Kmt Coal Da

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Coal DA – Index Coal DA – Index............................................................................................................................................................................1 Coal DA – 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................2 2NC MUST READ........................................................................................................................................................................3 Coal DA – Unq .............................................................................................................................................................................4 Coal DA – Unq .............................................................................................................................................................................5 Renewable Energy Link ...............................................................................................................................................................6 RPS Link.......................................................................................................................................................................................7 Emissions Cap Link.......................................................................................................................................................................8 CAP-AND-TRADE LINKS..........................................................................................................................................................9 Nuclear Power Links ..................................................................................................................................................................10 Nuclear Power Links...................................................................................................................................................................11 Clean Coal Solves Warming........................................................................................................................................................12 DA TURNS THE CASE – STABLE ENERGY MARKETS......................................................................................................13 COAL GOOD – ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................................14 CLEAN COAL KEY TO ECONOMY........................................................................................................................................15 COAL KEY TO THE ECONOMY.............................................................................................................................................16 ***AFF ANSWERS*** Not Unique – Industry Dying......................................................................................................................................................17 Clean Coal Bad – Environment...................................................................................................................................................18 Clean Coal Bad – Inefficient.......................................................................................................................................................19 Clean Coal Bad............................................................................................................................................................................20 WASHINGTON - One of the world’s top climate scientists called for an end to building new coal-fired power plants in the United States because of their huge role in spewing out greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. In the next decade of so, 159 coal-fired power plants are scheduled to be built, generating enough power for about 96 million homes, according to a study last month by the U.S. Department of Energy. “There should be a moratorium on building any more coal-fired power plants,” NASA scientist James Hansen told the National Press Club Monday. Hansen was one of the earliest top researchers to warn the world of global warming. Hansen’s call dovetails with an edict by the private equity group buying TXU, a massive Texas-based utility. The equity group, led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group, agreed to stop plans to build eight new coal-fired power plants, not to propose new coal-fired plants outside Texas and to support mandatory national caps on emissions linked to global warming. This is the first time Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, has called for an end to coal burning. He said it’s the No. 1 solution to global warming, and that so far, no coal-fired plants can capture carbon dioxide emissions so they are not released into the atmosphere. While burning oil and natural gas also release carbon dioxide, they will run out and there’s more coal to burn and pollute the Earth, so it’s more of a threat, Hansen said. “Coal is the big amount,” Hansen said. “Until we have that clean coal power plant, we should not be building them. It is as clear as a bell.” Hansen, who said he was speaking as a private citizen, also told the press club that by mid-century all coal-fired power plants that do not capture and bury carbon dioxide “must eventually be bulldozed.” It’s foolish to build new ones if the emissions can’t be dealt with, he said. He said the increased efficiency could make up for the cutbacks in coal. ...........................................................................................20 Clean Coal Bad............................................................................................................................................................................21 COAL BAD - ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................................................................22

1

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Coal DA – 1NC UNQ – Coal industry is gaining momentum – clean coal Montague director Environmental Research Foundation 08 Peter Rachel's Democracy & Health News 3/6 proquest You may have heard that "coal is dead." But this is not the case; in its struggle for survival, the coal industry has an ace in the hole. In July of this year, the industrialized nations of the world are going to announce their united support for "clean coal." Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. are about to sanction burying today's global warming problem in the ground, passing it along to our children to manage essentially forever.

LINK - Transition to renewable energy kills the coal industry Andrews, Analyst New York Times, 06/12/07 Edmund Senate Considers New Energy Package http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/energy_06-12.html My own feeling is that the industry who has the most to gain and the most to lose, potentially, is the coal industry. Coal is the main source of electricity in this country, so the electric utilities are their biggest customer, the coal producer's biggest customer. If we now go to a system that requires a much higher percentage of renewable fuels to be used by power-generating companies, that's going to whack them.

IMPACT - Strong coal production is critical to sustain global economic and political stability Burke, 4 – Vice President, Research & Development of CONSOL Energy, Inc (Dr. Francis P. Burke, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 4-27-2004, “Sustainable Electricity Generation,” Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP

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 coal-fueled 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.

Economic collapse leads to global conflict Walter Russell Mead, contributing editor to Opinion and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Los Angeles Times, August 23, 1998, p. M1 Even with stock markets tottering around the world, the president and the Congress seem determined to spend the next six months arguing about dress stains. Too bad. The United States and the world are facing what could grow into the greatest threat to world peace in 60 years. Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It's the financial markets, not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. How can this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse in October, staged a rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. Wages plummeted, thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt, millions of people lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States--and on world history--wasn't money. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin's power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. That's the thing about depressions. They aren't just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing "The

Price is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Ryan."

