The president of Tampa Electric, one of the tax credit recipients, said that incentives also would bring significant savings to customers. Tampa Electric was the first U.S. utility company to commercialize IGCC technology in partnership with the department. The Energy Department said the overall U.S. strategy to make the best and most efficient use of coal in power generation also includes investing in carbon sequestration (capturing and storing carbon dioxide); supporting further modernization of existing power plants; making sure that new plants have the most efficient and environmentally friendly equipment; and building the first virtually emission-free coal power plant known as FutureGen. The FutureGen plant is intended to deliver electricity at competitive prices and with nearly no greenhouse gas or other emissions by combining a range of innovative technologies such as carbon capture and storage. The construction of the plant is expected to start in 2009 and conclude in 2012. The plant will be operated by an international consortium, which includes companies from Australia, China and the United Kingdom.

Only clean coal will spill over – other renewables are too expensive J. Allen Wampler, The Atlanta Journal Constitution Staff Writer, 6/11/08, “COAL POWER: Stress efficient carbon capture-andstorage,” The Atlanta Journal Constitution, p. Lexis The risk here is that, unless and until a cost-effective technology becomes available to capture and store carbon emissions, U.S. utilities would be forced to shift from coal to high-priced natural gas. And any reduction in U.S. carbon emissions would be more than offset by increased emissions from countries with fast-growing economies that have no such restrictions on carbon dioxide releases from power plants. Any plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without making provisions for the future use of coal worldwide will be doomed from the start. A country like China --- which relies on coal for 80 percent of its energy --can't be expected to abandon it, since doing so would cause energy shortages and serious damage to its economy. Policymakers like to talk about the need for alternative energy sources --- solar and wind power, geothermal energy, natural gas, nuclear power and conservation. But those alternatives, though helpful, aren't enough to meet growing demand for electricity in increasingly digitalized economies. The growth of nuclear power is severely constrained by equipment and manpower shortages. Even with state mandates, it's unlikely that renewable energy sources will ever account for more than a fraction of U.S. electricity generation. Solar and wind have serious limitations due to cost and practicality. Neither one is of much help on days when the weather isn't cooperating. For the United States and globally, a combination of more efficient coal combustion and carbon capture-and-storage offers a potentially workable solution to the greenhouse-gas problem --- and an opportunity to reach a comprehensive strategy for international cooperation on carbon mitigation. Energy supply would be more secure, and the citizens of coal-producing countries would gain more from the natural wealth their countries control. Both producing and consuming countries would win --- regardless of where the carbon is sequestered.

Clean Coal 1NC A. Clean coal is winning the competition against renewables now USA Today, 12/27/07, “Tech could reduce coal facilities' emissions,” p. Lexis "Coal is abundant and cheap, and we have increasing energy demand," he says "We can wish all we want, but people are going to do what it takes to keep the lights on. And that means coal." Others, such as environmentalist John Blair, who lives about an hour south of Edwardsport and is fighting the plant, say more coal isn't inevitable. "The plant is not needed, because we have incredible (energy) efficiency potential in this state," Blair says. "That's cheaper than a new coal plant." Even worse, says Bruce Nilles, who directs the Sierra Club's anti-coal campaign, is that investment in new coal plants -- gasification or not -- will drain resources from cleaner options. "No investor in their right mind will put money up for renewable energy, because there will be no market for it." Only about 2% of U.S. electricity comes from non-hydropower renewables such as wind power. "The fact is, we don't have a good alternative to fossil fuels at this time," Herzog says. "People want the world the way they want it, but we have to look at the facts."

B. Renewable energies will trade off with clean coal if their cost decreases Tim Burrows, Director in Climate Managers’ Melbourne Office, 4/6/07, Concentration Thermal Power Comes of Age, http://www.climatemanagers.com/index.php?Itemid=34&id=51&option=com_content&task=view In the Australian context, all renewables must inevitably be compared to coal fired power incorporating carbon capture and storage. Studies have suggested that this type of generation will add between 50% and 100% to the cost of generation, which suggests that a clean coal plant will be capable of generating low carbon electricity at between $45 and $70 per MWh. While there are many issues yet to be resolved in relation to this type of generation, there is no technical reason why the technology should not work, hence one must conclude that in the absence of external market distortions, renewable energy will only supplant clean coal if the cost of renewable electricity generation is at least equal to that available from a clean coal plant.

C. Coal is key to the economy Frank Burke, vice president of the Research and Development Consol Energy Inc., 4/27/07, “Sustainable Low Emission Electricity Generation”, http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:s9HW7uGJx9AJ:www.nma.org/pdf/cong_test/burke_042704.pd) The United States is not unique in its dependence on coal, and it is vital to our national interest to promote the increased use of coal not only domestically, but worldwide as a key component of our energy and economic security. The most compelling evidence of this is China. This year, the Chinese will mine and consume 1.5 billion tons of coal. In 15 years, they will consume 2.5 billion tons; China’s increase alone will equal our current consumption. They expect to double their coalfueled electricity generating capacity to 600 GW by 2020. By 2040, the Chinese expect to use 4 billion tons of coal annually. Throughout the world, economic growth and political stability are tied to electrification, and electricity is tied to coal. Therefore, the desire and, in fact, the necessity of the world to utilize its abundant coal resources will not be denied. Energy availability and energy quality are key to meeting all three aspects of sustainable development: economic, societal and environmental. The question is not whether we need or will use coal for human development, but how we will use it.

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal 1NC

D. Nuclear war Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 8/23/92, World Policy Institute Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

E. Turns the case

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

11

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Prices Volatile

Coal prices are extremely volatile now – market uncertainty Casey J. Kaptur, Senior Financial Analyst – Coal and Energy, Pincock, Allen & Holt is a consulting and engineering firm serving the international mineral resource industry, “Trends in U.S. Domestic Coal Markets Are Higher Prices and Higher Price Volatility Here to Stay?” Pincock Perspectives, ISSUE NO. 58 — September 2004, http://www.pincock.com/perspectives/Issue58CoalMarkets.pdf The jump in coal prices during 2001 described above coincided with a sharp increase in coal price volatility. (As mentioned above, an increase in prices does not necessarily result in an increase in price volatility nor do high prices by themselves mandate high price volatility.) Although coal price volatilities have retreated from their 2001 highs, they remain substantially higher than they were prior to the 2001 price spike. PAH believes that coal price volatilities are likely to remain high. Again, this forecast is fundamentally different than the conclusion reached above, i.e., that coal prices themselves are likely to remain high. Our forecast of continued high price volatility is based on the prospects for continued uncertainty in coal markets. This uncertainty results from many of the same factors discussed above, i.e., the impact of foreign metallurgical coal demand, environmental and permitting constraints, producer financial considerations, etc. In addition, however, events that do not fundamentally alter the supply/demand balance but do affect short-term market activity, most notably transportation disruptions, can also contribute to high price volatility. PAH concludes, therefore, that the low prices and low price volatilities that characterized coal markets during the 1990s are unlikely to be seen again soon. The coal markets of the future will likely be higher priced and change more rapidly and dramatically than they did in the past.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

12

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Peak Coming - 2025

Coal will peak by 2025 Strahan, David. (1/19/08) (author of The last Oil Shock: A survival guide to the imminent extinction of petroleum man) "The great coal hole: reserves of the black stuff were supposed to last for centuries. But rock bottom could come a lot sooner than that.(Industry overview)." New Scientist 197.2639 (Jan 19, 2008): 38(4). Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Kansas Libraries. 2 July 2008 The delays have been increasing since 2003, and not just because of the port's limited capacity. Gnawing doubts are also beginning to emerge about the supply of coal, not just in Australia but worldwide, and not only because of logistics but also because of geology. In short, coal may be running out. Ask most energy analysts how much coal we have left, and the answer will be some variant of "plenty". It is commonly agreed that supplies of coal will last for well over a century; coal is generally seen as our safety net in a world of dwindling oil supplies. But is it? A number of recent reports suggest coal reserves maybe hugely inflated, a possibility that has profound implications for both global energy supply and climate change. The latest "official" statistics from the World Energy Council, published in 2007, put global coal reserves at a staggering 847 billion tonnes (see Diagram, opposite). Since world coal production that year was just under 6 billion tonnes, the reserves appear at first glance to be ample to sustain output for at least a century--well beyond even the most distant planning horizon. Mine below the surface, however, and the numbers are not so reassuring. Over the past 20 years, official reserves have fallen by more than 170 billion tonnes, even though we have consumed nowhere near that much. What's more, by a measure known as the reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio--the number of years the reserves would last at the current rate of consumption--coal has declined even more dramatically. In February 2007, the European Commission's Institute for Energy reported that the R/P ratio had dropped by more than a third between 2000 and 2005, from 277 years to just 155. If this rate of decline were to continue, the institute warns, "the world could run out of economically recoverable reserves of coal much earlier than widely anticipated". In 2006, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, the R/P fell again, to 144 years. So why are estimates of coal reserves falling so fast--and why now? One reason is clear: consumption is soaring, particularly in the developing world. Global coal consumption rose 35 per cent between 2000 and 2006. In 2006, China alone added 102 gigawatts of coal-fired generating capacity, enough to produce three times as much electricity as California consumed that year. China is by far the world's largest producer of coal, but such is its appetite for the fuel that in 2007 it became a net importer. According to the International Energy Agency, coal consumption is likely to grow ever faster in both China and India. Another less noticed reason is that in recent years many countries have revised their official coal reserves downwards, in some cases massively, and often by far more than had been mined since the previous assessment. For instance, the UK and Germany have cut their reserves by more than 90 per cent and Poland by 50 per cent. Declared global reserves of high-quality "hard coal" have fallen by 25 per cent since 1990, from almost 640 billion tonnes to fewer than 480 billion-again, larger than could be accounted for by consumption. At the same time, however, many countries including China and Vietnam have

left their official reserves suspiciously unchanged for decades, even though they have mined billions of tonnes of coal over that period. Taken together, dramatic falls in some countries' reserves coupled with the stubborn refusal of others to revise their figures down in the face of massive production suggest that the numbers are not to be relied on. Is it possible that the sturdy pit prop of unlimited coal is actually a flimsy stick? That is certainly the conclusion of Energy Watch, a group of scientists led by the German renewable energy consultancy Ludwig Bolkow Systemtechnik (LBST). In a 2007 report, the group argues that official coal reserves are likely to be biased on the high side. "As scientists, we were surprised to find that so-called proven reserves were anything but proven," says lead author Werner Zittel. "It is a clear sign that something is seriously wrong." Since it is widely accepted that major new discoveries of coal are unlikely, Energy Watch forecasts that global coal output will peak as early as 2025 and then fall into terminal decline. That's a lot earlier than is generally assumed by policy-makers, who look to the much higher forecasts of the International Energy Agency. "The perception that coal is the fossil resource of last resort that you can come back to when you run into problems with all the others--is probably an illusion," says Jorg Schindler of LBST.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

13

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Prices High Now

Despite recent shocks, prices remain high Alex Wilson, Staff Writer, Dow Jones, 7-3-08, Posted on the Australian Business, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23963477-5005200,00.html, Junaid Market commentators also said prices in Asia were set to stay high with all the indicators pointing to ongoing tightness in the market. The Newcastle spot coal price fell sharply today, following on from a 20 per cent drop in spot thermal coal prices in Europe overnight, sparking heavy selling in Australian coal stocks. However the price drop is only a partial retracement of gains seen in recent weeks when the spot coal price surged ahead of the recently agreed contract prices for Asian buyers of $US125 a metric tonne, and appears to be a temporary reversal. Brendan Harris, mining analyst at Macquarie, said the coal market remains tight with prices set to stay high and the pullback overnight would not be prompting him to downgrade earnings for the Australian miners he covers.

Coal Prices soaring- demand Tom Fletcher, Staff Writer, BC Local News, 7-14-08, http://www.bclocalnews.com/business/25412649.html, Junaid B.C.'s coal industry came off a weak 2007 with prices more than doubling so far this year for all types of coal, and that trend is expected to continue. The price of metallurgical coal, used in steel production, is forecast to rise from an average $85 per tonne in 2007 to $198 this year, according to BC Stats. For the highest-grade metallurgical coal, B.C. producers have signed some contracts for more than $300 per tonne. Despite coal's high concentration of carbon and particulate emissions, demand from steel-producing countries Japan, South Korea, Brazil, China and India has driven up prices. B.C. coal also benefited from supply problems including flooded mines in Australia, safety-related mine closures in Russia and heavy snowfall in Chinese coal production areas.

Despite drops, prices are high Bloomberg, 7-14-08, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aR42fKuwDfXA&refer=australia, Junaid July 14 (Bloomberg) -- Thermal coal prices at Australia's Newcastle port, a benchmark for Asia, fell for the first time in 12 weeks, dropping 3.5 percent from a record. The weekly index for power-station coal prices at the New South Wales port declined $6.79 to $188 a metric ton in the period ended July 11, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index. The index last week rose to a sixth consecutive record, reaching $194.79 a ton. ``The market is signaling the upward momentum is probably easing from here,'' Mark Pervan, senior commodity analyst at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd., said today in Melbourne. ``When you get well over historical highs, the market is trying to find a ceiling price, and we may have found that last week.''

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

14

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Prices High Now

Asian countries’ demand maintains high coal prices Seeking Alpha, Stock Market Analysis site, July 03, 2008, “Rising Asian Demand Keeps Coal Prices Inflated, Energy Stocks: Coal” http://seekingalpha.com/article/83756-rising-asian-demand-keeps-coal-prices-inflated [Bapodra] In May, China reverted to being a net coal importer, with imports exceeding exports by 250,000 metric tonnes, as local output failed to keep pace with demand. Between January fiscal ‘08 and May fiscal ‘08, China’s coal exports fell 4.1 per cent on year, to 18.5 million tonnes. Vietnam said today it will reduce its coal exports by 10 million tonnes or 31 per cent this year to meet growing domestic demand. Currently a major coal exporter in the region, Vietnam has said it plans to progressively reduce its exports until 2015 when it plans to halt them altogether, as it redirects coal to domestic electricity generation to power its booming economy. It is not surprising to see volatility in the coal market, but analysts believe the fundamentals will support prices at very strong levels into 2009. Yes, spot coal prices could ease in coming months, but infrastructure constraints in Australia (Australia is the world’s largest supplier of sea-borne coal) and rising demand in Asia are likely to keep a high floor on prices.

Prices will rise due to soaring demand Reuters, 3-3-08, http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKSYD20866820080303, Junaid SYDNEY, March 4 (Reuters) - Asian demand for thermal coal is expected to rise 6.3 percent this year, underpinned by soaring power demand from China and India, an Australian government report said on Tuesday, adding prices were likely to keep rising. The Australian Bureau for Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) said demand for imported coal in Asia would rise by 23 million tonnes this year to 390.9 million tonnes, upgraded from a December forecast for 361.4 million tonnes. "Several countries, including India, China, the Republic of Korea and Malaysia, have advanced plans to increase coal-fired electricity generation capacity to meet growing power demand," ABARE said in its quarterly report.

Cost of coal has been shooting up SABC News, 7-18-08, http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/general/0,2172,173443,00.html, Junaid Eskom has reported a significant decline in its profit before tax for the year ending in March, mainly because of the price of coal and diesel. Profits fell from R6.5 billion last year to R3.2 billion. The utility says the costs of diesel and coal have increased by 40% during the period under review. However, revenue rose to R44.4bn from R40bn the previous year. Despite the approval of a 27% electricity hike that Eskom received, the company says its problems are far from over. Coal costs increased by R5 billion for the period. Coal is used to generate almost 80% of Eskom's electricity. The utility is currently sitting on R7.5 billion rand in unrecoverable expenditure. And due to electricity supply constraints, some power stations are running above capacity, pushing-up the demand for additional coal. Eskom's CEO Jacob Maroga says the company is currently using 21% of short-term coal contracts compared to 2% in 2001.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

15

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Prices High Now

Coal costs have been consistently rising Blooomberg, 7-7-08, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news? pid=20601081&sid=aRcgAZrZVGcI&refer=australia, Junaid July 7 (Bloomberg) -- Thermal coal prices at Australia's Newcastle port, a benchmark for Asia, rose 13 percent to a record for a sixth week amid reduced supplies of the fuel. The weekly index for power-station coal prices at the port in New South Wales state gained $22.69 to $194.79 a metric ton in the week ended July 4, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index. The volume shipped in the week ended 7 a.m. local time today fell 17 percent to 1.7 million metric tons from 2.06 million tons a week earlier, Newcastle Port Corp. said today on its Web site. Australian producers, the world's largest exporters of the fuel, are switching output to semi-soft coal from thermal coal to take advantage of higher prices, reducing supply of power station coal, Mark Pervan, a senior commodity strategist with Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. in Melbourne, said today by phone. ``That is tightening the thermal coal market; you are basically taking thermal coal supplies out of the market,'' Pervan said. ``That is an additional squeeze on the market so it is no surprise we are seeing these higher prices.'' The weekly globalCOAL index is up 46 percent since the start of May. The monthly index gained 18 percent to $163.68 a ton in June, from $138.31 the previous month.

Demand is pushing prices Blooomberg, 7-7-08, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news? pid=20601081&sid=aRcgAZrZVGcI&refer=australia, Junaid Thermal coal prices will remain at record levels into next year as power stations demand more of the fuel and railroad and port bottlenecks in Australia and South Africa limit supply, Preston Chiaro, the head of Rio Tinto Group's energy unit, said June 6. ``We have seen the bulk of the gains; we are now at a point where it is going to struggle to push much higher,'' ANZ's Pervan said of the current Newcastle spot price. ``I think $194 a ton is getting pretty close to the upper limits.''

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

16

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Demand High Now

High price of oil driving demand for coal Mineweb, “Atlantic Coal releases final results,” Company Releases, 7/17/2008, Anthracite coal, washed and sized into eight products, is sold into the domestic heating and industrial markets. Domestic heating market demand remains robust and commands the highest prices. Coal is sold to dealers for final delivery to households utilizing coal as a primary or secondary heating fuel. The north eastern states of the US consume approximately 85% of total USA fuel oil used for heat. As the price of fuel oil has escalated unabated, demand for anthracite coal as a primary fuel for heating has surged. This demand is further bolstered by the substantial increase in shipments of hand fired coal stoves into the market. The weighted average selling price for this segment of the market was $130 per tonne. It remains an attractive and dynamic segment of the market. Industrial market consumption is concentrated on steel producers using anthracite as a carbon additive in their melting shop operations. Steel production continues at high levels with concomitant demand for coal. The high quality of Mammoth seam anthracite mined by SCG creates a superior high fixed carbon product for the steel market. These very characteristics also make our coal desirable for use in ore reduction processes with potential future demand by this segment. Industrial markets are price competitive with the weighted average selling price.

Demand for coal is coming back Bob Reynolds, Staff Writer, WNEP News Station, 7-9-08, http://www.wnep.com/Global/story.asp? S=8649997&nav=menu158_1, Junaid Coal is making a big comeback in some areas. That means more jobs and more demand for certain products that bring with them lower fuel costs. Pete Onuskanich of Pottsville showed off his new coal-fired furnace in his Pottsville home. The high cost of home heating oil pushed Onuskanich to invest $5,000 for the furnace and the installation. Having a coal unit takes a little more effort, loading the coal and taking out the ashes. "Go to coal. It's a lot cheaper, maybe a little bit of work but if you're that lazy there's nothing I can do about it," Onuskanich said.

Coal Demand boom likely to last Reuters, 6-26-08, http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626m, Junaid NEW YORK (Reuters) - Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday. Jim Griffin, managing director of Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's coal market resemble the boombust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic growth that is driving persistent coal demand.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

17

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Demand High Now

Coal Demand has reached record levels AP, Associated Press, 7-27-08, Posted on CNN, http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/fe0a5d47eda58198fd91b624f9c62b79.htm, Junaid NEW YORK (Associated Press) - International demand is leading coal prices to near-record levels. Weather-related disruptions and other global supply problems have shined a spotlight on U.S. miners. Calyon Securities analyst Gordon Howald says despite their meteoric rise, coal shares have room to grow. He recommends taking advantage of pull-backs to snap up what he calls strong players like Arch Coal Inc. and Foundation Coal Holdings. He raised his rating on the two to "add" from "neutral." Howald raised his target on Peabody Energy Corp. to $88 from $66. He predicts prices for coal, like other commodities, will climb through next year. The price of coal used in steel production is booming and steam coal, used in boilers to produce electricity, could gain even more as utilities renew annual contracts with customers. Demand could also rise if the summer is unusually warm, he says.

Demand is sky high Bloomberg, 10-30-07, Posted on Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/29/bloomberg/sxcoal.php, Junaid Energy coal prices at the port of Newcastle, Australia, the world's biggest export harbor for the fuel, rose 1.3 percent to a record on expectations of supply shortages in Asia and a disruption to deliveries from a Queensland State mine. Coal for immediate delivery at Newcastle rose 96 cents to $76.95 a metric ton in the week ended last Friday, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index. The previous all-time high was $76.16 reached two weeks ago. Supply has struggled to meet demand this year because of bottlenecks in producer countries like Australia and South Africa, and as China became a net importer of coal for the first time. Anglo American, the world's second-biggest mining company, last week declared force majeure on shipments from the Dawson mine in Queensland. "It's the expectations that demand continues to outpace supply so the market is in deficit; it's about people's perceptions of what is around the corner," Rory Simington, a senior coal analyst at AME Mineral Economics in Sydney, said of the record price. "We're coming into a period of higher demand, winter is approaching, and people are wondering where the additional supply is going to come from."

High demand in the future- Asian imports EIA, Energy Information Administration, Jan 2007, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Australia/Background.html, Junaid Australia is one of the few countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that is a significant net energy exporter. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter and is the fifth largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Australia’s prospects for expanding energy exports in the future are promising as Asian demand for both coal and LNG rises. However, Australia can expect increasing export competition from China (coal) and Indonesia (coal and LNG).

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

18

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

US Coal Demand High Now

US coal demand high WSJ, Wall Street Journal, June 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121426607541798571.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, Junaid U.S. coal producers have been largely unable to meet growing demand because of a lengthy permitting process, lack of capital investment and a shortage of skilled miners, which will keep supplies tight and prices high. The underlying industrywide issues are compounded by severe floods in the Midwest, which have stranded barges full of coal and submerged railcars used to haul coal. It isn't clear what impact those interruptions will have on supplies and prices. Paul Forward, a coal analyst with Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., expects demand for coal in the U.S. to outstrip supply this year by 15 million tons, in large part because of the increase in exports, which shot up 49% through April compared with last year. Constraints to production also played a role in the growing shortfall, he said.

Coal is in high demand in the US- low cost alternative Richard Heinberg, Staff Writer, Global Public Media, 5-28-08, http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_194_coal_in_the_united_states, Junaid The sheer amounts of coal that will be needed in order to offset any significant proportion of oil (and perhaps also natural gas) consumption, and to meet the projected increased demand for electricity, are mind-boggling. Coal is a lower-quality fossil fuel in the best case, and America is being forced to use ever lower-quality coal. Just to offset the declining heating value of US coal while meeting EIA forecasts for electricity demand growth by 2030, the nation will then have to mine roughly 80 percent more coal then than it is doing currently. If carbon sequestration and other new technologies for consuming coal are implemented, they will increase the amount of coal required in order to produce the same amount of energy for society’s use, since the energy penalty for capture and sequestration is estimated at up to 40 percent. A broad-scale effort to produce synthetic liquid fuels from coal (CTL) will also dramatically increase coal demand. If the current trend to expand coal exports continues, this would stimulate demand even further. Altogether, there is a realistic potential for more than a doubling, perhaps even a tripling, of US coal demand and production by 2030—which would hasten exhaustion of the resource from many current mining regions and draw the inevitable production peak closer in time.

US coal consumption is high and growing Association of American Railroads, 10/07, http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/294.ashx U.S. coal production and consumption will almost certainly continue to grow. In its Annual Energy Outlook 2007, released in January 2007, the EIA projects 1.5 percent average annual growth in U.S coal production through 2025, due mainly to increasing coal use for electricity generation. Assuming no major changes in emissions legislation, Western coal production is forecast to increase far more quickly than interior production; Appalachian production is forecast to fall slightly.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

19

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

US Coal Demand High

Coal remains in high demand Kirby Lee Davis, Staff Writer, Journal Record, 3-12-08, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20080312/ai_n24936262, Junaid "The cost of electricity is driven by a large part on the percent of coal used to generate it," said Craft, defending his industry's performance and interests while linking future gross domestic product growth to a continued abundance of inexpensive electricity. "Coal remains the low-cost alternative." Craft said electrical power generation by coal-fueled plants rose 50 percent last year to 3.9 billion kilowatts per hour. Federal government projections estimate that will grow to 4.9 billion kilowatts by 2030, with improved sulfur removal technologies allowing the coal-fired market share to hit 57 percent. Coal usage is projected to rise 48 percent over that period, he said, comprising the majority of power generation. Renewable sources would increase 60 percent, he said, while nuclear power generation would climb 19 percent and petroleum sources 9 percent.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

20

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Renewables Links – Coal

Alternative Energy will replace coal – tops experts agree Ethan Goffman, politics correspondent, 6/17/08 (“Renewable Energy Likely to Overtake Oil And Coal Sooner than You Think” Gather, ) Renewable energy is expanding voraciously and will do so even faster, according to experts at a Worldwatch Institute panel (Tipping Point). Wind power is already in the midst of an explosion, under-remarked on in the mainstream media, and other renewable energies, such as solar and cellulose ethanol, are likely to follow. Worldwatch President Chris Flavin explains that we are at an amazing moment in the history of energy, a transformational moment, driven by historic high energy costs, concern about climate change, and the worldwide impact of government policies. Wind, solar, and other renewables are likely to replace oil and gas sooner rather than later. Renewable energy has accelerated greatly in the last three years, and the scope and import of this expansion are severely under-reported, according to Worldwatch fellow and energy expert Eric Martinot. Investment in new renewable capacity hit $71 billion dollars in 2007 and continues to exceed expectations. Government policy has been a key driver, Martinot says, overcoming resistance to renewable energy. If current policies supporting renewable energy are simply maintained, he believes that the momentum will be unstoppable. Venture capitalist Michael Liebreich, an expert in renewable energy investment, explains that the implications of current growth are far bigger than people think. Conventional energy use is growing only incrementally, as opposed to the exponential growth of renewable energy, which is accelerating with stunning speed. Conventional thinking, which sees oil and coal as virtually unchallenged, is all wrong, according to Liebreich. This is because the big curve upward of renewable energy will inevitably beat the little curve of conventional energy.

Alternative Energy shafts coal – World Energy Council Agrees Ingvar B. Fridleifsson, United Nations University—Geothermal Training Programm, 12/03 “Status of geothermal energy amongst the world's energy sources” Geothermics Volume 32, Issues 4-6, Science Direct, ) The World Energy Council (WEC) has presented several scenarios for meeting the future energy requirements, with varying emphases on economic growth rates, technological progress, environmental protection and international equity. All the scenarios provide for substantial social and economic development, particularly in the developing countries. They provide for improved energy efficiencies and environmental compatibility. During 1990–2050, the primary energy consumption is expected to increase by some 50% according to the most environmentally conscious scenario, and by some 275% according to the highest growth rate scenario. In the environmental scenario, the carbon emissions are expected to decrease slightly from 1990 levels. The high growth rate scenario is expected to lead to a doubling of the carbon emissions ([Nakicenovic et al., 1998]). The scarcity of energy resources forecasted in the 1970s did not occur. With technological and economic development, estimates of the ultimately available energy resource base continue to increase. Economic development over the next century will apparently not be constrained by geological resources. Environmental concerns, financing, and technological constraints appear more likely to limit future development. In all WEC scenarios, the peak of the fossil fuel era has already passed. Oil and gas are expected to continue to be important sources of energy in all cases, but the role of renewable energy sources and nuclear energy varies widely in these scenarios as does the level to which these energy sources replace coal. In all the scenarios, the renewables are expected to become very significant contributors to the world primary energy consumption, providing 20–40% of the primary energy in 2050 and 30–80% in 2100. They are expected to cover a large part of the increase in energy consumption and to replace coal.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

21

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Renewables Links – Coal

Renewable energy replaces coal within a few years Moreland Energy Foundation – No Date (“Renewable energy can replace coal!” < http://www.mefl.com.au/documents/MW_renewable_baseload.pdf.> The short answer is yes. There are many sources of renewable energy which can already provide strong and steady electricity to supply our baseload needs as well as our peak demand. In order to make this happen, we must start scaling up our installation of renewable energy, develop a broad range of renewable energy technologies, and combine investment in renewable energy with strong programs to save energy. By doing these three things on a large-scale, within a few years we could start turning off the most polluting coal-fired power stations and replacing them either with megawatts of power produced by renewable energy, or ‘negawatts’ of power saved by cutting energy waste.

Coal will be relied upon until we develop large-scale alternative energy sources Eric McLamb is the president of Ecology Communications and went to the University of North Carolina at Capitol Hill, “Fossils Fuels vs. Renewable Energy Resources: Energy's Future Today” Ecology: Global Network, No Date http://www.ecology.com/features/fossilvsrenewable/fossilvsrenewable.html The oil, coal and natural gas companies know these are serious problems. But until our renewable energy sources become more viable as major energy providers, the only the alternative for our global population is for these companies to continue tapping into the fossil fuel reserves to meet our energy needs. And, you can pretty much count on these companies being there providing energy from renewable sources when the fossil fuels are depleted. Many oil companies, for example, are involved in the development of more reliable renewable energy technologies. For example, British Petroleum Company, today known as BP, has become one of the world's leading providers of solar energy through its BP Solar division, a business that they are planning on eclipsing their oil production business in the near future.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

22

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Renewables Links – Clean Coal

Renewable energy tradesoff with clean coal – its more cost effective, DOE studies prove David Sassoon, starter of Solve Climate, 2/1/08 (“DOE Report: Renewables Currently Cheaper Than "Clean" Coal” Solve Climate – Blog Rab) Renewable energy is currently cheaper than clean coal. The DOE proves it in three easy steps. Step 1 (page 5) The overall goal of the Carbon Sequestration Program is to develop, by 2012, fossil fuel conversion systems that achieve 90 percent CO2 capture with 99 percent storage permanence at less than a 10 percent increase in the cost of energy services. Step 2 (page 9) It is believed that a 10 percent cost of electricity (COE) increase would significantly reduce impact to the economy. This level will also enable fossil fuel systems with CO2 capture and sequestration to compete with other power generation options to reduce the GHG intensity of energy supply, including wind, biomass, and nuclear power. Presumably, then, DOE believes if you increase the cost of electricity from coal more than 10%, it can no longer compete with alternatives. (Okay, so they omitted solar and included nuclear, but hang on.) Step 3 (page 17-18) Preliminary analysis…indicates…that CO2 capture….could raise the cost of electricity from a new supercritical PC power plant by 65%, from 5.0 cents/kWh to 8.25 cents/kWh. Analysis….show that CO2 capture and compression raises…..the cost of electricity from a newly built IGCC power plant by 30%, from an average of 7.8 cents/kWh to 10.2 cents/kWh. So they've got until 2012, according to their plan, the bring the cost of clean coal technology down. Way down. Let's see. They pulled the plug on FutureGen a couple of days ago because of ballooning costs. The Bush administration, in a major policy reversal, canceled its support for a planned $1.8 billion coal-gasification plant that was supposed to herald a new era of emissions-free power but instead has been plagued by huge cost overruns. Clean energy is moving in the opposite direction.

Renewables tradeoff with Clean Coal Northern Territory News, 11/7/07 “ALP 'ignores' clean coal,” p. Lexis RESOURCES Minister Ian Macfarlane says Labor has ignored clean coal in its energy strategy to gain Greens preferences. Visiting the coal export region of Hay Point in central Queensland yesterday, Mr Macfarlane said it was important to invest in renewable energy, but just as important to develop low emission fossil fuels such as clean coal. ''By including only renewables in its energy target, Labor has placed clean coal technology at a huge competitive disadvantage at a critical stage in its development,'' Mr Macfarlane said. ''Labor is picking winners to win Green preferences, and has decided against supporting efforts to clean up our number one energy source, coal.''

Other Renewables tradeoff with clean coal The Courier Mail, 7/25/05, “Generation glut a concern,” p. Lexis INCREASING demand for electricity would support a swarm of expensive plans for providing power, industry watchers say. But the financial feasibility of projects will prove critical and some say government renewable energy targets will impact on any potential glut of proposals. Numerous competing proposals for generating or supplying power have hit the market, ranging from clean coal technology to geothermal energy to a gas pipeline from Papua New Guinea.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

23

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Cap and Trade Links – Clean Coal

Cap and trade will stop clean coal technology in its tracks Lawrence Kudlow, former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company, 5/29/2008, Coal-Cap Disaster, Creators Syndicate, http://www.creators.com/opinion/lawrence-kudlow/coal-cap-disaster.html Let that idea sink in. By pulling the plug on half of our current electricity production, cap-and-trade will risk a massive undermining of the American economy, as well as our future economic and national security. The coal story is so important simply because the United States has massively undeveloped coal resources. With 27 percent of the world's coal reserves estimated at 270 billion tons, the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And yet cap-and-trade would destroy this critical sector. New coal technologies being developed right now wouldn't even be allowed to flourish under cap-and-trade. Synthetic-fuel-developed coal, through the Fisher-Tropsch technology, is a proven gas-to-liquid process that sequesters coal carbon. It could power the American economy for generations. Rentech Corp. is already using this process to create an ultra-low carbon and sulfur liquid that can be easily adapted to all our transportation needs. According to the ESS Environmental company, other chemical-based technologies that produce virtually no carbon emissions also could be used. But the great risk is that cap-and-trade will stop these technologies dead in the water, right in their tracks. That would be a tragedy.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

24

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Credit Trading Link – Coal

Credit trading sends a signal mandatory reductions are coming – this decimates coal Marlo Lewis, Sr. Fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute, April 27, 2004, Et Tu, Edison?, http://cei.org/gencon/019,03981.cfm Coal is the most carbon-intensive fuel (CO2 emissions per unit of energy obtained from coal are nearly 80 percent higher than those from natural gas and about 35 percent higher than those from gasoline).[4] Consequently, Kyoto-type policies can easily decimate coal as a fuel source for electric power generation. For example, according to EIA’s analysis, the McCain-Lieberman bill would reduce U.S. coal-fired electric generation in 2025 by 80 percent—from 2,803 billion kilowatt hours to 560 billion kilowatt hours.[5] A transferable credit program will send a political signal that mandatory reductions are in the offing and, hence, that coal’s days are numbered. As environmental lawyer William Pedersen observes, the Administration’s plan to develop “company-by-company greenhouse emissions accounts” makes little sense “except as a step towards legally binding controls.” Indeed, why would firms go to the trouble and expense of earning offsets applicable to a future regulatory program “unless they believed such a program was coming?”[6] DOE cannot issue or certify early credits without ratifying the opinion, tirelessly asserted by green groups, that some form of carbon regulation is “inevitable.” Anticipating such constraints, many companies will make plans to switch from coal to natural gas. That, in turn, will put additional pressure on already tight natural gas supplies.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

25

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

RPS Links – Coal

RPS dramatically reduces coal demand. EIA, 09-07, EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/eeim/execsummary.html The RPS causes a dramatic shift away from coal and natural gas to renewable fuels, particularly biomass and wind. Coal-fired electricity generation in the Policy Case is 938 billion kilowatthours (28 percent) lower in 2030 than in the Reference Case. Natural-gas-fired generation is 99 billion kilowatthours (11 percent) lower in 2030. Generation from nuclear power is 80 billion kilowatthours (9 percent) lower in 2030.

RPS decreases coal prices EIA, 06-07, EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/rps.html The shift away from coal to renewable fuels, together with the costs of retail electricity sellers holding RPS credits, affects electricity prices. In 2030, EIA projects the national average electricity price with the RPS to be 2 percent higher than in the reference case, i.e., 8.2 cents per kilowatthour with the RPS compared to 8.1 cents per kilowatthour in the reference case. By 2030, prices for natural gas and coal, two key fuels for the electric power sector, are lower with the RPS than in the reference case.

RPS reduces coal demand and prices Renewable Energy World, 06-17-07, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ rea/news/infocus/story?id=48961 The increased use of renewable sources in the RPS case leads to lower coal generation. Nuclear and natural gas generation are also lowered to a lesser degree. Relative to the reference case, retail electricity prices rise by an average of 0.9 percent over the 2005 to 2030 period in the RPS case. Reduced demand for coal and natural gas in the RPS case results in slightly lower prices for these fuels by 2030 when compared to reference case projections.

RPS trades off with coal – proven several states Christopher Cooper, Senior Policy Director, and Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 (“Renewing America The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)” NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES Report No. 01-07 Pg 11 < http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper _Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf> ) • A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas. In a 2002 assessment of a 10% national RPS, the Department f Energy determined that “the imposition of a national RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.” Analysts have confirmed this trade-off in RPS states like Michigan, New York, Virginia, and Texas.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

26

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

RPS Links – Coal

RPS devastates the coal industry Christopher Cooper, Senior Policy Director, and Dr. Benjamin Sovacool, Senior Research Fellow, 6/07 (“Renewing America The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)” NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES Report No. 01-07 Pg 44 < http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper? > Some studies have also begun to document how RPS policies depress the price of other fossil fuels, such as oil and coal. In Pennsylvania, for example, where more than 90 percent of electricity comes from coal and nuclear resources, a study conducted by Black & Veatch concluded an aggressive RPS would result in a substantial reduction in fossil fuel consumption, lowering the price of coal and oil and ultimately providing cost savings to ratepayers. The study noted that even a 1 percent reduction in fossil fuel prices would lead to a $140 million reduction in fossil fuel expenditures for the state.

