Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > July > 19 > Entry
Editorial: Link the funds for clean coal to bigger plan
“Clean coal.” Sounds great, doesn’t it?
Renewable energy — wind, solar, geothermal — requires big new investments and threatens the jobs of people in West Virginia and Ohio who work in the coal industry.
But the old fossil fuels are dirty and otherwise threatening to the environment. Most specifically, coal gives off carbon dioxide that is linked to global warming by the overwhelming majority in the scientific community.
So how should society choose between the old and new forms of energy?
Cleaning up the coal sounds perfect. (Well, almost perfect. It does still leave the coal industry changing the face of Appalachia, to the distress of many.)
But money is a problem. The coal industry — though it provides half the electricity in this county — can’t afford all the needed research.
The government has put up $3.4 billion through the federal stimulus. There was also government money in the 1980s. Now there’s talk of more.
Some environmentalists are skeptical about whether affordable clean coal is achievable. But some credible scientists say the effort is starting to come together.
Now Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, is joining with Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, to propose $20 billion in federal spending over the next decade, combined with industry money, to develop a way to burn coal cleanly and make money doing it. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, also says he’s interested.
To their credit, the sponsors provide a source of funding in their legislation, rather than just adding the cost to the deficit. They’d put a fee on utility bills. That helps sustain Sen. Voinovich’s cherished reputation as a “deficit hawk.” Whether it helps pass the legislation is another question.
A similar approach didn’t help the health care bill get any Republican votes. And there’s going to be opposition to what amounts to a tax.
The two sponsors say that a sweeping energy bill that has been much talked about in Washington — sometimes referred to as “cap and trade” or “Kerry-Lieberman” — is dead. That effort is designed to limit the release of carbon into the atmosphere by aiming incentives and punishments at emitters.
Sens. Voinovich and Rockefeller say the death of the bigger idea should not mean the death of carbon-related legislation.
But some ask: Why put money into a dying industry using an exhaustible resource when there are clean and inexhaustible alternatives?
Of course, renewable forms of energy are getting government aid, too, including $16.6 billion in the stimulus. Indeed, the stimulus has been widely sold as promoting the country’s move to cleaner energy.
The case for an “all-of-the-above” approach to our energy future has much to be said for it. So long as the coal companies are not digging in their heels against change — not insisting the old ways are good enough — they should have a place in the discussion and a shot at some money.
However, Washington should be focused on a passing a larger bill. If the coal industry gets what it wants in a piecemeal way, that will affect its attitude toward the larger bill. Best to keep the research money at bay, in hopes of putting a coalition together for a more systematic approach.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Energy, Locals in national affairs, Martin Gottlieb, National government
Comments
By Max
July 16, 2010 6:40 PM | Link to this
Conveniently, sponsors of this bill are also anti-nuke power. Scrubbing stacks to remove pollutants, even by EPA standards, is a failure. And, by the way, which kind of coal are these people speaking of; bitimus or anthracite? You can’t clean the former and the latter is more expensive to mine. Voinivich needs to get his story straight; coal is not ‘green.’ But, it pays his campaigns more than nuke energy which is regulated by who? The government. If we, the taxpayers aren’t getting an ‘energy’ free ride, then the coal industry is going to have to compete head to head with other energy providers. THAT’s call FREE ENTERPRISE and, ultimately, environmentally friendly.
By Jan
July 17, 2010 6:28 AM | Link to this
The problem the coal industry faces is that the president wants to put them out of business, at least if you can believe his 2008 quote-“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.” He also wants our utility bills to skyrocket-“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
By Jim
July 17, 2010 8:18 AM | Link to this
@Jan, You’re missing the context of what the President said about coal. He’s trying to move this country forward with an energy policy based on clean, renewable energy. For eight years of Bush, our energy policy consisted of Cheney and Big oil meeting behind closed doors. At some point, the oil is going to run out if the planet doesn’t roast in the meantime. The paradigm needs to shift away from coal and oil, but by nature, most people oppose change. I would support this proposal by Voinvich as long as the technology works and it doesn’t turn out to be corporate welfare for the coal industry.
By Jim
July 17, 2010 8:30 AM | Link to this
@Max, I believe this technology isn’t about scrubbing stacks, but rather it separates and then pumps the carbon dioxide back underground. I agree with you, that scrubbing stacks and other previous cleaning efforts have been futile. Good point about the different types of coal too.