2

SDI 2008

Coal DA

2NC MUST READ

COAL INDUSTRY STRONG NOW – INCREASING FOCUS ON RENEWABLE EXPANSION AND CARBON REGULATION WILL COLLAPSE THE INDUSTRY – COAL IS A CHEAPER, MORE RELIABLE SOURCE OF ENERGY DAVIS 2008

[Kirby, staff writer, JOURNAL RECORD, March 12, proquest/Scheurell]

Alliance Resource Partners will invest $600 million over the next three to four years to bring three new coal mines online, bringing its inventory to 11. That move reflects anticipated long-term growth for both U.S. and world demand for coal, driven by increased electrical generation needs, President and Chief Executive Joseph W. Craft III told a sold-out University of Tulsa Friends of Finance audience Tuesday. But investments such as Alliance plans come with increasing risk, as scientists and politicians debate potential carbon emission regulations, said Craft. The head of the nation's fourth largest coal production operation warned that those environmental steps, if taken without

regard for existing technological capabilities and increased research, could have drastic impact on U.S. and world economic growth by reducing usage of the key component to cheap power. "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. Natural gas projections call for a 24-percent drop due to insufficient production and forced imports of liquid natural gas. But Craft warned carbon emission regulations could skew those projections. Craft did not urge regulators to turn away from alternative power sources. He said he embraced increase usage of renewable, nuclear, natural gas and other electrical power generators. "The question's going to be, 'How are we going to generate that electricity?'" he said, with the answer helping determine not just future U.S. economic performance but its place in a competitive world environment.

Renewable sources, he said, can not be developed in a scale necessary to replace the electricity generated by coal-fired plants. The sources also remain plagued by intermittent availability and continued storage problems. Craft said the nation now has 104 nuclear power plants, the last ones built in the 1980s. Only five are now under construction for an industry that needs to build 40 just to maintain its market share. As for natural gas, Craft said the inability for domestic production to meet rising demand has not only driven natural gas prices higher but forced importation of LNG. As a result, Craft said states paying the highest electrical rates are those that draw the smallest percent of their power from coal-fired plants. While natural gas prices rose, Craft said coal prices remained relatively stable until recent times, when rising international demand spurred a spike not just in the U.S., but with export leader Australia and other sources. But he suggested that could aid the U.S., since it retains an abundance of coal despite a century of mining. Even with rising consumption, Craft presented data suggesting the U.S. retains more than a 200-year coal supply, comprising 95 percent of the nation's energy reserves. Only the current low value of the U.S. dollar cast a shadow on rising coal exports, which he said have tripled since 2005. Craft warned that the environmental debate has slowed more than the construction of nuclear power plants. He said utilities have not moved fast enough to refurbish or replace many coal-fired plants built in the 1980s. Across the nation, Craft said utilities have 28 coal-fired electrical plants under construction, six starting construction and 13 permitted. Those 47 plants promise to generate 42.39 megawatts. Another 67 plants are in the early planning stages, promising 65.56 megawatts capacity. That compares to plant construction promising 96 gigawatts underway in China. With electrical capacity playing a key role in GDP growth and standards of living, Craft worried that U.S. electrical capacity may soon not be able to keep pace with peak usage demands. He urged leaders to increase spending on research to solve these environmental and electrical generation issues while providing another technology for the U.S. to export. "I hope we just think it through so that if

we do have a cost, we do have a benefit," Craft said of new environmental regulations. "We should try not to create one crisis by trying to solve another crisis. "I'm going to do my best to try to educate them," he said of politicians. "Whether they listen or not is not my decision, because more often than not all they want is more money."

3

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Coal DA – Unq COAL INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO EXPAND – INCREASING NUMBER OF PLANTS AND NEW TECHNOLOGY PR NEWSWIRE 07-07-2008

[“ACCCE Applauds Texas Public Utility Commission’s Approval of Arkansas Clean Coal Plant, proquest/Scheurell]

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) issued the following statement in support of the Texas Public Utility Commission's approval of Southwestern Electric Power Co.'s (SWEPCO) proposed John W. Turk Jr. ultrasupercritical coal plant in Hempstead County, Arkansas. "The Texas Public Utility Commission took a strong step forward in preserving access to secure, reliable and affordable electricity for citizens of Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana," said Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for ACCCE. "With energy costs skyrocketing, the ability to use more affordable fuel sources such as coal to generate electricity will go a long way in keeping prices stable and the economy humming. "The proposed Turk plant will be the first coal plant in the country to utilize advanced ultra-supercritical generation technology, which produces more electricity using less coal and helps reduce emissions," continued Lucas. "As new clean coal projects continue to be approved and built, the coal-based utility sector moves even closer to the shared goal of electricity generation with near-zero emissions, including carbon capture and storage."

COAL INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO EXPAND

[Matthew, Fueling the Future, CNN, 11:55 a.m. EDT, Fri April 25, 2008, http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/Energy.intro/index.html?iref=newssearch, Taylor] Knight 2008

Gas and oil face uncertain futures in term of long-term supply. And their negative impact on global warming is practically beyond doubt. Coal, of course, is no better for the climate. But with plentiful supplies, coal-fired power stations are being built apace. Hundreds of them are going

up in China and India and the United States. Combined, these three nations own half of the world's coal reserves. The recent skyrocketing of oil prices is also compounding the problem, leading many manufacturers to buy coal to provide the raw materials for hundreds of products, including plastics and fertilizers.