Projected demands will prioritize coal usage now; RPS would displace the coal industry Alan Nogee et al , Clean Energy Program Director with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 4/23/07 (Jeff Deyette, Energy Analyst with UCS, and Steve Clemmer, Research Director for UCS’ Clean Energy Program, “The Projected Impacts of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard” The Electricity Journal Volume 20, Issue 4, Science Direct, > Under the business as usual scenario (AEO 2004), the United States increases its dependence on coal and natural gas in order to meet a projected 30 percent increase in demand for electricity from 2005 to 2020 (Figure 2). Non-hydro renewable energy use nearly doubles between 2005 and 2020, mostly as a result of existing state RPS policies and the increasing ability of wind power to be cost competitive with conventional energy sources. However, the total contribution from non-hydro renewable energy increases from 2.4 percent to just 3.5 percent during that same period.24 Renewable energy diversifies the energy portfolio by meeting a much larger portion of U.S. electricity demand under a 20 percent national RPS (UCS assumptions). By 2020, non-hydro renewable energy accounts for 15.5 percent of total electric power generation (Figure 3).25 In the earlier years of the forecast, the increased renewable energy generation displaces more natural gas. In the latter years, as coal generation begins to compete with more expensive natural gas, renewable energy generation displaces more coal. However, new growth in both coal and natural gas are still needed under the RPS to meet the projected increase in energy demand by consumers. By 2020, nearly two-thirds of the increase in coal generation projected under business as usual is displaced as a result of the new renewable energy generation.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

27

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

RPS Links – Coal

Tradable RPS decreases coal generation Energy Information Administration 6/06 (“Energy Market Impacts of a Clean Energy Portfolio Standard” Department of Energy, < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/emice/pdf/sroiaf2006(02).pdf> ) This report responds to a request from Senator Norm Coleman that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) analyze a proposed clean energy resources policy. The proposal, a copy of which is provided in Appendix B, requires retail electric suppliers to account for an increasing fraction of incremental sales growth with clean energy resources, including nonhydro renewable resources, new hydroelectric or nuclear resources, fuel cells, or an integrated gasification combined-cycle plant that sequesters its carbon emissions. Electric suppliers may also comply by purchasing tradable clean energy generation credits from other generators or by purchasing credits from the Federal government at a clean energy credit price of 2 cents per kilowatthour. Irrespective of the incremental target over the 3-year baseline sales period, suppliers are not required to hold credits in excess of 10 percent of their total prior-year sales in any year. Electric suppliers with less than 500,000 megawatthours of sales are exempt from the requirements. This analysis is based on the reference case from the Annual Energy Outlook 2006. The key findings include: • In aggregate, through 2019, the proposal does not induce any significant carbon-free generation above reference case levels because enough qualifying resources are built in the reference case to meet the Clean Energy Portfolio Standard (CEPS) targets. Reference case growth in renewable and nuclear generation is large enough to comply with the targets in those years. Sixty percent of the required clean energy generation in 2030 is achieved in the reference case. • In the last 10 years of the projections, additional nuclear and renewable generation is stimulated, and the clean energy target levels are achieved without the purchase of government-issued clean energy credits. • In 2020 CEPS credits are projected to begin trading at just below 1 cent (2004 dollars) per kilowatthour. Over the next few years, the credit price hovers just above 1 cent per kilowatthour before declining to between 0.3 and 0.5 cents per kilowatthour in the last 5 years of the projections as competing fossil fuel prices rise. • Almost 43 percent of the qualifying generation in 2030 is from new nuclear facilities (210 billion kilowatthours out of a requirement of 489 billion kilowatthours). Biomass (118 billion kilowatthours) and wind (90 billion kilowatthours) also provide substantial compliance generation. Other compliance generation comes from geothermal (42 billion kilowatthours), landfill gas (33 billion kilowatthours), and solar (6 billion kilowatthours). • The increase in carbon-free generation leads to lower coal and natural gas generation. By 2030, coal generation is reduced by over 5 percent, and natural gas generation is reduced by 2 percent from their respective reference case levels.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

28

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

RPS Links – Clean Coal

RPS Excludes the usage of clean coal which discourages its development and use R. Bruce Josten, Executive vice president of government affairs in the chamber of commerce, 6/15/07, letter to Reps. John D Dingell and Rick Boucher, http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber %2006%2015%2007.pdf) II. Portfolio Inclusions and Exclusions: Which energy sources should be included in an RPS; should there be a tiered” system for eligibility, and should there be adistinction between new and existing sources; should there be credits for useful thermal energy from eligible resources; and should energy efficiency be considered, and, if so, how. One of the major drawbacks to current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy sources are “renewable.” Clean, safe, and reliable energy sources such as hydropower, nuclear power, and clean coal technology have typically been excluded from this definition. As a result, the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy legislation should not do: it picks winners and losers. Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable portfolio standard—which, again, the Chamber does not consider necessary—then it must strive to be as inclusive as possible. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage energy production, there is no legitimate reason why certain clean, safe energy producers are left standing at the door while others benefit.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

29

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

PTC Links – Coal

Unique Link – Coal plants are set to grow, permanent tax credits substantially weaken the coal industry Janice Mays, Chief Counsel of the Committee on Ways & Means, 5/07 (“Analysis of Alternative Extensions of the Existing Production Tax Credit for Wind Generator” Energy Information Administration < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ptc/> )

In the reference case, coal-fired plants are expected to grow as the primary source of electricity, increasing from 50 percent of total supply in 2005 to 57 percent in 2030. Both nuclear and natural gas plants provided 19 percent of total generation in 2005, but their 2030 shares of generation are projected to fall to 15 percent and 16 percent, respectively. While both technologies show a gradual growth in capacity over the forecast horizon, their shares decline because this growth is smaller than the corresponding increase in total electricity generation. In the reference case, wind generation is expected to more than triple over this 25-year period, although the share of total generation remains below 1 percent through 2030. Compared to the reference case, a five-year extension of the full PTC for wind facilities increases their generation in 2030 by almost 40 percent. The 1.5 cent tax credit has a nearly identical effect. In these cases, the share of total generation from wind is approximately 1.2 percent by 2030. A five-year extension with a reduced PTC of 1 cent per kilowatthour is not expected to result in additional wind power than what is projected under business-asusual conditions A permanent extension of the PTC increases wind generation in each of the credit amount cases. Compared to the reference case, a permanent extension of the current 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit would more than triple 2030 generation from wind plants. With a similar extension and a lower PTC amount of 1.5 cents per kilowatthour, wind generation in 2030 would still more than double relative to the reference case, whereas the permanent extension of a PTC of 1.0 cent per kilowatthour would increase wind generation by about 40 percent over the reference case level in 2030. In this lowest credit amount extension case, wind generation at the end of the period is five-fold the 2005 level. The share of total electricity generation projected to come from wind facilities in 2030 with a permanent PTC extension ranges from 1 percent with a 1.0 cent per kilowatthour PTC to 3 percent with a 1.9 cent per kilowatthour credit. In each of the PTC extension cases, total electricity sales are unchanged. Therefore, the additional generation from wind displaces generation from other technologies. In the 1.9 cent five-year extension case, the 20 additional billion kilowatthours of generation from wind facilities slightly slows nuclear and coal expansions, although there is also less electricity generated from dedicated biomass facilities. This wind expansion results in 500 fewer megawatts of biomass capacity relative to the business-as-usual forecast. In 2030, when compared to the reference case results, nuclear generation is lesser by 10 billion kilowatthours, and there is a similar effect on coal generation. In the permanent extension cases, which have greater effects on the fuel mix, most of the additional wind generation is at the expense of coal generation growth. Nearly all of the 2030 wind power production levels that are above reference case levels result in a dampening of coal generation of the same magnitude. In the 1.9 cent permanent extension case, 122 billion kilowatthours of additional wind generation is balanced by a drop of 122 billion kilowatthours in electricity generated from coal. Even in this case, however, coal generation in 2030 is 59 percent above 2005 levels.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

30

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Wind Links – Coal

Wind Power would tradeoff with coal if backed by government incentives MSNBC 8/23/01 (“Replace dirty coal with the wind, engineers say” < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071926> ) Wind power is now cheaper than coal and could become a leading source of electricity with the right political support and investment, researchers said Thursday. The Stanford engineers calculated that building some 225,000 wind turbines across the country would be expensive — at an initial cost of $338 billion — but that the payback would include a huge drop in emissions tied to global warming. “There is no reason not to invest in wind at this point,” said Mark Jacobson, a Sanford University professor of environmental engineering. “Wind is so obviously cheaper if we look at total costs.” Writing in the journal Science, Jacobson and Stanford colleague Gilbert Masters calculated that wind-generated energy costs 3 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Coal power is priced around there as well, but if you factor in the indirect health and environmental costs the price is more like 5.5 to 8.3 cents per kilowatt hour, the engineers calculated. The researchers also noted that coal dust kills 2,000 U.S. mine workers annually and has cost taxpayers about $35 billion in monetary and medical benefits to former miners since 1973. Karen Batra, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, acknowledged that coal mining has an environmental impact, but said “we are all working toward a goal of reducing emissions and have made tremendous strides in reducing emissions in the past 30 years since the Clean Air Act.” Critics of wind power argue that the turbines — which look like giant propellers — have been linked to the accidental deaths of migratory birds that get caught inside the propeller blades, and that the turbines take up a tremendous amount of space. But Jacobson said these problems could be avoided by selecting sites out of migration paths and by paying farmers to put them on their land. “Wind has trivial health and environmental problems associated with it in comparison with coal,” Jacobson said. Although wind power is the fastest growing source of energy in the world, the United States has been slow to use it because coal is so cheap and wind has received no government incentives, Jacobson said. Wind power provides the United States with less than 1 percent of its energy, compared to 52 percent from coal, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Analysts say the U.S. market will see 1,500 megawatts of new wind power installed by the end of the year. For America to catch up with major wind power nations such as Germany, Spain and Denmark, political backing by the Bush administration and Congress is essential, Jacobson said. In order to build more wind farms in the United States, lawmakers must be willing to offer the same investment opportunities and tax incentives given to the more established coal, gas and oil industries, he added. The energy bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this month focuses heavily on boosting domestic oil, coal and natural gas production, doing far less to promote wind power as an energy source. The Senate, still working on its version of the energy legislation, is virtually certain to focus on conservation and energy efficiency. The authors added that a massive campaign to build turbines, while costly, would have an additional payback: a sharp drop in carbon dioxide emissions, one of the gases that many scientists fear are warming Earth by trapping heat via a greenhouse effect. If around 225,000 turbines were built, Jacobson noted, it would cost an initial $338 billion with a minimum of $4 billion annually for maintenance. But doing so would eliminate almost two-thirds of coal-generated electricity and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels, the authors estimated.

A boost in wind power would decrease coal usage and deter the development of new coal technology Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer, 5/13/08 (“Wind Can Supply 20% of U.S. Electricity, Report Says” Washington Post, Lexis, ) The Energy Department said yesterday that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its electricity-generation needs with wind by 2030, enough to displace 50 percent of natural gas consumption and 18 percent of coal consumption. But in a report drawn up by its national laboratories, the department said that meeting the target would require more improvements in turbine technology, cost reductions, new transmission lines, an expansion of the wind industry and a fivefold increase in the pace of wind-turbine installation. The report said a boost in wind capacity to 20 percent of electricity generation "could potentially defer the need to build some new coal capacity, avoiding or postponing the associated carbon emissions." The department said that expanding the use of wind to generate power could avert a need for more than 80 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity; its current projections say that new coal-fired plants capable of producing about 140 gigawatts of power could be built by 2030 to meet rising demand.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

31

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Wind Links - Coal

Wind Power reduces the need for coal Climate Protection Agency 2/27/06 (“Replace Coal with Wind” < http://climateprotectioncampaign.typepad.com/cpc/2006/02/replace_coal_wi.html> ) Can wind power replace coal in the US for generating electricity? The answer is YES, and it can be done more cost-effectively than using nuclear. The US generates about half of its electricity using coal-fired power plants. Combustion of coal accounts for 37% of US greenhouse gas emissions overall, and 81% of emissions in the electricity sector. These coal plants will have to be shut down or replaced with other non-emitting electric power generation technologies. Efficiency improvements can take us a long way toward reducing the need for these coal plants. However, the power produced by these plants provides so-called "baseload" power, which will need to be generated by other sources.

Farmers would shift to wind New York Times 10/20/07 (“Fight Against Coal Plants Draws Diverse Partners” Lexis) For many farmers and ranchers, their aversion to coal is more pragmatic than philosophical. Their crops and livestock have been plagued by severe droughts and storms lately, and some wonder whether those are linked to global warming. Whether that proves to be the case, the strain on their finances has made them more interested in renewable-energy projects, like wind turbines, on their land. Janyce and Leonard Harms, who grow wheat and millet in Hereford, Colo., near the Wyoming and Nebraska borders, last year agreed to allow eight towering wind turbines on their land. The turbines are part of the new 274-turbine Cedar Creek wind farm owned by BP, the huge energy company, and Babcock & Brown. The project is expected to churn out electricity for some 90,000 homes, mostly near Denver. The Harmses, though a bit skeptical about coal plants, have not become involved in any battles. But they typify the fascination with wind energy that is sweeping rural America. They have received about $5,000 from the wind farm’s owners for leasing their land, and once the wind farm is fully operational by year’s end, they will receive at least $3,500 a year per turbine. “We’re not environmentalists by any means,” Ms. Harms said as she gazed through her sliding glass door at the huge turbines spinning in the distance. “I see this as supplemental income. We’re getting older and we’d like to retire. This is a great deal, and the fact that it’s clean energy makes it even better.”

Wind would replace coal due to carbon dioxide emissions David Keith, Adjunct Professor Department of EPP at Carnegie Mellon, 11/11/04 (“Wind Power and Climate Change” < http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/index.html>) The primary reason for building large amounts of wind-power is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate changes such as global warming by replacing coal-fired power plants (and other carbon dioxide emitting power sources) with wind power. Suppose one builds a single wind-turbine and uses its power to replace electricity from a conventional coal-fired power plant. By reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the wind turbine will have a tiny (unmeasule) effect in reducing global climate change. The wind-turbine will also cause a tiny and likewise unmeasule amount of climate change by altering wind patterns. The question is what is the ratio of these two climatic changes? What is the ratio of climatic cost to benefit? This question matters for any amount of wind-power if it is build with the intention of reducing climate change.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

32

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Wind Links – Coal

Wind Power supplants coal usage – its cheaper and at a lower risk to investors than other alternatives Climate Protection Campaign 3/2/06 (“Cost of Wind vs Cost of Nuclear to Replace Coal” Blog ) One of our commenters, David Bradish, has asked how wind is more cost effective than nuclear to replace coal. The short answer is: It is cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, and it is a lower risk to investors, which means that the cost of financing for wind is lower on private capital markets. To make this case I use figures from two sources: "The Projected Costs of Generating Electricity" produced by the International Energy Agency/Nuclear Energy Agency, and "The Future of Nuclear Power" produced by MIT. First, and most important, the cost of capital. Unlike in previous decades, much of the regulatory risk shield for utilities has been taken down by deregulation. Now new power plant projects must compete for capital on private capital markets, i.e., investors. Investors attach a cost to the money invested in terms of a return on capital. This is often expressed as a "discount rate" in financial calculations. Higher risk projects are expected to have a higher return, and thus the cost of the capital is assessed at a higher discount rate.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

33

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Wind Links – Clean Coal

Promoting wind energy trades off with coal growth Janice Mays, Chief Counsel of the Committee on Ways&Means—US House of representative, 4/4/07, “Analysis of Alternative Extensions of the Existing Production Tax Credit for Wind Generator,” from the Energy Information Administration – Official energy statistics from the US government, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ptc/index.html A permanent extension of the PTC increases wind generation in each of the credit amount cases. Compared to the reference case, a permanent extension of the current 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit would more than triple 2030 generation from wind plants. With a similar extension and a lower PTC amount of 1.5 cents per kilowatthour, wind generation in 2030 would still more than double relative to the reference case, whereas the permanent extension of a PTC of 1.0 cent per kilowatthour would increase wind generation by about 40 percent over the reference case level in 2030. In this lowest credit amount extension case, wind generation at the end of the period is five-fold the 2005 level. The share of total electricity generation projected to come from wind facilities in 2030 with a permanent PTC extension ranges from 1 percent with a 1.0 cent per kilowatthour PTC to 3 percent with a 1.9 cent per kilowatthour credit. In each of the PTC extension cases, total electricity sales are unchanged. Therefore, the additional generation from wind displaces generation from other technologies. In the 1.9 cent five-year extension case, the 20 additional billion kilowatthours of generation from wind facilities slightly slows nuclear and coal expansions, although there is also less electricity generated from dedicated biomass facilities. This wind expansion results in 500 fewer megawatts of biomass capacity relative to the business-as-usual forecast. In 2030, when compared to the reference case results, nuclear generation is lesser by 10 billion kilowatthours, and there is a similar effect on coal generation. In the permanent extension cases, which have greater effects on the fuel mix, most of the additional wind generation is at the expense of coal generation growth. Nearly all of the 2030 wind power production levels that are above reference case levels result in a dampening of coal generation of the same magnitude. In the 1.9 cent permanent extension case, 122 billion kilowatthours of additional wind generation is balanced by a drop of 122 billion kilowatthours in electricity generated from coal. Even in this case, however, coal generation in 2030 is 59 percent above 2005 levels.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

34

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Solar Links – Coal

A transition to solar power displaces coal plants Ken Zweibel et al, president of PrimeStar Solar, 12/07 (James Mason, director of the Solar Energy Campaign, and Vasilis Fthenakis, professor in at Columbia University’s Center for Life Cycle Analysis, “A Solar Grand Plan” Scientific American, < http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan> ) The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan. That investment is substantial, but the payoff is greater. Solar plants consume little or no fuel, saving billions of dollars year after year. The infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants and all the fuels they consume. The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil, fundamentally cutting U.S. trade deficits and easing political tension in the Middle East and elsewhere. Because solar technologies are almost pollution-free, the plan would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 1.7 billion tons a year, and another 1.9 billion tons from gasoline vehicles would be displaced by plug-in hybrids refueled by the solar power grid. In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005 levels, putting a major brake on global warming.

Solar Power reduces reliance on coal and fossil fuels David R. Mills and Robert G. Morgan, Principal Research Fellows of Solar Energy Group in the Department of Applied Physics of the University of Sydney, 7/3/08 (“A solar-powered economy: How solar thermal can replace coal, gas and oil” Renewable Energy World < http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reworld/story?id=52693>) Although it is often said that ‘solar cannot produce baseload electricity,’ STE is probably the only currently available technology that can be considered for a globally dominant role in the electricity sector over the next 40 years. Humankind evolved to be most active when the sun was up, and this is why human activity and energy usage correlate significantly with the energy delivery from direct solar systems. Additional seasonal correlations detected result from the influence of the US national building air-conditioning load, which is greater toward summer months when the sun delivers more direct solar energy to the earth’s surface. We have up to now largely neglected these advantageous correlations when designing power systems technology. Such hourly and seasonal natural correlations with energy output from a solar system are substantially enhanced using storage. An immediate advantage is that load-following solar plant does not need expensive peaking plant back-up and it is clear that natural correlations can be used to economic advantage in solar power system design. The relevance of baseload generation as a technical strategy needs to be carefully re-examined. Human activity does not correlate well with baseload coal or nuclear output and it should be recognized that baseload is what coal and nuclear technologies produce, not what is required by society and the environment. Solar power with storage can take up as much of the grid generation load or vehicle energy load as is desired, and can host other clean energy options by treating them as a negative grid load. A mixture of storage and non-storage renewable options thus appears to be fully self-consistent as an alternative to the present generation mix, with the main co-contributors to STE probably being hydro and wind. Not only is STE an energy option of great significance, but with only 16 hours of storage it has sufficient diurnal and seasonal natural correlation with electricity load to supply the great majority of the US national grid (and by logical extension, those of China and India) over the year, with the hourly solar radiation data including typical cloudy weather patterns. Furthermore, STE can supply much of an electrified transportation market without destroying these natural correlations. An almost complete elimination of both fossil-fuelled generation and oil usage for transportation in the US appears to be technically feasible and will cost less than continuing to import oil.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

35

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Solar Links – Coal

Solar power reduces natural gas, which reduces coal usage Gar Lipow, guest contributor, 6/30/08 (“Power from rooftops could replace coal” Grist < http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/29/132129/715>) Enough sunlight strikes unshaded U.S. rooftops to replace all the coal and some of the natural gas we use to make electricity. Backup via ground source heat pumps, and smart grid technology would allow this variable energy source to displace base-load coal with today's technology. Whether this is the most cost effective way to displace coal is another question. Also rooftop solar is a silver BB rather than a silver bullet: Even after massive efficiency improvements we will need to get many times the power from nonrooftop sources than from rooftops. According to a 2003 study by the Energy Foundation (PDF), solar PV that converts 15 percent of sunlight to electricity could produce 710,000 Megawatts on rooftops that will be available in 2050. Doug Wood thinks that with concentrating PV using advanced aerospace quality cells we could convert solar at 30 percent rather than 15 percent efficiency. Scaling back to rooftops available today (using 2003 numbers from the same study and extrapolating forward) we could produce around 1.05 billion megawatts today. We normally assume 22 percent capacity factor (PDF) for PV. So that would give us about 2.3 billion megawatt hours, or around 56 percent of today's electrical production -- more than coal provides. Further, waste heat from this process could provide much of our heating and cooling needs as well. The EF study I cited suggests that about 65 percent of commercial roof space is unshaded compared to about 22 percent of residential roof space. Since some commercial scale chillers run on low to medium temp heat today, with enough storage solar CHP could provide close to 100 percent of commercial heating and cooling. But that much storage takes a lot of capital for a small incremental gain. So more realistically, we would put 16 to 24 hours of low temp Phase Change Material storage and use ground source heat pumps to provide the other 15 percent of low temp needs. As a side effect, the overnight storage would let us run those heat pumps when the electricity was cheapest -- which will prove more important than it might appear at first glance. The comparatively low mount of residential roof space available means you will only have 200 to 300 square feet of unshaded roof space available per home on average. I don't know if this means some houses provide a lot of available solar space, and others with none or if this is distributed more or less evenly per home. Even in the latter case, you will have a certain number of unshaded south walls, and a certain amount of yard space that could be devoted to solar generation. To be conservative, let's say that 40 percent of residential space heat and hot water could be provided as a side effect of concentrating PV electricity generation. Again, let's add PCM storage and the other 60 percent with ground source heat pumps. This is for existing buildings. New buildings could be designed to use 70 percent to 80 percent less energy through a combination of better insulation and sealing, passive solar, more efficient air exchange, and more efficient lighting and appliances. New buildings could also optimize the amount of solar oriented unshaded roof space. Now, since we are talking concentrating PV, we would have almost no control of when it would be generated -- mostly during the five peak hours of sunlight except when it was cloudy. However, we are assuming all space heating and cooling other than solar is switched to ground source heat pumps with PCM thermal storage. So when solar electricity was produced at a time it was not needed, it could run heat pumps to generate heat or cold in storage for climate control systems to draw on later. Sixty percent of 2005 residential heating and cooling was about 5.7 quad. Fifteen percent of 2005 commercial heating and cooling was about .6 quad. Without climate control efficiency improvements a climate control storage would let a smart grid absorb around 85 percent of solar electricity. If insulation and other improvements reduced climate control in existing buildings about 40 percent, climate control needs could still absorb about half. If we reduce climate control demand further, industry could add PCM and heat pumps to absorb pretty much as much of this as needed. Industry consumes about 33 quads. About 70 percent of this is used by boilers, and about 35 percent of boiler energy is used to produce process heat below 700 degrees Fahrenheit. That is 8 quads, or more than the total solar energy that would be produced. Because lower temperature heat is cheaper to store than high temperature, the highend of this would be a last resort; climate control would be the cheapest form of energy to store, followed by hot water at or below the boiling point, followed by hot water at not too much above the boiling point. Between residential, commercial, and industrial hot water I suspect we could place most of what space heating did not require without ever needing storage above the boiling point or below the freezing point of water. What is the bottom line on coal displacement? It would save slightly more electricity than we currently produce via coal, plus around as much again in displace climate control, hot water and low temp water heat. A small amount of this could displace coal use directly. But the majority would displace natural gas currently used for electricity production, climate control, hot water, and process heat. That natural gas in turn could be used to replace coal for base load, as a first step towards phasing out all fossil fuels, with a bit left over to contribute to phasing out oil. In other words total non-solar electricity generation would go down, even with increased demand to run heat pumps, while natural gas currently used to heat buildings would be available for electricity generation. We could completely replace coal based electricity generation with natural gas, and have some natural gas left over.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

36

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Solar Links – Coal

Solar Power replaces coal – cost David Roberts, staff writer, 1/22/07 (“Vinod Khosla's forecast for 2007: Trends and outlook” Gristmill, < http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/22/13054/5411> ) On the technology side, we will see a horse race between clean coal, solar thermal (not photovoltaic), and wind for central utilitygrade power generation. I would personally handicap this in favor of solar thermal power because it can be stored easily as heat and is half the cost of solar photovoltaic and is dispatchable by the utility when it is needed, unlike wind power which must be used when the wind blows. Heat is much cheaper to store than electricity and that gives solar thermal technologies (often called CSP for concentrated solar power) a big leg up over wind and photovoltaic. Contrary to popular belief, I suspect we will find that clean coal plants (often called IGCC plants with carbon capture and sequestration) will prove to be too unreliable and the cost of gasification of coal (the G in IGCC), the separation of carbon dioxide from the waste gases, and compression too high. Liquefaction, handling, and eventually underground storage in large reservoirs will be so expensive that it is likely that solar thermal technologies will win the cost race. The financial risk of building a fifty year lifetime coal plant will become much more visible in 2007, and utilities that are doing it will see their stock suffer as investors recognize this risk fully! You have got to be crazy to build a fifty year asset with the escalating risk of environmental regulations and the certainty of carbon pricing at some point which will triple the effective price of coal. It will be much like all the gas plants built in the last decade that are already uneconomic. Besides, all the renewable portfolio standards (RPS) will make it where you can't produce coal-based electricity and sell it. Already California has a law requiring 33% of the power be renewable by 2020! The eastern states have their own renewable goals. The RPS standards are spreading like wildfire.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

37

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Solar Links – Coal

Solar Power replaces dependency on coal Sarah Lozanova, staff writer, 3/27/08 (“Solar Thermal Electricity: Can it Replace Coal, Gas, and Oil?” Clean Technica < http://cleantechnica.com/2008/03/27/solar-thermal-electricity-can-it-replace-coal-gas-and-oil/> ) One of the most common arguments against large-scale use of renewable energy is that it cannot produce a steady, reliable stream of energy, day and night. Ausra Inc. does not agree. They believe that solar thermal technology can supply over 90% of grid power, while reducing carbon emissions. “The U.S. could nearly eliminate our dependence on coal, oil and gas for electricity and transportation, drastically slashing global warming pollution without increasing costs for energy,” said David Mills, chief scientific officer and founder of Ausra. You may be wondering, how will we have electricity at night or during cloudy weather? Will we use large banks of batteries or burn candles? The ability to utilize solar thermal technology after the sun sets is made possible by a storage system that is up to 93% efficient, according to Ausra’s executive vice president John O’Donnell. High efficiency is achieved because solar thermal plants do not need to convert energy to another form in order to store it and do not rely on battery technology. Flat moving recflectors or paolic mirrors focus solar energy to generate heat. This heat generates steam that turns turbines, thus generating an electric current. If you want to generate electricity-at, say, 3 am-heat from the sun can be stored for later use. This gives solar thermal technology the ability to not just produce peak power, but also generate base load electricity. Peak Power: The First Wave of Solar Thermal Plants The maximum amount of electricity demand on the power grid occurs during weekday afternoons and evenings in the summer months in most regions of the United States. This is largely caused by air conditioning loads, which gobble up electricity. Because the electric grid needs to be able to handle these peak loads, capacity is built to specifically handle these loads. Natural gas and oil typically comes to the rescue to produce this electricity. Although these plants are expensive to operate, they are cheaper to construct than most of the alternatives. They are fast to start, producing power in 30 minutes or less. Additional power plants are constructed just to generate electricity for the times when it is needed most. This causes peak electricity to be more expensive. A kilowatt hour of electricity at 3 pm and 3 am does not come with the same price tag to the utility company. “Adding solar plants that reliably generate until 10 pm displaces the highest cost alternative power,” said John O’Donnell. “That is the first wave of solar thermal plants. The daily and seasonal variation in grid load in the United States matches solar availability.” Base Load: Replacing Coal Power Base load is the minimum amount of electricity demand placed on the power grid over a 24 hour period. Coal and nuclear plants commonly supply this energy. These plants can take hours or even days to heat up to operating temperatures and are run more continuously than peak power plants. Due largely to the lower cost of fuel, these plants can produce electricity at a lower cost. If a carbon tax is implemented in the future, this will increase the cost of electricity generated from coal. Generating electricity around the clock with solar thermal technology relies on storage systems that run turbines long after the sun sets. “Ausra has a very active energy storage R & D group and we will be prototyping a couple of systems this year here in the US,” said John O’Donnell. Solar Energy Storage This is not a new technology, having been used for plastic manufacturing and petroleum production for a long time. Solar thermal plants have a cost advantage compared to photovoltaic technology because energy can be stored as heat without being converted to another form or relying on batteries.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

38

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Solar Links – Clean Coal

Solar power trades off with clean coal development – its cheaper Matt Peacock, writer for ABC, 10/2/07 (“Solar takes off with US power supply deal” Australian Broadcast Corporation < http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm> Rab) Dr Diesendorf says the huge US investment into solar will soon make talk of clean coal and nuclear as solutions to climate change redundant. "Basically, the solar thermal technology will be on the ground, certainly in the United States and many other countries long before so-called clean coal and nuclear power," he said. Mr Khosla says solar power is developing rapidly and will be cheaper than either nuclear power or 'clean' coal. "We think we can move much faster than nuclear and on an unsubsidised basis, we will be cheaper than nuclear power, and we should be cheaper than IGCC [integrated gasification combined cycle] coal-based power generation," he said. Dr Mills says big solar plants will be able to replace nuclear and fossil fuel-fired plants in the US. "In five years time, we'll have very large plants and I would say gigawatt-style plants already commissioned, able to run 24 hours a day and completely replace the function of nuclear and coal plants," he said.

Solar power replaces clean coal Dr. Mark Diesendorf, senior lecturer of Enviromental Studies at the University of South Wales, 1/10/07 (“Aust technology to revolutionise clean electricity” Australian Broadcast Corporation – The 7:30 Report < http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2047734.htm> Rab) DR MARK DIESENDORF, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, NSW: It's important to get a large scale for the development to bring down costs, and the United States offers a magnificent opportunity for large-scale solar development. MATT PEACOCK: Solar power is not new in the United States. This giant photovoltaic plant in the Mojave Desert was built during the oil shock of the 1980s. And more recent concern over global warming has led to other investment into solar thermal plants like this one in Nevada. The low cost of Ausra's new design, though, is now attracting the big money. VINOH KHOSLA: What's very exciting is major utilities in the US are now starting to believe our story after doing their own independent due diligence. They actually believe this is competitive power generation. More importantly it's reliable power generation. We can ship them power when the sun isn't shining, which is what most utilities need. MATT PEACOCK: The coal and nuclear industries have long asserted that base load power can't be supplied by renewable energy, a mantra repeated by our politicians. MALCOLM TURNBULL, MINISTER, ENVIRONMENT & WATER RESOURCES : You cannot run a modern economy on wind farms and solar powers. It's a pity that you can't, but you can't. JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: Solar is a nice, easy soft answer. There's this vague idea in the community that solar doesn't cost anything and it can solve the problem. It can't. It can't replace base load power generation by power stations. MATT PEACOCK: But base load power supply is just what Ausra is now being contracted to supply for the insatiable US market. It says that within two years it'll be able to economically store its hot water for more than 16 hours. DAVID MILLS: The interesting thing is that there's a correlation between human activity [and energy use]. We get up in the morning everyday, we start using energy, we go to sleep at night. And the presence of the sun, that's natural. And that correlation means that we can get away with a lot less storage than we might have thought. DR MARK DIESENDORF: Well, there's been a lot of nonsense talked about, in Australia and elsewhere, about renewable energy allegedly not being able to provide base load power. Not being able to substitute for coal. That's never been true. It's even untrue with regard to wind power and now with solar thermal power, it's certainly untrue. MATT PEACOCK: the huge US investment into solar will soon make talk of clean coal and nuclear as a solution to climate change redundant, according to Mark Diesendorf at the University of New South Wales. DR MARK DIESENDORF: Basically, the solar thermal technology will be on the ground, certainly in the United States and many other countries long before so-called clean coal and nuclear power.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

39

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Nuclear Power Links – Coal

Nuclear power will trade off with coal Miguel Llanos, MSNBC, 7/7/05, Hot Idea: Fight Warming with Nuclear Power, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/ Mainstream environmentalists "treat nuclear as if it is a trade-off against conservation" — use less energy and nuclear won't be needed, he said. "But it's really a trade-off against burning coal," Brand said. By ramping up nuclear, he said, nations can phase out coal, which is the dirtiest fossil fuel and causes hundreds of premature deaths each year in the United States alone.

Nuclear is the biggest threat to coal Australian Labor Party, 10/31/07, Labor Committed to Coal- Howard Committed to Nuclear, http://www.alp.org.au/media/1007/mseng310.php The biggest threat to the coal industry is the Howard Government’s plans for twenty five nuclear reactors across Australia. In contrast with its reluctance to support the future of the coal industry the Howard Government has been eager to push for the construction of twenty five nuclear reactors across the country. These reactors would potentially replace existing and future coal fired power stations.

Nuclear Power replaces coal –perceived as being more efficient EIA 3/5/03 (“Nuclear Power: 12 percent of America’s Generating Capacity, 20 percent of the Electricity” Energy Information Agency, < http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html> ) A number of notes should be made on this chart. The first of these is that the data gather all steam-based fossil fuel energy together. Fuel costs are lower for steam-based power for coal than for oil or gas. Thus, coal-based power has only a slightly higher U.S. average production cost than does nuclear. The costs are so close that, while nuclear costs average lower than coal, there is a good deal of overlap when regions of the country or individual reactors are considered. Nuclear power does, however, have an advantage in day-to-day operations in its low marginal costs. Day-to-day marginal costs are primarily fuel costs. A disproportionate part of nuclear power operating costs come from operations and maintenance costs that do not vary much with output. Because nuclear power’s marginal costs are lower than coal’s marginal costs, nuclear power plants tend to use their full output capacity before coal plants. This gives nuclear power an advantage in base load operations and results in a higher capacity factor.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

40

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Nuclear Power Links – Coal

Nuclear Power shafts coal – it’s the best cost alternative EIA 9/25/03 (“Nuclear Power and the Environment” Energy Information Agency, ) Views on the suitability of nuclear power for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, acid gases, particulates, and metals are highly charged. There is no question that producing an increased share of electric power using nuclear fuels in lieu of fossil fuels will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Substantial replacement of fossil fuels would result in substantial declines in acid gas emissions and if coal is replaced, particulate and solid waste production. Such changes would increase the volume of nuclear spent fuels that must be disposed. Many of the same reductions in emissions might also be obtained by switching electricity production from coal to natural gas or to lower sulfur coal. Emission control technologies are also an alternative. Because natural gas-based power production produces many of the same emissions as coal-based power production, a greater volume of replaced generation capacity would be required replacing coal-based power using natural gas than would be required using nuclear power. Because natural gas-based power involves different proportions of particular emission than coal-based power, reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate production would be more substantial than reductions in carbon emissions, though carbon emissions would also decline. Sulfur dioxide emissions across the board could be reduced substantially by choosing lower sulfur versions of a specific fuel. Emissions control devices and improved operating procedures are available that can reduce the output and disposal of specific emissions from a fuel. These conclusions regarding fossil fuels and emissions abstract from the very substantial issue of the availability of specific fossil fuels and on the impact of increased consumption on their prices. The suitability of nuclear power as an alternative method of reducing power emissions thus turns on three issues: 1) What level of emissions reductions is desired, 2) What are the costs of obtaining the emissions reductions by using nuclear power when compared to other methods, 3) Do any costs involved in switching to nuclear power (such as spent fuel disposal) offset any environmental gains from the displaced emissions. Within this context, if nuclear power is substantially more expensive than the alternative fossil fuel-based power then the alternative methods of emissions reductions will be more attractive than nuclear power. If nuclear power were to prove to be less expensive to build and operate than fossil fuel-based power, any environmental arguments for nuclear power would not be a diminished factor in economic decisions. Emissions reduction arguments in favor of nuclear power carry their greatest weight when nuclear power approached the cost of alternative fossil fuels and when nuclear power presented the least cost alternative for obtaining the emissions control gains. Emissions from fossil fuels vary by fuel. Environmental reasons for replacing coal-fired power with nuclear power can cover the entire stack gas, particulate, and solid waste spectrum. Replacing natural gas-fired power generation with nuclear for environmental reasons depends more substantially on greenhouse gas emissions targets. All of these evaluations would be made within the context of non-economic values placed on nuclear power and its “emissions”.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

41

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Nuclear Power Links – Coal

Increases in Nuclear power shafts coal usage – IAEA agrees Kari Livingston, writer for the Associated Content, 10/24/07 (“Nuclear Power Making Inroads against Coal, Oil” Associated Content < http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/425825/nuclear_power_making_inroads_against.html?page=2&cat=15> ) The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency has documented 435 operating nuclear reactors world wide, providing hope that nuclear power will eventually replace coal and oil based energy systems. With 103 nuclear reactors, the United States has the most reactors. France follows the US with 59 reactors, Japan's 55 reactors and the Russian Federation's 31 reactors rounding out the top. In addition to the currently operating nuclear reactors, there are 29 under construction internationally. Currently, there are nuclear expansion programs in Ukraine, Bulgaria, Finland and France. The IAEA reports that the average growth of nuclear power is expected to jump 2.5 per cent, or 679 gigawatts, by 2030. Seventy-eight per cent of electricity in France, who plans to begin construction on a new plant later this year, is provided by nuclear reactors, but only two per cent of China's electric power is supplied through nuclear reactors. The report did point out that China's energy needs are rapidly expanding and that the country is exploring all energy sources,including nuclear power. There are four nuclear reactors under construction in China, but because of the country's massive population growth, that will still only provide four per cent of China's electric power. Other countries planning significant growth include Japan and South Korea, which already gets 39 per cent of its power from nuclear. Most of the current nuclear power construction is in Asia. India gets only 3 per cent of its power from nuclear reactors, but 25 per cent of the current nuclear construction is in the country. India has set a goal of 10 per cent of electricity from nuclear by 2022 and 26 percent by 2052. The United States gets 19 per cent of its electricity from nuclear, and most of its development plans have centered around increasing capacity at pre-existing nuclear facilities, but there are four Early Site Permit applications under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The United Kingdom also uses a significant amount of nuclear power, but many of the country's 19 nuclear reactors are aging facilities with uncertain futures. However, the government has issued a White Paper reinforcing its position that the advantages greatly outweigh the disadvantages of nuclear power. Nuclear power use has remained largely stable since jumping from one per cent in 1960 to 16 per cent in 1986. While the global use of electricity continues to rise, only 15 per cent of total electricity is generated through nuclear reactors.

Nuclear Power replaces coal usage Mamdouh G. Salameh, Corresponding Author Oil Market Consultancy Service, 6/03 (“Can renewable and unconventional energy sources bridge the global energy gap in the 21st century?” Applied Energy Volume 75, Issues 1-2, Science Direct, ) Though not strictly renewable, nuclear energy is one of the cleanest energy-sources. It has the ability to generate enormous energy from a small volume of fuel. One metric ton of nuclear fuel is estimated to produce the energy equivalent of 2–3 million tons of fossil fuels [22]. Nuclear power produces no atmospheric pollution. Nevertheless, the public perception of nuclear power is still negative. Hanging over it is the question of radioactive waste and how to dispose of it safely. In 2000, nuclear power contributed 7% to world energy supplies [23]. After peaking around 2010, production of nuclear power is projected to decline to 5% of the global primary energy mix by 2020. Nuclear power must, however, expand before 2020 to help supply the increasing world demand for electricity. Modular, fail-safe, economically competitive nuclear power plants with zero emissions, can be built to replace coalfired power plants. Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to generate a new fuel and reduce waste [24. Edwards JD. Twenty-first century energy: transition from fossil fuels to renewable, non-polluting energy sources. Summit on US Energy Policy, Washington (DC) 23 April 2001. p. 4.24].