By TRS
July 17, 2010 10:44 AM | Link to this
Yet, as discussed on another blog, we do not know the effects of sequestration of CO2 on our water table, something more than important in this neck of the woods. As for Bush Jim - you repeat the company line; yet - http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/05/25/the-greatest-myth-of-the-george-w-bush-presidency/. His ranch home was tested and more efficient than ol’ Al Gore’s place. Currently there is no energy policy because no one makes sense. Most folks are all for renewables and the country will transition to them when they exist and become affordable which goes to Max’s point; but, that is a long way down the pike. Nuclear seems to be a viable option; yet, again we see only relectant discussion and then only to delay rather than seriously pursue. For the near forseeable future, we will need oil and for security purposes we need a certain self sufficiency in it. Funny, all this talk about jobs people talk about going overseas; yet, environmental progressives and liberals are more than willing to let energy jobs go that way. Bit of a contradiction don’t you think? The Prez once said he doesn’t see his role as working out details; only, poking at a problem to bring it to people’s attention. For something so important as energy, for people to sign up, there will need to be a pratical roadmap which makes sense and actually accomplishes something and not just some philosophical overview which says this is good and that is bad.
By Mike R
July 19, 2010 7:57 PM | Link to this
Too many people, like Jim or Marty, say pump the poison underground! Out of sight, out of mind. Sort of like sweeping the proverbial problem under the rug. That’s just ignorant! With Carbon Sequestration CO2 is HIGHLY TOXIC and they (Jim & Marty) simply want to pump it into and under our clean water supply!! Seriously, how frickin’ stupid is that??? Too many people—Especially Martin—just take someone’s talking points and goes with it without any thought into the issue. Maybe he’s just lazy, maybe he doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to do otherwise. Jim, the best we can do is capture 40% of the carbon…and it’s basically scrubbing the stacks…it has to be done POST combustion and it’s VERY expensive. So, the paradigm needs to shift? How? All we hear from the Liberals and Greenies is their hatred of Big Oil and Coal. Oh yeah, they want more Taxes too! Yep, that’ll solve the problem if sweeping it under the rug doesn’t work, right Jim or Marty?? Since 1973 the avg. annual increase in demand for electricity has been 2.5%, according to the EIA. Going forward the EIA forecasts an annual year-over-year increase of 1.9% for the next couple of years (due to a slow economy) before rebounding. According to the EIA in 2009 the demand for electricity in the U.S. was 1,027,584 Megawatts. If we returned to a more normalized demand growth of 2.5% we need to add around 26,000 Megawatts this year and next. For reference last year electricity derived from solar panels in the States was 603 Megawatts. That’s not a typo…Six Hundred and Three Megawatts of electricity were generated by solar panels and our demand growth in a weak economy is near 25,000 Megawatts! By far the largest source of renewable energy came from Hydropower stations producing just under 80K Megawatts of the 120+K from total renewable sources. However, greenies have now targeted hydro as a bad source of generation. Is this the paradigm shift you’re thinking about Jim? If it’s not the ecological impacts of large hydro dams then it will soon be the environmental impacts. The IPCC (UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now has scientists and Rep. Markey of MA believing when the large reservoir behind the dam turns over twice a year CO2 captured and held at depths of the lake is released into the atmosphere…thus creating pollution. Last year geothermal produced 2,351 Megawatts of electricity and that level of production has been consistent over a number of years. What Marty doesn’t understand is that we’re limited to where we can tap economically into geothermal sources…and there are few if any spots east of the Rocky Mountains. Since Wind power has become en vogue the last few years we’ve been able to increase capacity by approximately 8K Megawatts/year. So, Jim, Marty, tell us how to choose between the new (Solar .7 MW, Wind 8 MW, and Geo 3 MW) 12K Megawatts and that of our demand of 26K+ Megawatts without using the old? I’ll save you the time, I know your answer—Drink more Kool-Aid from the Libs; Blame Bush, Cheney and the big bad oil and coal companies!
By Mike Snead
July 19, 2010 8:53 PM | Link to this
Using the energy contained in a barrel of oil equivalent (BOE) as a unit of energy use, since 1850 the U.S. has used about 900 billion BOE. Allowing for a medium population growth, per the Census Bureau, and assuming a modest reduction in per capita energy use by about 15%, through 2100 the U.S. will need about 2,200 billion BOE or about 140% more energy than we have used since 1850. Currently, the U.S. spends about $50 for each BOE from combined oil, coal, and natural gas. At this rate through 2100, the U.S. will spend about $110 trillion on energy, not including the cost of building new sustainable energy sources. If the U.S. starts immediately to build new sustainable energy infrastructure such that the U.S. achieves a 100% sustainable energy infrastructure by 2100, the U.S. will still need to produce about 800 billion BOE of oil, coal, and natural gas to prevent energy shortages while the new sustainable energy sources are coming into production. This is about equal to the entire 2005 U.S. proved reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas. The cost of building this new sustainable energy infrastructure will be in the range of about $1 trillion each year through 2100 in addition to the cost of purchasing the energy. If the U.S. tries to do this with primarily wind and ground solar renewable energy sources, about 500,000 sq. mi. of wind and ground solar farms will be needed, mostly west of the Mississippi River.
By Mike R
July 20, 2010 12:48 AM | Link to this
500,000 square miles, huh? That all? So, roughly an area 12x bigger than the state of Ohio. Hmmm…I’m sure Marty would be for that…After all, isn’t it just “fly over country” between New York and L.A.?