CAPITOL HILL CONTINUING TO EXPAND INVESTMENT IN THE COAL INDUSTRY Ling, 07/07/08 [Katherine Ling, ENERGY/WATER: Coal technology, water projects likely to see boost in markup, E&E Daily July 07, 2008 http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2008/07/07/archive/5?terms=coal, Taylor] The Senate's fiscal 2009 budget allocation exceeds the White House request by almost $2 billion and will likely include significant increases for advanced coal research, nuclear nonproliferation and cleanup programs, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Last month, the House Appropriations Committee approved a $33.3 billion energy and water spending bill, including significant increases to the administration's requests for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, science and nuclear nonproliferation. House appropriators also gave a more than $750 million boost from the White House request to the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, but they remain $500 million short of fiscal 2008 levels. Appropriators have been highly critical of the White House's funding requests. "We have a budget without a lot of forethought. ... The [administration's] budget puts us in a bad position," said subcommittee Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.). In an earlier hearing, Dorgan said he was trying to provide "robust" funding for clean coal research. According to estimates from the

Energy Information Administration and others, coal is going to be a major part of the nation's energy portfolio now and in the future, but the Bush administration has not funded it as the president has promised, Dorgan said. The White House's request is $648 million for clean coal technology. Dorgan and ranking member Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) also stressed the need for technology to retrofit and increase efficiency for current coal plants -- such as those emphasized in DOE's Clean Coal Initiative -- and not concentrate solely on carbon capture and storage technologies, although they are important as well.

4

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Coal DA – Unq GLOBAL COAL USE WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE – INDUSTRY EXPANDING GLOBALLY FOX NEWS 06-25-2008

[“Worldwide Energy Demand Will Rise 51 Percent by 2030, Energy Department Report Says”, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371286,00.html, Taylor]

Still, the report predicted continued growth of petroleum use in transportation and heavy coal use to produce electricity. The report assumes in its analysis no additional measures to curtail carbon dioxide emissions to address climate change. The expected growth in energy demand is especially dramatic in developing countries, led by China, that are expected to have continued strong economic growth over the next two decades. For example, the use of coal worldwide is expected to increase at a rate of 2 percent a year. China alone will account for nearly threefourths of that increase, the report said. Despite coal burning's significant impact on climate change "it's the fuel of choice for electricity production in the global economies, especially China," Caruso said at a meeting held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The world's demand for liquid fuels — mostly oil — will continue to grow to 113 million barrels a day by 2030, nearly a third more than is consumed today. Unconventional oil such as oil shale and biofuels such as ethanol should grow to nearly 10 percent of total liquid fuels. Still, with continued demand for conventional crude oil, the OPEC cartel is expected to increase production at a pace that will keep its 40 percent market share, the report predicts. It also projects: — Electricity production from nuclear power plants growing by one-third with the addition of 124 new nuclear power plants by 2030, as many as 45 of them in China, 17 in India, 18 in Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. and 15 in the United States. — Natural gas "will replace oil wherever possible" especially in industrial uses, causing demand to grow for the fuel, which has less of a greenhouse gas impact than other fossil fuels. — A growth in the demand for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, with production concentrated in the Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. and Africa. — A 2.1 percent annual growth in renewable energy for electricity generation, but mostly because of increases in the use of hydroelectric power in developing countries.

5

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Renewable Energy Link Renewable energy destroys the coal industry Kohn Director of the Movement Vision Lab @ the Center for Community Change 08/24/07 Sally, Blood Coal, Not Clean Coal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-kohn/blood-coal-not-clean-co_b_61696.html Coal isn't about electricity. Native American reservations in North and South Dakota alone have enough wind capacity to meet one-third of America's energy needs. Wind, solar and other technologies we have today are viable alternative sources of electricity, and conservation efforts

could dramatically reduce our electricity demand in the first place. But to the coal industry, alternative energy is the real disaster. So the coal industry will do anything it can to procure coal as quickly and cheaply as possible, slapping a fresh coat of green paint on top to try and distract us from the harm caused to mine workers, Appalachian children and air that all of us need to breathe.

Renewable Energy destroys the coal industry Kriz National Journal staff correspondent 08 Margaret, National Journal 3/1 proquest Utilities planning for the future are facing some cold, hard realities. Most energy experts see no easy way to provide reliable, cheap, clean electricity. Environmentalists are pushing companies to focus primarily on energy efficiency and renewable-energy technologies. "Energy efficiency could end growth in the electric sector," predicted Nilles of the Sierra Club. "And if you phase in large-scale renewables, we could retire a whole fleet of coal plants." He noted, for example, that Minnesota plans to get 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2025. Federal research, he argues, could lower the cost of wind, solar, and wave power, and other renewable-power sources.

