Los Angeles' 'Coal Free' Vow Scuttles Utah Power-Plant Expansion

[irishbobcat]

I have more faith in a WVU study than a candidate's whose only claim to fame is leading an illegal wildcat strike........what a candidate!

[Dan Moadus]

Let me boil down the long article posted by Dennis. "West Virginia university study finds weak economy in Appalachia." They have also discovered, through close study, that working in and living around coal mines is dangerous.

Let me be the first to express my gratitude to Dennis and the University for allowing me to contribute my tax dollars to help bring us this valuable information.

[irishbobcat]

A new study from West Virginia University exposes one more dirty little secret about America's favorite fossil fuel, coal. Though coal mining is touted as an economic boon to local communities, the study reviews mortality statistics to conclude that coal mining communities in Appalachia are among the weakest economies in their home states, and in the country. The study, "Mortality in Appalachian Coal Mining Regions," appears in the July-August issue of Public Health Reports, the official journal of the U.S. Public Health Services.
Mountaintop Removal and Clean Coal
The promotion of "clean coal" as a sustainable fuel hearkens back to the days when cigarette smoking was promoted as a healthy habit. Sure, you get a kick, but there's a cost. Regardless of any new technology for burning coal or converting it to other fuels, coal comes from the ground. The worst damage is done by the relatively new phenomenon of mountaintop removal - literally blowing up mountains to reach coal seams close to the surface. It's a cheaper method than underground mining, but as the environmental equivalent of lung cancer, mountaintop removal has leveled hundred of pristine mountains and obliterated hundreds of miles of streams in one of America's richest ecosystems, the Appalachian region.
Coal Ash Dumps and Clean Coal
Given the devastating effects of mountaintop removal, clearly the "clean" in clean coal refers only to emissions from coal fired power plants, not to coal extraction methods. That's quite a narrow definition, especially when you factor in the impact of coal ash disposal. Ash is the stuff left over from burning coal. With about 50% of the electricity in the U.S. currently generated by coal, that adds up to a lot of ash. The disposal method of choice is to quarantine the ash in open reservoirs. It was barely a year ago that the dam on one such reservoir failed, spilling 5 million cubic yards of coal ash into a Tennessee community. The U.S. EPA responded by proposing new regulations for coal ash dumps. That's hardly a comfort to communities that host hundreds of ash dumps in the U.S., especially the 44 coal ash dumps that the EPA lists as "potentially high hazard" due to the risk of human fatalities from a dam failure.

The Impact of Coal Mining on Local Economies
As revealed by the new West Virginia University study, the "clean" in clean coal pulls an even more impressive disappearing act when it comes to the benefits of coal on the communities that are home to mining operations. Charleston Gazette writer Ken Ward Jr., whose previous work includes an article on the health effects of coal mining operations, covered the release of "Mortality in Appalachian Coal Mining" and has made a pdf of the study available through his blog, Coal Tattoo. The authors are Michael Hendryx, associate director of the WVU Institute for Health Policy Research with co-author Melissa Ahern of Washington State University. As Ward notes, the authors determined that the coal industry contributes about $8 billion annually to the Appalachian economy, but under their analysis the economic losses attributable to premature deaths associated with coal operations are in the range of $42 billion.
The Hidden Costs of Clean Coal
The authors of the study emphasize that their estimate is conservative, based primarily on the well documented connection between early mortality and economic health. Ward's blog cites additional factors that were not part of the study, which make the economic picture even gloomier: the effect of poor health on worker productivity, the increase in public aid for foods stamps and Medicaid, and the economic consequences of natural resource destruction. This last item is particularly relevant to mountaintop removal, which is a highly mechanized process linked with job loss, not job creation. Appalachia lost more than half of its coal mining jobs in the 20 years following 1985, when mountaintop mining came into its own. On top of that, the destruction of pristine, tourist-friendly areas near the famous Appalachian Trail closes at least one door to alternative employment opportunities that could help improve community health.
Whither Clean Coal?
Local opposition to mountaintop mining is just one indication that the "clean coal" moniker isn't pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. Another is the increasing number of canceled coal fired power plants. The Sierra Club just marked the 100th cancellation of a planned coal fired power plant in the U.S., a trend that goes beyond green-leaning states like California. Wyoming and Kansas are among the states recently canceling coal plants, and in Illinois a coal-to-liquid plant got the heave-ho. Coal is running out of places to go in the U.S., regardless of its cleanliness — or lack thereof.
Just another 16 tons of dirty coal! AND DEATH!