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

42

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Nuclear Power Links – Coal

Nuclear power replaces coal – it’s economically more competitive Michael Totty, Staff Writer, 6/30/08 (“The Case For and Against Nuclear Power” Wall Street Journal – Energy, < http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121432182593500119.html> ) So, what's the case against nuclear power? It boils down to two things: economics and safety. Neither holds up to scrutiny. First, economics. Critics argue that the high cost of building and financing a new plant makes nuclear power uneconomical when compared with other sources of power. But that's misleading on a number of levels. One reason it's so expensive at this point is that no new plant has been started in the U.S. since the last one to begin construction in 1977. Lenders -- uncertain how long any new plant would take because of political and regulatory delays -- are wary of financing the first new ones. So financing costs are unusually high. As we build more, the timing will be more predictable, and financing costs will no doubt come down as lenders become more comfortable. Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not permanent subsidies for uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to reassure investors that regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up construction. It's important to remember that although nuclear energy has been around a while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as some critics say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear in many ways is more like an emerging technology, and so subsidies make sense to get it going. It's also true that a shortage of parts and skills is raising the cost of new plants. But if we start building more plants, the number of companies supplying parts will increase to meet the demand, lowering the price. Most important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily because the price of "cheaper" fossil fuels, mainly coal, don't reflect the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the environment. Add those costs, and suddenly, nuclear power will look like a bargain. That's likely to happen soon. Governments are expected to assign a cost to greenhouse gases, through either a direct tax (based on the carbon content of a fuel) or a so-called cap-and-trade system, which would set a limit on emissions while allowing companies whose discharges are lower than the cap to sell or trade credits to companies whose pollution exceeds the cap. Suddenly, big carbon polluters like coal-produced electricity are going to look a lot more expensive compared with low-carbon sources -- in particular, nuclear, wind and hydropower. It's estimated that a carbon "price" of between $25 and $50 a ton makes nuclear power economically competitive with coal. That should be enough to ease investor concerns about utilities that build new nuclear plants. Even without a carbon tax, rising natural-gas prices are beginning to make nuclear power more competitive. That's true even in some deregulated markets, such as Texas. NRG Energy Inc., based in Princeton, N.J., has filed an application to build a reactor adjacent to an existing plant in Texas. Though it's too early to know how much the plant will eventually cost -- or even if it ultimately will get built -- high natural-gas prices alone are enough to justify construction, according to NRG.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

43

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Nuclear Power Links – Railroads

Nuclear power causes shift away from coal – key to railroad industry Richard Freeman is the Herbert Ascherman Chair in Economics at Harvard, “Rebuilding U.S. Rail System Is Top Priority,” 9/6/2002, http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2934rail_infra.html Over the last 30 years, the railroads have become radically dependent on transporting coal. Many of the new improvements that rail companies have made, and the new locomotives they have bought, have been on the lines that come from Powder Basin, Wyoming, bringing low-sulfur coal to the East Coast. This raises a real question about American energy policy. While coal is a legitimate source for power generation, its use ultimately should be declining, were the United States serious about developing nuclear power, using high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (and eventually developing the higher energy-flux density fusion power). But instead, coal's use is dramatically increasing: In 1970, of all the goods originated by the rail industry, coal constituted 405 million tons, or 27% of the total; but by 2000, coal constituted 758 tons, or 44% of the total.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

44

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Profitable Now – Coal

Need for coal transportation leads to successful railroad businesses now Thestockadvisors.com, 07/14/08, http://www.thestockadvisors.com/content/view/2420/9/ "Railroads are a play on three big secular themes: the drive for increased energy efficiency, growth in coal and the agriculture boom," says Elliott Gue, a energy sector expert who has been in Japan covering the G8 Summit. Meanwhile, in his The Energy Srategist, he states, "Railroads are now among the most fuel-efficient forms of freight transport available." Here, he offers a bullish review of Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP). "My long-held thesis on the group has been that the railroads are no longer totally dependent on the US economy for their growth. "It’s no longer appropriate to look at this sector as viciously economy sensitive. The traditional relationship between the broader market and the rails has been breaking down for several years, but this trend appears to be accelerating. "In 2007, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the average railroad moved a ton of freight a distance of 436 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel. That makes freight trains roughly three to four times more fuel efficient than trucks. "Union Pacific is the largest railroad in the US and has long been one of my favorites. The company’s network is nearly 33,000 miles long and is concentrated in the West and Midwest. It also offers a convenient example of the bullish forces at work for the rails, particularly in the coal and agriculture industries. "Union Pacific’s energy segment is its largest by revenue; it accounts for just shy of 20% of the company’s business. Coal transport from a region of the West known as the Powder River Basin comprises the majority of Union Pacific’s energy transport business. "Strong demand for coal transport has made this segment a real bright spot for the railroad in recent years. Better still, UnionPacific still transports coal under contracts signed years ago at lower freight rates. As these contracts expire, Union Pacific should see strong pricing gains as it signs new deals.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

45

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Profitable Now

Railroad doing well now – market forces favor rail PR Newswire, 7/8/08, “Greenbrier Companies Reports Third Quarter Results”, http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-truckingrailroad/20080708/AQTU05608072008-1.html Furman concluded, "The long-term outlook for the rail industry remains bright, as market forces continue to favor rail. In the nearer term, we expect that our marine, refurbishment & parts, and leasing & services businesses will continue with their strong performance, while new railcar manufacturing will likely remain soft, due to macroeconomic forces. Greenbrier remains committed to delivering value to shareholders through its integrated business model, which builds on the Company's core strengths of railcar and marine manufacturing and engineering, while providing diversification and reduced risk through various business cycles and economic conditions. Our near term operating focus is to integrate recent acquisitions, ensure the smooth start up of our tank car production line at GIMSA, and to continue to realize revenue and cost synergies from our integrated model."

Railroads revenue increasing US Government Accountability Office, “Freight Railroads: Updated Information on Rates and Other Industry Trends,” Esupplement, August 15, 2007 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07291r.pdf In 2005, industry rail rates increased 7 percent over their 2004 levels, the largest annual increase over the past 20 years, outpacing the rate of inflation for only the second time in 20 years. Rates also increased for the commodities we reviewed— including such commodities as coal and grain. Freight railroad companies continued a 20-year trend of shifting other costs to shippers, including railcar ownership. Revenues railroads reported as miscellaneous revenue—a category that includes fuel surcharges—nearly tripled from $633 million 4 in 2004 to $1.7 billion in 2005. While it remains difficult to precisely determine how many shippers are captive to a single Class I railroad because available proxy measures can overstate or understate captivity, 2005 data indicate that potentially captive traffic continued to drop. At the same time, traffic traveling at rates significantly above the threshold for rate relief increased in 2005.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

46

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Profitable Now

The railroad industry boom is fueled by growing global trade and rising fuel costs for trucks Frank Ahrens, staff writer for the Washington Post, 4/21/08, “A Switch on the Tracks: Railroads Roar Ahead, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/20/ST2008042002409.html When Bob Billingsley hired on with Norfolk Southern railway 31 years ago, he was a rookie on work crews that were closing unused lines as the nation's economy turned its back on the railroads. Now he's in charge of raising the roof of a Norfolk Southern tunnel in southwestern Virginia to clear headroom for the double-stacked container cars that have become the symbol of the industry's sudden surge thanks to a confluence of powerful global factors. "For years, we were looking for ways to cut costs to increase profits," said Billingsley, as a train rumbled by. "Now, we're building business to increase profits." The freight railway industry is enjoying its biggest building boom in nearly a century, a turnaround as abrupt as it is ambitious. It is largely fueled by growing global trade and rising fuel costs for 18-wheelers. In 2002, the major railroads laid off 4,700 workers; in 2006, they hired more than 5,000. Profit has doubled industry-wide since 2003, and stock prices have soared. The value of the largest railroad, the Union Pacific, has tripled since 2001. This year alone, the railroads will spend nearly $10 billion to add track, build switchyards and terminals, and open tunnels to handle the coming flood of traffic. Freight rail tonnage will rise nearly 90 percent by 2035, according to the Transportation Department. In the 1970s, tight federal regulation, cheap truck fuel and a wide-open interstate highway system conspired to cripple the railroad industry, driving many lines into bankruptcy. The nation's 300,000 miles of rails became a web of slow-moving, poorly maintained lines, so dilapidated in spots that tracks would give way under standing trains. The Staggers Rail Act of 1980 largely deregulated the industry, leading to a wave of consolidation. More than 40 major lines condensed into the seven that remain, running on 162,000 miles of track. But the changing global market has fueled prosperity -- and the need to add track for the first time in 80 years. Soaring diesel prices and a driver shortage have pushed freight from 18-wheelers back onto the rails. At the same time, China's unquenchable appetite for coal and the escalating U.S. demand for Chinese goods, means more U.S. rail traffic is heading to ports in the Northwest, on its way to and from the Far East. Coal still accounts for the most tonnage hauled by U.S. railroads, but it is the ocean-crossing shipping container -- carrying autos, toys, furniture and nearly every product a consumer will buy -- that has lit a rocket under the railroad industry. Passenger rail traffic is also increasing; 2007 was Amtrak's fifth consecutive year of increased ridership, up 6 percent from 2006. The zeitgeist has even dropped a "green" gift in the industry's lap. A train can haul a ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel, about a 3-to-1 fuel efficiency advantage over 18-wheelers, and the railroad industry is increasingly touting itself as an eco-friendly alternative. Trucking firms also use the rail lines; UPS is the railroad industry's biggest customer. Rail traffic, revenue and profit began to soar in 2002-03 and seem largely immune to the economic downturn. Last Tuesday, for instance, CSX reported a record first-quarter profit. On Friday, the stock price of Western rail giant Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) hit an all-time high. At the industry's nadir in the 1970s, the average annual rate of return on investment for a railroad company was 1.2 percent. By 2006, that number was 10.2 percent. And even though the economic slump has reduced key traffic about 4 percent this year compared with last, it has not slowed the railroads' urgent tracklaying. Capital expenditures this year are up, as the railroads think the downturn is temporary, said the industry's trade group, the Association of American Railroads.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

47

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Profitable Now

Railroad industry booming – Illinois proves The Herald News, 7/18/08, “Will, Kendall among tops in job growth”, http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/business/1063001,jo18_jobs_web.article On the heels of Naperville, Bolingbrook and Orland Park honored as Top 100 towns by Money Magazine, the magazine also lists Will and Kendall counties among the top 25 counties in the nation in terms of job growth since 2000.The magazine ranked Kendall County Number 2 with job growth of 63.69 percent from 2000 to 2007 and had this to say:“A population boom in this rural area just outside of Chicago has meant boom times for businesses. Kendall County’s employment growth reflects a healthy restaurant trade, gains in construction and an influx of malls, shopping centers and big-box stores.“The population spike has meant a major infrastructure boost, including highway improvements and a $30 million courthouse expansion. The county is considering extending the commuter rail line from Chicago, which could fuel even more growth. Top employers include home-improvement chain Menard, heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar and energy provider ANR Pipeline.”Will County was ranked 21 on the list with a 35.9 percent job growth during that time. The writers had this to say:“As gas prices continue to reach historic highs, the railroad industry is booming again, and Will County is reaping the benefits. After doubling the amount of industrial space available in the county, the shipping hub has become a central staging ground for importing and exporting, as goods change hands at the Burlington Northern Logistics Park.“And with at least three new shopping centers, a new Ikea opening and an intermodal rail and industrial park planned, the county expects to add more jobs overall than in any other Illinois area in the next few decades.”

Railroad profits increasing Cargonews Asia, “US railroad on the up and up” 7/16/2008 http://www.cargonewsasia.com/secured/article.aspx? id=20&article=16501 US railroad company CSX Corporation recorded higher second-quarter net profit as strong pricing offset a three percent decline in freight volumes, Reuters reports. Net income rose to US$385 million, or 93 cents a share, from $324 million, or 71 cents a share, a year earlier.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

48

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Railroads Losing Market Share Now

Railroads are reclaiming market share in the status quo Ann Belser, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 07/06/08, http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/06/economy-environment-haverailroads-experiencing/ Railroads have not seen a dip in business in the last 20 years, but what they did lose was market share. As more and more goods were shipped, more of them were on trucks. In 1960, there were 1.2 billion tons of goods moved by rail in the United States. In 1980, that number was up to 1.5 billion, and in 2006, the last year for which figures are available, nearly 2 billion tons of goods traveled the railways. And while railroads have lost market share to the trucking industry, that is starting to change. The Association of American Railroads figured that while it takes 27 gallons of diesel to move a ton of freight from coast to coast, the same load could be moved on a train for seven gallons.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

49

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Key to Railroad Profits

Railroads dependent on interest from Energy Department who only cares about getting their coal shipped Congressional Budget Office, “Freight Rail Transportation: Long-Term Issues,” Congressional Budget Office Paper, January 2006, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7021/01-17-Rail.pdf Coal has long been the dominant commodity carried by rail in the United States. In 2004, it accounted for about 43 percent of the tons carried (see Figure3) and about 20 percent of revenues of Class I railroads.28 Coal traffic has trended upward over the past 10 years (see Figure 4 on page8). The principal sources of railroad growth over the past de- cade have been coal and intermodal (“miscellaneous mixed”) shipments.29 Coal traffic (as measured in tons) rose about 37 percent from 1994 to 2003; in terms of revenue, however, it increased just 12 percent.30 Inter- modal shipments, which tend to be relatively high in value and can command higher rates, grew about 33 per- cent in tonnage and 46 percent in revenues from 1994 to 2003.31 Projections of Growth in Demand for Rail Transportation Rail traffic is projected to continue to increase as the economy grows. The Department of Energy’s Energy In- formation Administration (EIA) projects rail growth of 1.7 percent annually, rising from about 1.6 trillion ton- miles in 2004 to nearly 2.4 trillion ton-miles in 2030.32 The Energy Department’s interest in rail transportation derives primarily from its interest in the production and consumption of coal. The EIA projects an increase in the number of tons of coal consumed in the United States of about 62 percent between 2004 and 2030.33 About 92 percent of coal consumption in 2004 was for the production of electricity.34 The EIA projects Western coal production to increase to nearly 1.1 billion tons in 2030 from 627 million tons in 2004.35 Most of that coal will have to be transported over distances for which trucking costs would be prohibitive and where water transporta- tion is unavailable, so railroads will probably be called upon to fill the need for coal transportation.

Coal for electricity is key to rail revenue Association of American Railroads “Overview of America’s Freight Railroads,” May 2008 http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/Overview.pdf America’s freight railroads operate in a highly-competitive marketplace. To compete effectively against each other and against other transportation providers, railroads must offer high-quality service at competitive rates. Railroads account for 41 percent of freight ton-miles, more than any other mode of transportation. The rail ton-mile share has been trending upward over the past 15 years, after remaining flat or falling for decades. In part due to their superior cost effectiveness, railroads generate less than 10 percent of intercity freight revenues. Railroads’ revenue share has been falling for decades, a reflection of the intensity of the competition they face and of the large rate reductions railroads have passed through to their customers over the years. Coal is the most important single commodity carried by U.S. railroads. In 2007, coal accounted for 44 percent of rail tonnage and 21 percent of rail revenue. The vast majority of coal is used to generate electricity. Coal accounts for around half of U.S. electricity generation, and railroads handle more than two-thirds of all U.S. coal shipments.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

50

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Key to Railroad Profits

Coal is 75% of railroad freight Rob Cameron, BBC News writer, Wyoming, 29 August 2006, “Coal keeps U.S. economy burning”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5295922.stm Cheap it is, no doubt about that. Cheaper than natural gas, which is why coal is used to generate 52% of America's electricity.It is also plentiful. The United States contains the largest coal reserves in the world, enough to last for 250 years or more. But the energy utilities that burn the coal take issue with the reliability. They complain that supplies are not meeting demand, leaving them low on reserves and Americans potentially exposed to power shortages. In a country where most homes, offices and restaurants are heavily air-conditioned, this is clearly a problem. So who is at fault? Mile-long trains. The railroads - in this case US's largest, Union Pacific - play a crucial role in the coal supply chain. Union Pacific moves huge quantities of coal from the Powder River Basin to the power stations of the east. The task is approached with steely determination by men and women who clearly take deep pride in their jobs. Locomotives move huge quantities of coal to US power stations "It's the 1,000lb gorilla that you have to watch day in day out," says Cameron Scott, Union Pacific's general superintendent of railway operations, in North Platte, Nebraska - a crucial transport hub for US rail freight. "The coal trains represent about 75% of everything that runs in and out of this yard." And coal trains are no ordinary trains. They typically consist of up to 135 cars - making them about a mile and half long. Getting the coal to its destination is therefore a massive logistical challenge. Union Pacific's space-age Harriman Dispatching Center, in Omaha, uses satellite-based GPS and other state-of-the-art technology to keep track of its trains every minute of the day. Some, however, are beginning to question the wisdom of such heavy reliance on coal.

Coal is the most important commodity carried by rail National Atlas.gov, 07/04, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html Measured in ton-miles (the movement of one ton of freight one mile), railroads move 42 percent of intercity freight, more than any other mode of transportation. The rail share of intercity ton-miles has been trending slightly upward over the past 10 to 15 years, after falling steadily for decades. In part because railroads' rates are so low compared to their competitors, their 42 percent of ton-mile traffic generates less than 10 percent of intercity freight revenues. Railroads' share of intercity freight revenue has been trending down for decades, a reflection of the intensity of the competition for intercity freight transportation in the United States and of the significant rate reductions railroads have passed through to their customers. Coal is the most important single commodity carried by rail. In 2002, it accounted for 44 percent of tonnage and 21 percent of revenue for Class I railroads. The vast majority of coal in the United States is used to generate electricity at coal-fired power plants. Coal accounts for half of all U.S. electricity generation, far more than any other fuel source, and railroads handle approximately two-thirds of all U.S. coal shipments. Other major commodities carried by rail include chemicals, including massive amounts of industrial chemicals, plastic resins, and fertilizers; grain and other agricultural products; non- metallic minerals such as phosphate rock, sand, and crushed stone and gravel; food and food products; steel and other primary metal products; forest products, including lumber, paper, and pulp; motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts; and waste and scrap materials, including scrap iron and scrap paper.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

51

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure

Coal profits key to infrastructure investments – forty percent of revenue is invested Association of American Railroads, 10/07, http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/294.ashx DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory reports that, as of May 2007, some 151 coal-fired generating plants in dozens of states representing 90 gigawatts have been announced or are in development. If ultimately built, this new generation would increase annual U.S. coal requirements by several hundred million tons. Railroad’s past performance strongly suggests that they will be able to handle this increased demand, as long as the necessary investments in their networks are made. Because railroading is a network business, improvements or investments in one location can affect rail traffic at distant points. Therefore, even investments made on rail lines that do not carry substantial amounts of coal can positively impact railroads’ coal operations. It takes an enormous amount of money to run a freight rail system. The rail industry is near the top among all U.S. industries in terms of capital intensity. In fact, from 1996-2005 (the most recent year for which data are available) the average U.S. manufacturer spent 3.4 percent of revenue on capital expenditures. The comparable figure for U.S. freight railroads was 17.2 percent, or more than five times higher. Similarly, in 2006 railroad net investment in plant and equipment per employee was $620,000---nearly eight times the average for all U.S. manufacturing ($84,000). When maintenance expenses are included, rail investments rise substantially. Including capital and maintenance spending, from 1980 through 2006 Class 1 railroads invested more than $375 billion (and short lines spent additional billions) to maintain and improve their infrastructure and equipment---with most of this spending directly or indirectly benefiting coal. After accounting for depreciation freight railroads typically spend $16 billion to $18 billion per year---equal, on average, to more than 40 cents out of every revenue dollar---to provide the high quality assets they need to operate safely and efficiently. Moreover, rail capital spending, which was already enormous, is expected to rise to around $9.2 billion in 2007, up from around $5.7 billion just five years earlier. This huge increase demonstrates the diligence with which railroads are responding to the capacity and service issues and positioning themselves to handle rail shippers needs in the future. Looking ahead, billions of dollars of rail investments will be directed specifically at coal, including new locomotives and train sets; double-, triple-, and even quadrupletracking heavily-used coal routes; bypasses, sidings, and terminals; and thousands of new employees. These investments will enhance coal-carrying capacity and the fluidity of rail operations.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

52

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Demand Key to Railroad Infrastructure

Coal-fired electricity is key to railroad infrastructure investments Jeremy F. Plant, The Public Manager, Fall 2005, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HTO/is_3_34/ai_n25120956/pg_7? tag=artBody;col1 Rails transport coal for electric production and industrial use, as well as export to other nations. Historically, coal has been one of the most important cargoes for the rail industry, with inland waterways the only major modal competitor. Since the 1980s, the locus of coal mining and rail operations has shifted from traditional mining centers in the East to the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, where the two major western U.S. rail systems, BNSF and Union Pacific, have invested heavily in new rail infrastructure to meet growing demand, mostly from the electric utility industry.

Coal key to railroad profitability and infrastructure Tom Murray, Railroad Consultant and Columnist for TRAINS magazine, 07/07/06, http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx? c=a&id=539 As the U.S. economy has grown, it has kept on producing the kinds of things that railroads typically haul: coal, grain, chemicals, forest products, and other commodities that have a high ratio of weight to value. Because the population and the economy have grown in absolute terms, the need for these commodities has continued to increase, which has allowed the railroads to expand their traffic base. However, this growth has not kept pace with rest of the economy. And because railroads haul the lowest-value commodities, they have limited ability to improve their profitability by charging their customers higher prices. The importance of value versus weight as an economic factor is one of the themes that Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, kept returning to. He referred to this phenomenon as "the displacement of physical weight of output with concepts." More people are doing things that involve ideas (like writing computer programs) and a smaller percentage of the work force is involved in producing and using heavy, bulk materials. Those heavy commodities are losing out to smaller, lighter goods. Mr. Greenspan cited copper as an example. Much of the copper formerly used in electrical circuits has been displaced by electronic components that are not only smaller and lighter but also enable machinery to run at a much higher level of efficiency. Copper, of course, was once an important commodity for the railroads. In other words, the railroad industry's major sources of revenue represent a declining share of the economic pie. More significantly, as heavy commodities (like steel) are replaced by lighter ones (like aluminum), the importance of inventory and logistics costs in the final value of products is greater than it was in the past. Railroads as they operate today are well suited to commodities that can stand significant variability in delivery schedules. Those, by definition, are low-value products. Motor carriers (in combination with air and express companies) have captured virtually 100 percent of the market for service-sensitive, highvalue products. The key question for the rail investor is whether there is hope for the industry in light of its shrinking role in the North American economy, and declining status in the eyes of the investment community. My view is that railroads are simply too important to fail. By that, I don't mean that the government will have to step in to save the railroads again, as it did with Penn Central and the other northeast bankrupts. Instead, I think that the boards of directors of one or more major railroads will realize that they have a responsibility to bring about dramatic change. In the 1990's, railroads did a great job of building the physical infrastructure to take them into the 21st century. If they can do an equally good job of matching their services to the needs of the 21st century economy, rail investors will really have something to celebrate.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

53

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Profits Key to Railroad Infrastructure

Revenue key to safety US Government Accountability Office, “Performance and Accountability: Transportation Challenges Facing Congress and the Department of Transportation,” GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies; Committee on Appropriations; House of Representatives, March 6, 2007. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07545t.pdf Financing mechanisms for the nation’s transportation system are under stress. Our nation’s transportation infrastructure is threatened by increasing demand for transportation services, and revenue from traditional funding mechanisms for the nation’s highway and aviation systems may be unable to keep pace at current tax rates. In addition, freight traffic is projected to grow substantially, but current planning and financing mechanisms impede public strategies to address needs. Our nation’s mobility is threatened because the nation’s infrastructure is under great strain. Congestion across modes (e.g., aviation, highways, and rail) is expected to worsen. However, funding by mode and the lack of performance-related goals result in little assurance that funds are being channeled to the most critical mobility concerns and that intermodal approaches can be integrated into the transportation system. Improvements in transportation safety are needed to reduce the number of deaths and injuries from transportation accidents—about 95 percent of which occur on our nation’s roads. Increases in congestion across modes as a result of population and economic growth could cause deterioration in transportation safety despite departmental and state efforts to reduce accidents. The transition from the current air traffic control system to a broader and modernized system will be one of the department’s most complex undertakings. In previous years, FAA has faced systemic management and acquisition problems that led us to designate its air traffic control modernization program as high risk. While the agency has made significant progress in recent years, a key challenge going forward will be to institutionalize these improvements and to continually improve. In addition, the department and the transportation sector face persistent human capital challenges due to an impending shortage of skilled people to meet changing transportation needs. Furthermore, despite recent improvements in financial management, the department received a qualified opinion on its 2006 financial statements. Finally, the department is working to clarify its role in transportation security and emergency preparedness and response.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

54

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Railroad Profits Resilient

Railroads are only becoming resilient because of strong coal demand Steven Halpern offers the latest market commentary and favorite investment ideas from the nation's leading financial newsletter advisors, “Union Pacific (UNP): 'Railroad renaissance'” Thestockadvisers.com, Jul 17 2008 http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/07/17/union-pacific-unp-railroad-renaissance/ "Railroads are a play on three big secular themes: the drive for increased energy efficiency, growth in coal and the agriculture boom," says Elliott Gue, a energy sector expert who has just returned from Japan where he was covering the G8 Summit. Meanwhile, in his The Energy Srategist, he states, "Railroads are now among the most fuel-efficient forms of freight transport available." Here, he offers a bullish review of Union Pacific (NYSE: UNP). "My long-held thesis on the group has been that the railroads are no longer totally dependent on the US economy for their growth. "It's no longer appropriate to look at this sector as viciously economy sensitive. The traditional relationship between the broader market and the rails has been breaking down for several years, but this trend appears to be accelerating. "In 2007, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the average railroad moved a ton of freight a distance of 436 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel. That makes freight trains roughly three to four times more fuel efficient than trucks. "Union Pacific is the largest railroad in the US and has long been one of my favorites. The company's network is nearly 33,000 miles long and is concentrated in the West and Midwest. It also offers a convenient example of the bullish forces at work for the rails, particularly in the coal and agriculture industries. "Union Pacific's energy segment is its largest by revenue; it accounts for just shy of 20% of the company's business. Coal transport from a region of the West known as the Powder River Basin comprises the majority of Union Pacific's energy transport business. "Strong demand for coal transport has made this segment a real bright spot for the railroad in recent years. Better still, Union-Pacific still transports coal under contracts signed years ago at lower freight rates. As these contracts expire, Union Pacific should see strong pricing gains as it signs new deals.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

55

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Infrastructure Key to Solve Derailment

Poor tracks lead to accidents ESTHER D'AMICO, 01/14/08, Chemical Week, lexis Meanwhile, congestion and high fuel costs and surcharges remain significant transportation concerns, shippers say. Congestion and poor transport infrastructure, including old and neglected highways and tracks, are expected to worsen as freight volumes rise. Infrastructure problems, in particular, have been blamed for many of the accidents and injuries in the last year. An undetected break on track has been cited as the cause of an explosion last March when a CSX train carrying liquid propane derailed and near Oneida, NY About 200 residents were evacuated due to the blast. The track was already broken when the train passed over it, FRA says. The agency conducted a 23-state inspection of CSX tracks and found safety violations, which resulted in CSX paying $ 350,000 in fines, FRA says. The incident also drew the attention of some lawmakers, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., NY), who testified before a Senate panel on rail safety last year about "the inadequacy of the current system of monitoring and managing safety issues" on the railroads. She also called for further inspections of major railroads and for increased FRA oversight and enforcement power.

Major capital investments prevent derailment – empirically proven Christopher P.L. Barkan, Associate Professor and Director of the Railroad Engineering Program at the University of Illinois, and C. Tyler Dick, Graduate research assistant in Railroad Engineering at the University of Illinois, 2003, “Analysis of railroad derailment factors affecting hazardous materials transportation risk”, http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/TRB_82/TRB2003-002429.pdf The US railroad mainline accident rate has declined by over 75% since 1980 (Figure 1) and the hazardous materials accident-caused release rate has declined by nearly 90% (1,2,3). This improvement is the result of major capital investments in infrastructure and equipment, improved safety designs of tank cars (4), employee training efforts, and the development and implementation of new technology (5). Most of this improvement in safety took place in the 1980s, and although the downward trend in mainline accident rate continued through the 1990s, it declined at a lower rate and has leveled off in recent years (Figure 1). The occurrence of major accident-caused hazardous materials releases has declined to such an extent that identification and implementation of further safety improvements is much more challenging because there is less empirical information on which causes are contributing the greatest risk.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

56

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Derailment Impact – Nuclear Terrorism

Derailment create a target for nuclear terrorist attack Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office, 06/20/06, http://www.nirs.org/press/06-20-2006/1 Surrey Township, Michigan— Concerned citizen groups are raising questions about the nature of the radioactive wastes aboard a derailed train amidst conflicting press reports. The Associated Press first reported that the train, which derailed in the early morning hours of June 16 in Clare County, was hauling eight to ten railcars containing radioactive water used for cooling nuclear materials at Consumers Energy's Big Rock Point nuclear power plant in Charlevoix, Michigan. However, Consumers Energy spokesman Timothy Petrosky later told the Saginaw News that Big Rock no longer ships radioactive liquids, and its cargo aboard the derailed train consisted of radioactively contaminated concrete and soil. According to a spokesman from the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Waste and Hazardous Materials Division, the six rail cars carrying 42 "inter-modal" atomic waste containers from Big Rock are bound for a licensed radioactive waste dump in Clive, Utah. Clare County Sheriff's Department Emergency Services Division Sergeant William J. Larson told Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) in a phone inquiry that tampering with the rails is suspected, and an investigation has been launched. "This raises serious concerns about the security of atomic waste shipments," said Kevin Kamps of NIRS. "High-level radioactive waste shipments from Big Rock that would travel this same rail route would be potentially catastrophic targets for sabotage or terrorist attack rolling through countless Michigan communities."

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

57

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Derailment Impact – Mobile Chernobyl/Dirty Bombs

Accidents turn trains into mobile Chernobyls, causing mass deaths from radiation Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and Resource Service Office, 06/20/06, http://www.nirs.org/press/0620-2006/1 According to workers at the factory who spoke on condition of anonymity, the derailment took place close to the rail spur leading into, and the shipping dock area of, the Renosol Corp. plant, manufacturer of polyurethane products for the auto industry. "We know that extremely hazardous materials, such as toluene diisocyanate, are present at the Renosol factory," said Kay Cumbow of Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, headquartered in nearby Lake Township. "If the derailment had ignited a fire at the factory, could a toxic cloud have formed? What would be the health and safety consequences downwind?" Cumbow asked. "Previous derailments have occurred on this very same section of track," said Keegan. "Was this train traveling at high speed, which led to the derailment? Why were hazardous radioactive wastes being shipped in the dead of night to begin with? What emergency preparations are in place to deal with accidents involving radioactive wastes?" The Saginaw News also quoted railroad spokesman Jim Dunn as saying of the radioactive waste "[i]t's not dangerous at all." In response to a telephone inquiry from NIRS, Dunn stated that although the radioactive "crushed concrete" from Consumers Energy was placarded as hazardous, it only emitted a "minimum" of radiation. Clare County Sheriff's Sergeant William J. Larson told the Saginaw News that the rail cars containing the atomic wastes are "armorplated." "Such false assurances raise more questions than they answer," said Kamps of NIRS. "The only radioactive wastes that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires to be packaged in special containers during transport are the most radioactive and hazardous of atomic wastes. So if these train cars are 'armor-plated,' that makes it sound like these particular radioactive wastes from Consumers Energy are intensely radioactive." Kamps also pointed out that, according to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) documents, the very same Tuscola and Saginaw Bay Railway that experienced this atomic waste train derailment would also be used to ship eight massive rail carloads of high-level radioactive waste from Consumers Energy's Big Rock Point nuclear power plant to Nevada if the Yucca Mountain dumpsite ever opens there. Irradiated nuclear fuel from Consumers Energy's Big Rock Point nuclear power plant in Charlevoix, Michigan would travel the Tuscola and Saginaw Bay Railway through Boyne Falls, Kalkaska, Walton, Cadillac, Marion, Clare, Mount Pleasant, Alma, Ashley, Owosso and Durand before transferring to the "Grand Trunk Western" railway through Lansing, Battle Creek, and Schoolcraft. The rail shipments would then exit Michigan bound for Nevada if the Yucca dump ever opens. A copy of the DOE route map can be viewed at: http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/NuclearWaste/pdf/eis_j_IN-MI-OH.pdf. "Severe accidents or terrorist attacks can turn high-level radioactive waste shipments into Mobile Chernobyls or dirty bombs on wheels," said Kamps, referring to the 1986 Soviet nuclear catastrophe and radiological dispersal devices. "Release of just a fraction of such a cargo could unleash a radioactive catastrophe deadly to emergency responders and residents downwind."

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

58

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse

A railroad nuclear accident would cause thousands of cancers and deaths and cost billions of dollars – the surrounding population would be exposed to the equivalent of one chest x-ray per hour Elizabeth Ridlington, spokesperson for Paryland PIRG and member of Maryland Public Interest Research Group, Timothy TelleenLawton, political analyst with Frontier Group, Johanna Neumann, legislative advocate for Maryland PIRG group, Maryland PIRG Foundation, Mar 2007, “The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why Maryland Can’t Afford a New Reactor”, http://www.environmentamerica.org/uploads/cz/AW/czAWZsu0DUwXPz9kzBq61Q/MaryPIRG.NuclearPowerReport.March2007.pdf Low-level radioactive waste presents another problem. By the time that a third reactor begins operation at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland will no longer be allowed to send its low-level radioactive waste to Barnwell, South Carolina, the site of a regional dump for low-level waste. That low-level waste will have to remain in Maryland. The last major release of radioactive material from a commercial nuclear reactor in the U.S. was several decades ago, but there have been close calls since then. The worst nuclear reactor accident on U.S. soil occurred at the Three Mile Island (TMI) reactor in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979. A partial meltdown of the reactor’s core led 140,000 people to evacu- ate from the area.47 The accident resulted from a combina- tion of human and mechanical error—a plant malfunction combined with operator override of automatic safety systems. Cleanup at the plant has cost approximately $1 billion.48 In addition, victims of the TMI accident have successfully sued the plant’s owner and the nuclear industry for at least $50 million.49 The full health consequences of the TMI accident are unknown. One study, con- ducted by researchers at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, suggests that the accident caused an increase in lungcancer and leukemia rates downwind of the Three Mile Island reactor compared to upwind.50 The Three Mile Island accident does not represent a worst-case scenario for the potential impact of a major nuclear accident. A 1982 study by the Sandia National Labo- ratories found that a serious core accident at a U.S. nuclear reactor could cause hun- dreds to thousands of deaths immediately.51 Estimates of early fatalities ranged from 700 to 100,000, depending on the size of the reactor and the proximity of large popula- tions (in 1982).52 A serious core accident at the two existing Calvert Cliffs reactors could cause 5,600 immediate deaths, 15,000 injuries and 23,000 deaths from cancer, assuming there are no more people living near the reactors than in 1970.53 The two existing units at Calvert Cliffs have not had a major incident that attracted public attention recently. The plant does have a history of violations, however. The NRC has levied fines for unsafe practices at the reactors. In 1996, the plant was fined $50,000 for problems with emergency equipment that had been identified in 1992 but had not been repaired four years later.54 The NRC issued a $176,000 fine in 1997 and a $55,000 fine in 1998 because person- nel at Calvert Cliffs had been careless with exposure to radiation.55 Other problems have led to warning notices but no fines. Problems have included malfunctioning water pumps and, in 2006, incorrect settings for a circuit breaker that allows an emergency diesel generator to function. The incorrect set- tings were the result of an error that occurred during installation of the emergency generator in 1996.56 In 2001, a sink hole formed outside the turbine room of the plant. By the time the hole was discovered, it had grown large enough that filling it required 40 tons of dirt.57 The sinkhole was caused by an un- derground drainage pipe that collapsed. The pipe carried groundwater away from the area under the plant and into the bay. Over the years, saltwater corroded the pipe, allowing dirt into the pipe where it was car- ried away from the site. Calvert Cliffs may be vulnerable to other unexpected natural disasters. Although Maryland is not known for its tornadoes, a category five tornado (the strongest cat- egory, with winds above 260 miles per hour) formed in Maryland in April 2002, and passed within two miles of the Calvert Cliffs facility.58 Meanwhile, Constellation has pared back staffing at the two existing units. In 2001, 1,400 people worked at the plants. However, to reduce costs, Constellation has eliminated 465 positions, cutting the workforce to 935 people.59 At the same time, the facility was generating record amounts of energy. Fewer staff increases the odds that personnel may be forced to work overtime or that there may not be as many staff available to handle an emergency. Calvert Cliffs is also vulnerable to a ter- rorist attack. Nuclear power plants make attractive potential targets for terrorists— either via external assault or internal sabo- tage. Specific information about security strengths and weaknesses at Calvert Cliffs is not available because of security concerns; only general data about nuclear plants has been released. That general security record of nuclear power plants is far from reassuring. In tests at 11 nuclear reactors in 2000 and 2001, mock intruders were capable of disabling enough equipment to cause re- actor damage at six plants.60

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

59

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Mobile Chernobyl Causes Econ Collapse

Prior to September 11, 2001, half of reactors failed to defend themselves against simulated attacks.61A 2003 GAO report found signifi- cant weaknesses in the NRC’s oversight of security at commercial nuclear reactors, including failing to require plants to correct identified security weaknesses and con- ducting simulated attacks to test security staff and systems in which plant operators were given advance warning and an oppor- tunity to prepare.62 In September 2004— three years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks—the GAO reported that the NRC had not yet implemented some of the GAO’s earlier recommendations andthat the NRC was not yet in a position to assure that plants are able to defend against terrorism.63 And in March 2006, the GAO was unable to conclude that all nuclear power plants were capable of defending themselves against a plausible terrorist at- tack, since only about one-third of the plants had conducted the necessary inspec- tions through simulated attacks. The GAO also questioned changes made to the NRC’s standards for protection against terrorist attacks, noting “the appearance that changes were made based on what the in- dustry considered reasonable and feasible to defend against rather than on an assess- ment of the terrorist threat itself.”64 Most recently, the NRC ruled that nuclear power plants do not need to create protections against the possibility of a terrorist attack by plane, despite evidence that the 9/11 attackers had considered targeting a nuclear power plant.65 Were an accident or terrorist attack to occur at Calvert Cliffs, evacuation routes from the area around the reactor would be limited and might be insufficient to remove all residents from harm’s way. The Calvert Cliffs reactors are in the far southern tip of Calvert County where the county tapers to a point between the Chesapeake Bay and the Patuxent River. The only major road serving the area is Route 2, which runs north/south. In case of an evacuation or- der, people living south of Calvert Cliffs in Calvert County would need to drive south on Route 2 to the Governor Thomas Johnson Bridge over the Patuxent River to St. Mary’s County. In normal traffic conditions, roads lead- ing to the bridge are frequently con- gested.66 During an evacuation, the road could become a bottleneck, preventing resi- dents from escaping radiation released from the plant. Releases During Waste Transport The danger to Maryland residents from radioactive waste will not be over once a federal repository is finally constructed. stored in spent fuel pools for at least five years before it is placed into casks for on- site storage or shipping. Transporting waste creates a hazard as the waste is shipped via train or truck. In theory, the federal waste repository at Yucca Mountain will store spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive wastes from com- mercial reactors around the nation. The logistical challenges of actually achieving this are tremendous. Nationally, 118,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and 22,280 can- isters (typically containing 1 cubic meter of waste) of high-level radioactive waste could be moved to Yucca Mountain if the site is ever opened.67 The Department of Energy plans for the transportation to oc- cur over the course of 38 years, assuming the department’s plans are carried out with- out a hitch.68 The waste would be shipped in casks that would each contain as much as 240 times the amount of radioactive material released by the Hiroshima bomb.69 Radioactive Waste Management Associates, a consulting firm working for the state of Nevada, has estimated that 100 to 450 accidents will occur as nuclear waste is transported via train and truck to Yucca Mountain.70 A single serious accident could cause thousands of cancers and cost billions of dollars.71 Fortunately, no major accident has occurred during the transport of radioactive material, but many minor ones have. The Radioactive Material Incident Report data- base maintained by Sandia National Labo- ratories identifies 402 incidents from 1971 to 1999 in which a vehicle transporting radioactive material killed or injured some- one or was so damaged that it could not operate under its own power.72 Furthermore, even outside of an accident, emissions from passing casks will deliver involuntary doses of radiation to people living within one-half mile of road and rail routes. The DOE acknowledges that commuters stuck in traffic near a highly radioactive waste shipment would be exposed to the equivalent of one chest x-ray per hour.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

60

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Nuclear Shipments Low

Nuclear shipments by rail projected to increase US Government Accountability Office, “Rail Safety and Security: Some Actions Already Taken to Enhance Rail Security, but Risk-based Plan Needed,” Report to Congressional Requesters, April 2003 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03435.pdf The proposed plan to ship spent nuclear fuel, as soon as 2010 and most likely by rail, to the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada—the nation’s first long-term geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste—has raised concerns about the safety and security of possible transportation to this site.9 A second proposal to ship spent nuclear fuel to temporary storage in a private facility in Utah has heightened these concerns.10 Such shipments would substantially increase the volume of nuclear material transported in this country.11

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

61

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Derailment Impact – Toxic Chemicals/Environment

Derailment causes chemical spills, killing the environment Lange, Lori J, Fleming, Raymond, Toussaint, Loren, Social Behavior and Personality, 01/01/04, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200401/ai_n9404663 Even though risks related to railroads may be perceived as familiar, the contents that they are transporting may not be perceived in the same way. It is not uncommon for trains to carry hazardous materials, and train derailments involving chemical spills have been associated with greater environmental worry about chemicals in the environment (Bowler et al., 1994). Because the accident under study in the current paper involved liquid propane and hazardous material, there is a possibility that risk perceptions for chemicals may become elevated.