6

SDI 2008

Coal DA

RPS Link RPS displaces the expansion of the coal industry Union of Concerned Scientists, Feb 05 Increasing the Texas Renewable Energy Standard: Economic and Employment Benefits http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/increase-the-texas-renewable-energy-standard.html Currently, Texas relies heavily on fossil fuels and nuclear power for most of its electricity. This reliance on fossil fuels—particularly natural gas and coal— for electricity generation will increase if Texas continues on its current path. Increasing the existing state RPS would stimulate additional renewable energy development and help diversify the electricity mix. Under the 20 percent proposal, Texas would increase its total homegrown renewable power to more than 17,800 MW by 20253 —producing enough electricity to meet the needs of 4.9 million average-sized homes.4 Texas’ strong wind resources would power the majority of this development, with bioenergy and solar resources also making significant contributions to the mix. For much of the 20-year forecast period, renewable energy primarily displaces natural gas generation. In the later years, renewable energy also

helps to displace new coal generation.

NATIONAL RPS GUTS THE TRANSITION TO “CLEAN” COAL Fershee, 8 – Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law (Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, "Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the U.S. Energy Industry," 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic / sam s) Another significant issue facing investment decisions is what a national RPS would mean for decisions related to other types of generation that utilities have considered. Some utilities, for example, have been considering building new nuclear generation facilities.113 A national RPS would seem to make that less appealing, although it is not entirely clear that new nuclear facilities were that likely, or the best option, anyway. Nonetheless, a national RPS, at least absent a corresponding greenhouse gas emissions' cap, would add another hurdle for nuclear investment. Clean coal technologies, another major generation source in development,114 would face similar hurdles, unless, of course, the national RPS were to include clean coal as a renewable source. And, of course, what constitutes "clean" is never an easy answer.115

RPS LEADS TO DECREASED RELIANCE ON COAL JOSTEN 2007

[R. Bruce, exec vp of Government Affairs @ Chamber of Commerce, June 15, http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2 007.pdf

/ TTATE]

On a different note, the Chamber does not promote the adoption of a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction policy, whether it be cap-and-trade, carbon tax or another similar method. As detailed in the Chamber’s March 19, 2007, letter to you regarding climate change, any global climate solution should be international and economy-wide in scope, and should preserve competitiveness and promote conservation and efficiency, and must promote technology research, development and demonstration. With that in mind, however, implementation of an economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction policy would certainly negate the usefulness of a federally-mandated RPS. The greenhouse gas reduction policy would act as an incentive to develop renewable fuels; due to carbon-constrictions, states and localities would have no choice. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) confirmed that the

increased use of renewables as mandated by an RPS would lead to correspondingly lower coal and natural gas generation;1 virtually the same result would occur if a greenhouse gas reduction regulatory scheme were in place. However, such an approach would be unadvisable, as the drawbacks of a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction policy seriously outweigh any potential benefits.

7

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Emissions Cap Link Capping emissions destroys the coal industry Washington Post 6/28/07 http://www.wvcoal.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=61 A senior coal company executive on Wednesday lambasted U.S. lawmakers for proposing caps on emissions blamed for global warming, saying the Democrats were out to destroy America's coal industry. Robert Murray, chairman, president and chief executive of Murray Energy Corp., also blasted the federal government's mine safety agency for "outrageous" new fines that he warned could put some miners out of business. "There is no question that the majority party in this country wants to eliminate the coal industry," Murray told the McCloskey's Coal USA conference, adding that some Republicans were also advocating tough measures. A prominent environmentalist was quick to dismiss the remarks. "We don't see a conflict between protecting the climate and continuing to use reasonable amounts of coal," David Hawkins, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview. Murray, who said he was giving testimony to the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee on Thursday, warned that proposed restrictions on carbon emissions would severely hurt the coal industry, which supplies the fuel for approximately 50 percent of America's electricity generation.

Emission controls determine the future of the coal industry Kriz National Journal staff correspondent 08 Margaret, National Journal 3/1 proquest If Congress enacts controls on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the new law would determine what kind of electricity-generation plants get built in the United States. Global-warming legislation, which Congress could pass as soon as this year, will decide how fast utility companies must cut their pollution, how much the regulations will cost, and what impact the changes will have on consumers.

Almost half of the electricity used in the United States comes from coal. Natural gas provides 20 percent; nuclear, 19 percent; and hydroelectric dams, 7 percent. Utilities looking for new sources of power see problems with all of the alternatives. Natural-gas prices are high, and, increasingly, utilities will have to import new supplies. Nuclear plants remain prohibitively expensive to build. And no major new sites are available for hydropower. That leaves coal, which traditionally was considered the most reliable, lowest-cost fuel available. America has massive coal reserves-275 billion tons of recoverable coal. But the globalwarming debate has put this energy source in the spotlight. Electricity accounts for 40 percent of the nation's greenhouse-gas emissions, and coal is the biggest contributor, producing almost twice as much carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour as does natural gas. As a result, the

legislation could decide the future of the nation's 501 coal-fired power plants and the fate of proposals to build new ones.

