Hillary Clinton Touts Clean Coal

[Ethelk2044]

http://global-warming-awareness.org/2007/02/27/hillary-clinton-touts-clean-coal/


In her continuing efforts to be an environmentally attractive candidate for the globalwarming aware crowd, Hillary Clinton toured a clean-coal facility in upstate New York.

As part of her tour, she pledged to wean the US from foreign oil dependency, and as Senator will be introducing a bill in the near future — doubtless in as showy a fashion as possible.

She touts clean coal technology, among others, to combat globalwarming. The US has a lot of coal, although mining coal is frequently dangerous and has long-term health hazards for miners.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aYaUqMqpWpW4&refer=us

Clinton Aide Penn Mixes Campaign Role, Advocacy for Companies



May 24 (Bloomberg) -- Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposed on Feb. 27 more research funds for new energy technology, including ``clean'' coal systems. The next day, Mark Penn, her top campaign strategist, had a different take on coal.

In an internal blog at his other job, as chief executive officer of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, Penn wrote of how Burson worked ``behind the scenes'' for TXU Corp., a Texas company seeking to build power plants fueled by pulverized coal, which some environmentalists say would be major polluters.

Contradictions between Penn's private business dealings and Clinton's public policy positions -- which Penn helps formulate and sell to voters -- point up potential clashes in doing both campaign consulting and corporate advocacy. Penn's firm works for clients, from a tobacco company to drugmakers, whose interests are often at odds with the New York senator's agenda.

``That individuals and groups are serving today as both consultants to campaigns and as lobbyists or PR folks for private clients is a modern-day phenomenon that has inherent conflicts of interest,'' said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington-based group that advocates for tougher ethics laws. ``It is a very unhealthy practice.''

Penn, 53, denies his work poses a problem. ``I don't think there's any obligation that the firm's clients agree on every issue that's out there with either themselves or Senator Clinton,'' he said in an interview yesterday. ``Lots of people have lots of disagreements, and that doesn't make it a conflict.''

Fine With Clinton

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said Penn is currently working only with Microsoft Corp., a longtime client, and on the election campaign, although he's free to handle and solicit other clients.

``The real question from the campaign perspective is whether Senator Clinton is comfortable with what Mark is doing, and the answer to that is yes, unequivocally,'' Wolfson said.

Penn's internal blog -- several months of which were obtained by Bloomberg News -- suggests that all along he has been working with multiple clients.

He downplayed his role in Clinton's presidential campaign, saying he is ``not a policy adviser, I'm a communications adviser.''

Others say he's the most powerful figure in the campaign, and an April 30 Washington Post profile said he ``has become involved in virtually every move that Clinton makes.''

[Totally Committed]

1. Please Educate Yourselves about "Clean Coal" before you back Hillary on this one....

Haven't we had enough of this "Corporations First" bullshit by now???? Our environment cannot withstand another round of this souless DLC ass-kissing of the corporations at its (and OUR) expense!

On the positive side, once Al Gore sees this he may realize he needs to jump in NOW to stop this... but, I digress.

These should get you started:

Clean Coal: The Mother of all Oxymorons
Billions More for Coal While Alternatives Languish
TomPaine.com

It's the mother of all oxymorons: "clean coal." But politicians and their financiers expect us to scarf down their doublespeak. Their latest pet phrase is popping up in bills and proposals that would slop billions in taxpayer money into the trough to feed corpulent ole King Coal......Whatever the results of the taxpayer subsidized research might be, "clean coal" technologies definitely won't reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a major heat-trapping gas that is contributing to the greenhouse effect. Coal is primarily carbon, the combustion of which emits greenhouse gases and escalates global warming. According to some economists, we should follow the United Kingdom's lead and tax carbon emissions, not subsidize further pollution.

More at: http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Clean-Coal-Oxymoron.htm


Unmasking the truth behind "clean coal"
“Clean coal” is an attempt by the coal industry to try and make itself relevant in the age of renewables.

What is (so-called) “clean coal”?

Coal is a highly polluting energy source. It emits much more carbon per unit of energy than oil, and natural gas. CO2 represents the major portion of greenhouse gases. It is, therefore, one of the leading contributors to climate change. From mine to sky, from extraction to combustion -- coal pollutes every step of the way. The huge environmental and social costs associated with coal usage make it an expensive option for developing countries. From acid drainage from coal mines, polluting rivers and streams, to the release of mercury and other toxins when it is burned, as well as climate-destroying gases and fine particulates that wreak havoc on human health, COAL is unquestionably, a DIRTY BUSINESS.