A railroad derailment can kill millions through toxic gases and chemicals The Washington Post, 06/03/07, lexis A 90-ton rail car of chlorine passing within blocks of the Capitol, if its cargo were released, could kill or injure about 100 people per second. It would be lethal within two to five miles and dangerous for 14 miles. These facts frame a debate about whether to reroute rail cars carrying hazardous materials away from the District of Columbia, as explored recently in The Post. But there is a cheaper and more immediate way to enhance public safety, whether or not trains are ever rerouted. We need to develop quality training for preventing and handling accidents -- and acts of terrorism -- and then invest in such training for railroad personnel, emergency responders and community residents. At the moment, training by the railroads is woefully inadequate. Improvements in railroad safety are critical to regional and national security and to the health and well-being of Americans. One million tons of hazardous materials, including chemicals and nuclear waste, roll along railways every day through cities and towns across the United States, unprotected by adequate emergency procedures or personnel trained in how to manage a toxic-materials crisis. Millions of lives and billions of dollars are at stake. Training can mean the difference between life and death. In Graniteville, S.C., in 2005, one of three rail cars, each carrying 90 tons of deadly chlorine, was breached after a derailment. More than 60 tons of chlorine vaporized into a toxic cloud. The engineer, a young man in good health, ran through the cloud for safety, but, because he was breathing deeply, he was overcome. The conductor, who had military training in responding to poison gas, walked slowly through the cloud using shallow breathing and was able to escape with his life. A former chemistry teacher recognized chlorine gas emanating from the crash site and warned residents to stay indoors and turn off their ventilation systems.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

62

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Turns the Case – Infrastructure Decreases Emissions

Improving rail infrastructure leads to lower transportation generated emissions ESTHER D'AMICO, 01/14/08, Chemical Week, lexis Some $ 148 billion will be needed to improve rail infrastructure and meet freight volumes that are expected to nearly double over the next 30 years, according to a study conducted by Cambridge Systematics (Cambridge, MA) for AAR. Most of that investment, $ 135 billion, would be concentrated along the lines of the nation's seven major freight railroads, and would go toward new tracks, signals, bridges, tunnels, terminals, and service facilities. "If needed investment isn't made, most of the increase in freight will move on the highways, further stressing overburdened roads and bridges," AAR says. "However, if the investments are made, the freight rail industry will be able to significantly lower transportation-generated emissions, reduce highway congestion, and ease wear and tear on highway infrastructure.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

63

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Turns the Case – Railroads Decrease GHGs

Railroads are key to decrease GHG emissions National Atlas.gov, 07/04, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html Second, railroads are environmentally friendly. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that for every ton-mile, a typical truck emits roughly three times more nitrogen oxides and particulates than a locomotive. Other studies suggest trucks emit six to 12 times more pollutants per ton-mile than do railroads, depending on the pollutant measured. Railroads also have a clear advantage in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the EPA, railroads account for just 9 percent of total transportation-related NOx emissions and 4 percent of transportation-related particulate emissions, even though they account for 42 percent of the nation's intercity freight ton-miles.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

64

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Key to Readiness

Railroads are key to getting military tech delivered on time – necessary for combat Robert S. Korpanty is a former U.S. Army Colonel, “Preserving Strategic Rail Mobility,” The Army, Nov-Dec 1999, http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec99/MS455.htm [ND] The Railroads for National Defense Program ensures that the commercial railroad network is ready to deliver combat power where it is needed when it is needed. Tell any mechanized maneuver commander he has to fight a battle without his Abrams tanks or Bradley fighting vehicles, and you probably will see a puzzled look on his face that could be interpreted as, "What planet are you from?" or, "What language are you speaking?" Since it is doubtful that a major conflict will occur just outside the gates of Fort Stewart, Georgia, or Fort Hood, Texas, a key element of a successful engagement will be getting combat power wherever it is needed on time. Without a reliable commercial rail infrastructure, it is doubtful the tanks and Bradleys will make it to their place of business. To make sure they do, the Military Traffic Management Command developed the Railroads for National Defense (RND) Program in 1976. In 1991, the RND Program was assigned to the Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency (MTMCTEA), which now executes the program on behalf of the U.S. Transportation Command. This program ensures that the commercial rail infrastructure in the United States meets Department of Defense (DOD) requirements for deploying a force. The RND Program works to preserve our strategic rail mobility.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

65

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Key to the Economy

Railroads key to the economy – shipping costs, manufacturing, and trade Railroads of New York, 05, http://www.railroadsofny.com/economy_environment.htm Both the United States and the State of New York are dependent upon a safe and efficient transportation system to move people and goods. In today's global economy, many of the things we use, as well as the things we make to sell to others, must be transported by the nation's freight transportation system. In New York State and the nation, that system has undergone significant changes over the course of our history. Originally, it was focused on our waterways, then to our railroads and more recently on our highway systems. Even so, today's rail freight system still plays a critical role in moving freight across our nation and state. According to a recent report entitled "Transportation - Invest in America: Freight - Rail Bottom Line Report", prepared by the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): 40% of intercity freight ton-miles are handled by rail. Rail freight moves over 600 miles on an average trip, while the average truck trip is about 245 miles. 92 billion truck-vehicle miles of travel would be added to the nation's highway system without our rail freight system. This additional truck traffic would cost federal, state and local transportation agencies an additional $64 billion over the next 20 years. If all rail freight were shifted to trucks, it would cost shippers an additional $69 billion per year - or $1.4 trillion over the next 20 years. Rail freight provides shippers with cost-effective transportation, especially for heavy and bulky commodities. Rail is also a preferred mode for hazardous materials shipments because of its positive safety record. Rail freight can be a critical factor in retaining and attracting manufacturing industries (and jobs) that are central and regional economies. Rail freight carries 16% percent of the nations' cross-border trade. Intermodal freight-rail service is critical to the global competitiveness of U.S. industries. Rail freight is fuel-efficient and generates less air pollution per ton-mile than trucking. Rail freight is vital to military mobilization and provides critically needed transportation system redundancy in national (and state) emergencies. The rail industry today is stable, productive and competitive, with enough revenue and profit to operate, but not enough to replenish its infrastructure quickly or grow rapidly.

Railroads are key to US competitiveness in a global economy William W. Millar, President American Public Transportation Association, 04/26/06, http://www.apta.com/government_affairs/aptatest/testimony060426.cfm Chairman LaTourette, Ranking Member Brown, and members of the House Railroads Subcommittee, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), we thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Rail Capacity Crunch. We very much appreciate that the Subcommittee is taking a comprehensive view, considering both passenger and freight issues. While goods movement is critical, the emergence of America's service economy has heightened the importance of on-time movement of people as well. America long has enjoyed the most extensive and efficient transportation system in the world. Today, other countries are catching up. Policies that support the growth of railroads - passenger and freight - are critical to America's mobility and our ability to compete in a global economy. The critical capacity issues affecting railroads passenger and freight - are a part of an overall crisis in transportation system capacity that also affects our airports, roadways, port facilities, and public transportation infrastructure. Such congestion is putting severe stress on America's transportation and logistics network, which historically has given America its economic edge.

Railroads are key to US competitiveness National Atlas.gov, 07/04, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html Freight railroads are critical to the economic well-being and global competitiveness of the United States. They move 42 percent of our nation's freight (measured in ton-miles) - everything from lumber to vegetables, coal to orange juice, grain to automobiles, and chemicals to scrap iron - and connect businesses with each other across the country and with markets overseas. They also contribute billions of dollars each year to the economy through investments, wages, purchases, and taxes. There were 554 common carrier freight railroads operating in the United States in 2002, classified into five groups.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

66

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Key to the Economy

Railroads key to the economy – they stimulate demand and employment FHA (United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration), 06/22/06, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/freight_story/today.htm The benefits of freight transportation to the economy are enormous. Freight transportation increases the value of goods by moving them to locations where they worth more and encourages competition and production by extending the spatial boundaries of commodity and labor markets. Freight transportation also stimulates demand for goods and services and employs millions of people. Freight transportation infrastructure is a significant component of our nation's wealth and productive capacity. From a macroeconomic perspective, transportation accounts for a significant share of the U.S. GDP. In 2000, purchases of transportation-related goods and services accounted for approximately 11 percent of GDP (USDOT BTS 2002). Only housing, health care, and food accounted for a greater share (Figure 3). For-hire transportation services, which include warehousing, contributed about 3.3 percent ($303 billion) to GDP. Many industries and businesses depend on their own transportation operations (primarily trucking) to move goods. These "in-house" transportation services contributed an additional $142 billion to the economy (USDOT BTS 2001b).

Railroads key to the economy – they’re the most efficient means of transportation William W. Millar, President American Public Transportation Association, 04/26/06, http://www.apta.com/government_affairs/aptatest/testimony060426.cfm Looking to the future, railroads - passenger and freight - are poised to play an even greater role in enabling commerce and economic growth. Earlier this year America surpassed the 300 million mark in population. In 30 more years we are projected to reach 400 million. Most of the population will be living in metropolitan areas, making our use of land and transportation corridors all the more important. A look at the Los Angeles region's Metrolink commuter rail system provides a projection of demand anticipated for commuter rail services. Freight and passenger rail traffic in the L.A. / Orange County / Riverside corridor is expected to leap from 172 trains today to a total of 265 trains by 2010, and to a projected 390 trains per day in 2025. While America needs a transportation policy balanced on the strengths and synergies of roads, ports and rails, overall there should be a higher reliance on rail modes, which are much more efficient in terms of land and energy. Indeed, adding rail capacity is imperative also for its positive impact on parallel freeways already clogged with traffic. These urban/suburban areas have roads that are not only hopelessly congested, but roads that have already been expanded to close to their maximum capacity. Adding highway capacity in these areas is enormously expensive. For a fraction of the cost of such road construction/expansion, existing railroad rights-of-way can be reactivated / expanded / improved to accommodate traffic and reduce highway congestion for both freight and passenger movements.

Railroads key to the economy – they move billions of tonw of freight Brenda Turner, Employment Economist, 03/25/08, http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ArticleReader?itemid=00002986 Freight and passenger railways tied the nation together like never before, allowing people and materials to move overland faster than ever. It was a revolution. Rail transportation remains an important component of today's economy. Railroads deliver billions of tons of freight and thousands of travelers to destinations throughout the nation, while subways and streetcars transport millions of passengers within metropolitan areas.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

67

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Key to the Economy

Poor rail performance hurts the economy FHA (United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration), 06/22/06, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/freight_story/today.htm Freight is big business. It is a necessity, not a luxury. When transportation system performance decreases, freightrelated businesses and their customers are affected in two ways. First, freight assets become less productive. Second, more freight transportation must be consumed to meet the needs of a thriving and expanding economy. Thus, when freight transportation under-performs, the economy pays the price. Reliable, predictable travel times are especially important in an economy where many goods are expensive and are needed in tightly scheduled manufacturing and distribution systems. Late arrivals can have significant economic costs for factories waiting for parts to assemble and for carriers who are missing guaranteed delivery times.

Railroads key to the economy – jobs FHA (United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration), 06/22/06, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/freight_story/today.htm Freight transportation also contributes to the economy by providing jobs to millions of people—an important indicator of economic growth. In 2000, more than 10 million people were employed in transportation-related industries, including for-hire services, vehicle manufacturing, and parts suppliers. Of that total, for-hire transportation (including warehousing) employed more than 4.4 million workers, a majority of whom worked in freight-related jobs. Another 5.5 million people worked in transportation occupations in nontransportation industries, such as truck drivers for grocery stores (USDOT BTS 2001b). Truck drivers, alone, accounted for nearly 70 percent of the total number of transportation occupational workers (USDOT BTS 2002b). Improvements in freight productivity help the United States maintain its competitive position in the world economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that productivity for the intercity trucking, railroad, air transport, and petroleum pipeline industries has improved over the last 20 years. The railroad industry has posted the most impressive gains, followed by the pipeline industry. Improvements in railroad productivity resulted primarily from deregulation, divestiture of uneconomic lines, reductions in labor force, and changes in technology and logistics. Productivity improvements in trucking resulted primarily from public investments in a high quality national road network and deregulation.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

68

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Key to the Economy

Railroad key to international competition John B. Ficker, president of the National Industrial Transportation League, 3/31/04, Testimony of the National Industrial Transportation League”, http://www.nitl.org/johnf.pdf The National Industrial Transportation League is one of the nation’s oldest and largest national associations representing companies engaged in the transportation of goods in both domestic and international commerce. The League was founded in 1907, and currently has approximately 600 company members. These members range from some of the largest users of the nation’s transportation system, to smaller companies engaged in the shipment and receipt of goods. League members use all forms of transportation for the shipment and receipt of goods of all kinds, to literally thousands of points in the United States. Many members of the League utilize rail transportation, and thus have a very substantial interest in federal policies relevant to rail carriers, including the status of the Surface Transportation Board and railroad economic regulation. Indeed, many League members are dependent on rail carriers to move their goods, and therefore need a safe, secure, efficient and financially healthy rail industry. For this reason, over the years the League has been a staunch supporter of the rail industry. Many League members are eager to increase their utilization of this vital industry, in order to meet their own and the nation’s transportation needs. In fact, the ability of American manufacturers to compete in a world economy and the creation of jobs in the United States, depends in substantial part on the existence of a competitive and efficient rail industry. Rail transportation is thus not simply a matter of private interest between rail carriers and shippers, but appreciably contributes to our nation’s overall economic health. Rail transportation also helps to alleviate congestion on our highways, and thus adds to the overall efficiency and safety of our nation’s entire transportation system. Moreover, the League well understands the capital-intensive nature of the rail industry and its large capital needs. Rail shippers depend on those infrastructures for the safe and efficient transportation of their goods. Almost exactly one year ago, the League appeared before this Subcommittee and urged the Congress to take steps to provide funds to improve the nation’s rail infrastructure and to reduce the amount of taxes that the nation’s rail carriers pay so that additional monies can be directed toward improving rail infrastructure.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

69

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Key to Agriculture

Railroads key to ag Association of American Railroads, “The Economic Impact of America’s Freight Railroads,” May 2008 http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/162.ashx Without freight railroads, the U.S. economy could not function. In fact, railroads serve nearly every industrial, wholesale, retail, agricultural, and mineral-based sector of the economy: • Agricultural Products – Railroads have helped farmers get their goods to market since the earliest days of railroading. Class I railroads originated 1.7 million carloads of wheat, corn, soybeans, and other agricultural products in 2007. • Chemicals – The more than 2.0 million carloads of chemicals originated by Class I rail- roads in 2007 helped clean our water, fertilize our farms, package our food, build our cars and homes, and enhance our well-being in thousands of other ways. • Coal – Coal generates half of our electricity, and railroads haul more coal than any other transportation mode. Class I railroads originated 7.5 million carloads of coal in 2007, enough to meet the electricity needs of every home in America. By helping to keep coal- based generation affordable, railroads help reduce our dependence on imported energy. • Food Products – In addition to agricultural products, in 2007 railroads hauled 1.5 million carloads of animal feed, beer, birdseed, canned produce, corn syrup, flour, french fries, frozen chickens, sugar, wine, and countless other food products.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

70

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Railroads Key to Low Food Prices

Railroads key to low food prices AAR (Association for American Railroads), 06/24/08, http://www.aar.org/Pressroom/News/2008/06/FOODCOST_RAIL_SAVINGS.aspx In his June 16, 2008 Des Moines Register column "To rein in cost of food, beef up transportation," guest writer Mike Steenhoek looks at the role the nation's distribution system contributes to food costs, noting that if more went by rail, costs could be kept lower. Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition, wrote "The primary culprit for today's rising food prices is a more costly distribution system - significantly impacted by the escalating price of oil. A rise in the price of crude oil not only equates to a more expensive gallon of gasoline, but also a more expensive gallon of milk." Mr. Steenhoek's solution, direct enough resources to maintaining and augmenting our transportation infrastructure. "A railroad can transport one ton of freight 386 miles on one gallon of fuel," he wrote. "Yet our nation's leaders have missed the opportunity to provide tax incentives to railroads - particularly the shortline and regional railroads serving rural America - to augment their capacity-constrained network. Railroads, largely financed by the private sector, are responding to the increased congestion on their systems by raising rates on their customers in agriculture and other industries. Rail customers have witnessed fuel surcharges of up to $0.70 per car mile, equating to $130,000 in fuel surcharges for a train full of soybeans headed to the West Coast."

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

71

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Food Prices Impacts – Starvation

A small food price increase means 1.1 billion deaths Tampa Tribune, 1/20/96, p. 41 On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not abundant. In 1995, world production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food security. During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less." He also said many people in lowincome countries already spend more than half of their income on food.

Continued high food prices will cause mass starvation for 95% of the world Mike Adams is a staff writer for naturalnews.com. “The Biofuels Scam, Food Shortages and the Coming Collapse of the Human Population” April 23, 2008 http://www.naturalnews.com/023091.html So, to repeat, the food bubble is now starting to implode. What does it all mean? It means that as these economic and climate realities unfold, our world is facing massive starvation and food shortages. The first place this will be felt is in poor developing nations. It is there that people live on the edge of economic livelihood, where even a 20% rise in the price of basic food staples can put desperately-needed calories out of reach of tens of millions of families. If something is not done to rescue these people from their plight, they will starve to death. Wealthy nations like America, Canada, the U.K., and others will be able to absorb the price increases, so you won't see mass starvation in North America any time soon (unless, of course, all the honeybees die, in which case prepare to start chewing your shoelaces...), but it will lead to significant increases in the cost of living, annoying consumers and reducing the amount of money available for other purchases (like vacations, cars, fuel, etc.). That, of course, will put downward pressure on the national economy. But what we're seeing right now, folks, is just a small foreshadowing of events to come in the next couple of decades. Think about it: If these minor climate changes and foolish biofuels policies are already unleashing alarming rises in food prices, just imagine what we'll see when Peak Oil kicks in and global oil supplies really start to dwindle. When gasoline is $10 a gallon in the U.S., how expensive will food be around the world? The answer, of course, is that it will be triple or quadruple the current price. And that means many more people will starve. Fossil fuels, of course, aren't the only limiting factor threatening future food supplies on our planet: There's also fossil water. That's water from underground aquifers that's being pumped up to the surface to water crops, then it's lost to evaporation. Countries like India and China are depending heavily on fossil water to irrigate their crops, and not surprisingly, the water levels in those aquifers is dropping steadily. In a few more years (as little as five years in some cases), that water will simply run dry, and the crops that were once irrigated to feed a nation will dry up and turn to dust. Mass starvation will only take a few months to kick in. Think North Korea after a season of floods. Perhaps 95% of humanity is just one crop season away from mass starvation.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

72

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan

Rising food prices are creating political instability in Pakistan Jason Gale “Pakistan's Food Affordability Threatens 77 Million” April 23 2008 http://www.defence.pk/forums/current-events-socialissues/11104-77million-threatened-pakistans-food-affordability-pakistan-may-import-1-5m-ton-wheat.html Almost half the population of Pakistan, the world's seventh-most-populous nation, faces difficulty gaining access to affordable food because of the soaring cost of cereals, a World Food Program official said. The Rome-based United Nations agency increased its estimate of the number of so-called food insecure people in Pakistan to 77 million from 60 million, spokesman Paul Risley said in a telephone interview from the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, yesterday. Pakistan's food prices jumped 21 percent in March from a year earlier, the fastest pace in at least six years, as water availability declined and farmers planted fewer crops, shrinking harvests. The South Asian nation may need to import wheat for a second year if the current harvest falls short of domestic demand. ``Pakistan has reached a tipping point,'' Risley said. ``It is no longer an exporter of food, but rather an importer.'' Pakistan is affected by world food prices that have surged by about 83 percent in the past three years, provoking riots in poor nations and threatening to set back efforts to reduce global poverty, according to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Pakistan's prices of wheat flour, edible oil and pulses are at a record, according to Fareed Qureshi, chairman of the Karachi Retail Market Association. Flour is priced at 1,750 rupees ($27) for an 80-kilogram bag and the average price of pulses has risen 50 percent since January, he said. Edible Oil Average edible oil prices have climbed 16 percent since the start of the year and rice is 26 percent more costly than it was on Jan. 1. Hundreds of people line up for hours outside state-run fair price shops offering subsidized food, where scuffles break out over bags of flour or rice. Pakistan is one of 40 countries, mostly in Africa and Asia, identified by the WFP as being at risk of food insecurity because of rising food prices, Risley said. ``In each of these counties, we are especially concerned that a lack of access to affordable food could lead to political instability and social disruption,'' he said. The rural poor will suffer hunger silently, while the urban poor will be more prone to rioting, Risley said. ``This is an expression that hasn't been heard in decades because recent economic growth, especially in Asia, has helped poor populations in urban and rural settings,'' he said. ``Now we're beginning to see a return to those very critical choices that are forced on families when food is not accessible, when food is not affordable.''

Unstable Pakistan leads to proliferation Kristin Roberts “Pakistan political instability raises nuclear risk” 08 Nov 2007 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N08386391.htm Pentagon officials say Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is secure in military hands, but some U.S. lawmakers and experts warn that nuclear material and designs could leak out if political instability persists. Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has concentrated control over the entire nuclear program. But a decline in his support within the military amid the current political crisis raises a risk that control over the weapons could weaken. That could open the door to theft or sale of weapons material to extremist groups, some experts say. Some weapons experts and U.S. officials still suspect Pakistan's military of at least knowing about the smuggling activities of Pakistan's A.Q. Khan network that sold weapons technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. "This is a country that's leaked nuclear weapons designs, centrifuges," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. "Two of its scientists talked to (Osama) bin Laden about how to make nuclear weapons in 2001." "It's a system that's leaked very dangerous information," he said. "You have to worry about the integrity of the system in a period of growing instability." A senior U.S. general this week said the Pentagon was worried about the security of Pakistan nuclear weapons after Musharraf declared a state of emergency on Saturday, prompting protests and arrests. U.S. lawmakers, however, expressed more uncertainty about the security of the weapons. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat on a congressional committee that oversees the U.S. military, said the United States lacked full knowledge of Pakistan's weapons. "We need a lot more visibility on what's going on in Pakistan. Who does have that football? Who is next in line?," she said about Pakistan's nuclear weapons. "I've learned that we don't have as strong a handle on it," said Tauscher, who has access to some U.S. intelligence as a member of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. Asked if she knew specific details of Pakistan's weapons, including their location and the chain of command over those weapons, she said, "I don't know, and I've asked the question a couple of different ways." Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, a Democratic presidential hopeful and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Pakistan was at real risk of becoming a failed state.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

73

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Food Prices Impacts – Pakistan

Proliferation causes nuclear war and extinction Victor A. Utgoff is Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” 2002, pg 87-90 Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the Soviet Union and plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little prospect of establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the world if strong protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclearbacked aggression? At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur increasing numbers of the world’s capable states to follow suit. Restraint would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the technology for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point, halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that happens, the transition to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line for a time, the threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent’s nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons. [The article continues…] The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intenseand blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

74

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Food Prices Impacts – Economy

Food insecurity creates failed states and disrupts the global economy Lester R. Brown is founder of the Worldwatch Institute and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, “Exploding U.S. Grain Demand for Automotive Fuel Threatens World Food Security and Political Stability” November 3, 2006 http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2006/Update60.htm The number of hungry people in the world has been declining for several decades, but in the late 1990s the trend reversed and the number began to rise. The United Nations currently lists 34 countries as needing emergency food assistance. Many of these are considered failed and failing states, including Chad, Iraq, Liberia, Haiti, and Zimbabwe. Since food aid programs typically have fixed budgets, if the price of grain doubles, food aid will be reduced by half. Urban food protests in response to rising food prices in low and middle income countries, such as Mexico, could lead to political instability that would add to the growing list of failed and failing states. At some point, spreading political instability could disrupt global economic progress.

High food prices are the biggest threat to consumer confidence Robert Gavin, Globe Staff, 03/09/08, http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2008/03/09/surging_costs_of_groceries_hit_home/?page=2 Rising food prices can be particularly corrosive to consumer confidence because people are so frequently exposed to the cost increases. "It's the biggest risk we face economically, and it might be the thing that does us in," said Rich Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research Corp. in New York. "There's nothing really worse than having a job, making money, and forking most of it over just so you can have the same amount of food. You're running in place, and it really weighs on you." As with energy, higher food costs cut into discretionary income that buys everything from cars to computers to movie tickets and drives the consumer-based US economy. Falling home values and a faltering stock market have battered consumer confidence, spurring a retrenchment in spending that is contributing to recent job losses and pulling the economy toward recession.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

75

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

US/Australia Relations High Now

Relations stronger than ever The Age, 6-25-08, http://news.theage.com.au/national/gillard-reinforces-australiaus-alliance-20080625-2wji.html, Junaid The Australia-US alliance is stronger than ever, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has told a dinner in Washington."On occasions like this, in places like the state department, among friends like you, our custom is to celebrate our relationship," she told a group of Australian and American academics, business people and government officials.Ms Gillard is in the US for a meeting of the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue. "We emphasise, rightly, the ties that bind us, the alliance which unites and protects us, the trade and investment links which help to underpin our prosperity and the mutual friendship which provides a solid foundation for all the work we do together." The two nations' entwined history goes back further than the halfcentury alliance, Ms Gillard said.

Recent meeting convey signal of Strong relations Samantha Hawley, Reporter, The World Today, 1-29-08, http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2148877.htm, Junaid ELEANOR HALL: Stephen Smith's first official trip to Washington to meet US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was never likely to be easy. Australia's Foreign Minister was bringing unwelcome news to the leading partner in the Coalition of the Willing that the new Australian government would go ahead with its plan to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq by the middle of the year. But while this was in stark contrast to the sort of support the US administration received from the Howard government, when the pair emerged from their inaugural talks, they were adamant that the bilateral relationship is as strong as ever.

Firm alliance in the status quo- security policy trust AUSMIN, Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations, 2008, http://www.dfat.gov.au/GEO/us/ausmin/ausmin08_joint_communique.html, Junaid Australia and the United States reaffirmed the enduring strength of the alliance and its firm basis in shared values, high levels of trust and a record of cooperation and shared sacrifice. Both sides recalled the long history of defence cooperation, reaching back to the world wars, and given contemporary resonance by their current overseas commitments. They noted that ANZUS, strengthened by more than fifty years of cooperation and invoked for the first time following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, continues to be the foundation of a dynamic and broad-ranging security relationship. Both sides agreed that the Australia-United States alliance will continue to make a valuable contribution to stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific and beyond. The discussions reflected the global dimension of Australia-United States cooperation with both sides reiterating their commitment to working together to confront contemporary security challenges, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and global terrorism. Both sides underlined that Australia and the United States benefit from substantial convergence in their strategic and security policy priorities.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

76

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

US/Australia Relations High Now

Relations high- security alliance Michael Fullilove, Lowey Fellow Foreign Policy, 4-4-08, Originally in Sydney Morning Herald, Brookings, http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0404_australia_fullilove.aspx, Junaid It is unhealthy for an alliance to be tied too tightly to the fortunes of particular leaders. Indeed, there is good evidence that, with its embrace of the Bush Administration, the Howard government was loving the alliance to death. In the three years since 2005 in which the Lowy Institute has conducted its annual poll, the percentage of respondents rating the alliance as "very important" to Australia's security has declined from 45 per cent to 36 per cent. The dualism of Australians' attitudes to Washington showed up in the 2006 poll, in which 70 per cent of respondents thought the alliance was either "very important" or "fairly important" to Australia's security, but 69 per cent believed we were taking too much notice of the US in our foreign policy. If the intimacy of the Howard-Bush relationship undercut the alliance in Australians' eyes, it also hurt us in some Washington constituencies. A case in point was Howard's claim last year that al-Qaeda would be praying for a Democratic victory, which drew this deadly response from Barack Obama: "I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to fight in Iraq, otherwise it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric." Here was a leading contender for the presidency making light of a dangerous deployment we had undertaken largely for alliance management reasons, and implying we were not living up to our full responsibilities - the opposite of the view we like to encourage.

Both countries committed to long-term alliance- similar foreign policy Paul Dibb, Staff Writer, Strategic Forum, Aug 05, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QZY/is_/ai_n15947846m, Junaid Australia is America's oldest friend and ally in the Asia-Pacific region and second closest ally in the world. However, there currently is a debate in Australia about what the United States expects from the alliance and the nature of American power. Australia's self-reliant defense posture in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific contributes to mutual security. That posture is strengthened by the U.S. security guarantee and access to U.S. intelligence, defense science, weapons, and military logistics support. The alliance also enhances Australia's status in world affairs, especially in Asia. Australia will remain a committed U.S. ally for the foreseeable future. Canberra and Washington share views on fighting the war on terror, dealing with the spread of weapons of mass destruction, supporting democracy, and preventing the emergence of failed states. However, the challenges Australia faces in its own neighborhood have first priority. Maintaining support for the alliance will also rest upon Washington's success in convincing the Australian public that U.S. policies are both necessary and legitimate and that Australia's contributions to mutual security are not taken for granted.

Despite recent events, relations remain high NYT, New York Times, 2-24-08, Posted on Star News Online, http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080224/NEWS/802240372/-1/xml, Junaid Canberra, Australia | Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and top Australian officials insisted on Saturday that the security alliance between the United States and Australia has not frayed despite Australia's recent pledge to remove all combat forces from Iraq Australia's new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, announced late last year that the country's 550 combat troops in Iraq would leave by mid-2008. But Gates and his Australian hosts accentuated the positive, talking about policy matters on which the two countries agree.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

77

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Australia Economy High Now

Despite recent turbulence- growth is expected to pick up Alice Coster, Staff Writer, Melbourne Herald Sun, 7-16-08, http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24026244664,00.html, Junaid FINANCIAL markets are in for a rough ride as caution overcomes investors' appetite for risk but the Australian economy will continue to grow, according to Mirrabooka Investments. Managing director Ross Barker yesterday said he expected growth in the Australian economy despite the turbulent start to the financial year. "Certainly for the first half of the year things are going to be quite volatile and fragile as people try to digest what is really happening in the US and in Europe," Mr Barker said. "But no one is predicting recession at this point."

Australia is in better position than the rest of the world Alice Coster, Staff Writer, Melbourne Herald Sun, 7-16-08, http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24026244-664,00.html, Junaid He said the Australian economy was in a far better position than the US or Europe. "Our banks are in better shape, we have got pretty close to full employment, while property houses are high, maybe coming off a bit, they haven't had the big falls that have happened in the US," Mr Barker said.

Economy is stable and at a new high- export boom Reuters, 7-18-08, http://in.reuters.com/article/asiaCompanyAndMarkets/idINSYD9844820080718, Junad SYDNEY, July 18 (Reuters) - Australia's export prices leapt a record 13.5 percent last quarter as Chinese demand fuelled huge increases in iron ore and coal, an economic windfall that sets it apart from other industrial nations less blessed with resources. The jump more than compensated for a 1.4 percent rise in import prices in the second quarter, which included a near 16 percent increase in fuel costs, government data released on Friday showed. Indeed, apart from fuel and by-products like fertilizer, import prices were held back by the rising Australian dollar, which could mean next week's consumer price report might not be quite as inflationary as first feared. As a result, Australia's terms of trade -- what it gets for exports compared to what it pays for imports -- looked to have climbed by around 12 percent in the quarter, a boon to profits, employment, dividends and tax receipts.

Trade has reached a record high- much growth predicted Reuters, 7-18-08, http://in.reuters.com/article/asiaCompanyAndMarkets/idINSYD9844820080718, Junad The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) expects the terms of trade will rise by a record 20 percent or more this year, which in turn could lift national income by around 3 percent. But this good fortune complicates life for the central bank, which has raised interest rates four times in the past year in an effort to cool the economy and restrain inflation. Recent data suggests domestic demand has indeed slowed sharply, giving the RBA more confidence that inflation will ebb over time.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

78

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Australia Economy High Now

Despite downfalls- numbers predict future highs AAP, Australian Associated Press, 7-10-08, Posted on The West Australian, http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx? MenuId=28&ContentID=84062, Junaid A drop in unemployment and a pat on the back from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are welcome news indeed, says federal Treasurer Wayne Swan, who remains “optimistic“ about the economy. The jobless rate unexpectedly fell to 4.2 per cent in June, as the number of people employed bounced back sharply, Australian Bureau of Statistics data released today shows. The good news coincided with an IMF consultation paper which warned inflation risks in Australia were on the upside, but approved a number of Rudd government policies. Mr Swan was pleased with unemployment figures. “Given the global credit crunch, given the global oil shock, these figures are very welcomed figures indeed,” Mr Swan told reporters in Sydney. He also accepted the IMF analysis and warnings for Australia to hopefully head off higher inflation and corresponding interest rate rises.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

79

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Australian Coal Exports High (Asia)

Australia’s mining boom is fueled by demand from China and India Phil Mercer, VOA News Correspondent in Sydney, 25 June 2008, “China to Pay Record Prices for Australian Minerals”, http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-25-voa17.cfm [Bapodra] Australia's mining boom has fueled a decade-and-a-half of unprecedented economic growth. It is driven by soaring demand for iron ore and coal from China and India. The bonanza has the potential to end Australia's long-term current account deficit and push the country's international trade balance into surplus. But despite such massive earnings in the minerals sector, there are fears that the higher income from exports could increase inflation in Australia and push up domestic interest rates. But Australia's mining boom has cushioned the economy from the worst effects of the global credit squeeze.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

80

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

US/Australia Competition for Market Share

The US and Australia compete for market share in China and India Dianne DeMille & Stephen Priestley – Canadian American Strategic Review, November 2005, “Beyond Kyoto – the Lure of Cheap, Abundant CoalA New Industrial Revolution for India and China?” http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-newfuel-2.htm The US and Australia are two of the largest exporters of coal, while India and China are two of the largest consumers, especially of black anthracite – the highest coal grade. It didn't take long for the Australian Prime Minister to convince President Bush to pursue a deal with India and China, whereby the two former countries would sell the latter two the coal they need to generate electricity, light their cities, and power their manufacturing plants. In addition, the two 'Western' nations, with their more advanced technology, would sell them the equipment they need to burn the coal more cleanly. The two populous nations would have access to 'clean coal' technology at very reasonable rates.

Australia faces strong competition from coal suppliers when exporting to Asia Mark Vaile, Former Australian Minister for Trade, 7 May 2000, “Strengthening Australia's position as the World's Leading Coal Exporter at the opening of the 2000 Australian Coal Conference and Trade Exhibition”, http://www.trademinister.gov.au/speeches/2000/070500_coal.html [Bapodra] While the export task will remain extremely challenging, there are some positive signs. The IMF forecasts that world output will grow by 4.2 per cent in 2000 and 3.9 per cent in 2001. While Japan's economy remains sluggish, many other important markets, including Korea, India and South-East Asian countries, are experiencing stronger growth. East Asia's economic recovery will contribute to stronger regional demand for coal, but Australia will continue to face strong competition from other suppliers. Through continued improvements in productivity, the Australian coal industry has strengthened its competitiveness in this tough trading environment. According to ABARE, Australian coal exports are projected to increase at an average rate of 3.5 per cent a year in the next five years as cost reductions allow producers to compete successfully. Modest demand growth for coal is expected to be driven mainly by higher demand for electricity and steel products in Asia, as regional recovery continues. But new challenges are always emerging, such as the growing volume of "spot" trade in coal - a result of abundant coal supplies and greater competition in Asian electricity markets.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

81

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

US/Australia Competition for Market Share

Australia and the US are eager to export coal to China Dianne DeMille & Stephen Priestley. Canadian American Strategic Review. November 2005. Beyond Kyoto – the Lure of Cheap, Abundant Coal A New Industrial Revolution for India and China? India has, many times over its long past, been a significant player in world affairs, and its leaders want it to be so again. China, through millennia, has surged and receded like the global ice ages. Both of these ancient, populous nations are set to become 'Great Powers' once again. To grow, both in prosperity and political influence, these nations require access to cheap, abundant energy. Right now, coal is one of the cheapest, most abundant energy sources in the world. Both India and China have their own coal reserves, but, at their present rate of growth, they will need much more coal in the coming decades. The US and Australia both have large reserves of high - quality, black coal. Both are eager to export coal to India and China. The Kyoto Protocol: The Right Tool? Will it be Effective? Will it be Enforceable? The majority of 'developed' nations have now ratified the Kyoto Protocol. This United Nations document established targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) , especially carbon dioxide , the product of burning fossil fuels such as oil , natural gas , and coal. The United States and Australia openly refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. They had two primary objections for their decisions: 1) No nation can suddenly reduce its energy consumption without adversely affecting its economic growth 2) The so-called 'developing' nations were exempt from the 'First Round' of the Kyoto Protocol. This included the two fastest growing economies in the world – China and India. In the view of both the US and Australia, this exemption was ludicrous, since these two so-called 'developing' countries had robust, sophisticated civilizations when Europeans were still picking nits out of each other's hair. It is true that both India and China have been going through an economic 'sticky patch' in the recent past, but they now boast the two fastest growing economies in the world. Because of their phenomenal growth rates, they are also two of the largest producers of GHG, falling in behind the leader, the United States.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

82

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: US Not a Coal Exporter

The US exports coal to Asia Reuters, 07/07/08, “More US coal moving to Asia - market sources”, Filed Under: Investing, http://money.aol.ca/article/more-us-coal-moving-to-asia-market-sources/275990/ [Bapodra] HOUSTON, July 7 (Reuters) - More U.S. coal is moving to Asia, including the first Utah coal and the first whole cargo of Powder River Basin coal through Westshore Terminals at Vancouver, Canada, market sources said Monday. Utah coal has never before moved through Westshore, the largest dry bulk terminal on North America's West Coast, and Powder River Basin has shipped there only as part of a blend, said Denis Horgan, terminal general manager. Coal analysts have been watching for increased movement of U.S. coal to Asia as prices soar in a booming, coal-hungry market. Asian demand coupled with delivery problems in exporting countries has made U.S. coal attractive. "It's because there's such a shortage in the world market now," said John Hanou, vice president of Hill & Associates, a coal consultancy. "It tells you how desperate people are."