8

SDI 2008

Coal DA

CAP-AND-TRADE LINKS

A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM WOULD SHUT-DOWN THE COAL INDUSTRY – THIS WOULD COLLAPSE THE US ECONOMY Kudlow 2008 [Lawerence Kudlow, Coal-Cap Disaster, The New York Sun, 2008/03/28 http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.12403761639913558 &bhcp=1, Taylor] The Wall Street Journal notes that under Warner-Lieberman existing coal-fired power plants that currently provide about onehalf of U.S. electric power will be shut down, to be replaced by new nuclear-power facilities and other alternative technologies yet to be developed. Let that idea sink in. By pulling the plug on half of our current electricity production, capand-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 America has massively undeveloped coal resources. With 27% of the world's coal reserves estimated at 270 billion tons, the U.S. 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.

9

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Nuclear Power Links PLAN BOOSTS NUKE POWER, MAKING CLEAN COAL NOT COST-COMPETITIVE WNA 2004. ("'Clean Coal' Technologies", World Nuclear Association, July, http://www.worldnuclear.org/info/inf83.htm) The most promising "clean coal" technology involves using the coal to make hydrogen from water, then burying the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen. The greatest challenge is bringing the cost of this down sufficiently for "clean coal" to compete with nuclear power on the basis of near-zero emissions for base-load power.

CLEAN COAL AND NUKE POWER ARE REPLACEMENTS FOR EACH OTHER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '96. ("8. Alternatives to License Renewal", Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Vol. 1, May, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v1/part08.html) The United States has abundant low-cost coal reserves, and the price of coal for electric generation is likely to increase at a relatively slow rate. Even with recent environmental legislation, new coal capacity is expected to be an affordable technology for reliable, near-term development and for potential use as a replacement technology for retired nuclear power plants. .... CARD CONTINUES... Another potential alternative to license renewal would be to continue to generate electricity from non-nuclear plants beyond the original date at which they were scheduled to shut down permanently. This alternative would have the effect mainly of substituting coal, gas, oil, or hydropower plants for nuclear facilities. In recent years electric utilities have given considerable attention to the issue of repowering non-nuclear generating facilities. Repowering is the primary process by which utilities extend the life of their generating plants. It is comparable to refurbishing a nuclear plant. Since the average age of all types of fossil units is over 30 years, utilities have been exploring repowering older fossil units as a way of avoiding even larger capital outlays for new plants (Bretz 1994). As of March 1994, about 30 units with a total capacity of 3000 MW(e) had been proposed for repowering. Assuming regulatory environmental compliance and a successful application of lessons learned from federal clean coal technology demonstrations, DOE estimates that up to 248 GW(e) of generating capacity could be repowered or retrofitted with clean coal technologies by the year 2010 (DOE/EIS0146). In 1991 DOE estimated that 2500 coal-fired plants were 30 years old or older (making them candidates for repowering) and that this total would rise to 3500 to 3700 in 1998. From a utility's perspective, not only might repowering be cost-effective; but also environmental goals, particularly improved air quality, could be easier to accomplish since improved, less polluting technologies would be installed during repowering.

10

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Nuclear Power Links NUKE POWER TRADES OFF WITH COAL Charleston Gazette 2004. (“Nuclear-power industry sees signs of a revival”, Pg. 9A, November 14, l/n) Nuclear power currently accounts for nearly 20 percent of all the electricity produced in the U.S., compared with 51 percent coal and 17 percent natural gas. To maintain that mix, the industry says new plants must be built in the U.S. as older ones are retired.

US PUSHING CLEAN COAL AS TRANSITION TO HYDROGEN – PLAN TRADES OFF WITH GOVERNMENT SUPPORT Greenwire 2003. (“Climate Change: White House reports detail technology efforts”, Vol. 10, No. 9, December 5, l/n) International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy: Ambassadors from 15 countries and the European Commission launched IPHE, an international coalition to boost development of hydrogen energy, in late November, although member countries disagreed about the best methods to produce hydrogen. European ministers advocated renewable energy sources or nuclear power, while the United States and other countries pushed for development of clean-coal technologies to produce hydrogen

11

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Clean Coal Solves Warming Clean coal technology is being accelerated to cut emissions and boost the economy Johnson, 8 – has spent the past decade reporting from Europe, increasingly on energy issues (Keith, “Clean Coal: Hype or Hard Slog?” 5-28-2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/28/clean-coalhype-or-hard-slog/?mod=googlenews_wsj) // JMP More and more companies are starting to dabble with “clean-coal” technology. Whether that’ll make a difference for the economy or the environment remains an open question.