Go Green! Go Renewable Energies for the 21st Century!
Dennis Spisak

[Dan Moadus]

I don't recommend emulating California when it comes to civic decision making. The State is a slow moving train wreck. It seems as though most of their politicians rely on ideology instead of practicality when it comes to making public policy, and this latest news item is just another example.

For a long time now, they have been crippling their energy producing capacity because of "feel good" environmental policies such as this. Sounds good that they are going to ban the use of coal, but they haven't figured out what they are going to replace it with. That's why California will continue having brown outs.

That's whats wrong with the so called "Green Party". Aside from the ones that just don't like America and American capitalism, they are so enraptured by this quest for purity, that they will overlook all other aspects of life and science. Does it matter to them that the technology doesn't yet exist to convert to renewable energy sources? No. But they are perfectly willing to have America shut down it's industries and sit in the dark waiting.

How nice it sounds, "we want to end our use of coal fire plants in eleven years". "We don't know where or how we're going to power the City, but we feel real good." Maybe they ought to give ol' T.Boone a call. I hear he has a billion and a half dollars worth of windmills that he's trying to pawn off.

[irishbobcat]

Los Angeles' 'Coal Free' Vow Scuttles Utah Power-Plant Expansion

By ROBIN BRAVENDER of Greenwire
Published: July 9, 2009
Plans for a new coal-fired power plant in central Utah were canceled after the city of Los Angeles -- the plant's biggest power purchaser -- signaled its intention to be "coal free" by 2020.

The Intermountain Power Agency -- a political subdivision of the state of Utah co-owned by municipal and rural electric cooperatives -- has dropped plans to build a proposed third 900-megawatt coal-fired generating unit at the Intermountain Power Plant near Delta, Utah.
"The project has been abandoned," IPA spokesman John Ward said yesterday.
The decision came after Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced last week that the city -- which purchases about 45 percent of the IPA's power -- wants to end its use of coal-fired power by 2020. Villaraigosa said that the city will replace its coal-fired electricity with energy from renewable sources, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric power.
"We were in a permitting and preliminary planning stage, and some of the expected partners determined that it wasn't going to match up with their resource objectives," Ward said.
Environmentalists praised the decision and said they expect similar projects to follow suit.
V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies in Sacramento, Calif., said the cancellation of the unit indicates a changing perception of coal-fired power.
"It reflects a changing need of power customers, increasing awareness of the dirty footprint associated with coal, and a strong desire to pursue a new, cleaner direction," White said.
Environmentalists have fought the proposal since shortly after the Utah Division of Air Quality issued an air permit for the project in 2004. The Utah chapter of the Sierra Club filed an appeal with the Utah Air Quality Board, but the board refused to hear the appeal. The Utah Supreme court agreed in 2006 to allow the appeal to go forward, but the appeal was never heard because the process was stalled due to inactivity by the plant's owners.
The Sierra Club hailed the decision to abandon the plant, saying it marked the 100th plant to be prevented or abandoned since 2001.
"At the beginning of the coal rush in 2001, it seemed inevitable that as many as 150 new proposed coal plants would get built," said Bruce Nilles, director of the organization's Beyond Coal Campaign. "Since then we've seen an incredible change in the way people, businesses and governments -- like Los Angeles -- are thinking about energy, figuring out how to generate and use it more cleanly and efficiently. Coal is no longer a smart or cost-effective option."
Los Angeles, one of the principal owners of the plant's units 1 and 2, announced in 2007 that it did not support the construction of the third unit at the plant. PacifiCorp and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems sued the city, alleging a breach of contract, but that suit was recently dismissed.
This is the 100th coal plant to be abandoned since 2001. Congrats to the Sierra Club for helping America move towards renewable energy resources in the 21st century!
Dennis Spisak
Mahoning Valley Green Party
Ohio Green Party
www.ohiogreens.org
www.votespisak.org/thinkgreen/