Asian countries buy US coal when it is less expensive Bruce Nichols, Press Correspondent, 23 May 2008, “FEATURE-U.S. miners prosper as world demand for coal booms”, Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23218166.htm [Bapodra] BROOKWOOD, Ala., May 23 (Reuters) - Two thousand feet under the west Alabama woods, dust flies as a machine chews into the Blue Creek coal seam, mining black gold for a booming world market that is lifting the once-laggard U.S. coal industry. Economic growth in Asia has outrun world coal supply, pushing buyers to the United States -- a market traditionally viewed as too expensive -- for backup. Bad weather and producer problems around the world have fed the frenzy. The new prosperity shows at Jim Walter Resources Mine No. 4. Walter has paid bonuses, bought new equipment and hired more workers. It is expanding a nearby mine. Parent company Walter Industries Inc <WLT.N>, which posted record firstquarter earnings, is shedding its home-building roots to focus on coal. "The company's a little bit freer with money," said John Storm, a supervisor who arrives at the working face of the seam by descending 2,000 feet in an elevator and then riding a tram through 5 miles of deep tunnels. George Richmond, chief executive of Jim Walter Resources, said improved profitability "does allow us to share some of the rewards."

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

83

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Coal Not a World Market

Domestic coal prices affect international prices. Miles K. Light, Department of Economics, University of Colorado. 1999. Coal Subsidies and Global Carbon Emissions. By: Light, Miles K., Energy Journal. Vol. 20, Issue 4 The international market has changed considerably over the last two decades as it has emerged into a stable, unified market. Domestic coal prices are now linked to one another through international trade. This was not the case 20 years ago, when coal trade accounted for 4% of world production. Today, trade in steam coal is about 12% of world production, still a small share of total consumption, but large enough to transmit prices around the globe. Two informal spot markets for coal have developed, one market serving Asian demand, and the other serving European demand. These markets are linked together by exporters like South Africa, who pay roughly the same price to ship coal to either market. In 1995, 59% of South Africa's coal exports went to Europe and 31% went to Asia. The coal market exhibits free entry as many new competitors are now supplying coal to each spot market. Indonesia, Venezuela, and Colombia have all entered the market as net exporters within the last 10 years. Meanwhile, traditionally large exporters such as the United States, Australia, and South Africa, have all lost market share to these new entrants.

Single coal price fluctuations affect the world’s markets due to Asian demand Seeking Alpha, Stock Market Analysis site, July 03, 2008, “Rising Asian Demand Keeps Coal Prices Inflated, Energy Stocks: Coal” http://seekingalpha.com/article/83756-rising-asian-demand-keeps-coalprices-inflated [Bapodra] Coal prices on Wednesday plunged in Europe and the United States. European benchmark coal dipped by as much as $25 a tonne, to below $200, which sent U.S. benchmark coal falling by $20 a tonne. Australian markets also got affected according to Dow Jones Newswires. The Newcastle spot coal price, where the world’s biggest thermal coal shipping port is located - fell sharply, following on from a 20% drop in spot thermal coal prices in Europe overnight. However, despite this latest pullback in coal prices, analysts say - that a sharp pullback in benchmark Australian thermal coal prices is only natural correction after a recent surge. The price drop is seen as a partial retracement of gains experience in recent weeks when the spot coal price surged ahead of the recently agreed contract prices for Asian buyers of $US125 a metric tonne, and appears to be a temporary reversal. Prices in Asia are also projected to stay high with all the indicators pointing to ongoing tightness in the market.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

84

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Coal Not a World Market

International coal prices are parallel to US domestic prices due to its status as residual supplier Miles K. Light, Department of Economics, University of Colorado. 1999. Coal Subsidies and Global Carbon Emissions. By: Light, Miles K., Energy Journal. Vol. 20, Issue 4 Between 1980 and 1990, the United States emerged as the residual supplier of export coal. This linked the international coal price to the US domestic price. The US coal market has special characteristics which make it the residual supplier. First, the US domestic market is large compared with the international market. US steam coal production was 781 million tons (Mt) in 1995, accounting for 30% of global production and almost three times the volume of world steam coal trade, which was 256 million tons. Second, there exists substantial excess railroad and port capacity in the US, allowing for increased exports in the short run. Gruss (1997) estimates 1995 US port utilization at 65%--the lowest of all major exporters. In contrast, Gruss estimates Australia and South Africa to have operated near full capacity in 1995, with Australia utilizing 92% of export production capacity and South Africa 94%. This implies that the US is best positioned to actually produce and ship hard coal when global demand is high. When international coal demand is slack, export coal reverts back to the large US domestic market. Finally, the US is the world's highest cost supplier. Representative CIF coal prices for Europe were 40.5 US 1995 dollars for coal from the United States, versus about 34 dollars from South Africa and 39 dollars from Australia. The high price of US coal makes them the marginal supplier. The relative price of US coal is even higher in Asian markets. On the other [land, in fact, it is argued by Humphreys (1995) that the US should share the swing supplier role with Australia, at least as far as the Asian market is concerned. Humphreys argues that the US accounts for less than 7% of total exports to Asia, which limits the US role there. There is no firm consensus as to the role of Australia as the swing supplier to date, and the prospects become more uncertain as the Los Angeles Coal Export Terminal (LAXT), which began operations in 1998, increases export capacity between the US and Asia. Although China is another large coal producer, it is uncertain whether this country could be the residual supplier. High economic growth and poor coal shipping and production infrastructure imply China may become a net importer, rather than exporter of steam coal, see Anderson and Peng (1998). However, this paper uses the Energy Information Agency's International Energy Outlook 1998, which estimates that Chinese exports will increase slightly between 1995 and 2010. Although China does not appear to be growing into a global supplier, it plays some role in exports here, simply because it is the world's largest coal producer. A World Price for Coal A competitive model structure, with the US as a residual supplier, allows for a simple characterization of the world price. The world steam coal price will be consistent with the US domestic price. When international demand increases, the world price may rise slightly above the US price, but US producers will quickly respond to the arbitrage opportunity, supplying the international market until prices are in line with those in the US. Furthermore, if international demand falls, US producers shift production away from international markets, back into the vast US market--softening the downward price response in the international market. In this way, the world steam coal price will "stick" to the US price. Ellerman (1995) presents compelling evidence and explanation for this type of market structure. He shows that while Australian and South African exports have risen steadily over the last 20 years, US exports tended to fluctuate, responding to short term market activity. He shows how the world coal price moved parallel to the US cost of coal production. Increased costs for mine labor in the United States coincides with sharply increasing coal prices in the mid-1970s. Increased productivity in the US, along with lower railroad prices, may have contributed to the gradual decline in world coal prices over the last 15 years.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

85

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

High Coal Prices Good for Australia

High oil prices benefit Australian industry Romina Maurino, Staff Writer, The Canadian Press, 4-19-08, http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/Mining/2008/04/19/5332951-cp.html, Junaid Rising demand from Asian steelmakers and production hiccups in coal-producing countries like Australia, China and South Africa have constrained supplies of both thermal coal and the metallurgical coal used in steel production, leading to a sharp increase in global prices. Metallurgical coal settled at US$305 per tonne for the year, which runs from April 1 to the following March - about 200 per cent higher than it was last year. Thermal coal, used for power plants, is currently hovering around $120 to $125 a tonne. "The rainy season in Australia, where a lot of this coal comes from has, interrupted the flow of coal to China and India, so you have this perfect storm happening: excellent demand that's growing and then you get a little bit of a speed bump in terms of the supply," said Jennings Capital analyst Ron Coll. "The existing production is going to enjoy the ride, because these are wonderful prices for all coal producers, particularly the Western Canadian coal producers."

High oil prices benefit Australian industry Romina Maurino, Staff Writer, The Canadian Press, 4-19-08, http://money.canoe.ca/News/Sectors/Mining/2008/04/19/5332951-cp.html, Junaid Rising demand from Asian steelmakers and production hiccups in coal-producing countries like Australia, China and South Africa have constrained supplies of both thermal coal and the metallurgical coal used in steel production, leading to a sharp increase in global prices. Metallurgical coal settled at US$305 per tonne for the year, which runs from April 1 to the following March - about 200 per cent higher than it was last year. Thermal coal, used for power plants, is currently hovering around $120 to $125 a tonne. "The rainy season in Australia, where a lot of this coal comes from has, interrupted the flow of coal to China and India, so you have this perfect storm happening: excellent demand that's growing and then you get a little bit of a speed bump in terms of the supply," said Jennings Capital analyst Ron Coll. "The existing production is going to enjoy the ride, because these are wonderful prices for all coal producers, particularly the Western Canadian coal producers."

High prices benefit industry- empirically proven The Independent, 7-1-08, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/sharewatch/sharply-rising-coalprice-may-undermine-drax-857750.html, Junaid If the price a company can get for what it produces increases faster than the price of its costs, it makes money. That simple equation has helped the coal power station operator Drax in recent months: the price of coal has surged, but not as quickly as the price it gets for its power. The company reckons its future is bright, and said in yesterday's trading update that full-year earnings will be ahead of analyst consensus, which the group says is about £400m. What is more, despite the price of coal continuing to rise, the group has managed to lock in the margin it currently generates, by signing plenty of forward sales contracts.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

86

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Key to Australia’s Economy

Australia’s coal industry is integral to its economy and Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal Tim Gartrell, National Secretariat of Australian Labor Party, March 2007 ,“New Directions For Australia’s Coal Industry The National Clean Coal Initiative “http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/new_directions_for_australias_coal_industry.pdf [Bapodra] Australia’s coal industry is an integral component of the Australian economy. In 2005-06, Australian firms produced just under 400Mt of raw black coal and just over 70Mt of brown coal, and there were around 30,000 people employed in black coal mining alone. 1 Coal isalso the lifeblood of communities in regions such as the Bowen Basin in Queensland, the Hunter Valley in NSW and the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. In recent years Australia’s coal industry has benefited enormously from the global resources boom; since 2003 the value of Australian exports has increased from $10.9 billion to $23.3 billion, an increase of 114 per cent. 2 Coal now represents around 14 per cent of merchandise exports (Chart 1) and Australia is by far the world’s largest exporter of coal, accounting for around a third of total world coal trade in 2005-06. 3 The abundance and efficiency of coal production in Australia makes it a key input into our energy production and means that our electricity prices are amongst the lowest in the world. Around half of Australia’s energy is produced in coal-fired power stations and cheap energy also gives Australian exporters of energy intensive goods such as aluminium an enormous competitive advantage in international markets.

Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter Robert Milliken, Australia correspondent, The Economist, 2008, From The World in 2008 print edition, http://www.economist.com/theworldin/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10094477&d=2008 [Bapodra] Australia is one of the world’s biggest greenhouse-gas emitters per head. Along with America, it is one of only two rich countries not to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Up to now this has been largely because of the “king status” of coal. Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter, with enough black coal reserves to last more than 200 years at current production levels (800 years in the case of its less combustible brown coal). The country derives 83% of its own electricity from coal, and governments have shown little inclination to change this.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

87

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Key to Australia’s Economy

Coal key to Australia's growth Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Australian National University, 5-7-08, Climate Change Review, Junaid The increase in the export price of coal this year is likely to add about $US25 billion to the value of Australian exports. The increase in price alone, in one year, of this one commodity – our largest export commodity – is likely to contribute more than two and a half times the total value of exports of all merchandise to the United States of America. That’s one important reason why analysts are not anticipating a downturn in the Australian economy as the United States plays dice with recession. Rapid growth in the Asian developing economies is being fueled by coal. China, India, Indonesia and others would be running into serious energy and metal supply constraints without the ready availability of coal. Nearly 70 per cent of China’s energy comes from coal, and exceptional proportions of India’s energy, and of the growth in Indonesia’s. Coal therefore plays a role in the boom in Australian exports of other goods and services to Asia. Much of this coal comes from local sources in Asian economies, and increasing proportions from Australia.At home, coal has made Australian electricity cheaper, to business and to households, than in most other countries. The Garnaut Climate Change Review’s modelling in progress suggests that, under business as usual, without concern for new climate change mitigation in other countries or Australia, the relative importance of coal to Australians’ rising living standards will increase strongly through the twenty first century.

Coal is the most important asset to the Australian Economy Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Australian National University, 5-7-08, Climate Change Review, Junaid The success of the transformation of the Australian coal-using industries, and the transmission of that success to Asian purchasers of Australian coal, will be the critical determinants of the future of the Australian coal industry. They will be critical determinants of the outcome of the global effort to avoid dangerous climate change. They will be critical determinants of continued strong economic growth amongst Australia’s Asian neighbours. Few things will be as important to Australian prosperity through the twenty first century.

The coal industry is a large sector of the Australian economy Paul Graham

and Tom Waring, 9-7-98, Abare Conference Paper, Junaid

Australia’s fundamental cost advantages have led to the development of a large export oriented coal industry. It is Australia’s largest commodity export industry, doubling its export earnings over the past decade to reach A$9.5 billion dollars in 1997-98. It is also a very competitive industry. In 1997 there were 118 mines producing 217 million tonnes of coal. The Australian industry is characterised by a large number of companies competing vigorously with each other and with overseas rivals for market share.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

88

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Key to Australia’s Economy

Coal key to Australia's growth Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Australian National University, 5-7-08, Climate Change Review, Junaid The increase in the export price of coal this year is likely to add about $US25 billion to the value of Australian exports. The increase in price alone, in one year, of this one commodity – our largest export commodity – is likely to contribute more than two and a half times the total value of exports of all merchandise to the United States of America. That’s one important reason why analysts are not anticipating a downturn in the Australian economy as the United States plays dice with recession. Rapid growth in the Asian developing economies is being fueled by coal. China, India, Indonesia and others would be running into serious energy and metal supply constraints without the ready availability of coal. Nearly 70 per cent of China’s energy comes from coal, and exceptional proportions of India’s energy, and of the growth in Indonesia’s. Coal therefore plays a role in the boom in Australian exports of other goods and services to Asia. Much of this coal comes from local sources in Asian economies, and increasing proportions from Australia. At home, coal has made Australian electricity cheaper, to business and to households, than in most other countries. The Garnaut Climate Change Review’s modelling in progress suggests that, under business as usual, without concern for new climate change mitigation in other countries or Australia, the relative importance of coal to Australians’ rising living standards will increase strongly through the twenty first century.

Coal is the most important asset to the Australian Economy Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Australian National University, 5-7-08, Climate Change Review, Junaid The success of the transformation of the Australian coal-using industries, and the transmission of that success to Asian purchasers of Australian coal, will be the critical determinants of the future of the Australian coal industry. They will be critical determinants of the outcome of the global effort to avoid dangerous climate change. They will be critical determinants of continued strong economic growth amongst Australia’s Asian neighbours. Few things will be as important to Australian prosperity through the twenty first century.

Coal has narrowed Australian trade deficit International Herald Tribune, The Global Edition of the New York Times, March 6, 2007, Business Section, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/business/ozecon.php [Bapodra] SYDNEY: The Australian trade deficit narrowed in January as coal and manufacturing exports rose, signaling that growth may pick up in the Asia-Pacific region's fifth-largest economy. The trade shortfall narrowed to 876 million Australian dollars, or $677 million, from 1.38 billion dollars in December, the Bureau of Statistics said in Sydney on Tuesday. Exports rose 2 percent and imports dropped 1 percent. Asia's growing appetite for resources has fueled an investment boom by Australian miners and energy producers, stoking exports.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

89

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Economy Key to Relations

Economic ties are A-Priori in US-Australian relationships Heritage Foundation, 6-18-01, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1450.cfm, Junaid President George Bush recently announced that he will meet with Prime Minister John Howard of Australia on September 10 in Washington to discuss trade, regional security, and the future of U.S.-Australian relations. 1 Australia is one of America's most durable and dependable allies and an important trading partner. 2 Indeed, Americans and Australians have fought side by side in every major war of the last century. Although their defense alliance with New Zealand, the ANZUS Treaty, is marking its 50th anniversary this year, concerns about regional security are growing, and Australia is seeking a bilateral trade agreement with the United States. Trade not only strengthens the economies of trading partners, but also enhances the defense and security ties of allies. In other words, promoting trade is both good economic policy and good foreign policy. A bilateral agreement should be promoted. Regarding security, Australia is one of America's most supportive allies. Strengthening the interoperability of U.S. and Australian forces to further buttress the alliance should be a policy objective. In addition, although the United States has not yet approached the Australian government about a direct involvement in its missile defense efforts, there may be a role for Australia to consider. The Bush Administration has signaled its desire to establish closer relations with Canberra, and the opportunity to do so is clearly at hand.

Economic relations are crucial for US and Australia Heritage Foundation, 6-18-01, http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1450.cfm, Junaid Australia is a pluralistic society that is strongly democratic and relatively open economically. While possessing its own unique and vibrant culture, no other country in the Asia-Pacific region is more like the United States in its political and economic values. Australia, a long-time ally, is clearly a strong candidate for closer relations with the United States, including a bilateral trade agreement. The reason: As noted above, open trade between allies not only strengthens their economies, but also enhances their defense and security ties. In other words, promoting trade is both good economic policy and good foreign policy. The United States has advanced global free trade as a key component of its foreign policy since World War II. It has found that economies that are open to trade and capital flows prosper over time. Moreover, as countries liberalize economically, conditions are created for them to do so politically. Thus, economically open nations often transform themselves into politically open societies.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

90

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Relations Resilient

The alliance is not immutable – lack of Australian support kills military commitments Paul Kelly. Editor of the Australian newspaper, and Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard University. 2003. National Interest, Inc. In short, Australia prefers an America that values partnerships and coalitions, that utilizes soft as well as hard power, that emphasizes political methods as well as military ones. Such an approach is critical to maintaining a sense of common purpose in relation to ends, means and language. One reason for this is that a certain rise in anti-Americanism is inevitable; great powers, no matter how benign, invariably generate resentment. But Washington must understand that such a development affects not just America but increases the potential price paid by America's allies in siding with the hegemon. This is not an argument against all military action. It is an argument for more attention to the tone of U.S. policy, and for legitimizing military action by law and through coalitions whenever possible. Such care is particularly important because the American alliance system is overwhelmingly composed of democratic countries with real publics. Australia's pro-U.S. political leaders spent much of 2002 trying to uphold the American position, only to be engulfed by a tide of unilateral and provocative rhetoric from the U.S. administration that had the reverse impact. The U.S. alliance is not immutable in Australia. It needs democratic nourishment and it can be sustained in the long run only by public support that sees military commitments under its banner as being in the national interest and possessing international legitimacy. It is idle to believe that any lurch to an American unilateralism would not erode the domestic political support within Australia for the alliance.

US failure to maintain the Australian alliance will cause it to collapse Paul Kelly. Editor of the Australian newspaper, and Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard University. 2003. National Interest, Inc. In the meantime, Americans might profit from reflecting upon what Australia brings to the partnership. It offers a range of benefits: shared military arrangements and an ally that, when the chips are down, is prepared to fight; a country on the rim of East Asia that can assist the U.S. position in the region; an independent partner with common values whose public support can help the United States in political terms and whose private counsel can provide a test of policy. Australia is also an ally prepared to take a leadership position as the metropolitan power within its region--an event rarely replicated in Europe during the last decade. These are assets that a prudent America should value, and if they are valued, they will be sustained by U.S. political capital and a genuine effort to define new points of concord. The alternative is easy to state: it is to watch as a true partnership of peoples is undermined by a lack of understanding and imagination required in changed times.

Australia is just like George Harrison, if America’s John Lennon ignores its relationship with Australia then the alliance is in peril Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra] So it is for U.S.-Australian relations. If Britain is seen as Paul McCartney to America’s John Lennon, so Australia under John Howard can be viewed much as George Harrison—quiet, talented, dependable, a vital part of an amazing partnership—but also very much overlooked. As was the case for the Beatles with George Harrison, America ignores its successful relationship with Australia at its peril.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

91

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Relations Resilient

The U.S. must utilize the well developed networks in Australia and engage Australia to maintain relations Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra] No matter how politically constrained President Bush is during the last 2 years of his presidency, he will still have an obligation, and numerous opportunities, to contribute to peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. The good news is that the Bush administration already has taken the first essential step by refocusing its attention on the area. The next step should be to take a page from Mr. Howard’s play book by treating close ties to Canberra as a “plus . . . in forging stronger links in Asia.” An “Australia plus” strategy would involve two progressively more difficult policies for U.S. policymakers. First, the Bush administration should respond to Hulsman’s warnings about taking Australia for granted. This should involve more than “public displays of affection.” It should utilize the well-developed network of institutional ties between the two governments, in conjunction with high-level 25 consultations, in order to enhance the influence of Australian foreign and defense policymakers within the Washington policy community. On an interpersonal level, this should be a relatively painless adjustment, since, as Kurt Campbell has observed: “It’s fair to say that Americans generally like Australians, and it doesn’t hurt that senior Australian diplomats and officials are particularly expert at engaging Americans—and even manipulating them on occasion!”7 The challenge will be for both sides to get beyond comfortable social interaction so that Washington can benefit from Australia’s rich foreign policy experience—especially as it relates to the AsiaPacific region.

The United States must push aside policy differences to build mutual trust with Australia Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra] The second and more difficult policy which the United States should pursue corresponds to Kelly’s “essential truth” that “alliances work better when mutual respect . . . incorporates a margin of difference.” As several contributors to this volume have noted, U.S. and Australian interests are likely to diverge on a number of key foreign policy issues in the near future, as the two nations adjust to significant structural changes in the Asia-Pacific region. However, this does not mean, as Doug Bandow has argued, that it is time to scrap the ANZUS alliance so that both nations can pursue more flexible and independent foreign policies. On the contrary, in accordance with my first recommendation, the ANZUS relationship should be strengthened in order to facilitate U.S.-Australia consultation. And to the extent that bilateral consultation is improved, it will make it that much easier for both nations to prepare for situations of foreign policy divergence.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

92

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Afghanistan Module

A. Australian troops key to sustain stability in Afghanistan and prevent renewed Taliban activity in Uruzgan province Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra] Our [Australia] troop commitment in Afghanistan, particularly in Uruzgan province, carries high risks. Uruzgan province is a recognized danger area, and combat casualties cannot be ruled out. If that happens, it would cause serious public discontent. Afghanistan could unravel before renewed Taliban activity, resurrecting a narco-economy and warlord cruelty and repression, even though they are now nominal allies of President Karzai, who of recent date charmingly appointed 13 such people to senior positions in the police force. These were people, according to a recently leaked United Nations (UN) report, with “links to drug smuggling, organized crime, and illegal militias.” The same report names “leading Afghan politicans and officials accused of orchestrating massacres, torture, mass rape, and other war crimes.”10 As these dreadful acts of government malfeasance become better known, it will be mountingly difficult to keep a public commitment to this engagement in place.

B. Afghan instability spreads throughout Central Asia and triggers global nuclear war S. Frederick Starr, Chairman, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus, December 13, 2001 This imperial hangover will eventually pass, but for the time being it remains a threat. It means that the Central Asians, after cooperating with the US, will inevitably face redoubled pressure from Russia if we leave abruptly and without attending to the long-term security needs of the region. That we have looked kindly into Mr. Putin's soul does not change this reality. The Central Asians face a similar danger with respect to our efforts in Afghanistan. Some Americans hold that we should destroy Bin Laden, Al Queda, and the Taliban and then leave the post-war stabilization and reconstruction to others. Such a course runs the danger of condemning all Central Asia to further waves of instability from the South. But in the next round it will not only be Russia that is tempted to throw its weight around in the region but possibly China, or even Iran or India. All have as much right to claim Central Asia as their "backyard" as Russia has had until now. Central Asia may be a distant region but when these nuclear powers begin bumping heads there it will create terrifying threats to world peace that the U.S. cannot ignore.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

93

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Iraq Module

A. Australia’s commitment in Iraq is currently in accord with the U.S. providing overall stability. Australian withdrawal would trigger bloodshed like the British pullout Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra] The lessons of history, however, do not provide cause for optimism. The current situation and the hope13 ful rhetoric accompanying it remind one of Britain’s folly entering Iraq in 1922 and being confronted with revolt. Then, in 1927, after empty promises that Iraq was ready to stand on its own feet—all this was well before the 1952 expiry date of the British mandate— Britain removed its troops. There was bloodshed when Britain pulled out, later to be replaced by Sunni repression. Now, in this re-run of that sad experience, the prospect is a balkanization of the country, with the Kurd segment creating major instability in Turkey and Syria. Nor do the complications end here. Iran aims to use its influence to get control of the southern oil fields. And there will be internal fighting among Iraq’s major players to see which dominates the rich Basra fields. Since alZarqawi’s death, fighting has broken out among Shia factions jockeying for power and future control. At this writing, General George Casey, commander of the coalition forces, has announced “that he may call for more troops to be sent to Baghdad, possibly by increasing the overall U.S. presence in Iraq,” in the face of rising bloodshed.11 This sharp reversal in withdrawal plans contrasts with the earlier announced decision not to replace two brigades of combat troops when they return to the United States in September 2007, and to make big drawdowns of troops by the end of that year It is to be hoped that such backingandfilling is not a shadow play of the British tactics in 1927. In any case, it would be interesting to learn the views of conference participants about whether Australia’s commitment in Iraq is in accord with the contemporary spirit of its alliance with the United States. The great shame is that any hope of a UN option seems to have been squandered from the start.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

94

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Iraq Module

B. Iraqi instability spreads throughout the region and kills the global economy Kenneth M. Pollack, analyst for the Brookings Institute After Saddam: Assessing the Reconstruction of Iraq foreignaffairs.org January 12, 2004 After the experience of the last thirty years we now know quite a bit about failed states -- enough to know that allowing Iraq to become one would be disastrous. The chaos bred by a failed state can never be successfully contained. Iraqi refugees would flow out of the country and into neighboring states. Chaos in Iraq would breed extremists and terrorists who would not limit their targets only to those within Iraq's nominal borders. Groups within Iraq would call on co-religionists, co-ethnicists, tribesmen, and fellow political travelers across the borders for aid. Petty warlords would seek help from neighboring powers, and the neighbors themselves would inevitably begin to intervene in Iraq's civil strife if only in the vain hope of preventing it from spilling over into their territory. The same would likely hold true for Iraq and its impact on the countries of the Persian Gulf. They would be inundated by refugees and armed groups seeking sanctuary and assistance. They would be sucked in by tribal rivalries, ethnic and religious ties, and fear that a failure to act will cause the chaos to spread across their borders. They would likely become battlegrounds for rival Iraqi militias and breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists. And these are countries that the United States cares about deeply. Saudi Arabia is frail enough as it is. Many analysts fear that even on its own, the Saudi state might not last another ten years. Add to that the tremendously destabilizing influence of civil war in Iraq next door, and no one should be sanguine about Saudi prospects. Kuwait is another major oil producer, and if chaos consumed Iraq and Saudi Arabia, it would be hard for tiny Kuwait to remain inviolate. The loss of oil production as a result of chaos or revolution in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait would cripple the international oil market with unimaginable consequences for the global economy. Beyond them, Jordan, Turkey, Iran, and Syria are all also economically and political fragile and all would suffer from the political, military and economic spillover of a failed state in Iraq. Given the history of failed states, we simply cannot allow Iraq to slip into chaos and civil war. The results would likely be catastrophic for the entire region -- a region that is vital to the interests of the United States and the economic health of the entire world.

C. Nuclear war Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 8/23/92, World Policy Institute Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

95

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Deterrence

Relations are key to US intelligence and nuclear deterrence. Desmond Ball. PhD Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. 2001. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 235–248. The strategic essence. From the 1960s to the early 1990s, the United States maintained in Australia more than a dozen (and in the 1960s and 1970s, more than two dozen) installations concerned with military communications, navigation, satellite tracking and control, and various forms of intelligence collection, including half a dozen seismic stations which monitored underground nuclear detonations (NUDETS) and other facilities which provided information for the US Ocean Surveillance Information System (OSIS). Three of these installations were vital elements of the US strategic command, control, communications and intelligence (C31) system which supported the US strategic nuclear posture: the ‘joint facilities’ at North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar. The naval communications station at North West Cape in Western Australia (WA) was originally established under an agreement signed in 1963 to provide communications for US Polaris ﾏ eet ballistic missile (FBM) submarines operating in the western Paci. c Ocean. It was the largest and most powerful of the three principal very low frequency (VLF) stations in the US world-wide FBM submarine communications system (the other two being at Jim Creek in Washington, which covered the northern Paci. c Ocean, and Cutler in Maine, which covered the Atlantic Ocean) (Ball 1980, Ch.4). During the 1970s and 1980s the station was augmented with satellite communications (SATCOM) facilities, which enabled it to provide more general communications support for the US Department of Defense and the Services (Ball 1989, pp. 142–55). The satellite ground control station at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs in the Northern Territory (NT), which was established under an agreement signed in 1966, controls US geostationary satellites (called Rhyolite, Aquacade, Magnum, Orion and their successors) which were originally designed to monitor signals emanating from the Soviet Union, and especially telemetry associated with the development of advanced weapons systems by the Soviet Union. These geostationary SIGINT satellites have subsequently been used to intercept a wide range of microwave signals (including long-distance telephony), emanating from China, Vietnam, South Asia and the Middle East in addition to the former Soviet Union (Ball 1988). (The latest geostationary SIGINT satellites, called Advanced Orion, weigh some 4,650 kilograms, or about twice as much as the Magnum/Orion satellites, and are able to intercept an even broader range of signals) (US Congress 1985 Pt2, p. 458; Davis 1989; Ball 1993, p. 17). The satellite ground station at Nurrungar in South Australia (SA), which was established under an agreement signed in 1969, controlled US Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites stationed over the eastern hemisphere (DSP-E), and was originally designed to provide early warning of Soviet ballistic missile launches and to monitor nuclear detonations (Ball 1987; Richelson 1999). DSP satellites have subsequently been used to monitor a wide range of other ballistic missile developments in the eastern hemisphere. They were used to provide the . rst warning of Iraqi Scud launches during the Gulf War in 1991 (Richelson 1999, Ch.10). They have been used more recently to monitor ballistic missile test ﾏ ights in India, Pakistan, Iran, China and North Korea.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

96

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Heg

US-Australia Relations allow US hegemony to flourish globally. Desmond Ball. PhD Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. 2001. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 235–248. The strategic essence. Australian strategic and defence analysts have generally been enthusiastic about the revolution in military affairs (RMA)—that combination of dominant battlespace knowledge and long-range, precision strike capabilities which allows military operations to be conducted extremely effectively at minimal risk. The RMA will enable the United States to retain its military leadership globally, and it will enhance the relative capabilities of America’s regional allies who have privileged access to the advanced US information and strike technologies. According to Paul Dibb, America’s closest allies in the Asia–Pacific region, Australia and Japan, ‘will become an integral part of the process of information dominance’ (Dibb 1998). From the Australian point of view, the adoption of the RMA is a natural follow-on to the high-technology approach to the defence of Australia.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

97

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Prolif Module

Australia has led efforts to neutralize WMD challenges in East Asia for the United States Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra] Fourth, Australia has played an important role in U.S.-led efforts to neutralize potential weapons of mass destruction (WMD) challenges in East Asia. Canberra has been a prominent supporter and participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)— ostensibly designed to intercept shipments of WMD-related materials wherever they occur but in reality designed principally with North Korea in mind. On this latter score, Canberra also has been an active supporter of the Six Party Talks process in which the United States is a direct participant, and Cranberra has been a vocal critic of North Korea’s provocative missile tests of July 2006. The Howard government also has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States on missile defense cooperation,31 an issue prefaced by the 2005 Defense Update containing the significant clause, “Australia will continue to look for ways to support the United States in the Asia-Pacific region.”32

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

98

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Prolif Module

Proliferation causes nuclear war and extinction Victor A. Utgoff is Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” 2002, pg 87-90 Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the Soviet Union and plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little prospect of establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the world if strong protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclearbacked aggression? At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur increasing numbers of the world’s capable states to follow suit. Restraint would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the technology for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point, halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that happens, the transition to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line for a time, the threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First, the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent’s nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons. [The article continues…] The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intenseand blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

99

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Prolif

Alliance key to check terrorism, sea safety and nuclear proliferation Asian Political News. April 7, 2008. Japan, U.S., Australia to hold security talks April 18 in Hawaii TOKYO, April 4 Kyodo Japan, the United States and Australia are set to hold senior working-level talks April 18 in Hawaii on security issues including how to better strengthen mutual cooperation in international peacekeeping missions, sources close to Japan-U.S. relations said Thursday. For Japan, the planned trilateral talks will be an opportunity to strengthen security ties with Canberra as Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has taken positions close to China since taking office in December, the sources said. Japan and the United States are also considering holding separate three-nation talks with South Korea on security issues in the near future, Japanese government sources said. A Japanese government source said the plans for the separate three-way dialogues reflect Japan's willingness ''to establish a multi-track security framework without relying only on the Japan-U.S. alliance.'' But diplomatic experts warn the moves could lead China to increase its vigilance. Nobushige Takamizawa, chief of the Japanese Defense Ministry's Defense Policy Bureau, is likely to represent Japan in the trilateral talks with the United States and Australia. The U.S. delegation to the talks is expected to be led by David Sedney, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia. Japanese, U.S. and Australian officials are expected to confirm their commitment to accumulate achievements of mutual cooperation in U.N.-led peacekeeping missions as well as post-disaster relief and humanitarian activities, the Japan-U.S. relations sources said. The three countries are also likely to agree to continue dialogues among experts for cooperation in transportation using midsize aircraft. The delegates from the three countries also plan to discuss how better to fight terrorism, secure sea lane safety, and deal with the problems of North Korea's nuclear programs and ballistic missile development. The issue of upgrading the trilateral security talks to subcabinet level will be also taken up in the Hawaii talks, the sources said. The plans for the two trilateral sessions come after Australia has tried to boost ties with China by taking steps such as holding the first bilateral ministerial talks in February on security, trade and human rights.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

100

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Asian War Module

U.S.-Australian relations are key to Asian stability Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, 6-29-2001 “The Australia-United States Alliance and East Asian Security,” Speech at the University of Sydney conference [Bapodra] I want to put to rest this evening a view we hear from time-to-time in the media and elsewhere which argues that the ANZUS Treaty and the alliance is no longer relevant to Australia's interests with the end of the Cold War, or that it somehow imposes unacceptable trade-offs in Australia's relations with the Asia Pacific region. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forging and maintaining strong relations with one country or region does not mean neglecting any other country or region. To suggest that the depth and strength of our alliance with the US somehow weakens or compromises our ties with the Asia Pacific is nonsense. In fact, ANZUS was seen from the outset as a means of enhancing our ties with the region: Percy Spender, who pushed so strongly to conclude the ANZUS Treaty, did so with a clear and expressed conviction that Australia’s destiny was bound up with Asia. He saw the Australia – US alliance as a linchpin for stability in the region. On the eve of his departure for the Colombo Conference in January 1950, Spender said that “Australia and the United States of America are the two countries which can, in co-operation one with the other, make the greatest contribution to stability and to democratic development of the countries of South-East Asia.” This was 13 months before the crucial Canberra negotiations at which the fundamentals of ANZUS were hammered out.