General Electric and oil-field services firm Schlumberger announced Wednesday a deal to work together to develop cleancoal technology. The two would match GE’s experience with a new generation of power plants that can capture carbon dioxide, and Schlumberger’s experience with pumping the stuff underground to goose reluctant oil wells. After the U.S. government pulled the plug on its big clean-coal demonstration project earlier this year, private industry is trying to fill the gap make clean coal a viable power solution. As we’ve noted before, that’s crucial to curbing emissions and keeping the economy functioning—even though many environmentalists see clean coal as an expensive oxymoron.

to

Steady investment in coal outweighs the aff – it’s a smoother less dangerous transition McClatchy - Tribune Business News 4/23/08 “Advocate: Coal not perfect, but vital” proquest Apr. 23--Coal industry advocate Joe Lucas likens the country's dependence on coal-fired power to a big liner crossing the ocean. Some people may think they can change the liner's direction instantaneously. But try to make a quick U-turn, and the ship is more likely to capsize. A better approach is to slow down, make a calculated turn and then accelerate, he said Tuesday. Continuing the analogy, Lucas said that rather than junking coal-fired power plants as the primary source of U.S. electricity in favor

of renewable-energy sources, it is wiser to invest more money steadily into clean coal technologies. Innovations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions then can be deployed across the industry, in conjunction with the development of other power sources, to stem global warming without strangling the economy and hurting ordinary people by increasing the cost of electricity. "There's no perfect energy resource. Coal's not, but neither are the other sources," Lucas, vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said on Earth Day to The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board. "There should always be a search for continuous environmental improvement, and we think you can do it with coal," he added. "We're not supportive of coal at the expense of other fuels. We think you should keep all on the table, including coal, because it is the bedrock of our electrical supply."

Clean coal solves CO2 emissions Canine contributing editor to OnEarth 05 Craig, “How to Clean Coal” OnEarth, Fall proquest Hawkins is far from ready to concede defeat. He's among the most prominent and outspoken advocates of a bold scheme that would take advantage of the nation's abundant coal resources while at the same time curbing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This scenario relies on a combination of technologies that would enable a new breed of coal-fueled power plants to "capture" CO2 and other pollutants efficiently and economically. The captured CO2 gas would then be piped deep below the In spite of this grim outlook,

earth's surface for permanent storage. This concept, often referred to as "carbon capture and sequestration" (CCS, for short), has in recent years gained a great deal of currency in the halls of Congress, in the boardrooms of utility companies, and nearly anyplace else-even the White House-where energy policy and responses to global warming are discussed. The National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan panel of 16 energy experts from industry, academia, government, and nonprofit groups, released a landmark report last December that includes carbon capture and sequestration among its key policy recommendations. "In addition to our own domestic coal reserves, which are the largest in the world, China and India have enormous resources of low-cost coal," says Sasha Madder, a senior analyst with the commission. "It's hard to imagine them not using it. Developing systems with which these countries can

continue to utilize their coal, but in a way that does not increase carbon emissions, is a huge priority. Carbon capture and sequestration is the most viable pathway for that."

12

SDI 2008

Coal DA

DA TURNS THE CASE – STABLE ENERGY MARKETS

OUR RELIANCE ON COAL IS PERVASIVE – AN ABRUPT SHIFT FROM COAL WOULD DESTABILIZE OUR ENERGY MARKETS HALL AND KIRKHAM, environmental/energy attorneys, 2007 [“Coal: Like It or Not, It’s Here to Stay, Stoel Rives”, 6/4/07, http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484, Sui] 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.

13

SDI 2008

Coal DA

COAL GOOD – ENVIRONMENT

NEW TECH, LIKE IGCC, MOVING COAL TO A CLEAN ENERGY HALL AND KIRKHAM, environmental/energy attorneys, 2007 [“Coal: Like It or Not, It’s Here to Stay, Stoel Rives”, 6/4/07, http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484, Sui] While it is clear that the demand for coal will continue to grow in the foreseeable future, developing pollution-reduction technologies appear to have the potential to significantly reduce the environmental impacts of coal consumption. One promising avenue is the integrated combined-cycle (IGCC) process, which chemically turns coal into synthetic gas that can then be burned in a turbine. This method permits the segregation and capture of most of the pollutants, including carbon, before combustion. It also results in improved efficiency compared to conventional pulverized coal. In the form of carbon dioxide, carbon can be injected underground for permanent storage in geological formations, without harming the environment. IGCC, however, remains a developing technology and has not been shown to work reliably at the scale of a large utility power plant. However, with increasing gas prices, IGCC has become increasingly cost competitive and ongoing improvements are lowering the cost further and improving reliability.

MORE EVIDENCE – COAL INDUSTRY DECREASING EMISSIONS HALL AND KIRKHAM, environmental/energy attorneys, 2007 [“Coal: Like It or Not, It’s Here to Stay, Stoel Rives”, 6/4/07, http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484, Sui] Without question, there are significant environmental impacts that accompany the mining, transportation and combustion of coal. That said, coal is not going away, but it is getting cleaner. Technology, innovation and awareness have created increasing opportunities for coal to reduce its environmental impacts across all aspects of the industry – most importantly, reducing the impact at the point of primary use, which is combustion for generation of electricity. Broader global deployment of generally-accepted industry practice, along with the implementation of proven and developing pollution-reduction technologies, is key. Energy and technology must be used as tools for global development while achieving environmentallysound, worldwide sustainability in energy supply, delivery and efficient utilization. To ensure the availability of affordable, secure and reliable energy, the United States and the world must include coal as a major component of its energy portfolio. Therefore, support for the development of new energy technologies must include significant research into and development of clean coal technologies along with improving the competitiveness of alternative energy sources.