Instability in Asia leads to major power wars and nuclear conflict Paul Dibb, Prof – Australian National University, Winter 2001,Strategic Trends: Asia at a Crossroads, Naval War College Review, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review...r/art2-w01.htm [Bapodra] The areas of maximum danger and instability in the world today are in Asia, followed by the Middle East and parts of the former Soviet Union. The strategic situation in Asia is more uncertain and potentially threatening than anywhere in Europe. Unlike in Europe, it is possible to envisage war in Asia involving the major powers: remnants of Cold War ideological confrontation still exist across the Taiwan Straits and on the Korean Peninsula; India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and these two countries are more confrontational than at any time since the early 1970s; in Southeast Asia, Indonesia—which is the world’s fourth-largest country—faces a highly uncertain future that could lead to its breakup. The Asia-Pacific region spends more on defense (about $150 billion a year) than any other part of the world except the United States and Nato Europe. China and Japan are amongst the top four or five global military spenders. Asia also has more nuclear powers than any other region of the world. Asia’s security is at a crossroads: the region could go in the direction of peace and cooperation, or it could slide into confrontation and military conflict. There are positive tendencies, including the resurgence of economic growth and the spread of democracy, which would encourage an optimistic view. But there are a number of negative tendencies that must be of serious concern. There are deep-seated historical, territorial, ideological, and religious differences in Asia. Also, the region has no history of successful multilateral security cooperation or arms control. Such multilateral institutions as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the ASEAN Regional Forum have shown themselves to be ineffective when confronted with major crises.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

101

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Terrorism

Australia is critical to checking terrorist efforts in Southeast Asia Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra] Second, the Long War has a significant Asian regional dimension in which Australian and U.S. interests converge. Both have had significant concerns about jihadist terrorism in Southeast Asia and are keen to cooperate with major regional countries in helping them to address this challenge. Paramount here is cooperation with Indonesia—although Canberra may find that its own direct bilateral relationship with Jakarta is the best way forward here. The initial and more catastrophic Bali bombing (October 2002) provided Australia with a very direct stake in the future 122 management of the terrorist challenge in Indonesia. In the successful police-led cooperation with Indonesia that followed, it also provided Canberra with the opportunity to further enhance bilateral relations which had been so strained in 1999, and which will continue to be challenging to manage. Notwithstanding the terrorism issue, however, one possible role here for Australia is to encourage Washington to view Indonesia’s internal circumstances in all of their complexity. It also should be noted here that Australia has increased its counterterrorism cooperation with the Philippines,28 whose struggles with a southern insurgency also have been a major concern for the United States.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

102

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Regional Security Module

Strong relations are indispensable for peace in Asia Paul Kelly. Editor of the Australian newspaper, and Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard University. 2003. ational Interest, Inc. WHILE AMERICA is Australia's most vital state-to-state relationship, its most important region is East Asia-the focus of its trade (56 percent of exports), neighborhood cooperation and security concerns. For several decades the central task of Australian policy has been to integrate its Asian ties with its U.S. alliance, a challenge assisted by the fact that these objectives have been mutually reinforcing most of the time. For example, the joint status of Australia and Japan as U.S. security partners deepens the scope for Australia-Japan collaboration. If the U.S. alliance came to be seen as undermining Australia's role in Asia, on the other hand, then it would count as a serious liability to be weighed against the undoubted benefits of the alliance. Australia, therefore, has a profound interest in the way America manages its relations with China. Australia values a U.S. forward role that contributes to the regional balance but tolerates the rise of China by seeking to incorporate it into mainstream international economic and security systems. This view is founded in realism, buffered by a bit of justifiable optimism. It recognizes the lack of strategic stability in East Asia, China's role as an anti-status quo power, and the risk inherent in Asia's three unresolved flashpoints: the India-Pakistan dispute, the division of Korea and the Taiwan issue. A strong U.S. role is indispensable to a peaceful regional balance. It is hard to see any downgrading of ANZUS, however, that would not be part of a U.S. regional retreat--a retreat that would also concern Japan and South Korea in the north and, at a minimum, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines and Australia in the south.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

103

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Regional Security Module

Instability in South Asia triggers global proliferation and nuclear war, ending in extinction. Mirza Aslam Beg; Ex-General Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army l; May 20, 1999. Nuclearization of South Asia: Rational Diffusion of Holocaust. During the darkest days of the World War I, the Austrian poet, Karl Kraus wrote: “If we still had imagination, we would no longer wage war”. But human innovative proclivity towards destructive pursuits, it appears, often draws curtain over imagination. The creation of the doomsday machine - the atomic bomb - brings the most frightening prospect of what has been characterized as the “nuclear winter”. It is not a fantasized popular end-of-the-world-dread, but “gives concrete substance to that image; using a just small portion of our nuclear stockpiles, we may so impair our habitat, the earth, that it no longer can sustain human and other forms of life.”1 Andrei Sakharov also reiterated: “A very large nuclear war would be a calamity of indescribable proportions and absolutely unpredictable consequences, with the uncertainties tending towards the worst.... allout nuclear war would mean the destruction of contemporary civilization, throw man back centuries, cause the death of hundreds of millions or billions of people, and with a certain degree of probability, would cause man to be destroyed as a biological species.”2 (continue…) Deterrence worked in the case of two super powers during the Cold War as has been dramatically brought to light by Gorbachev. Pleading for one standard, Jaswant Singh maintains: “India’s nuclear policy remains firmly committed to a basic tenet, that the country’s national security in a world of nuclear proliferation lies either in global disarmament or in exercise of the principle of equal and legitimate security for all.”31 He believes disarmament to be “unrealistic politics”, and discards the apprehensions with respect to India becoming nuclear. “If the permanent five’s possession of nuclear weapons increases security, he says, “why would India’s possession of nuclear weapons be dangerous?”32 To come at par with the five nuclear nations, is the driving motive. “If the permanent five continue to employ nuclear weapons, as an international currency of force and power, why should India voluntarily devalue its own state power and national security?33 He therefore poses a fundamental question: “If deterrence works in the West as it so obviously appears to, since western nations insist on continuing to possess nuclear weapons - by what reasoning will it not work for India”.34 Dr. Bowen, questions the efficiency of seductive super power model, which in his view, is wrong. “Such a logic”, he said, “would be persuasive if several things were always true; if leaders were always logical; and of perception of the situation in the real world were always reasonably accurate. After having gone through it, my take on the Cold War is that the super powers get through it with a consistent streak of luck as much as through the careful and wise decisions of national leaders. It was not western superiority that was decisive in preserving peace but prolonged luck”.35 The second argument is that US and USSR did not share common geography as the South Asian rivals do. The super powers shared a buffer -thousands of miles of Ocean between them - but this is not the case with South Asia. “Even with the fastest ballistic missiles”, he said, “the time from launch to impact was 30 minutes. A half-hour may not be much time, but it is generally enough to pause to assess a warning that something drastic is about to happen, to determine if the warning was a false one, or simply to give a chance for cooler heads to prevail.”36 In the case of South Asia, it would be “a tenth of the time the super powers had - 30 minutes isn’t much, but it’s a lot better than three minutes”. It is on this basis that “progress on weaponization, on inducting weapons into the armed forces, and deployment of these nuclear forces should stop. Each step up the ladder, each additional rung, places the region closer to the point where some accident or miscalculation could lead to nothing but disaster. The nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle - but the genie need not be allowed to dictate how weapons and missiles go from the drawing board to the battle field.”37 One can thus see the futility of “non-first-use” of nuclear weapons proposition put forward by India, as the geography makes it utterly impossible to determine as to who was the “trigger happy”, within a span of three minutes. The conflict-ridden South Asia has become all the more vulnerable after its nuclearization as historical animosities, may escalate into nuclear confrontation with horrendous consequences. Nuclearization is very often a precursor of nuclear competition, which exerts a dynamics of its own, where irrational fears, cloud rational thinking and misperceptions guide judgments. By altering the non-weaponised nuclear character of South Asia, India has triggered a snow-ball impact on the continent of Asia, and even beyond. Iran, may feel threatened and may opt to become nuclear. The nuclear fear waves may touch the shores of South East Asian countries, who would legitimately be concerned about their ‘security’ and maintaining the pace of their economic development. Similarly, with the prospect of Indian nuclear submarine, freely playing in the Indian Ocean - reportedly in the making in collaboration with Russia - Australia and Japan would have reasons to worry about and choose options to meet the threat.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

104

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Regional Security

US/Australian relations key to regional security Kevin Rudd. House of Representatives Australia. April 20, 2007. THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION THE RISE OF CHINA AND THE STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S.-AUSTRALIA RELATIONS. The future peace and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region ultimately depends on getting the strategic fundamentals right; that is, in turn, first and foremost, it requires continued U.S. strategic engagement in East Asia and the West Pacific anchored in the existing pattern of U.S. military alliances, including those with Japan and Australia. Based on these foundations, it also requires that we actively and affirmatively engage China in the maintenance of a regional and global rules-based order. This, in effect, is what the Council on Foreign Relations' Independent Task Force on China U.S. Relations recommended earlier this month, and I quote from them: "An affirmative agenda of integrating China into the global community by weaving them into the fabric of international regimes on security, trade, and human rights and balancing China's growing military power." Eighteen months ago this concept was eloquently articulated by Robert Zoellick, then Deputy Secretary of State, in what he described as the concept of China as a responsible stakeholder in the regional and global order. He posited that in the light of China's economic success and its rising political influence Beijing had an increasing interest, an increasing self-interest, in ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 13 working with the international community to sustain and strengthen the international security order. Because China has benefited from that order and the economic growth that has proceeded from it, China therefore, according to the logic, has an intrinsic interest in sustaining that order and contributing to its sustenance.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

105

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Regional Security

U.S. Australian relations are key for East Asian stability Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra] The point of this discussion has not been to suggest that Australia’s alliance relationship with the United States has been deprived of its Asian dimension completely. Several elements are important to note in that regard. First, it remains strongly in Australia’s interests for the United States to continue to play a significant balancing role in East Asia in the process of promoting peace and stability. Securing the ongoing presence of substantial U.S. forces in North Asia in particular remains one of the core objectives behind Australia’s commitment to its own part of the huband- spokes system. The 2005 Defence Update states that “U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific region has been the foundation of the region’s strategic stability and security since World War II, and is no less relevant 60 years on.”26 Australia’s close relations with the U.S. Pacific Command, and that Command’s interest in Australia’s neck of the regional woods, also remain highly valued in Canberra, including the regular Pacific rim exercises which involve the ADF alongside forces from the U.S. and a number of other regional countries.27

Relations empirically key to regional security Bruce Vaughn, Specialist in Asian Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade, 8-8-07, Federation of American Scientists, Junaid Australia plays a key role in promoting regional stability in Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific. Australia has led peacekeeping efforts in the Asia-Pacific region, includingEast Timor and the Solomon Islands, and has supported U.S. Efforts and worked closely with key regional states in the war against terrorism in Southeast Asia. Theseactions demonstrateAustralia’s resolveto promotestabilityin Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. Australia has also worked closely with Indonesia to counter terrorism in Southeast Asia. This report will be updated.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

106

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts

Asia’s geopolitics and revolution in military affairs means that there is a high risk of prolif and ballistic missile warfare Paul Dibb, Prof – Australian National University, Naval War College Review, Winter 2001,Strategic Trends: Asia at a Crossroads, Naval War College Review, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review...r/art2-w01.htm [Bapodra] The political makeup of Asia is highly varied, and this adds to the geopolitical complexity of the region. Unlike Europe, where a broad swathe of democracies now occupies most of the continent, Asia has four of the world's five remaining communist countries: China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos. Whilst there has been an encouraging rise of democracy in recent years in South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Philippines, authoritarian regimes are firmly in power in Pakistan and Burma, and the governments in Malaysia and Singapore practice forms of "soft authoritarianism." As for Indonesia, it remains to be seen whether democracy will survive there. In any case, the trend toward democracy in the region, if it continues, does not necessarily imply easier relationships with the United States, as the New Zealand case demonstrates. The highly questionable proposition--which has become an article of faith in some quarters in Washington--that democracies do not go to war with democracies may be disproved one of these days in Asia. In any case, deep-seated historical, cultural, religious, and territorial differences in Asia suggest that, irrespective of the development of democratic institutions, the dangers of armed conflict remain. Late in 1999 there was a risk that military conflict would erupt (over East Timor) between Australia and a newly democratic Indonesia. As the "revolution in military affairs" spreads to Asia and introduces longerrange and more accurate weapons supported by good surveillance information, the geography of Asia will be compressed. The introduction of long-range cruise missiles and the development of ballistic missiles will make smaller countries much more vulnerable if deterrence fails. The risk then will be either of an escalating proliferation of ballistic missiles, or of the acquisition from the United States of a protective ballistic missile defense, which in turn may lead to the multiplication of offensive missile systems. The ballistic missile proliferation challenge for the United States and its allies will be more acute in Asia than anywhere else. The ready availability of advanced conventional weapons not only compresses but alters the geography of the region. For instance, the proliferation of supersonic antiship cruise missiles will make it more dangerous for the United States and its allies to operate militarily in the littoral environment of many states of the region. Thus although the long lead-times in acquiring major military platforms are likely to keep the overall orders of battle of regional countries from changing much over the next five years, capabilities in many instances can change quickly through the acquisition of quite limited numbers of relatively cheap, long-range, and accurate tactical missiles.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

107

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts

Asian-Pacific instability causes major power struggles risking war all over Asia, involving the U.S. Paul Dibb, Prof – Australian National University, Naval War College Review, Winter 2001,Strategic Trends: Asia at a Crossroads, Naval War College Review, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review...r/art2-w01.htm [Bapodra] The Asia-Pacific region has entered a particularly complex strategic situation; a new balance of power may be evolving. The Asian economic crisis, tension between China and the United States over Taiwan, North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, the risk of war between India and Pakistan, and the possibility of Indonesian disintegration have all arisen suddenly, and they serve to underline the basic insecurity of the region. But whether Asia remains a peaceful region will largely depend upon the struggle for power and influence between the major powers: China, Japan, India, Russia, and the United States. It is not in the interests of the United States or of its allies to see the region dominated by any one Asian power or by a concert of them. China is a rising power that sees itself as the natural leader in Asia. It perceives its aspirations in this regard as being thwarted by the American military presence in the region and the U.S. alliance network. China is acquiring, with assistance from Russia, modern military equipment that will enable it to prevail militarily in the South China Sea against any regional power, if it so wishes. Were China to succeed in asserting sovereignty over the South China Sea, it would be able to penetrate deeply into Southeast Asia and influence events there. Thus there are serious questions surrounding the rise of China to power. Will China be a responsible and cooperative member of the international community, abiding by the community's rules of nonaggression? Or will China become an expansionist power, as have other rising powers in the past? World history has been marked by the rise of ambitious new powers seeking to displace weaker powers. China is many decades away from being a peer competitor of the dominant world power, the United States; already, however, the main danger to the region is the risk that the next military confrontation will be between the United States and China. David Shambaugh stated in early 2000 that growing "strategic competition" is likely to characterize Sino-American relations for most of the coming decade, whatever American administration came to office in 2001. [2] The greatest danger is over Taiwan: war between the United States and China in the Taiwan Straits might well draw in America's allies, including Australia. Washington would expect its other allies, particularly Japan and South Korea, to support it, and such expectations could seriously damage its alliances in the region.

War with China leads to Extinction Chalmers Johnson, Chairman of the Center of Chinese Studies at UofC Berkley and President of the Japan Policy Research Institute, May 14 2001.. “Time to Bring the Troops Home.” The Nation [Bapodra[ China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China's nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear holocaust. Since any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally would be viewed as a challenge to China's sovereignty, forward-deployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

108

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts

US-China war will cause a nuclear war ending civilization Ching Cheong, staff writer from the Straits Times, 6-25-2000, June 25, “No one gains in war over Taiwan”) [Bapodra] THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, East Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army, which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

109

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts

Asian instability causes nuclear wars throughout Asia. The U.S. would be involved because of Asia’s economic importance Jonathan S. Landay, San Jose Mercury News, March 11, 2000, “Nuclear war threat feeds Asian tension U.S. arranging delicate diplomacy”, Mercury News Washington Bureau http://www7.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/asia11.htm [Bapodra] WASHINGTON -- The 3,700-mile arc that begins at the heavily fortified border between North and South Korea and ends on the glacier where Indian and Pakistani troops skirmish almost every day has earned the dubious title of most dangerous part of the world. Few, if any, experts believe China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. ``Nowhere else on earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile,'' said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. ``We see the convergence of great-power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster.'' In an effort to cool the region's tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William Cohen and national security adviser Samuel ``Sandy'' Berger all will hopscotch Asia's capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There are at least 100,000 U.S. soldiers committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or if North Korea attacked South Korea. Although Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international non-proliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable Asia -- with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources -- indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous U.S. companies and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the Commerce Department. With so much at stake and Asia's smaller states anxious over China's growing power, some experts are pressing the United States to step up its role as the ultimate guardian of the region's security. ``We need to be looking to the Pacific with much more intensity,'' said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., chair of the House intelligence committee. That could prove difficult, he said in an interview, as ``one of the hardest things is for us to look deeper into Asia and (away) from Europe.''

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

110

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Asia-Pacific Instability Impacts

Asian instability creates a cycle of nuclear breakouts resulting in global nuke combat Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy, No. 118 (Spring, 2000), “The Asian Nuclear Reaction Chain” pp. 120-136, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace [Bapodra] The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region, which in turn, stimulate additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and, perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

111

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Failed States

Australia is critical in engaging global failed states Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra] Third, Canberra welcomes Washington’s endorsement of Australia’s leading role in addressing state fragility in its nearer neighborhood. For the United States and its partners (including Australia), reminders of the difficulties associated with nationbuilding have come not only from Afghanistan and Iraq. They also have been evident in the disappointing return of violence in 2006 to the streets of both Dili in East Timor and Honiara in the Solomon Islands, which precipitated the reentry of Australian forces in both instances. These instances raise the question of both countries’ reliance on the military option in their responses to complex internal political challenges. For some, it also recalls criticisms after the initial 1999 intervention in East Timor that Australia tends to act as Washington’s regional deputy. But this perception probably has less relevance in the Pacific than in parts of Southeast Asia, and even there one would have to consider P.J. Boyce’s valid disclaimer of Asian alienation over Australian participation in the Vietnam war, which begins this chapter.29 But the validity of his second point—the 123 need for policy differentiation between Australia and the United States—also needs to be considered

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

112

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Relations Key – Laundry List

U.S.-Australian relations must be strengthened to face challenges like- terrorism, rogue states, prolif, natural disasters, and pandemics Jeffrey D. McCausland et al, Douglas T. Stuart, William T. Tow, and Michael Wesley, February 2007, “THE OTHER SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: THE UNITED STATES AND AUSTRALIA AT THE START OF THE 21st CENTURY”, Strategic Studies Institute/ Australia, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB760.pdf [Bapodra] In the evolving post-Cold War environment, alliances are more flexible and more linked to improvised ad hoc expeditionary groupings. They also face more unpredictable challenges. Assuming that terrorism, rogue states, WMD proliferation, natural disasters, and health pandemics are the emerging threats, these alliances must adapt further. They will be less static, more supple, and geared to operational initiatives. While Australia has strengthened its military ties with the United States, the political conditions for alliance cooperation are more fluid than before. In this context, it is worth asking how important it is for Australia to keep fighting in all of America’s big wars. This Australia-U.S. tradition, extending from World War I to Iraq, is proud and honorable. But the future will be more than an extension of the past. In the coming century, it may be better for both sides to realize that a strong alliance does not necessarily mean Australia’s automatic involvement in every U.S. conflict, particularly if Australia has contravening commitments elsewhere.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

113

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Relations Bad

The advantages of a US-Australia relation outweigh the disadvantages. Mark Beeson. PhD Political Science. November 26, 2004. Bush and Asia: America’s Evolving Relations with East Asia, Brisbane. < http://www.polsis.bham.ac.uk/about/Staff/Beeson.shtml> The key assumption underpinning the Howard government’s approach to foreign policy generally and the bilateral relationship with the US in particular, is that Australian and American interests are essentially congruent. The key assumption is that, while there may be short-term costs associated with demonstrating a continuing commitment to that relationship as far as Australia is concerned, the long-term pay-offs justify such sacrifices. Strikingly, this is a position that has generally enjoyed fairly uncritical, bilateral support in Australia, and despite Mark Latham’s recent, much publicized criticisms of both American foreign policy and George W, Bush, this has not changed – as the ALP has been at pains to emphasize (Rudd 2003). And yet, as we have seen, in both key areas of the bilateral relationship – security and economic relations – the merits of the deal for ‘Australia’ are debatable at best.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

114

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Coming Now

Clean coal will be commercially viable by 2020 The Age, 5/8/08, “Climate expert sees bright future for coal; Ross Garnaut says the industry will continue to be viable,” p. Lexis CLIMATE change adviser Ross Garnaut believes "clean coal" technology will be commercially viable by 2020, contradicting claims made this week by environment group Greenpeace International. Professor Garnaut has used a speech to a clean coal summit in Sydney to outline a bright future for coal. He said that coal was set to play a big role in Australian prosperity provided effective emission-control technology can be developed. He said near-zero emissions from power generation would be required by the middle fo the century to tackle climate change, and suggested this would be possible using integrated clean coal technologies being developed in projects like Australia's ZeroGen and America's FutureGen. "These projects are complex and large and have struggled to make rapid progress. This complexity is partly responsible for the widely - but I think erroneously - held view that clean coal technologies will not be commercially viable until post-2020," he told the conference. However, Professor Garnaut warned that not enough new technology plants would be built in time to meet short-term emissions targets, and existing plants would need to be retrofitted as a transitional measure. Those existing plants would be unlikely to capture all the carbon dioxide that they were emitting. Professor Garnaut also implicitly rejected calls by Greenpeace and the Australian Conservation Foundation that clean coal technology be entirely funded by industry. "It is already clear that substantial new investment in infrastructure is likely to be required, particularly for the transmission of electricity, natural gas and carbon dioxide," Professor Garnaut said. He also said additional funding would be required to ensure clean coal technology could be adopted in established plants and regions. However, while predicting an important role for coal in meeting future energy needs, Professor Garnaut suggested the Federal Government's existing target of reducing greenhouse emissions by 60% by 2050 was not ambitious enough, saying it was only "an early step". He said Australian coal production was increasing to meet demand from China, India and Indonesia, and that these countries would be running into serious energy and metal supply constraints without the ready availability of coal.

Bush is funding clean coal now Andrzej Zwaniecki, Washington File Staff Writer, 11/30/06, “United States Advances $1 Billion for Clean Coal Projects,” Washington File, http://news.findlaw.com/wash/s/20061130/20061130172755.html Washington – The Bush administration has awarded $1 billion in federal tax credits to utility companies for clean-coal power generation as part of a broad U.S. strategy to move toward emission-free energy. The tax credits, authorized by the energy law passed by Congress in 2005, were awarded November 30 to nine companies mostly for advanced coal and gasification projects using a process called integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). An additional $650 million in tax credits for similar projects will be available in 2007, according to an Energy Department fact sheet. Briefing reporters the same day, James Connaughton, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, called the action the largest step to broad commercialization of clean-coal technologies. He said the United States is well on the way to meet its stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of its economy by 18 percent by 2012 through the use of these and other clean-energy technologies as well as measures to increase energy efficiency. GHG intensity is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output. About half the credits will help fund construction of IGCC plants. IGCC, based on a process in which coal is converted into a gaseous fuel through partial oxidation, is the most environmentally friendly technology for coal-fired power generation available today, according to the Cooperative Research Center for Coal in Sustainable Development. The center is part of an Australian public-private partnership. Coal gasification offers the opportunity to generate power with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions and is one of the pathways to a future hydrogen economy, the center said in its presentation of the technology. The wide-scale commercialization of these and other clean-coal technologies can help slow down, stabilize and eventually reverse “atmospheric trends” caused by greenhouse gas emissions, according to an Energy Department fact sheet. Many scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

115

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Coming Now

Clean coal is coming Keith Orchison, Energy Correspondent for the Australian, 11/18/06, “Fossil fuel tipped to adapt and maintain dominant position,” p. Lexis A GLOBAL shift in attitude towards power plant fuel and the inevitability of more strict environmental regulation has intensified the search for clean coal technologies, says Xstrata Coal. Colin Whyte, the company's general manager, sustainable development, has told a Sydney conference that coal is on the comeback trail. The scale of growth in global energy use is one of the key drivers for coal demand. Projections to 2030, Whyte says, indicate coal suppliers will retain their 23 per cent share of world energy consumption, notwithstanding climate change pressures. He points to the 2006 utilities survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers which has 116 senior power utility company executives in 43 countries concluding that coal tops the list of fuels they expect to make the biggest contribution to meeting electricity demand. The world's three largest builders of power stations, Alstom, Siemens and General Electric, all forecast a reversal in coal's fortunes. ''Between 1997 and 2001,'' Whyte says, ''60 to 70 per cent of the world's market share in new power generation went to natural gas. Current forecasts by the major manufacturers suggest that, over the next decade, 40 per cent of new plant will be coal-fired, with the share for gas falling to between 25 and 30 per cent.'' The substantial shift in key markets is attributed to issues of energy security, the rising cost of natural gas, concerns about supply adequacy and inadequate transportation, and gas storage infrastructure. Economic development in China -- which now accounts for 40 per cent of the global consumption of coal -- is another driver. Coal use has doubled in five years and conventional thermal sources are expected to remain the dominant fuel for Chinese power plants. ''If Australia stopped using coal in power generation tomorrow,'' Whyte says, ''the greenhouse gases saved would be replaced in China in just nine months.'' Even in the European Union, where there has been a strong focus on using renewable energy for electricity production, there is now a shift towards the burning of fossil fuels, including clean coal. ''The new view of the EU,'' Whyte asserts, ''is that use of coal will not decline, but increase. Across Europe there is an increasing interest in post-combustion capture (of carbon dioxide) and carbon capture and storage technologies.'' CCS technologies, he claims, are either economically feasible under specific conditions or are part of mature markets now. ''Carbon storage is not something for the distant future -- it is a reality. The potential for deep cuts in emissions is enormous.'' Coal's ability to enhance worldwide energy security is an obvious key advantage, he adds. ''There's plenty of it. It's being mined in more than 50 countries. It's affordable. It's safe.'' He acknowledges the future of coal is directly related to cleaner technology in a transition towards near zero-emitting plant, and then ultimately to hydrogen, with coal as an essential element of its production. In this respect, he says, the surge in oil prices is working for coal, too. It is encouraging investors to plan new coal-fuelled power plants and to focus on conversion technologies such as the producing diesel from coal. Converting coal to liquid fuel or natural gas, he points out, is economical when oil is above $US40 a barrel -- and it has not traded below that mark since June 2004. ''Coal gasification,'' he says, ''is a proven technology with great potential and offers one of the most versatile and clean ways of converting coal into electricity, hydrogen and other valuable energy plants. Coal gasification power plants are now operating commercially and many experts predict that it will be at the heart of future clean coal technology plants.'' Whyte says looking to pursue technological change is not new to the coal sector. Miners, power plant manufacturers and utilities have been pursuing improved coal-related performance for decades. These include substantially reducing air pollution and big increases in plant operating efficiency. In the 1950s, he says, 700g of coal produced one kilowatt hour of electricity -- that consumption has been reduced to 300g. Cost is a critical factor in the pursuit of new markets for all energy technologies and fuels. ''Power companies,'' says Whyte, ''are saying generators are willing to pay a premium to avoid future liabilities associated with tougher emissions regulations. But how much and who should bear the extra costs? ''Ignoring the economic and social realities is as dangerous as ignoring the scientific ones.''

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

116

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Coming Now

All political leaders support clean coal Matthew L. Wald, New York Times Staff Writer, 5/30/08, “Mounting Cost Slow the Push for Clean Coal,” New York Times, p. Lexis For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground. President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of ''clean coal.'' All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology.

Clean Coal is going to be the future of the energy industry Ronald L. Rardin et al, 2005 , Professor of Industrial Engineering at Purdue University, (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/9893/32012/01489554.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1489554) The game rules for electricity production have been changing rapidly. Facing rising natural gas prices, more stringent environmental standards and energy security concerns, many countries have been trying diligently to diversify fuel supplies using different technologies. Among them, IGCC technology has emerged as one of the best ways of tackling the above issues. Coal gasification has been in existence for many decades in refinery and chemical industries. However, IGCC technology is relatively new for commercial electricity production. After more than a decade of design, demonstration and test operation, the IGCC system has emerged as a new technology that may be deployed at an accelerated pace to replace traditional coal based power production.

IGCC technology is being heavly researched and will be avaliabel in the near future P.E. Campbell, September ,3, 1999 “Fuel” (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3B409621D4&_user=4257664&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022698&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=425766 4&md5=58cfe99f34ac8d9c3802c75eb6cc8055)

This paper looks at the development of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant, based on components which are commercially available today or are expected to come on the market very soon. Currently, four major coal-based IGCC stations are in operation, these are plants in Buggenum in the Netherlands (253 MWe), Puertollano in Spain (300 MWe), Wabash River (262 MWe) and Polk County (250 MWe) in the USA. Pin˜on Pine (100 MWe), also in the USA, is currently in the commissioning phase and is not yet operational on coal. The power plant in Puertollano is seen as the most efficient IGCC plant, which is currently in operation. However, much technical progress has been made since the construction of this plant, especially with regard to the gas turbine. Starting from the design principles of the Puertollano power plant, an advanced IGCC concept (IGCC 98) has been developed. The target was to achieve the maximum efficiency improvement for the Puertollano IGCC plant, without incurring unjustifiable capital investment, within the constraints of using proven materials and process layout, conventional components, and a gas turbine-generator operating at a higher turbine inlet temperature. Such a gas turbine-generator is expected to become available in the near future. For a fair comparison of this new IGCC concept

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

117

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Coming Now

Clean coal coming soon – US leading in development Bingaman, Senator from mexico – chairman of the committee on energy and natural resources, 8/1/07, hearing before the committee on energy and natural resources, “Clean Coal,” http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi? dbname=110_senate_hearings&docid=f:38602.wais The United States, largely through the good works of the National Laboratories, has been a leader in the development of clean coal technology. Over the last few decades technologieshave been produced and policies have been implemented, to significantly reduce emissions of pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides and mercury. The next challenge is to deal with the issue of carbon dioxide emissions from coal generation. Today, those emissions are roughly double the emissions produced from burning natural gas. We've reached some measure of consensus around the Congress that global warming is a problem we need to address. I think where we lack consensus is on how to address it. I expect that we will be having debates on that subject even before this session of the Congress is over. I think what we need to be doing in the interim, of course, is determining how we can go about reducing emissions and what timeframe we need to follow. This latter point of timing is very important, not only because of the pace of construction in India and in China that I mentioned, but also, when we do arrive at an approach to regulating green house gas emissions that puts a price on carbon dioxide, we need to try to have technologies identified that can be deployed.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

118

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Clean Coal not Feasible

Scientific consensus proves clean coal is feasible The New Zealand Herald, 6/17/08, “Chris Baker: Appliance of science will ensure coal (and Earth) have healthy futures,” p. Lexis Commercial applications of CCS are feasible within the decade and could then be widely deployed with a favourable policy environment. Progress on CCS is highly promising: "Complete CCS systems can be assembled from existing technologies that are mature or economically feasible under specific conditions," says the 2005 IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. "Significant progress is being made in proving the commercial feasibility of CCS in projects such as the pilot scale demonstration of permanent storage of carbon underground in Victoria, Australia and commercial-scale trials of carbon capture by Sargas, Norway to remove 95 per cent of carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power station," it continues. "There is widespread scientific and intergovernmental support for CCS as one of a combination of solutions to reduce emissions from organisations including the IPCC, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, IEA and the European Commission, among others.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

119

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Clean Coal a Long Way Off

Clean coal coming in the near future St. Louis Post., 12/18/07, “Back to the Future,” p. Lexis Coal-gasification technology - the common denominator of both FutureGen and GreenGen - is unique. It allows carbon, which otherwise would be released into the atmosphere when coal is burned, to be captured and stored underground. That is a crucial development, because carbon released by burning coal and other fossil fuels is a significant cause of global warming. Both the United States and China have huge reserves of coal underground. Both countries also are under increasing pressure from the rest of the world to limit their emissions of greenhouse gases. Without a viable technology for capturing and storing carbon, those massive coal reserves will be of limited value. That's a big reason for Peabody's investment in IGCC technology. But even as the company builds IGCC plants in the United States and China, it continues to pursue its plans for a new plant with older non-IGCC technology in Marissa in southeastern St. Clair County. That plant would burn pulverized coal. The coal would be scrubbed before being burned, and emissions gases would be treated to reduce such pollutants as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. But the plans for the plant do not include provisions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Coal-gasification plants are more expensive to build than those that use pulverized coal (although they are not more expensive to operate). Right now, those higher construction costs mean that electricity made from pulverized coal is cheaper than that made from coal gasification. But that economic equation doesn't include the costs of addressing global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions. Once those costs are added, the economics change. A bill to cap carbon dioxide emissions and set up a system for trading them is pending in the U.S. Senate. Meanwhile, negotiations already are underway for a new international treaty to address global warming. The average lifespan of a coal-fired power plant is 40 years. As we first pointed out more than two years ago, it's short-sighted for Peabody to be building an expensive facility now that it knows will have to be modified at considerable additional expense in the near future to address the carbon emissions issue. Two years ago, Peabody executives suggested that coal gasification was a technology of a distant future. Distant? The Chinese plant in which they bought a stake last week is expected to begin operating in 2009; FutureGen here in the United States should be on-line in 2012.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

120

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Clean Coal Construction Costs Kill Transition

Lower operation costs compensate for construction costs Russell Ray, Reporter for the Tampa Tribune, 3/22/07, “TECO’s Bright Future,” The Tampa Tribune, p. Lexis The changes come as coal regains its luster as a source for generating electricity. More new power plants are being built to burn coal, a change inspired by the higher price of natural gas, which burns a lot cleaner than coal. In addition to being cheap, coal is abundant in the United States, which has an estimated 275 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves, more than any country in the world. The TECO plant, though, is one of only two facilities in the United States that use coal-gasification technology. The other plant in Terre Haute, Ind., was completed in 1995. The industry has been reluctant to build more coal-gasification plants because the cost to build them is 10percent to 20 percent more than a conventional coal plant, TECO's Hornick said. About a quarter of the cost to build the TECO plant was covered by a $150 million grant from the Department of Energy. Start-up costs are higher, Riedinger said, because "there are more steps from getting from the lump of coal to the electron." However, the higher construction costs are offset by lower operating costs, Hornick said. In fact, of all the units at TECO's four power stations, the coal-gasification plant is the least costly to operate. The other three units at TECO's Polk facility burn natural gas to generate electricity.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

121

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Climate Change

Clean coal solves climate change Rhett A. Butler, has a degree in math and economics, 3.13.06, “Clean coal could fight climate change,” mongabay.com – a site that writes articles to increase awareness about the environment, http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0313-coal.html A new chemical process for removing impurities from coal could lead to significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power stations say researchers sponsored by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Britain's main agency for funding research in engineering and the physical sciences. Cleaner, more efficient use of coal could play a key role in addressing climate change, especially with the growing importance of coal as an energy source as world crude oil supplies are diminished in the future. Coal presently supplies about two-thirds of China's energy and one-third of the energy demand in the United States but, due to its abundance, is forecast to become an increasingly important relative to petroleum around mid-century.

Clean coal is key to solve global warming Keith Orchison , Energy Commentator for the Australian, 11/4/06, “Coal too big a factor to eliminate - CLIMATE CHANGE,” Weekend Australian, p. Lexis IS so-called clean coal an oxymoron or a bridge to a sustainable low-carbon future? Industry and some governments are investing billions of dollars to demonstrate that reducing carbon dioxide emissions does not necessarily imply elimination of the coal industry. The radical case against clean coal is summed up by Greenpeace Australia: ''Whichever way you wash it, pulverise it and scrub it, coal from extraction to end-use remains a dirty, dangerous, polluting source of energy. The notion that carbon capture and storage will allow coal plants to be built and not add vast amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is an illusion.'' On the other hand, WWF Australia has called for clean coal research to be fast-tracked, -- while the Australian Conservation Foundation says it would support the use of clean coal technology at existing power stations.Britain's chief scientist Sir David King extols clean coal technology as ''mankind's only hope'' in staving off catastrophic climate change, given countries such as China and India have massive plans for coal-fired power.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

122

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Climate Change

Clean coal key to global warming Weekend Australian, 3/31/07, “Cooling the Hot Air on Climate Change,” p. Lexis The MIT report assumes that the risks of global warming are real and says the US and other governments should and will take action to restrict emissions. But it nonetheless believes that coal use will increase because coal is cheap and abundant and geographically widespread so that, unlike oil, supplies are secure from political upheaval in the Middle East. MIT concludes that carbon capture and sequestration are the critical enabling technology for reducing CO2 emissions while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs. It says the most urgent objective of the climate change response should be the successful large-scale demonstration of the technological, economic, and environmental performance of carbon capture and storage. During his lightning visit to Australia this week, Sir Nicholas rejected the suggestions by Lateline host Tony Jones that clean-coal technology was unproven or that Australia should concentrate its research efforts on alternative technologies such as solar. He said it was beyond doubt that China and India would continue to use a lot of coal for the next 30 to 40 years, and Australia was likely to be one of the world leaders in solving the riddle of developing technologies to burn coal efficiently and capture and store the carbon emissions. Contrary to the view of clean-coal sceptics, Sir Nicholas said the technology was progressing, with working examples in Canada, Algeria and Norway. The challenge now was to demonstrate that the technologies could be deployed on a commercial scale. Sir Nicholas said engineers working on the technology were optimistic that, if proven, it could be put in place fairly quickly. Such confidence is heartening and gives reassurance that, rather than being an international pariah on climate change, Australia is, in fact, at the forefront of progress towards a realistic solution to climate change. While Australia is criticised for having not signed the Kyoto agreement, it is considered to be in a key position through the AP6 -- the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate -- to engage the world's biggest carbon emitter, the US, and the world's biggest emerging carbon emitter, China. Australia's faith in clean-coal research is being increasingly vindicated. It ultimately represents a continuation of the way in which developed economies have improved the environmental performance of coal as they have harnessed its economic potential. Such progress supports The Weekend Australian's core belief in science as the pathway to progress. While ideally placed to pioneer new coal technology, there is no reason why Australia might not also play a role in other areas of research including solar, wind and geothermal power. But there is no reason to assume that Australia must be involved in or invent every new technology. Governments should not attempt to pick winners but should apply public funds according to what has the best chance of success in making a significant contribution to solving the problem. The Weekend Australian supports the Government's commitment to practical, balanced action that will achieve results. This includes the Government's global initiative on stopping illegal logging of forests in Southeast Asia, which has the potential to deliver both climate-change and broader environmental benefits. The Government estimates the potential atmospheric carbon benefits from stopping illegal logging to be 10 times those of the Kyoto agreement. There is also merit in Kevin Rudd's attempts this weekend to bring together interest groups, including business, to explore solutions. The Opposition Leader faces a daunting challenge in attempting to find answers that will satisfy participants with wildly differing expectations on what is an emotionally charged issue. The Weekend Australian is heartened that among those at the forefront of seeking a solution to global warming there is a growing confidence that tackling the problem at its source, the point of power generation from coal, is likely to be met.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

123

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Climate Change

IGCC is the most economical way of reducing emissions. Jeremy David and Howard Herzog, 2000, Professor at MIT, (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=IGCC%2C+coal %2C+natural+gas&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ ylo=1998&as_yhi=2008&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&safe=off) Based on the studies analyzed, there is a consensus that using today’s capture technology would add 1.5-2¢/kWh to the busbar cost of electricity for an IGCC or NGCC power plant. For a PC plant, the incremental cost of electricity would be over 3¢/kWh. The strongest opportunities for lowering the capture costs in the future were identified as gains in heat rates and reductions in the amount of energy required by the separation. New technologies like coal gasification show the most long-term promise, with incremental costs for CO2 sequestration at IGCC power plants being potentially reduced to about 1¢/kWh in the next decade. To put the costs presented here in context, further analysis with economic models is required (see Biggs et al., 2000). Opportunities for future cost reductions will include the investigation of innovative technologies, including new types of power plants and power cycles. Moreover, system-level analyses should be performed to minimize not only capture costs, but also the sequestration costs associated with transportation and injection.

Clean Coal is very cost effective and non polluting Jeremy David and Howard Herzog, 2000, Professor at MIT, (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=IGCC%2C+coal %2C+natural+gas&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ ylo=1998&as_yhi=2008&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&safe=off) Fossil fuels currently supply over 85% of the world’s energy needs and will remain in abundant supply well into the 21st century. They have been a major contributor to the high standard of living enjoyed by the industrialized world. However, their future is clouded because of the environmental and economic threat posed by possible climate change, commonly referred to as the “greenhouse effect”. The major greenhouse gas is

carbon dioxide (CO2) and the major source of anthropogenic CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels. If we can develop technology to capture and sequester the fossil fuel CO2 in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner, we will be able to enjoy the benefits of fossil fuel use throughout the next century. We have conducted a comparison of published studies from the past several years that analyzed the economics of capturing CO2 at Integrated coal Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plants (six studies), Pulverized Coal (PC) power plants (four studies), and Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants (four studies). MEA scrubbing of flue gas was used to capture the CO2 in the PC and NGCC plants, but IGCC plants allow the use of more energy efficient scrubbing processes involving physical absorption to capture CO2 from the high pressure synthesis gas. All studies were made using commercially available technology and include the cost of compressing the captured CO2 to about 100 atm for pipeline transportation. The results do not include cost of CO2 transportation and injection, which will add about $10/tonne of CO2 avoided. Initial results were presented at GHGT-4 (Herzog, 1999), while detailed results of this analysis are presented in David (2000)

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

124

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Climate Change

IGCC has benefits like sequestration Howard Herzog, 2000, Principal Research Engineer MIT Energy Laboratory, (http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/economics_in_technology.pdf) In addition to power plants, there are a number of large CO2-emitting industrial sources that could also be considered for application of capture and sequestration technologies. In natural gas operations, CO2 is generated as a by-product. In general, gas fields may contain up to 20% (by volume) CO2, most of which must be removed to produce pipeline quality gas. Therefore, sequestration of CO2 from natural gas operations is a logical first step in applying CO2 capture technology. In the future, similar opportunities for CO2 sequestration may exist in the production of hydrogen-rich fuels (e.g., hydrogen or methanol) from carbon-rich feedstocks (e.g., natural gas, coal, or biomass). Specifically, such fuels could be used in low-temperature fuel cells for transport or for combined heat and power. Relatively pure CO2 would result as a byproduct.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

125

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: No Room for Carbon Storage

Plenty of space underground for carbon storage USA Today, 12/27/07, “Tech could reduce coal facilities' emissions,” p. Lexis After coal is gasified and the CO{-2} is captured, it still must go somewhere. The Department of Energy has estimated that North America has room underground to store 3.5 trillion tons of CO{-2}. In theory, the USA could store all its power plant emissions for centuries. In fact, oil and gas companies have been injecting CO{-2} into depleted oil fields without incident for decades. The CO{-2} dislodges trapped oil and gas, increasing the fields' yield and profitability.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

126

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Clean Coal Technology won’t Spill Over

Clean coal technology will spill over internationally J. Allen Wampler, The Atlanta Journal Constitution Staff Writer, 6/11/08, “COAL POWER: Stress efficient carbon capture-andstorage,” The Atlanta Journal Constitution, p. Lexis The continuing development of this technology --- and its successful demonstration in large-scale testing --- is the key to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. In turn, it could be exported abroad or developed and demonstrated jointly with other countries like China and India that rely on coal to power their economies.

US clean coal leadership is key to developing country action Jack Torry, Reporter for the Columbus Dispatch, 3/15/07, “U.S. needs to take lead on global clean-coal efforts, report says,” p. Lexis On the same day that Gov. Ted Strickland announced a fresh initiative to develop clean-coal technology in Ohio, a new study warned that America's existing efforts are "completely inadequate." The report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that because the United States and many developing nations will continue to rely on coal to produce electricity, it will be difficult for the U.S. to make the dramatic reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions necessary to combat global warming. But the study, whose authors included former CIA director and current MIT professor John Deutsch, rejected pleas by utilities such as Ohio's American Electric Power that the U.S. should not adopt tough carbon-dioxide controls if China and India refuse to curb their emissions from coal-fired plants. "U.S. leadership in emissions reduction is likely a pre-requisite to substantial action by emerging economies," the study concluded, even as it warned that such action will take time. Any debate over coal is automatically of huge importance to Ohio, which still has large deposits of the material, although it's generally considered environmentally "dirty" coal. The report promised a bit of something for both environmentalists and the power industry. The authors argued that the U.S. can develop the technology on a commercial basis to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which would allow far greater use of coal in the future. But the report urged Congress to pass a bill that would call for reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions. "The report, to me, looks extremely thoughtful," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Washington-based Clean Air Watch. "This may be the definitive report on what we do with coal in the future." It also encouraged the development of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle by AEP. The utility hopes to build two such plants in Ohio and West Virginia that would gasify coal to produce electricity with fewer emissions harmful to the environment. But as an added advantage, the report pointed out, it would be cheaper to retrofit an IGCC plant with technology eventually developed to capture and store carbon dioxide, and thus reduce those global-warming emissions. Melissa McHenry, an AEP spokeswoman, said the company does not "agree with all the statements in the report, but we do agree that we need to move forward with demonstration and development of carbon capture and storage." Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, DN.M., hailed the report, saying its "recommendations will carry a lot of weight here in Congress." Bingaman plans to have the authors of the report testify before his committee next week. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-St. Clairsville, a member of the House Science and Technology Committee, said he hopes to see clean-coal technology take root in his eastern Ohio district, where "we have the water, the coal and the work force." "We just feel that coal has a lot of the answers," Wilson said. "We just have to connect the dots to match it together to burn clean and provide the energy we need." In his State of the State address, Strickland unveiled plans to use taxexempt bonds to help finance $1 billion in energy programs during the next four years. Strickland said that clean coal, along with other "next-generation energies" such as bio-fuels and fuel cells, gives Ohio an "opportunity to create jobs, support our farmers, reduce our dependence on foreign-oil producers and be responsible stewards of the environment." Coal produces 50 percent of the electricity in the United States and coal-burning power plants emit 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year. By contrast, solar and wind produce less than 0.5 percent of the nation's electricity.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

127

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Oil Depletion

IGCC technology can be used to recover oil Howard Herzog, 2000, Principal Research Engineer MIT Energy Laboratory, (http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/economics_in_technology.pdf) The idea of separating and capturing CO2 from the flue gas of power plants did not start with concern about the greenhouse effect. Rather, it gained attention as a possible economic source of CO2, especially for use in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations where CO2 is injected into oil reservoirs to increase the mobility of the oil and, therefore, the productivity of the reservoir. Several commercial CO2 capture plants were constructed in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the US. When the price of oil dropped in the mid-1980s, the recovered CO2 was too expensive for EOR operations, forcing the closure of these capture facilities. However, the North American Chemical Plant in Trona, CA, which uses this process to produce CO2 for carbonation of brine, started operation in 1978 and is still operating today. Several more CO2 capture plants were subsequently built to produce CO2 for commercial applications and markets. Some of these plants took advantage of the economic incentives in the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) of 1978 for “qualifying facilities”. A listing of the major CO2 capture plants are shown in Table 1.

IGCC will allow us to do oil sequestration, helps us get more oil Klaus S. Lackner, June 2003, Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, “climate change” (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5626/1677) Underground injection is probably the easiest route to sequestration. It is a proven technology suitable for large-scale sequestration (5). Injecting CO2 into reservoirs in which it displaces and mobilizes oil or gas could create economic gains that partly offset sequestration costs. In Texas, this approach already consumes ~20 million tons/year of CO2 at a price of $10 to $15 per ton of CO2. However, this is not sequestration, because most of the CO2 is extracted from underground wells

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

128

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Energy Dependence

Clean coal can reduce US dependency on foreign oil suppliers Clean coal technologies inc, company that created and patented clean coal technology, 2007, “The Pollution Solution” http://www.cleancoaltechnologiesinc.com/ With CCTI's technology, coal becomes a cost-effective, efficient and extremely clean-burning fuel that could potentially reduce our dependency upon oil. Over time, as utilities, power plants and manufacturers shift to our clean coal, we can achieve major advances in reducing pollution throughout the globe, and become the worldwide emission standard for future plants. For countries with significant coal deposits, the result could also result in a reduced dependency upon oil and foreign suppliers. Additionally, as in the case of the US, our technology could provide an excellent export opportunity for clean domestic coal products.

Development of clean coal key to US energy independence Paul C. Oakley, Executive director at the coalition for affordable and reliable energy, 3/13/03, “Whitfield-Boucher ‘clean coal act’ essential to america’s energy independence,” http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=62 "By promoting the development of new and advanced technologies to ensure even cleaner and more efficient use of abundantly available coal to meet our growing energy needs, the Whitfield-Boucher bill will help ensure our energy security for years to come. "Promoting the cleaner and more efficient use of coal must be a key component of a broader national energy strategy for America. CARE praises Congressmen Whitfield and Boucher for their leadership on this important issue. Congress should act quickly to adopt this important legislation." - Washington, DC -- "With concern over foreign energy supplies mounting and America’s demand for energy expected to increase sharply in the coming years, we must take steps today to promote the use of more domestic energy resources. The Whitfield-Boucher bill represents a significant step in this direction.

Due to abundance, shift to clean coal key to energy independence US Department of Energy, 9/1/06, “assistance secretary of energy highlights clean coal technologies to sustain america’s economic growth,” http://www.doe.gov/news/4133.htm Clean coal is our nation’s most abundant and affordable energy source that powers our homes and businesses and keeps our economy thriving,” Assistant Secretary Jarrett said. “Through Bush Administration research investments, DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory is helping to change the outlook of America’s energy future by advancing clean coal technology research to increase efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” “Pittsburgh stands on a 250-year supply of coal, a seam which is one of the most valuable natural resource supplies in the world,” Rep. Murphy said. “The development of clean coal technology and the ability to use waste coal as a source of energy are absolutely vital in leading us towards energy independence. We have to diversify our energy sources in order to reduce the trend toward higher natural gas and oil prices. Coal is the ace in Southwestern Pennsylvania's hand.”

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

129

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Energy Dependence

Shift to clean coal alone will not solve energy dependence E-commerce times, writers articles about finances and the economy, Theodore F. di Stefano, 7/11/08, “Getting Serious about Energy Independence,” http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/63695.html?welcome=1216390508 There is a solution, albeit no quick fix. There is no doubt in my mind that we, as a country, must achieve energy independence. However, I don't believe that there is one single path to this independence. I think that we have to have a multipronged approach -- an approach that includes nuclear energy, clean coal technology, hybrid cars, solar and wind power, just to mention the major possibilities. Incidentally, the engineers with whom I've spoken of late think that we are still quite a few years away from having hydrogen power on any mass scale. So, we have work to do as a country, and I have no doubt that we have finally become serious about energy independence. Let's hope it happens sooner rather than later. Good luck!

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

130

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Energy Dependence Impact

America’s energy dependence undermines US national security and clout – decreasing dependence now is key . Council on foreign relations, John Deutch: former director of the CIA and former undersecretary of energy, James R. Schlesinger: former defense and energy secretary, David G. Victor: adjunct senior fellow for science and technology, 10/12/06, “US energy dependence undercutting US national security, council task force warns,” http://www.cfr.org/publication/11693/us_energy_dependence_undercutting_us_national_security_council_task_force_warns.html America’s dependence on imported energy increases its strategic vulnerability and constrains its ability to pursue foreign policy and national security objectives, finds a Council-sponsored Independent Task Force. “The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and U.S. national security,” says the report. At the same time, energy suppliers—from Russia to Iran to Venezuela—are able and willing to use their energy resources as leverage to pursue their strategic and political objectives. “Because of their oil wealth, these and other producer countries are free to ignore U.S. policies and to pursue interests inimical to our national security,” says the report. Dependence also puts the United States into competition with other importing countries, notably China and India. “The challenge over the next several decades is to manage the consequences of unavoidable dependence on oil and gas that is traded in world markets and to begin the transition to an economy that relies less on petroleum,” says Task Force Chair James R. Schlesinger, a former secretary of defense and secretary of energy. The report warns, “The longer the delay, the greater will be the subsequent trauma.”

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

131

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Competitiveness

The US can sell clean coal technology to other countries Dianne DeMille and Stephen Priestley – Canadian American Strategic Review, November 2005, “Beyond Kyoto – the Lure of Cheap, Abundant CoalA New Industrial Revolution for India and China?” http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-newfuel-2.htm The US and Australia are two of the largest exporters of coal, while India and China are two of the largest consumers, especially of black anthracite – the highest coal grade. It didn't take long for the Australian Prime Minister to convince President Bush to pursue a deal with India and China, whereby the two former countries would sell the latter two the coal they need to generate electricity, light their cities, and power their manufacturing plants. In addition, the two 'Western' nations, with their more advanced technology, would sell them the equipment they need to burn the coal more cleanly. The two populous nations would have access to 'clean coal' technology at very reasonable rates.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

132

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Key to the Economy

Clean coal will greatly help US’s economy NCC, national coal council, 1993, “The role of US coal in energy, economy,” http://nationalcoalcouncil.org/Documents/THE %20ROLE%20OF%20U.S.%20COAL%20IN%20ENERGY,%20ECONOMY.PDF) The potential of clean coal technology provides an enormous future opportunity for the United States. Energy efficiency can be improved and the environment protected while coal use expands to generate electricity, promote growth, and improve the nation’s balance of payments. Coal, the nation’s largest source of domestic energy, contributes both directly and indirectly to the U.S. economy. Direct Economic Contribution. The $21 billion in current value of annual coal production yields an impact of $81 billion on the economy. While many U.S. industries have declined over the past two decades, the U.S. coal industry has increased its export position. The abundant coal resources of the U.S. provide opportunities to improve the nation’s balance of trade in the 1990s, strengthen basic infrastructure, and employ advanced technologies in the U.S. and overseas. Indirect Economic Contribution. The U.S. economy and the standard of living it supports depend on coal, primarily in the form of electricity. Electric power is the largest and fastest growing end-use sector in energy. Coal is the principal fuel used to generate electricity. Availability of low-cost coal has enhanced the electrification of the U.S. economy

Sustainability of coal and coal industry key to US economy Gregson Vaux, a scientist, 5/27/04, “The Peak in U.S. Coal Production,” http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html In conclusion, is there any hope that the coal production peak can be pushed back to a later date? The various models described above, all assume that current trends will continue along a certain path, but we can decide to change the way we consume energy. There exist technologies such as coal gasification that produce electricity and even synfuels much more efficiently than current methods. We can also make efforts as a nation to conserve our resources and perhaps even conclude that endless growth may not be in our best interests. It is probably safe to assume that coal and economic growth will be closely tied in the next few decades meaning that we can either have long lasting coal supplies or economic growth, but not both.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

133

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Coal Key to the Economy

Coal industry key to economy NCC, national coal council, 1993, “The role of US coal in energy, economy,” http://nationalcoalcouncil.org/Documents/THE %20ROLE%20OF%20U.S.%20COAL%20IN%20ENERGY,%20ECONOMY.PDF) The economic well-being of the United States depends substantially on coal, primarily in the form of electricity. Coal has been the nation’s largest domestic source of energy for nearly a decade. Electric power, the largest and fastest growing end-use sector in energy, is the primary market for coal. Accounting for 56% of total generation, low-cost coal contributed to the electrification of the economy over the past twenty years. If coal had not been available to meet the growth in electric demand, consumers would have incurred over $190 billion in additional fuel costs since 1971. Coal contributes over $80 billion annually to the economy and stimulates over one million jobs. Coal also contributes to the economy in terms of tax revenue, exports, and infrastructure and technology development. Further development of coal production, combustion, and emissions technologies can ensure that coal continues to contribute to energy security, economic growth, and environmental protection.

Clean coal plants help economy – create jobs Joe King, works in Northern Illinois University office of public affairs, 5/25/07, “NIU says clean coal power plant makes economic sense,” http://www.niu.edu/PubAffairs/RELEASES/2007/may/coal.shtml Springfield, Ill. — A study released Tuesday, May 15, by the Regional Development Institute at Northern Illinois University found that a proposed “clean coal” power plant makes good economic sense for Taylorville, Ill. “Construction of the Taylorville Energy Center will create more than 1,500 construction jobs, plus hundreds of permanent mining and power plant jobs,” said John Lewis, an NIU economist who also serves as associate vice president for NIU Outreach. Lewis was the lead author of the report. “Our analysis indicates central Illinois will also benefit from a regional ripple effect that will create hundreds of new positions in industries such as retail, hospitality and health care,” Lewis said. New technology The unique plant (which is being proposed by Tenaska, an international power development company and energy marketer, with expertise in power plant development) would be the first industrial-scale coal gasification power plant in the world. The coal gasification process converts the coal to a gas and pollutants are separated and removed before the gas is burned. Supporters say it would be among the most environmentally friendly, commercially sized coal plants in the world. The process makes the type of high-sulfur coal, which is common to Illinois, an economically viable fuel source again. The plant could be up and running as early as 2012. Producing power … and jobs According to the NIU study titled “The Economic Impacts of an Electric Power Generation Facility in Illinois,” the plant will generate not only power but also employment. Lewis estimates that once the facility is operational it will create 663 direct and indirect jobs in Christian County resulting in annual economic activity of $355.9 million. The report also suggests that the power plant will help revitalize the sagging Illinois coal mining industry which has suffered as environmental regulations prompted power plants to switch to low-sulfur coal mined in the western U.S. With an estimated annual coal consumption of 1.5 million tons, the plant is expected to create 416 direct and indirect jobs related to coal mining in Illinois, generating $78.5 million in annual economic activity for that industry. Illinois residents in other parts of the state also would stand to benefit from the plant. Lewis estimates that lowerpriced power generated by the plant could create $190 million a year in gross savings to Illinois customers during its first eight years of operation. Results of the report were presented at a May 15 press conference in Springfield, Ill., where supporters of the Taylorville project were seeking support for the Clean Coal Program Law which would allow power developers to enter into long-term contracts with Illinois utilities to sell their power. Illinois law currently prohibits such contracts

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

134

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Pollution

Clean coal is key to solve air pollution USA Today, 12/27/07, “Tech could reduce coal facilities' emissions,” p. Lexis From the top of a hill here in coal country, you can see distant swells of smoke curling up from coal-fired power plants along the flat horizon. Even here, in a town of only 348 residents, a small coal plant has operated off and on since World War II. But that plant might soon be replaced by a new kind of coal plant, one that could signal a critical turning point in the future of coal and how the United States reconciles its conflicting energy and environmental needs. Duke Energy, the Charlotte, N.C.-based utility, is now awaiting an air permit from Indiana for a $2 billion, 630-megawatt coal plant, large enough to power about 200,000 homes a year. Considered only average-size as traditional plants go, it would become the world's largest coal-fired power plant to use a new, cleaner technology called integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC. "It's a technology that has the ability to take air pollution out of the debate over coal," says John Thompson, director of the Coal Transition Program at the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based environmental group that supports the plant. "The day that plant opens, the 500 or so coal plants in the U.S. are obsolete." Unlike conventional coal-fired power plants, often called "pulverized" coal plants because they crush coal to a powder before burning it to make electricity, the Edwardsport plant would turn coal into a gas before burning it. "Gasification" makes removing pollutants easier. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, such gasification plants emit about 65% less mercury and 75% less sulfur dioxide than conventional plants, while nearly eliminating particulate matter, the fine particles linked to heart and lung disease. But perhaps more important, coal-power experts say, the Edwardsport plant's gasification design would enable Duke to capture the plant's carbondioxide emissions, then inject them underground where they cannot affect the atmosphere, a process known as carbon capture and sequestration. Coal-fired power plants account for a third of U.S. CO{-2} emissions, the primary gas blamed for global warming, about as much as every plane, train and automobile in the country combined. Yet, most energy experts say the nation can't meet its energy demand for decades, at least, without a lot of coal. Deploying coal gasification technology at power plants such as Edwardsport could be a crucial first step toward solving that conflict, supporters say, because capturing CO{-2} from conventional coal plants is likely to be prohibitively expensive. "If those (pulverized coal) plants go ahead, it is extremely unlikely carbon will ever be captured from them," says Doug Cortez, who heads a clean energy consulting firm in California. But with gasification plants, it's more likely, he says.

Clean Coal help control emissions while still being an economical option Edward Rubin, 1992, (http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/1992/26/i10/f-pdf/f_es00034a016.pdf? sessid=6006l3) Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems represent a promising new approach for the cleaner and more efficient use of coal for power generation, offering low levels of SOz and NO, emissions along with benign solid wastes or byproducts, and zero or low wastewater discharges. A distinguishing feature of IGCC concepts is the type of fuel gas cleanup strategy employed. Typical designs for IGCC systems use “cold gas cleanup” (CGCU), including low-temperature removal of SO2 and particulates from the coal syngas, sulfur byproduct recovery, and syngas moisturization to reduce NO, formation in the gas turbine combustor. On-going research by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and others is focused on developing dry physical and chemical hot gas cleanup (HGCU) techniques to reduce the efficiency penalty associated with syngas cooling (1). The cost and performance of IGCC systems with hot gas cleanup is expected to compare favorably with advanced alternatives for SOz and NO, emission control in pulverized coal power plants. In IGCC systems, environmental control is required not just to meet environmental regulations but also for proper plant operation. In particular, contaminants such as sulfur, particulates, and alkali must be removed prior to fuel gas combustion to protect the gas turbine components from erosion, corrosion, and deposition. Because of the close interactions among plant performance, environmental control, and cost, assessments of IGCC technology must be based on integrated analysis of the entire system.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

135

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Acid Rain

Clean coal eliminates acid rain CBS, 6/20/08, “Clean Coal- Pipe Dream or Next Big Thing?” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/eveningnews/main4199506.shtml?source=RSSattr=SciTech_4199506 The cleanest coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of rural Florida. They call it clean because they don't burn coal exactly - they mix it with water and oxygen and convert it into a gas. According to company president John Ramil, gasifying coal allows the company to remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen and soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

136

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Clean Coal Doesn’t Solve Sulphur

Clean coal eliminates sulphur emission The New Zealand Herald, 6/17/08, “Chris Baker: Appliance of science will ensure coal (and Earth) have healthy futures,” p. Lexis The modern coal industry has successfully developed technological solutions for the near-elimination of particulate and sulphur emissions - technologies which are now commonplace in modern coal-fired power stations. The challenge is now to progress clean coal technologies to a stage where coal can be used as a near-zero emissions energy source.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

137

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

Clean Coal Solves Hydrogen

Turns the Case: Clean Coal makes the hydrogen economy possible in a cheap and non polluting way Howard Herzog, 2000, Principal Research Engineer MIT Energy Laboratory, (http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/economics_in_technology.pdf) Integrated coal gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants are an example of the hydrogen route. Coal is gasified to form synthesis gas (syngas) of CO and H2. The gas then undergoes the watergas shift, where the CO is reacted with steam to form CO2 and H2. The CO2 is then removed, with the hydrogen being sent to a gas turbine combined cycle. This approach allows for a CO2 removal process (e.g., a physical solvent process like Selexsol) that is much less energy intensive than the MEA process because capture takes place from the high pressure syngas as opposed to the atmospheric pressure flue gas. A similar process is available for natural gas, where the syngas is formed by steam reforming of methane. The hydrogen route opens up opportunities for “polygeneration”, where besides electricity and CO2, additional products are produced. For example, instead of sending hydrogen to a turbine, it can be used to fuel a “hydrogen economy”. In addition, syngas is an excellent feedstock for many chemical processes.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

138

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Coal Will Run Out

US has largest coal reserve in world – can last 236 years Energy information administration, took information from: annual coal report (2005 and 2006), national energy education development project, and intermediate energy infobook (2004-2005), feb 2007, “coal – a fossil fuel,” http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/coal.html Coal reserves are beds of coal still in the ground waiting to be mined. The United States has the world's largest known coal reserves, about 267.6 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last approximately 236 years at today's level of use. Coal production is the amount of coal that is mined and sent to market. In 2005, the amount of coal produced at U.S. coal mines reached an all time high of 1,131.5 million short tons. Coal is mined in 27 states. Wyoming mines the most coal, followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Texas.Coal is mainly found in three large regions, the Appalachian Coal Region, the Interior Coal Region, and Western Coal Region (includes the Powder River Basin).

US coal supply will last at least 250 more years Jeffrey W. Johnson, Senior correspondent, BS in industrial engineering at California state polytechnic University, MS in journalism at University of Oregon, writer for Chemical and Engineering News, 2/23/04, “Getting to Clean Coal,” http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8208/8208coal.html Yet these miners barely tap the U.S.'s coal supply. Geologists say the nation has enough coal to last at least another 250 years. And U.S. coal is so cheap that even the poor efficiency of the nation's aging power plants doesn't make much difference.

US has largest coal reserve in world – second largest producer Richard Heinberg, author of eight books, senior fellow of post carbon institute, regarded as worlds foremost peak oil educators, june 08, “Coal in the United States,”http://www.richardheinberg.com/MuseLetter/194 Because the US has the world’s largest coal reserves, it has sometimes been called "the Saudi Arabia of coal." It is the world’s second-largest coal producer, after China, but surpasses both the number three and four producer nations (India and Australia) by nearly a factor of three. Wood was this nation's primary fuel until the mid-1880s, when deforestation necessitated greater reliance on abundant coal resources. Coal then remained America's main energy source until the 1930s, when it was overtaken by oil. Today coal fuels about 50 percent of US electricity production and provides about a quarter of the country's total energy. The US currently produces over a billion tons of coal per year, with quantities increasing annually. This is well over double the amount produced in 1960. However, due to a decline in the average amount of energy contained in each ton of coal produced (i.e., declining resource quality), the total amount of energy flowing into the US economy from coal is now falling, having peaked in 1998. This decline in energy content per unit of weight (also known as "heating value") amounts to more than 30 percent since 1955. It can partly be explained by the depletion of anthracite reserves and the nation's increasing reliance on sub-bituminous coal and even lignite, a trend that began in the 1970s. But resource quality is declining even within each coal class.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

139

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AT: Coal Will Run Out

Coal is becoming the only practical means to meet the world’s growing power needs Bob Moen, Associated Press via Yahoo!News, 9 June 2006, “Railroads Struggle to Ship Coal in U.S.”, site attained: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/16980 original article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060609/ap_on_bi_ge/railing_on_coal [Bapodra] With plentiful coal reserves and alternative fuels still too costly or years away from becoming reality, coal is seen by many as the most practical means to meet the nation's and world's growing power needs. "The economy is still rolling along so everybody expects production and demand to keep increasing," Fred Freme, industry statistician with the U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration. "It is the cheapest as far as electric generation goes."

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

140

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF – Coal Prices Low Now

Coal prices will fall – Chinese exports Bloomberg, 2-29-08, Posted on the China Post, http://www.chinapost.com.tw/print/144941.htm, Junaid SINGAPORE -- Taiwan Power Co., Asia biggest thermal coal buyer, said the cost of the fuel will fall after China resumes exports in April, easing pressure on buyers to settle term negotiations at double last year's prices. The resumption of Chinese exports after a two-month ban and easing rainfall in Indonesia will boost supplies, Albert Jen, head of the company's thermal coal unit, said at the McCloskey Group conference in Singapore Wednesday. Taiwan Power is waiting for Japanese utilities to conclude price talks with Australian sellers before carrying out discussions with its suppliers, he said. Coal prices climbed after heavy rains in Australia, snowstorms in China and power shortages in South Africa reduced output. Benchmark prices at Newcastle, the world's biggest export harbor for thermal coal in Australia, dropped US$4.71 to US$134.45 a metric ton in the week ended Feb. 22 after four weeks of records, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

141

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF – Coal Demand Decreasing Now

Coal demand decreasing now – construction costs and policy uncertainty John Laumer is an independent energy consultant and news reporter, “Along The Green Horizon: Big US Electricity Price Increase,” Tree Hugger Business and Politics, 9/20/07 http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/get_ready_for_a.php "But a combination of rising construction costs for coal-fired power-plants and uncertainty over whether Congress will regulate emissions of carbon dioxide - a byproduct of burning coal and one of the main gases behind global warming - has put plans for many new plants on hold." "Rising construction costs and uncertainty over global warming laws may lead to higher power prices for everyone, experts say. With the nation's demand for power expected to surge 50 percent over the next 30 years, the result may be higher electricity costs for everyone." "An estimated one-third of planned new coal plants have either been delayed or are "at the edge of cancellation," said Dean Oskvig, head of the energy business at Black&Veatch, an engineering firm that builds power plants. Oskvig said cost is the main concern. The global commodities boom has caused the price of steel, concrete and lumber to soar. Plus, a spike in demand for energy of all kinds has led to a construction frenzy throughout the sector, driving up the cost of skilled labor. This has doubled the price of building a new coal-fired power plant, said Judah Rose, an industry expert at ICF Consulting, who testified before the North Carolina Utilities Commission." "Black & Veatch's Oskvig said carbon capture and sequestration can raise the price of a power plant by 40 to 80 percent -- yet another factor that will drive power prices higher. "We've been used to really cheap energy to drive our society," he said. "But the days of the energy bargain in this world are over.""

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

142

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF – Renewables Won’t Trade Off with Coal

Renewable energy will not replace the coal industry Toronto Star 11/22/07 (“Renewables no match for coal and nuclear” LETTER; Pg. AA07. Lexis) If one does the math, one will see quickly that renewable sources, such as wind and solar, simply cannot be scaled up to replace coal or nuclear power plants. For example, 2,000 wind turbines would have to be built for every nuclear reactor, 8,000 turbines for a power plant of four reactors. Each one is a million dollars, so that's $8 billion for turbines. Solar is unable to be scaled up, too. The planned farm in Sarnia is 1,000 acres of land and $300 million for output of a mere 40 megawatts. To replace a full nuclear plant would require 48,000 acres and cost $160 billion.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

143

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF – Renewables Won’t Trade Off with Clean Coal

Despite advances in alternative energies dependence on coal will not decrease – alternative energy and clean coal both will be used – empirically proven Richard R. Hall and , John Kirkham, natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP. 6/4/07, “coal: like it or not, it’s here to stay,” http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484 Thirty years ago, coal was viewed as the fuel of the past. Nuclear power, natural gas, and renewable energy sources were going to take us away from coal and place our reliance on cleaner alternatives. However, despite these predictions, the use of coal for generating electricity has nearly tripled in the last 30 years, and the demand for and consumption of coal is projected to increase for the foreseeable future. Coal has enabled America’s electric utilities to keep up with ever increasing demand, and coal is now being used in record amounts. Last year, coal-fired plants contributed 50% of the electricity produced in the United States, and it is anticipated that coal will maintain this percentage through 2025. But while coal-fired plants contribute half of the electricity produced in the United States, they also contribute four-fifths of the carbon emissions associated with electrical generation. The challenge facing government and industry is reconciling rapid economic growth and energy demand with the environmental impacts and risks of climate change. Despite the environmental concerns and promising advances in the development of alternative energy sources, coal will undoubtedly continue to play a significant role in power generation for decades to come. Attempts to abruptly eliminate coal from current and/or future energy options would be imprudent and jeopardize the availability, reliability and security of a country’s overall energy supply. To ensure future energy needs are affordable, support for the development of new energy technologies should include research and development for clean coal technologies as well as improving competitiveness of alternative energy sources.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

144

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF – Wind Won’t Trade Off with Coal

Best case estimates indicate that wind power would not generate enough electricity to replace coal, additionally coal would remain as a backup Roy Innis, national chairman of the New York-based Congress of Racial Equality, 12/12/07 (“Coal power potential” Washington Post – Column. Lexis) More than half from wind and solar. Coal-generated power typically costs less per kilowatt-hour than alternatives - leaving families with more money for food, housing, transportation and health care. By 2020, the United States will need 100,000 megawatts of new electricity according to forecasts from the Energy Information Administration, and industry and utility company analysts. Unreliable wind power simply cannot meet these demands. Wind farms require subsidies and vast stretches of land. To meet New York City's electricity needs alone would require blanketing all of Connecticut with towering turbines, says Rockefeller University Professor Jesse Ausubel. They kill birds and must be backed up by expensive coal or gas power plants that mostly sit idle - but kick in whenever the wind dies down, so factories, schools, offices and homes don't shut down. On a scale sufficient to meet the electricity needs of a modern society, wind power is just not sustainable. For three decades, U.S. demand for natural gas has outpaced production. In fact, gas prices have tripled since 1998, to $13 per 1,000 cubic feet today, and every $1 increase costs U.S. consumers an additional $22 billion a year. With Congress and states making more gas prospects off-limits every year, this trend is likely to continue - further driving up prices and forcing us to increasingly import expensive liquefied natural gas. We cannot afford to halt construction of new coal-fired power plants, though some are trying to. Chesapeake Energy Corp. Enhanced Coverage Linking Chesapeake Energy of our electricity comes from coal. Gas and nuclear generate 36 percent of our electricity. Barely 1 percent comes Corp. -Search using: * Company Dossier * News, Most Recent 60 Days * Company Profile supported anti-coal initiatives in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. The scheme was intended to drive up the price of natural gas, and thus profits, by making coal less available and more expensive - with little regard for poor families. Former Clinton administration environment staffer Katy McGinty engineered the lockup of 7 billion tons of low sulfur Utah coal, worth $1 trillion. Current and proposed regulations would make it even more difficult and expensive to provide adequate coal-fired electricity. But energy and pollution reality support more coal use, not less. Power plants fueled by coal are far less polluting than 30 years ago. Just since 1998, their annual sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have declined another 28 percent and 43 percent respectively, according to air quality expert Joel Schwartz. Coal-fired power plants are now the primary source of U.S. mercury emissions only because the major sources (incinerating wastes and processing ores containing mercury) have been eliminated. U.S. mercury emissions are now down 82 percent since the early 1980s, and new rules - and new rules will eliminate most remaining mercury and other emissions from power plants by 2015. That leaves carbon dioxide and catastrophic climate change as rationales for opposing coal. The latest U.N.IPCC report again reduces projections for future temperature increases, polar melting and sea level rise. Moreover, increasing scientific evidence suggests only slight warming, climate change controlled primarily by solar cycles, and no storm, drought or sea level trends that exceed historical experience. Yet, claims about imminent catastrophes have become borderline hysterical, in the weeks preceding international climate talks in Bali. The inconvenient truth is that these climate chaos horror stories are based almost entirely on computer models and digital disaster scenarios. They are no more real than the raptors in "Jurassic Park." Nevertheless, politicians are promoting initiatives like the Lieberman-Warner bill and Midwestern Governors Association climate pact, which they say will prevent a cataclysm, by slashing CO2 emissions by 60 to 80 percent and generating "thousands of megawatts" from wind energy. If these initiatives become law, experts say electricity rates would soar another 50 percent by 2012. Labor unions predict millions of lost jobs, as companies shift operations to foreign countries. China and other rapidly developing countries will build 1,000 new coal plants during the next five years - with few of the pollution controls we require. That means even major sacrifices by American workers and families won't affect global temperatures, even if CO2 is the primary cause of global warming - which many scientists say is not the case. We need every energy resource: oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric, nuclear - and wind, solar and geothermal. We cannot replace 52 percent of our electricity (the coal-based portion) with technologies that now provide only 1 percent of that power (mainly wind). Wind is an energy supplement, not an alternative.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

145

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF – Solar Won’t Trade Off with Coal

Solar power is too expensive to replace coal Edward Wheeler, Ph.D, 11/8/05 (“Nuclear Power: THE CLEANEST AND COOLEST CHOICE?” Eco-World ) Remaining alternatives to nuclear power, such as wind and solar, are promising technologies but can't offer constant baseload power generation like hydroelectric and nuclear power. Moreover, solar power is still far too expensive to be developed on a scale sufficient to replace coal or nuclear power and meet growing worldwide energy demands. Also, windmills, as do new oil refineries and nuclear plants, evince the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) response. It is estimated that photovoltaic solar power costs about 23 cents per kilowatt hour (could get cheaper as new technologies evolve), while conventional coal and natural gas plants cost about half that. Nuclear power weighs in at less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

146

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF – RPS Won’t Trade Off with Clean Coal

Development of RPS will have no effect on clean coal – empirically proven Richard R. Hall and , John Kirkham, natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP. 6/4/07, “coal: like it or not, it’s here to stay,” http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484 Some point to the introduction of renewable portfolio standards as a means to reduce coal reliance and the environmental impacts associated with coal-fired generation. Renewable portfolio standards typically require a certain level or percentage of electricity purchased or consumed by a utility or governmental entity to be produced from renewable sources. While renewable portfolio standards have had measured success in promoting the development of renewable energy sources, they do not appear to have a significant effect on coal consumption. Due to price differentials, renewable portfolio standards tend to decrease the consumption of natural gas, rather than coal. In the long run, the development of renewable energy sources may certainly prove key to reducing global reliance on coal. However, in the short term, encouraging the development of renewable energy sources alone does not appear to have a substantial effect on coal use or carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector in the absence of other policy measures.

Turn- RPS spurs coal technology Sara Parker, Staff Writer, 6/13/07 (“National RPS to Include Coal & Nuclear?” Renewable Energy World < http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48921> ) A National Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) that includes clean coal technologies and nuclear power will reduce the demand for "genuinely clean" renewables such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and tidal, said Jim Rubens of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "There's only 15 percent to go around," said Rubens, adding that nuclear requires huge subsidies and clean coal technologies are at least 10 years away from being commercial. "There is no reason to dilute the bill. [Renewables] are ready for market now. They're cost competitive now and they don't require continuing operating and construction subsidies." The proposed RPS (or Renewable Electricity Standard) would be added as an amendment to bill S.1419, The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, which Bingaman, who is chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, co-authored with Domenici. The bipartisan legislation is intended to boost domestic renewable fuel supplies and spur regional diversity of biofuels production and infrastructure across the U.S.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

147

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF – Cap and Trade/Carbon Tax Key to Clean Coal

Cap and trade/carbon tax is key to make clean coal price competitive USA Today, 12/27/07, “Tech could reduce coal facilities' emissions,” p. Lexis Utilities continue to build conventional plants instead. That's why, Thompson says, it's paramount that federal and state policy use tax credits to close the price gap between conventional plants and the first few gasification power plants. The Edwardsport plant wouldn't be possible without the $460 million in local, state and federal tax credits it will receive, says Jim Stanley, president of Duke Energy Indiana. The federal 2005 Energy Policy Act authorized $800 million in tax credits for coal gasification projects to promote clean coal; $133.5 million was awarded to the Edwardsport project. Both Tampa Electric and Mississippi Power got tax credits of the same size for coal gasification power plants. The Mississippi project is in the early stages of development. Tampa Electric canceled its project in November because the company couldn't forecast the costs associated with potential federal and state regulations on carbondioxide emissions. Thompson says the most effective action the federal government could take to encourage the widespread adoption of coal gasification plants would be either to tax coal plants' CO{-2} emissions or to institute a nationwide cap on them and lower it over time.

Carbon caps cause a shift to clean coal Russell Ray, Reporter for the Tampa Tribune, 3/22/07, “TECO’s Bright Future,” The Tampa Tribune, p. Lexis TECO invested $600 million to build the coal-gasification unit at its Polk County facility. That unit turns coal, a cheap but dirty fossil fuel, into a cleaner-burning gas, which is used to generate electricity. Industry experts say the technology could be a central feature of future power plants. But the biggest incentive to build more plants similar to TECO's could come from Congress, where several legislative proposals to limit emissions are in play. If lawmakers in Washington decide to regulate carbon emissions, as TECO executives expect, the industry may take a harder look at the technology because of its ability to capture carbon.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

148

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF – Railroads Failing Now

Railroads aren’t investing enough to meet demand – trucks will fill in in the squo Congressional Budget Office, “Freight Rail Transportation: Long-Term Issues,” Congressional Budget Office Paper, January 2006, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7021/01-17-Rail.pdf The freight railroad industry plays an important role in the nation’s economy as a mainstay of transportation for many basic industries and, increasingly, for exports and imports that travel by rail to and from the nation’s ports. After a long period of excess rail capacity, the pendulum has begun to swing toward tight capacity—at least at cer- tain times and places.1 Some transportation experts have expressed concern that the railroads are not investing enough to meet rising demand for their services. If they cannot keep pace, the result could be higher costs not only for shippers and consumers but also for taxpayers, because demand that the railroads cannot satisfy is most likely to be handled by trucks and thus require more spending on the construction and maintenance of high- ways.

As freight transportation grows over the next ten years, the railroads will struggle to keep up and won’t expand to meet the nation’s transportation needs John B. Ficker is President of The National Industrial Transportation League, “Testimony of The National Industrial Transportation League Before the Subcommittee on Railroads Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,” in th eU.S. House of Representatives, March 31, 2004. While the economic and services bar is being raised higher, the data suggests that, though the freight railroad industry is in far better financial shape than it was in the 1970s, it has not been able to maintain or expand its share of intercity freight transportation. Freight transportation overall is expected to grow significantly over the next decade. According to the report entitled “Freight – Rail Bottom Line” published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 2000, freight volume is expected to grow fifty percent between 2000 and 2020. Freight railroads need to be part of that growth. But if the trends of the past ten years discussed above are projected into the nation’s future in 2020, trucking activity will more than double, while the railroads’ share of intercity freight revenues will grow only slowly. Such a situation would result in a massive challenge to the nation’s existing highway infrastructure. The status quo thus does not appear to be a model that will result in a rail industry that will fully participate in the growth required to meet the nation’s increased transportation needs.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

149

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF – Exports Turn

Plan shifts coal from domestic consumption to exports – this is key to railroads Association of American Railroads, 10/07, http://www.aar.org/IndustryInformation/~/media/AAR/BackgroundPapers/294.ashx From 1997 to 2006, U.S. coal exports averaged 56 million tons and, until recently, had been trending downward for several years. In 2006, exports were 50 million tons, far short of the peak of 112 million tons in 1981. Nearly all U.S. coal exports are Appalachian bituminous coal, and more metallurgical coal is exported than steam coal. A significant portion of U.S. coal exports travels by rail, so a slowdown in coal exports has a negative effect on railroads

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

150

Coal Generic DDI 2008 – Clark

AFF AT: Demand Key to Infrastructure

Railroads can’t keep up with production John B. Ficker is President of The National Industrial Transportation League, “Testimony of The National Industrial Transportation League Before the Subcommittee on Railroads Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,” in th eU.S. House of Representatives, March 31, 2004. Another aspect of this situation is shown in the growth of rail carriage compared to the growth in U.S. industrial production. According to AAR figures, between 1993 and 2002, the number of carloads originated by Class I railroads grew by 28.6% and tons originated grew by 26.5%. Yet, in this same period, U.S. industrial production grew by 36.8%.3 In other words, over an entire decade, U.S. industrial production grew about twenty-five percent faster than railroads’ traffic. Even using tonmiles, the measure of production most favorable to railroads (which measures not only the number of tons transported but also how far those tons are carried), railroads’ growth still had not kept pace with U.S industrial production.5 In other words, today railroads are carrying things – primarily coal – farther than they carried those things ten years ago, but the number of carloads they carry is failing to keep pace with the growth in the U.S. industrial economy.

Rising demand doesn’t mean railroad investments – costs are too high Congressional Budget Office, “Freight Rail Transportation: Long-Term Issues,” Congressional Budget Office Paper, January 2006, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7021/01-17-Rail.pdf Why might the railroad industry not respond to rising demand as other industries do? Economic factors specific to the railroad industry may reduce its ability and willingness to invest in new capacity. Building new track is costly, and because track is fixed in a specific location, investing in it subjects railroads to the risk that demand will shift to other locations and that the investment will not yield an adequate return. The other major domestic freight transportation industries, trucking and water carriers, do not face that kind of risk; instead, the governments that build and maintain highways and water-ways – and the taxpayers who provide their funding – bear that risk.