14

SDI 2008

Coal DA

CLEAN COAL KEY TO ECONOMY

CLEAN COAL INDUSTRY KEY TO US ECONOMIC SECURITY Clean Coal Power Initiative Program Facts 2006 [December, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/ccpi/Prog052.pdf, Sui] The government’s investment in CCPI recognizes that crucial benefits to our nation’s economic stability  and security can be achieved through clean coal  research. The program, providing opportunity for  promising  technologies  emerging from the FE core R&D program, is a critical strategy for overcoming risk barriers to  commercialization. Successful outcomes of the CCPI program provide an important part of the technology needed to  supply our energy needs. Over the last 20 years, our Nation has seen a correlation between economic growth and  increasing   electricity   production.  Success  of   the   CCPI   program  will   provide   an   important   part   of   the  technology needed to supply our immediate and long­term energy needs in support of our economic well  being, while improving our environment.  When the CCPI concept was introduced in 2001/2002, the U.S. power  industry   was   heavily   focused   on   gas­fired   generation   growth.   Nevertheless,   coal­fired   units   were   forecast   to   provide   a 

significant   amount   of   incremental   power   generation   through   2020.   In  today’s energy forecast, due to   evolving 

perspectives of fuel availability, coal­fired generation is expected to play an even greater role in the  Nation’s incremental power generation through 2025. This substantial increase in reliance on coal can only be  achieved   through   longer   and   more   efficient   operation   of   existing   coal­fired   plants,   incorporating   new   CCT   in   ongoing  operations, and adding new clean­coal plant capacity. Today,    CCT development programs are providing     a valuable 

option to permit increasing use of our most abundant, indigenous energy source to meet the Nation’s electricity 

and economic growth demands in an environmentally acceptable manner while reducing reliance on  energy imports. By demonstrating the latest technology to improve efficiency and low­cost, high­performance emissions  controls, CCPI technologies can help us to achieve a more secure energy future.

15

SDI 2008

Coal DA

COAL KEY TO THE ECONOMY

COAL INDUSTRY KEY TO THE ECONOMY – VAST SUPPLY MAKES IT RELIABLE AND KEY TO JOB GROWTH DAVIS 06-28-2008 [David, congressman, “So Close, Yet So Far Away”, STATES NEWS SERVICE, lexis/taylor] We need to use more of our vast coal supply. Coal is not some dirty leftover from the Industrial Revolution. During World War II, the Germans were using coal to gas technologies to fuel their war machines. Certain clean-coal technologies make converting a lump of coal to liquid fuel simple, cost effective, and it is another solution to America' energy crisis. According to Americaspower.org, the U.S. has more than 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves, the equivalent of 800 billion barrels of oil, more than three times Saudi Arabia' proven oil reserves. We need to build new refineries in the United States. Not one new refinery has been built since 1976 (Tennessean, 6/15/2008). I have supported legislation that will open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of sighting new, safe, and reliable American refineries. Some think that new refineries are not environmentally safe. It is important to note that one of strongest hurricanes to pass over the United States, Hurricane Katrina, passed over where most American refineries are located, the Gulf of Mexico. Not one single drop of oil was spilled into the Gulf of Mexico or onto land during Hurricane Katrina because we can immediately shut down refineries when a hurricane or other natural disaster may affect production and the ability to safely operate. Out of touch policies like adding a $0.50 tax on each gallon of gasoline (a Washington favorite), proposals allowing government employees to work from home, socializing the energy industry, launching seven investigations into price gouging, launching 4 investigations into speculators and passing policies that will potentially force Americans to go from cars to bicycles have not lowered the price of gasoline or diesel at the pump. It is time for no more excuses. It is time to support our comprehensive, balanced plan that addresses all facets of energy and energy production. Imagine the jobs that would be created by using American oil, natural gas, clean-coal technologies, switchgrass, ethanol, and by building

new refineries. Not only would these create jobs and lower energy prices, they would act as a stimulus to Americas faltering economy. America is still that shining city on the hill. We are an amazing country full of amazing people. We have an abundance of American energy and we have an abundance intelligent and creative citizens; it is time to put all of our resources to use and end the energy crisis that is affecting so many people across the First District of Tennessee and all across America

16

SDI 2008

Coal DA

***AFF ANSWERS*** Not Unique – Industry Dying Coal industry collapsing – environmental standards, public opinion and lack of financing Salon.com 5/15/08 “Celebrate clean coal, come on!” http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/ These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and related industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear as prospects for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told the Christian Science Monitor is a "de

facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more environmentally friendly president may lead to the first federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Even red states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants. Last year, 59 new plants were either canceled or halted across the nation. When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiral right

now."