Jamil Ahmed, Andy Amoranto, Anuj Bapodra, Val Bisharat, Kayla Janyk, Neeraja Koneru, Fayzan Rab, Sayaan Saha, Nahum Seifeselassie, Junaid Tayyab

151

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF AT: Derailment Impact Empirically denied – five train accidents happen every day Lange, Lori J, Fleming, Raymond, Toussaint, Loren, Social Behavior and Personality, 01/01/04, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200401/ai_n9404663 Accidents due to train derailments are fairly common occurrences in the United States, with an estimated average of 5.7 train accidents per day between 1990-2000 (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001). Whereas physical injury and loss of life may be results of these mishaps, other - less apparent - behavioral and psychological consequences also are likely (Baum, Fleming, & Davidson, 1983; Bowler, Mergler, Huel, & Cone, 1994; Chung, Farmer, Werett, Easthope, & Chung, 2001; Hagstroem, 1995). Research on technological mishaps and disasters has shown that technological accidents can greatly impact upon psychological, behavioral, and physiological functioning (Gleser, Green, & Winget, 1981; Rubonis & Bickman, 1991). As a result, accidents that do not necessarily result in immediate injury or death may still result in social and psychological disruption (Baum, 1991).

Railroads are safe only 5% of carloads each year are dangerous. Federal law requires that by the end of the year railroads must find safer routes. David Singleton, Staff Writer for The Times Tribune.com, 07/15/08, http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm? newsid=19850882&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6 Of the 33 million carloads that American railroads transport each year, about 1.7 million, or roughly 5 percent, carry materials that are classified as hazardous. However, very few of those substances — everything from whiskey to paint to contaminated soil — would be considered life-threatening, Mr. White said. The target of the federal rule is the 100,000 rail cars that carry high-hazard materials. Two chemicals — chlorine, which is used for water purification, and anhydrous ammonia, which is used in the production of fertilizer — represent about 80 percent of what the railroads must track, FRA spokesman Steve Kulm said. Through December, railroads will collect data on the hazardous materials they transport and the routes they use, Mr. Kulm said. They then have until Sept. 1, 2009, to complete a risk and route assessment, taking into account 27 factors ranging from track type to availability of practicable alternative routes to “proximity to iconic targets.”

Federal rule requires railroads to fine the safest and most secure paths reducing risk of an accident David Singleton, Staff Writer for The Times Tribune.com, 07/15/08, http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm? newsid=19850882&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6 Like most children, Bill and Mary Beth Booth’s kids love trains, reveling in the steel-on-steel excitement of the locomotives and cars that rumble through Glenburn Township within sight of their front door. But Mr. Booth recognizes the flipside. As much as his children — 5 years, 3 years and 17 months old — enjoy watching the freights that pass on the other side of Waterford Road, their home is less than 150 yards from what he basically regards as an industrial site fraught with potential calamity. “It’s a huge concern,” said Mr. Booth, 44, a former township supervisor. “When you think about what those cars are carrying and what they might be carrying, you have to be concerned.” A federal rule that took effect July 1 requires railroads around the country to explore alternative routes for the shipment of hazardous materials. The stated intent is to shift the most dangerous substances to the “safest and most secure” paths and thus reduce the risk in the event of an accident or terrorist attack. While the Federal Railroad Administration rule covers certain explosive and radioactive materials, it is aimed mostly at “toxic inhalation hazards,” gases or liquids such as chlorine or anhydrous ammonia that can be deadly if released.

152

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF AT: Derailment Impact New technologies solve derailment Gary P. Wolf, writer for the Railway Age, 12/97, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_n12_v198/ai_20300258 The techniques, technologies, and strategies for achieving a zero derailment rate are changing dramatically. Tremendous strides have been made since the early 1980s in reducing the number of railroad derailments. The chart on page 45 shows a significant reduction in the derailment rate per million train-miles--a reduction, moreover, that has come about during a time of increased freight market share and record ton-miles. New and innovative technologies have contributed to this reduction. As we edge closer to 2000, the question remains: How do we go about further reducing the derailment rate to below one per one million train miles? Improvement is possible, but only with the dedicated resolve of top management and the implementation of basic and advanced technologies.

153

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Australian Economy Low Now Australia is far below its long term growth rate Sydney Morning Herald, 7-16-08, http://news.smh.com.au/business/economy-torecord-below-trend-growth-20080716-3frn.html, Junaid The Australian economy is expected to record below trend growth for the rest of the year and into 2009, a survey shows. The Westpac-Melbourne Institute leading index found Australia's annualised growth rate was 2.1 per cent in May, well below the long term trend of 3.9 per cent. The annualised growth rate of the leading index has fallen from 6.5 per cent six months ago. It is the sharpest six-month decline in the growth rate since February 2001, when the goods and services tax was introduced. The index, which measures the likely pace of economic activity three to nine months into the future, rose 0.1 index points in May to 255.6 points. Westpac chief economist Bill Evans said the result was "entirely consistent with the prospect that the Australian economy can be expected to slow further through 2008 and into 2009".

High risk of economic fall in the squo Reuters, 7-18-08, http://in.reuters.com/article/asiaCompanyAndMarkets/idINSYD9844820080718, Junad Some of that would be due to record petrol prices. Friday's data showed import costs for fuel had increased by 16 percent in the second quarter and by 50 percent in the year to June. Yet, elsewhere intense competition and the strength of the Australian dollar had led to falls in import prices for cars, office machinery and telecoms equipment. "If anything, prices for consumer goods were softer than many expected," said Brian Redican, a senior economist at Macquarie. "That suggests some possible downside risk to the consumer price report, though the outcome is still likely to be high." (Editing by James Thornhill)

Economy low- dollar plunge Bloomberg, 7-18-08, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news? pid=20601081&sid=a9ASetTkHKUk&refer=australia, Junaid July 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Australian dollar fell for a third day as prices of commodities the nation exports declined after China said its economy grew at the slowest pace since 2005 in the second quarter. The local dollar declined against 11 of the 16 most-traded currencies on concern that a slowing global economy will damp demand for the nation's raw materials. Traders also sold the Aussie, as it's known, after the yield differential between 10- year Australian and U.S. government debt narrowed to 2.36 percentage points, the lowest since May 13. ``We may have seen a peak in the Australian dollar with the positive factors that have worked so strongly to see the currency gain, starting to reverse,'' wrote London-based Stephen Koukoulas, head of global foreign exchange and fixed-income strategy at TD Securities Ltd., in a research note. Australia's currency slid 0.3 percent to 97.27 U.S. cents at 9:01 a.m. in Sydney, from 97.60 cents in late Asian trading yesterday. The local dollar fell to the lowest in four days after the UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index dropped 2.1 percent, taking its loss this week to 6 percent.

154

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Australian Economy Low Now Australian economy low- commodity prices and banks Bloomberg, 7-18-08, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news? pid=20601081&sid=a9ASetTkHKUk&refer=australia, Junaid Commodity prices influence the Aussie because raw material exports contribute 17 percent to the nation's economy. China is Australia's second-largest destination for overseas shipments. The currency's decline began this week after Reserve Bank of Australia Glenn Stevens signaled on July 16 that borrowing costs were high enough to check rising prices. Minutes from the RBA's July 1 meeting released the day before indicated that current policy was ``exerting the appropriate degree of restraint.'' Australian government bonds fell, pushing the yield on the 10-year note up 5 basis points, or 0.05 percentage point, to 6.37 percent. The price of the 5.25 percent security due March 2019 declined 0.344, or A$3.44 per A$1,000 face amount, to 91.528.

155

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Relations Resilient Australia won’t abandon the US or question the alliance Dennis Phillips, Professor of US Foreign Policy, University of Sydney, June 2008, Australian review of Public Affairs, http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2008/07/phillips.html,Junaid Nothing in Australian politics basks in a warmer, bipartisan glow than the Australian-American alliance (ANZUS). For more than a half century now—and 67 years after a Labor Prime Minister famously declared, ‘Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom’ (Curtin 1941)—the American alliance remains the absolute bedrock of the nation’s foreign policy. It matters not which political party commands a majority in the Australian parliament or whether Australia is led by the ‘man of steel’ (John Howard, 1996–2007), or by ‘My name is Kevin and I’m here to help’ (Kevin Rudd, 2007–), Australia’s loyalty to ANZUS is paramount and unquestioned. As Alan Renouf, former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, noted long ago, the American alliance has entrenched itself as ‘the equivalent of the Bible in foreign relations’ (Renouf 1979, p. 115). Historian Peter Edwards put it somewhat less dramatically when he explained, ‘The Australian-American alliance is far more than just another bilateral relationship. … It has become a political institution in its own right, comparable with a political party or the monarchy’ (Edwards 2005, p. 2).

Despite unpopular policies in the US- relations remain high Bruce Vaughn, Specialist in Asian Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade, 8-8-07, Federation of American Scientists, Junaid Australia’s commitment to military operations in Iraq may be curtailed, especially if the opposition Labor Party succeeds in ousting Prime Minister Howard in elections which many believe are likely to be held by the end of the year. The Australian Left is increasingly disillusioned with the war in Iraq and has perceived the United States as pursuing an increasingly unilateral foreign policy. U.S. Policies on Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib, have negatively affected segments of the Australian public’s perceptions of American power. Despite this, support for the ANZUS alliance with the United States remains strong among most Australians.

156

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Relations Resilient Relations are so high they can’t be disturbed AFP. Global News Agency. 2/23/08. Australia, US reaffirm security talks. < http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Australia_US_reaffirm_security_talk_02232008.html> http://rawstory.com Australia reaffirmed its close security relations with the United States Saturday but said it has no plans to add more troops to its force in Afghanistan. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates and US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte met Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon for the first annual review of relations under the new Labor government. "Both sides underlined that Australia and the United States benefit from substantial coverage in their strategic and security policy," they said in a joint statement. Gates praised Australia's "global leadership" and said the United States has "no better ally." "Above all it is clear we agree on the challenges we face together and the solutions we must forge together," he said. Among other things, they discussed the way forward in Afghanistan for Australia, which has nearly 1,000 troops serving in the violence-ridden southern part of the country, the ministers said. "We have no proposal to increase the 1,000 or so troops we have in Afghanistan," said Smith at a news conference. He said Australia was looking to shift its efforts toward nonmilitary assistance in the form of police trainers, and work aimed at increasing the Afghan government's capacity to provide for its people. But, he said, "When it comes to Afghanistan, I wouldn't be quite so underwhelming about our contributions to Afghanistan: over a thousand troops in one of the toughest areas. "There are other nation states whose contributions are not nearly as profound, in not nearly as hard-fought areas, and in addition to that we are certainly not contemplating a drawdown," he said. The United States is sending in an additional 3,200 marines in anticipation of a possible Taliban offensive in the spring, and has been pressing NATO allies to fill shortfalls in troops and equipment under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's centre-left government confirmed this week that it would honour an election pledge to pull 550 combat troops out of southern Iraq by the middle of the year. Australia will still have about 1,000 military personnel in and around Iraq, including a 110-strong security detachment in Baghdad and personnel for aircraft and a warship based outside Iraq. The two sides also discussed China, and shared views on developments in southeast Asia and the Pacific islands. Smith said Australia's growing economic ties with China were "win-win," with no adverse impact on its relationship with the United States. "Australia's economic engagement with China is only beaten by the United States economic engagement with China," he said. The pair are the most senior US officials to visit Australia since Rudd won office in November and Gates said he looked forward to an ongoing high-level dialogue to see where the new government in Canberra was headed. "We anticipate there will be a great deal of continuity. We have a lot of common interests," he told reporters on Friday. "Continuity doesn't mean there won't be change to tactics or approaches to certain problems," Gates said. "What I was referring to was continuity in the close relationship between the United States and Australia, and vice versa, for a long time." Australia has long been the United States' closest ally in the region, one whose previous conservative government provided troops and staunch political backing to US-led operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Rudd government's new tack on Iraq comes as the United States is wrestling with how quickly and deeply to draw down the 155,000-strong US force deployed there. The top US military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is expected to make recommendations as early as next month on whether further cuts can be made to forces after a drawdown of five combat brigades, about 20,000 troops, by July. Gates said Petraeus and his commanders had persuaded him that a brief pause would be needed to consolidate and assess the situation in July. "My hope still is that we will be able to further draw down our troops in Iraq over the course of the next 10 to 12 months," Gates said.

157

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – US/Australian Relations Decrease Regional Security US-Australia relations will trigger conflict with China and drag Australia into it Paul Kelly. Editor of the Australian newspaper, and Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard University. 2003. National Interest, Inc. Australia's main worry, however, is not the likelihood of a U.S. retreat but of an ideological overreaction to China's rising power. Australia opposes any American effort to define its Asian purpose as the "containment" of China. This applies either to the emergence of a hardline U.S. unilateralism or any effort to conscript America's Asian alliances into a plan of regional containment. If America's allies in the Asia-Pacific are typecast as part of a China containment strategy, the entire region could become hostage to a deteriorating U.S.-China rivalry--and, from the looks of China's de facto post-communist realities, a needless rivalry at that.

US- Australia relations have hindered Australian interests and pulled them into more conflicts. Mark Beeson. PhD Political Science. November 26, 2004. Bush and Asia: America’s Evolving Relations with East Asia, Brisbane. < http://www.polsis.bham.ac.uk/about/Staff/Beeson.shtml> First, Australian politicians have always been willing - even enthusiastic - supporters of the alliance and taken pains to demonstrate their sincerity and loyalty. The premium for this insurance policy has generally been costly, however. In Korea, Vietnam, and both conflicts with Iraq, Australia has assumed a prominent position amongst America’s allies. While the merits of all of these conflicts are debatable, the significant point to emphasize is that Australia participated despite the absence of a direct threat to Australia itself. Indeed, it is worth pointing out that the current head of Australia’s armed forces, General Peter Cosgrove, now considers Australia’s contribution to the conflict in Vietnam not to have been ‘sensible’ (cited in Beeson 2003a: 394). What merits emphasis more generally, however, is that Australia’s essentially uncritical support for American foreign policy has repeatedly necessitated its participation in conflicts that pose little direct threat to ‘Australian interests’. On the contrary, not only have close relations with the US occasionally complicated the pursuit of exclusively Australian interests, but Australia’s prominent position in both the Cold War and more recent conflicts has arguably made Australia less secure than it otherwise might have been. The second initial point to make, therefore, is that Australia’s and America’s ‘national interests’ are not necessarily or inevitably congruent. In the Manichean atmosphere of the Cold War when the bipolar strategic order discouraged a more nuanced calculation or understanding of national interests and differences, this was predictable enough, perhaps. What is more remarkable is that in the post-Cold War environment many of the old assumptions about the nature of the purported security threats

158

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – US/Australian Relations Decrease Security US/Australian alliance increases tensions with neighbors Mark Beeson. PhD Political Science. November 26, 2004. Bush and Asia: America’s Evolving Relations with East Asia, Brisbane. < http://www.polsis.bham.ac.uk/about/Staff/Beeson.shtml> The increasingly politicized nature of Australia-US relations tended to obscure other, arguably more fundamental questions about the strategic costs and benefits of the alliance. As noted earlier, no serious analyst of Australia’s strategic position, including the government itself, thought there was any credible conventional danger to Australia from other states. And yet Australia’s defense spending continued to rise significantly as a direct consequence of its close alliance with the US and its commitment to fill a ‘niche role’ in any US-led military coalition (Brown 2004). The purchase of Abrams tanks, air warfare destroyers designed to operate with US carrier groups, and an associated commitment to join the US in the development of an unproven, highly expensive ‘missile shield’, were major initiatives that were undertaken with remarkably little public debate. Not only were the technical merits of and rationale for these acquisitions debatable, but they had the potential to complicate relations with Australia’s more immediate neighbors. Indonesia expressed concern about the implications of Australia’s participation in the missile defense scheme and its stated intention to acquire cruise missiles – an issue of particular sensitivity given the Howard government’s emulation of a US-style doctrine of preemption in Southeast Asia (Fickling 2002).

The benefits of US-Australia relations are negligible. In fact, American influence hindered diplomacy with Australian opponents Mark Beeson. PhD Political Science. November 26, 2004. Bush and Asia: America’s Evolving Relations with East Asia, Brisbane. < http://www.polsis.bham.ac.uk/about/Staff/Beeson.shtml> The question of whether Australia’s close alliance with the US had damaged relations with the East Asian region more generally was unclear. While the Howard government eventually repudiated any characterization of itself of America’s ‘deputy sheriff’ in the region, some of Australia’s traditional opponents in the region had been able to make diplomatic life difficult for Australia by highlighting its ambivalent position in the region (see, Beeson 2001). But the departure of Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamed from the regional political stage clearly removed a major obstacle to closer regional ties as far as Australia was concerned, a possibility that was manifest in improved relations with both Malaysia and the ASEAN countries (Milner 2004). Similarly, the Howard government trumpeted improved ties with China and the signing of a long-term agreement to supply natural gas to China as evidence of the effectiveness of its ‘pragmatic’ approach to the region (Murphy and McBeth 2002). And yet the dramatic expansion of the Chinese economy highlighted an inescapable economic reality: East Asia remained an area of critical importance as far as Australia’s future economic development was concerned. The only question was how the economic relationships with the region would be managed. It is clear that balancing potentially competing ties with the rising regional power of China and the extant global power of the US would be the defining foreign policy challenge of the 21st century for Australia. It would also be difficult to finesse – as Alexander Downer’s ill-judged remarks about Australia’s supposedly neutral policy stance in the event of a clash between the US and China over Taiwan served to demonstrate (Armitage 2004). While Downer may have inadvertently given some insight into government thinking about Australia’s ‘nightmare scenario’, everything the Howard government had done since taking office in 1996 suggested that, in extremis, Australia would fall into line with the US. Indeed, what distinguished the Howard government from their more Asia-centric predecessors in the Hawke-Keating ALP governments was their determination from the outset to ‘revitalize’ the relationship with the US, and rebalance relations with the region as a consequence. While the Howard government may have benefited from the rise of China and the demise of Mahathir, the privileging of relations with the US – both strategically and economically – inevitably meant that this critical bilateral relationship would be expected to deliver tangible strategic and material benefits. As we have seen, the strategic benefits are questionable; the economic benefits are even less compelling.

159

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – AT: Relations Solve Taiwan War Australia won’t defend Taiwan Paul Kelly. Editor of the Australian newspaper, and Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard University. 2003. National Interest, Inc. By the same token, the United States should be aware that in any conflict over Taiwan, the Australian contribution would at best be extremely modest and quite probably merely declaratory. Australia has no legal obligations to Taiwan. The "one China" policy is rarely contested in Australia. There would be little support for a democratic Taiwan moving toward independence. Australia's view is that Taiwan enjoys autonomy and de facto independence as it is and that there is no reason why any Australian should die to convert that into de jure independence. It is difficult to imagine the circumstances , outside of overt Chinese aggression, where any conflict over Taiwan would generate even modest support for Australian involvement. The potential damage to Australia's interests in terms of its China relationship could represent the most serious cost for Australia in the alliance's history. In terms of the current debate, Australia has no vital national interest at stake with Iraq--except as it may ultimately affect W MD proliferation trends. But Australia certainly does have vital interests at stake with China, right here and right now. Australia's view is that China should meet the region's expectation of a nonmilitary solution, and that the United States and Taiwan should avoid provocation in the short term to win a managed solution in the long term. In the event of a more militant and unqualified pro-Taiwan line emerging in the United States, the chance of a breach between Australia and the United States could not be ruled out. That the war on terrorism may improve long-term U.S.-China relations, or at least reduce the likelihood that a rivalry will intensify anytime soon, is good news. But the enduring message for the alliance is the need to manage expectations over China to avoid sudden shocks and political disappointments between Washington and Canberra. Now--when the emotional focus in both countries is being directed elsewhere--is an excellent time to talk this out.

160

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Clean Coal Not Coming Now Clean Coal not coming soon enough to limit global warming – mounting costs and wavering government backing. NYT, Matthew L. Wald – staff writer, 5/30/08, “mounting costs slow the push for clean coal,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo. Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming. “It’s a total mess,” said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. “Coal’s had a tough year,” said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster.

Construction costs are killing clean coal now Matthew L. Wald, New York Times Staff Writer, 5/30/08, “Mounting Cost Slow the Push for Clean Coal,” New York Times, p. Lexis For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground. President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of ''clean coal.'' All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology. But it has become clear in recent months that the nation's effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo. Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking and perfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible with limiting global warming. ''It's a total mess,'' said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. ''Coal's had a tough year,'' said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that makes equipment for processing coal into a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster.

161

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Clean Coal Not Coming Now Lack of government support is killing clean coal now Neal St. Anthony, Star Tribune Staff Writer, 5/12/07, “'Clean coal' possible, experts say, but needs federal help; Xcel Energy and others are embracing coal gasification, but government spending on crucial research has declined.” The Star Tribune, p. Lexis The "clean-coal" technology uses a chemical process to convert coal into a gas. It is burned in a modified combustion turbine to generate electricity, increasing the efficiency of the plant and reducing emissions. The captured CO2 can be stored underground or piped to depleted oil wells for storage and to aid in the extraction of hard-to-get oil. A 1970s-vintage gasification plant in North Dakota already is capturing thousands of tons daily of CO2 for injection into an oil field in Saskatchewan. But integrating the technologies for widespread use is going to require the Bush administration to do more than talk about clean coal, critics say. The Great Plains report said federal spending on related research and development has declined over the past several years. "Early adopters of these technologies face greater risks, especially with low-rank coals," said Charlie Bullinger, senior engineer with Great River Energy of Elk River, Minn. "That's why we're encouraging an expansion of federal incentives to reduce the risk." President Bush has pointed to clean coal as a partial solution to America's energy issues, including conversion of coal to liquid fuels, and approved some research funding. But the administration has barely acknowledged global warming despite mounting scientific evidence and even calls by industrialists for American leadership in "green technologies."

162

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Clean Coal Impossible Clean coal not possible—it’s propaganda by coal industry to stay afloat Tony Troughton-Smith, ex-Australian systems analyst and anti-global warming activist, 5/16/08, “Clean coal, dirty business?” http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081605-17334.html While there may be no question of WWF Australia's good intentions in adding its name to the coalition calling for increased emphasis on research into Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), is it really advisable to campaign for an increase in government investment (financial, but also philosophical) in this still mythical technology? The feasibility of the basic idea is not in question: we know it's possible to remove carbon dioxide from either the exhaust gases or feedstock of a power station, and then pump it underground. However, my understanding is that it remains highly unlikely that what is a relatively simple laboratory process can be scaled up to address the vast volumes of CO2 produced by power stations, especially (but not only) when retro-fitting the technology to existing plants, in locations where no suitable sequestration site is close by. It is even possible that coal corporations already know that the process is not viable, but continue promoting CCS in order to maintain share prices and prolong the industry’s lifespan. Getting governments to subscribe to this would obviously be very effective from a corporate viewpoint. If public funds were infinite, calling for such investment would not reduce governments’ ability to concurrently support the development of genuinely sustainable generation options (geothermal, wind, waves, solar thermal, solar-to-hydrogen, algae, whatever), but sadly this is not so. From finite funds, anything spent on the highly speculative CCS venture is money filched forever from totally proven (or at least totally feasible) technologies just waiting to take up the energy demand currently met by filthy fossil fuels. Then there is the philosophical investment I mentioned: governments hate to admit they have gone down a blind alley (especially when they were warned before entering it). As they commit yet more public funds to CCS ventures, it will become increasingly difficult for them to admit it was the wrong choice, even when it's plain to the rest of us. And all this will be wasting yet more time, currently the scarcest commodity of all, as well as taxpayers' money. The fossil fuel industries, especially coal, have been shown to run a very effective lobbying organisation which reached right to the heart of the previous federal government, and probably the current one and state governments too. This explains, in large part, the difficulty nascent alternative clean energy technologies experience in getting any traction with ministers (prime, subprime or otherwise).

Clean coal not commercially viable – tested and proven. Christopher Stimpson, board member of clean power now, Carles W. Kleekamp, president of clean power now, 7/9/08, “Clean or dirty, coal is not our future,” http://www.cleanpowernow.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=783 This price disparity has led utilities to draw up plans for some 150 conventional coal plants nationwide, but rising construction costs and resistance from all quarters — environmental groups, local communities, major banks and even state governors — have led to the cancellation or delay of more than a third of them. So we find ourselves unwilling to continue down the dirty path of conventional coal and unable to afford the only clean(er) alternative we have (natural gas) — a situation the government could have pre-empted, had it invested in true alternatives and truly clean energy a generation ago. And "clean coal" plants? Only two such plants have been built in the U.S., both experimental. Though neither incorporates the added, and very expensive, step of burying ("sequestering") the carbon dioxide, they have not proved commercially viable in their 12 years of existence. Plans for others have been shelved, even after having been permitted in some cases, because of escalating costs and increasingly severe carbon-capture regulations.

163

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Clean Coal Impossible Clean coal doesn’t exist – best case, it’s still years away. Jeff Goodell, wrote the book Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America’s Energy Future, 7/18/08, “How clean coal cooks your brain,” http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/how-clean-coal-cooks-your-brain The catch is that for now—and for years to come—"clean coal" will remain more a catchphrase than a reality. Despite the eagerness of the coal and power industries to sanitize their image and the desire of U.S. politicians to push a healthy-sounding alternative to expensive foreign oil and natural gas, clean coal is still a misnomer. Environmental legislation enacted in 1990 forced the operators of coal-fired power plants to reduce pollutants that cause acid-rain. But such plants, which provide half of U.S. electricity, are the country's biggest source of greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming. No coal plant can control its emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. "Clean coal' is like a healthy cigarette,'" says Blan Holman, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charleston, S.C. "It doesn't exist."

Clean coal just an attempt to keep fossil fuels on top Wall Street Journal, Keith Johnson – staff writer, 5/9/08, “Clean Coal: Black Gold or Fool’s Gold?” http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/09/clean-coal-black-gold-or-fools-gold/) Greenpeace doesn’t think so. In a big report published this week, the environmental group says that carbon capture and storage is an expensive, inefficient pipe dream that—if it ever does come to fruition—will arrive too late to save the planet. Greenpeace (and plenty of folks in the industry) doubts clean coal plants will be a reality before 2030. For Greenpeace, which also opposes nuclear power, the global push for “clean coal” is just a smokescreen to keep fossil fuels at the top of the heap for decades to come.

164

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Clean Coal Far Away Clean coal not coming soon – at least a decade David Sassoon, writer at solveclimate – a blog about global warming, 2.1.08, “DOE timelines show ‘clean coal will be a long time coming’” http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080201/doe-timelines-show-clean-coal-will-be-long-time-comin With the cancellation of US Department of Energy Funding for FutureGen -- the "demonstration" zero-emissions coal plant plagued by cost overruns -- it looks like the promise of clean coal has suffered a major setback. But a look at the DOE's Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan (2007) reveals that the technology -even with FutureGen -- was not going to be ready any time soon anyway. Certainly not before today's first graders finish high school, probably college, and quite possibly graduate school.

20 year timeframe J. Allen Wampler, The Atlanta Journal Constitution Staff Writer, 6/11/08, “COAL POWER: Stress efficient carbon capture-andstorage,” The Atlanta Journal Constitution, p. Lexis Advanced clean-coal technologies now under development could be incorporated into new coal plants and many existing plants over the next 20 years. The environmental benefits are expected to be significant. The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that a 10 percent improvement in the efficiency of a conventional pulverized coal plant would increase the amount of electricity squeezed from each ton of coal, and translate into a carbon reduction of 25 percent.

Clean coal is decades away Business Week, Ben Elgin, 6/19/08, “The dirty truth about clean coal,” http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_26/b4090055452749.htm That fact won't mute the marketing bluster. All the talk relates to the idea of separating CO2 from the coal-burning process and burying it in liquid form so it won't contribute to climate change. "When [Obama] says clean coal,' he's talking about coming up with a system to put carbon back into the ground from whence it came," says Jason Grumet, the candidate's principal adviser on energy and the environment. Corporations and the federal government have tried for years to accomplish "carbon capture and sequestration." So far they haven't had much luck. The method is widely viewed as being decades away from commercial viability. Even then, the cost could be prohibitive: by a conservative estimate, several trillion dollars to switch to clean coal in the U.S. alone.

165

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Clean Coal Far Away Clean Coal tech will take to long to develop and tradesoff with renewables Sydney Morning Herald, 3/14/07, Moronic to believe there is such a thing as clean coal, p. Lexis If you repeat the mantra long enough, you will fool some of the people some of the time, or at least this is what the coal industry and its sycophantic politician allies are hoping as they disingenuously promote the pernicious subterfuge of "clean coal" technology ("Academic dishes the dirt on coal plan", March 13). We simply cannot afford to wait decades for the industry to investigate whether this as yet non-existent technology is technically, let alone financially, feasible. Clean coal is the mother of all oxymorons and should be exposed as an attempted con. S. Poyzer Warrawee Clean coal is an oxymoron, with an emphasis on the "moron". What does this say about the major political parties? The most amazing aspect of this issue is that both Labor and Liberal politicians can say the words "clean coal" with a straight face. Are the Greens the only party that has any common sense? Even if the technology is feasible, the CSIRO has said it won't be available for 10 to 15 years, and this is far too late to avoid catastrophic consequences due to global warming. Politicians are touting clean coal only because they don't have the nerve to do that which needs doing, and the fantasy of clean coal allows them to postpone the political fallout of climate change for a few more elections. Let's put the money into really clean energy sources and do it now. Bob Thomas Bowral The granting of $200 million of taxpayer funds to a Kerry Stokes company to build a "clean brown coal" (the equivalent of dirty black coal) power station is an outrage. The Greens have been right about climate change every step of the way. This appalling decision demonstrates that the Government still refuses to listen and does not understand the "polluter pays" principle. It is a kick in the teeth to renewable energy, and indirectly to our children. Carl Sparre Eastwood The Federal Government is very focused. On one page of the Herald, Joe Hockey crows about driving the disabled off government support ("Hockey claims victory as welfare bill falls"). On another, Malcolm Turnbull slips a $100 million subsidy from taxpayer funds to a coal company partly owned by a billionaire. No mixed messages there. We know exactly where these blokes are coming from.

Two decades until clean coal can even be TESTED – not going to be usable for many decades Hampton roads, online news source, 5/21/08, “Dirty Facts about Clean Coal,” http://hamptonroads.com/2008/05/dirty-factsabout-clean-coal Re 'Coming clean on clean coal,' letters, May 16: Dominion vice president James Martin defends as 'facts' the technology behind the utility's proposed Virginia Energy Center 'clean coal' plant in southwestern Virginia. Based on readily available research in books, magazines and on Web sites, I was able to find a few facts he neglected to mention: The technology for truly 'clean coal' has not been successfully developed, and by industry estimates, it will be another two decades before such technology can even be tested. Seventy percent of coal used to generate electricity is acquired via mountaintop removal mining, a practice termed 'criminal' by Al Gore, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and reputable regulatory authorities. In Appalachia, 2,500 tons of dynamite are detonated daily to remove mountains. More than 470 mountains are gone. Resulting debris is pushed into the valleys, burying them and, thus far, 1,500 miles of streams. More than 1.5 million acres are permanently affected. The processing of coal creates 90 million tons of toxic byproducts annually. These toxins are stored in unlined liquid slurry impoundments, resulting in poisoned wells and communities. More than 600 impoundments house up to several billion gallons of waste each. In West Virginia alone, there have been more than 170 million gallons of toxic spills into waterways. From extraction to consumption, there is nothing clean about coal. That is a fact.

166

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF AT: Clean Coal Solves Warming Clean Coal can’t end global warming – too expensive, not economically feasible, and won’t be adopted in developing countries where most coal plants are Diane Silver, writer at salon.com—website that provides news articles on breaking news, 5.15.08, “Celebrate clean coal, come on!” http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/ The problem with the "trust us, we'll fix this" approach is that carbon capture and storage isn't close to being technically perfected or to becoming economically feasible. "When they say 'clean coal,' the first question that comes to mind is have they invented a new product that actually solves global warming, because right now that doesn't exist," says Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "It is a figment of their imagination." The Clean Coal campaign, he says, "is the latest example of trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge." Achieving workable carbon capture and storage may be even more difficult than first thought. The New York Times recently reported that many energy experts have likened it to putting a man on the moon. Among the many problems is the fact that this moon shot has to be replicated at coal plants throughout the world. Many of those plants are in economically and technologically poor countries. The task is so expensive that the federal government's only major project designed to demonstrate the technology, a full-scale plant called FutureGen, is in danger of going under. The Department of Energy is attempting to revamp the project, while the latest word from Congress is that it might be put on hold until a new president takes over.

167

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Clean Coal Kills the Economy Clean coal risks global shortages that can disrupt investment causing economic downfall Barry Brook, Professor of climate change and director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide, 7-18-08, The Age http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/reliance-on-coal-could-scuttle-us-200807173gwe.html, Junaid THE Rudd Government's green paper on a "carbon pollution reduction scheme", and the methods to achieve this reduction, have some strongly innovative elements. But there is a continued emphasis on investment in offsets and abatement from largescale carbon capture projects to significantly extend the life of our coal industry. This poses three huge risks to the Australian economy. Are we sure that we want our children to shoulder them? The first big risk is that carbon capture and storage isn't proven. Experts believe it may take until 2015 or later to prove the technology, if then. The second big risk is that it may not prove cost-effective. Evidence is accumulating that carbon capture and storage may prove uneconomic because renewables such as solar, geothermal power and wind are falling in price very rapidly. But the biggest argument of all for caution — yet hardly ever spoken — is that there simply may not be enough coal to go around. This could lead to global shortages, price spikes, economic disruption and a rush to other energy sources — meaning billions of dollars of stranded investments.

168

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Clean Coal Causes Pollution Clean Coal has a net negative impact on the environment Washington Post, “Clean Coal? Don’t Try to Shovel That,” 3/2/08, p. Lexis Every time I hear our political leaders talk about "clean coal," I think about Burl, an irascible old coal miner in West Virginia. After 35 years underground, he struggled to conjure enough breath to match his storytelling verve, as if the iron hoops of a whiskey barrel had been strapped around his lungs. In 1983, during my first visit to Appalachia as a young man, Burl rolled up his pants and showed me the leg that had been mangled in a mining accident. The scars snaked down to his ankles. "My grandpa barely survived an accident in the mines in southern Illinois," I told him. "He had these blue marks and bits of coal buried in his face." "Coal tattoo," Burl wheezed. "Don't let anyone ever tell you that coal is clean." Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential candidates as by the Republicans and by liberals and conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy policy. Democrats excoriated President Bush last month when he released a budget calling for more -- billions more -- in funds to reduce carbon emissions from coal-burning power plants to create "clean coal." But hardly a hoot could be heard about his proposed cuts to more practical investments in solar energy, hydrogen fuel and home energy efficiency. Meanwhile, leading Democrats were up in arms over the Energy Department's recent decision to abandon the $1.8 billion FutureGen project in eastern Illinois, planned as the first coal-fired plant to capture and store harmful carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Department officials, unlike politicians, had to confront the spiraling costs of this fantasy. Orwellian language has led to Orwellian politics. With the imaginary vocabulary of "clean coal," too many Democrats and Republicans, as well as a surprising number of environmentalists, have forgotten the dirty realities of extracting coal from the earth. Pummeled by warnings that global warming is triggering the apocalypse, Americans have fallen for the ruse of futuristic science that is clean coal. And in the meantime, swaths of the country are being destroyed before our eyes. Here's the hogkilling reality that a coal miner like Burl or my grandfather knew firsthand: No matter how "cap 'n trade" schemes pan out in the distant future for coal-fired plants, strip mining and underground coal mining remain the dirtiest and most destructive ways of making energy. Coal ain't clean. Coal is deadly. More than 104,000 miners in America have died in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have died from black lung disease. Dangerous pollutants, including mercury, filter into our air and water. The injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are innumerable. Yet even on the heels of a recent report revealing that in the last six years the Mine Safety and Health Administration decided not to assess fines for more than 4,000 violations, Bush administration officials have called for cutting mine-safety funds by 6.5 percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners who were entombed underground in Utah last summer? Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited, torn and churned into bits by strip mining in the last 150 years. More than 60 percent of all coal mined in the United States today, in fact, comes from strip mines. In the "United States of Coal," Appalachia has become the poster child for strip mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An estimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surrounding communities -an area the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in the last two decades. Thousands of tons of explosives -- the equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities every year. How can anyone call this clean?

169

FILE NAME DDI 2008 Your Name

AFF – Clean Coal Causes Pollution Clean coal is dirty – mining, transportation, and disposal Ken Ward Jr., staff writer at the sludge safety project which consists of the coal river mountain watch, concerned citizens in mingo county, and ohio valley environmental coalition, 12/14/05, “clean coal dirty, group says,” http://www.sludgesafety.org/news/2005/12_14.html More than 70 grass-roots groups from around the U.S. and 12 other countries are launching a crusade to end the use of the term “clean coal.” Coal River Mountain Watch and other West Virginia groups say the phrase is misleading and hides the true effects of mining and coal-related air pollution. “Coal is dirty when you mine it, dirty when you transport it, dirty when you burn it and dirty when you dispose of the ash,” said Vivian Stockman, project coordinator for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. “And it sure dirties up politics.” This morning, the coalition and the Coal River group will join the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and others to announce their campaign at a state Capitol press conference. Over the last few months, local environmental groups have become increasingly concerned about calls from state and national politicians for renewed backing of various government “clean coal” programs. Earlier this week, Gov. Joe Manchin held the first meeting of his own such effort — a plan to build a coal gasification plant somewhere in West Virginia. Supporters say this can help make coal burn with less air pollution, and use an abundant domestic energy to make the nation less dependent on foreign oil. “It’s something that I think is very doable for the state of West Virginia,” Manchin said during the Public Energy Authority meeting. In a letter circulated internationally, Coal River Mountain Watch also calls for an end to “destructive coal mining practices.”

Even if burning coal becomes clean, manufacturing clean coal still releases emissions hazardous to the environment and health. Kevin Bartoy, archaeologist and farmer, 06/09/08, “The dirty lie of clean coal,” http://www.orato.com/healthscience/2008/06/09/dirty-lie-quot-clean-coal-quot?page=1 So, with all of this "astroturf," where can we find some real grass? Well, the facts on coal-based energy prove that there is no such thing as "clean coal." Coal-fired power plants account for 59 per cent of the total sulfur dioxide pollution in the United States, 18 per cent of the total nitrogen oxide pollution, 40 per cent of the carbon dioxide pollution, and 50 per cent of the total particulate pollution. Coal-fired plants are the largest source of toxic mercury pollution and the largest contributor of hazardous air toxics. If these just sound like numbers to you, here is how these toxic pollutants affect your health: Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): Gas emitted through burning coal and oil, that converts into acid gases (sulfuric acid) and sulfur particulate matter (pm). Health effects include: airway irritation, heart rhythm destabilization, and asthma attacks. Nitrogen Oxide (NOx): General term for NO/O2 hazes formed from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and gasoline. It is a main ingredient in acid rain and ozone smog. Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Gas layer that blankets the planet and traps heat in the lower atmosphere. Global warming affects every ecosystem on the planet with drastic health, environmental, humanitarian, and economic consequences. Particulate Matter (PM): Soil, soot, SO2, and NOx particles from power plants, cars, and factories that are tiny enough to penetrate indoor spaces and deep into the lungs. They can trigger premature death from heart attacks, lung diseases, and cancer in adults; and stunted lung growth, low birth weight, neurological impairment, and SIDS in children. Mercury (Hg): Toxic metal particles settle in water, contaminate fish, and move up the food chain. Mercury ingestion can result in premature birth, low birth weight, structural defects, learning disorders, heart and neurological defects. The National Park Service (NPS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and several other federal agencies recently released the results of a six year study focused on pollution in our most pristine lands, our national parks. The study found a significant correlation between the presence of mercury and the location of national parks located downwind from coal-based power plants. The mercury levels of some fish in supposedly "pristine" waters were so high as to pose a health risk to eat. And, keep in mind that this study was conducted on lands that we consider "clean" and "untouched."

170