Coal industry is dying – lack of government funding and regulatory confusion New York Times 5/30/08 “Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html 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 industry is struggling – construction costs New York Times 5/30/08 “Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html “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.

PUBLIC OPPOSITION WITH COAL CAUSING INSTABILITY IN INDUSTRY BROWN AND DORN 2008

[“The Beginning of the End for Coal: A Long Year in the Life of the US Coal Industry,” April 02, http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htm/Beck]

What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power plants is quickly evolving into a national tidal wave of opposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations as well as leading climate scientists and state governments. Growing concern over pending legislation to regulate carbon emissions is creating uncertainty in financial markets. Leading financial groups are now downgrading coal stocks and requiring utilities seeking funding for coal plants to include a cost for carbon emissions when proving economic viability.

17

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Clean Coal Bad – Environment Coal cannot be clean – we don’t have the technology Salon.com 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.

18

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Clean Coal Bad – Inefficient Clean Coal is a pipedream – too expensive and inefficient Johnson lead writer WSJ 5/9/08 Keith “clean coal black gold or fools 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.

19

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Clean Coal Bad “CLEAN” COAL DOES NOT EXIST – COAL IS STILL THE NUMBER ONE CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING – NO CURRENT COAL PLANT IS EFFECTIVELY CLEANING ITS COAL MSNBC NEWS 2007

[“NASA Climate Guru: Don’t Build Coal Plants”, February 27, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17359704/ DGuo}

WASHINGTON - One of the world’s top climate scientists called for an end to building new coal-fired power plants in the United States because of their huge role in spewing out greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. In the next decade of so, 159 coal-fired power plants are scheduled to be built, generating enough power for about 96 million homes, according to a study last month by the U.S. Department of Energy. “There should be a moratorium on building any more coal-fired power plants,” NASA scientist James Hansen told the National Press Club Monday. Hansen was one of the earliest top researchers to warn the world of global warming. Hansen’s call dovetails with an edict by the private equity group buying TXU, a massive Texas-based utility. The equity group, led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group, agreed to stop plans to build eight new coal-fired power plants, not to propose new coal-fired plants outside Texas and to support mandatory national caps on emissions linked to global warming. This is the first time Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, has called for an end to coal burning. He said it’s the No. 1 solution to global warming, and that so far, no coal-fired plants can capture carbon dioxide emissions so they are not released into the atmosphere. While burning oil and natural gas also release carbon dioxide, they will run out and there’s more coal to burn and pollute the Earth, so it’s more of a threat, Hansen said. “Coal is the big amount,” Hansen said. “Until we have that clean coal power plant, we should not be building them. It is as clear as a bell.” Hansen, who said he was speaking as a private citizen, also told the press club that by mid-century all coal-fired power plants that do not capture and bury carbon dioxide “must eventually be bulldozed.” It’s foolish to build new ones if the emissions can’t be dealt with, he said. He said the increased efficiency could make up for the cutbacks in coal.

20

SDI 2008

Coal DA

Clean Coal Bad

COAL INDUSTRY NOT TRANSITIONING TO “CLEAN COAL” EFFECTIVELY – NO EFFECTIVE TECH WALD, staff writer, 2008 [“Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal”, The New York Times, 5/30/08, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=425f6009b9e65c19&ex=1212 292800, Sui 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. Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for at least several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be captured and stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere. Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable. Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back to the surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as who would be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant. Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday with Schlumberger, the oil field services company, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration. But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has come to a halt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it, “we’re not going to have much of a chance for stabilizing the climate,” said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.

The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and proven methods for storing it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coal plants using existing technology. That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would be pumped into the atmosphere for decades.

21

SDI 2008

Coal DA

COAL BAD - ENVIRONMENT CLEAN COAL IS A FARCE – COAL STILL EMITS CARBON DIOXIDE AND IT IS DANGEROUS TO EXTRACT FROM THE EARTH BIGGERS 2008

[Jeff, staff writer, “’Clean’ Coal? Don’t Try to Shovel That”, WASHINGTON POST, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html/ DGuo]

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 hog-killing 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? When the Bush administration announced a plan last year to do away with a poorly enforced 1983 regulation that protected streams from being buried by strip-mining waste -- one of the last ramparts protecting some of the nation's oldest forests and communities -- tens of thousands of people wrote to the Office of Surface Mining in outrage. Citizens' groups also effectively halted the proposed construction of 59 coal-fired plants in the past year. Yet at last weekend's meeting of the National Governors Association, Democratic and Republican governors once again joined forces, ignored the disastrous reality of mining and championed the chimera of clean coal. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell even declared that coal states will be "back in business big time." How much more death and destruction will it take to strip coal of this bright, shining "clean" lie? As Burl might have said, if our country can rally to save Arctic polar bears from global warming, perhaps Congress can pass the Endangered Appalachians Act to save American miners, their children and their communities from ruin by a reckless industry. Or at least stop talking about "clean coal."

22

SDI 2008

Coal DA

23