It is a major contributor to climate change – the biggest environmental threat we face. It is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, emitting 29% more than oil, 80% more carbon dioxide (the main driver of climate change) per unit of energy than gas.
Mercury is a particular problem. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), mercury and its compounds are highly toxic and pose a ‘global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.’ Coal-fired power and heat production are the largest single source of atmospheric mercury emissions. There are no commercially available technologies to prevent mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

**** “Clean coal” is the industry’s attempt to “clean up” its dirty image – the industry’s greenwash buzzword. It is not a new type of coal.

**** “Clean coal” technology (CCT) refers to technologies intended to reduce pollution. But no coal-fired power plants are truly ‘clean’

**** “Clean coal” methods only move pollutants from one waste stream to another which are then still released into the environment. Any time coal is burnt, contaminants are released and they have to go somewhere. They can be released via the fly ash, the gaseous air emissions, water outflow or the ash left at the bottom after burning. Ultimately, they still end up polluting the environment.

**** “Clean coal” methods only move pollutants from one waste stream to another.

More at:
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/campaigns/climate-change/climate-impacts/coal/the-clean-coal-myth


Other Articles:

Clean Coal: The Myth Ends Today
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/667/


Clean Coal, Forest Biofuel and Other Fairy Tales
http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2007/01/clean-coal-forest-biofuel-and-other.html

TC

[no_hypocrisy]

2. My limited knowledge of "clean coal" from environmental law is that

the sulfur is removed and it lessens acid rain with the emissions of the burning of that coal. It has no effect whatsoever on CO-2 and release of heat into the atmosphere.

[Totally Committed]

6. That is a MYTH...

Please read up on this.

TC

[karynnj]

11. It is not myth

There are questions of the damage done via mining itself, especially certain forms of mining that strip off mountain tops and contaminate streams. However, there are coal fired plants and they are not going anywhere.

There are several proposed methods that have undergone some preliminary assessment that are promising. None have been attemped on the scale that would be needed. Research is being investigated on 2 issues:
- Can we capture and sequester the carbon from existing plants? Both the capturing and sequestering forever are technically difficult, but with any luck not impossible problems.
- Can we develop methods that do not emit the carbon in the first place?
What many people - scientists, politicians, both Democratic and Republican have spoken for is that multiple competeting technologies be studied and tested in parallel.

The former is important because there are many old plants here and in places like China. They are staying. The solution has to be to find a retrofit that captures a significant amount of the that carbon.

As your links show, fossil fuels have major problems. The reality is that they will be used for decades until other means are sufficient - so, we need to make it as clean as possible, WHILE CONTINUING TO PUSH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NON-FOSSIL FUEL ALTERNATIVES.

[zulchzulu]

12. Bingo!

People against clean coal technology at all costs are usually also against nuclear power as well as for biodiesel. Somehow, we are all going to run all our gadgets and energy needs with solar and wind power...

If you know just how dirty and how much energy it takes to make biodiesel, you can see how it's a ridiculous argument.

To ignore coal as an energy source is inane. While zero-emission technology is still a few years away, it is improving from what I have read. I have read both sides of the argument and it seems that it is better to invest in energy source we have a lot of (such as coal) to get optimized.

Until we have telegenetic capabilities and gravitational-powered transformer rooms, we have to face facts with the cards we have.

[MadHound]

14. Umm, I make biodiesel on a small scale, and the process is neither diry nor energy intensive

In fact the most energy intensive process about it is mixing the lye and oil:shrug: I've toured my local, new biodiesel refinery, and it takes less energy to refine biodiesel than it does to refine gasoline or coal. Oh, and the waste products from biodiesel refinement are glycerin(which can be recycled for the manufacture of other products, like soap) and water.

And according to a 1991 DOE inventory of harvestable wind energy, we can indeed "run all of our gadgets" with wind energy. More specifically, the DOE stated that there is enough harvestable wind energy in North Dakota, Kansas and Texas to power the US electric grid, including growth factors, through the year 2030. Just three states friend, gives you an idea of the potential that we have nationwide, a potential that other, more sane countries in Europe are dying for. They term the US as the Saudi Arabia of wind power, and shake their head in wonderment that we aren't using this energy resource more extensively.

Nuclear power should be avoided for two reasons, first because you will never find a way to eliminate human error, so accidents will continue to happen. Second, there is no safe way to dispose of the waste.

Clean coal is an oxymoron of the highest order, one that is being promoted under a false flag of being a green energy source.

Solar, wind and biodiesel can indeed power this country, if only we had the wisdom to employ them.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. MH

can I just say I love your energy posts? I've learned a great deal from you and the research you've done.

[MadHound]

21. Thank you

It was one of the reasons I move out in the country, I foresaw that energy was going to become increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive, thus I'd better get somewhere where I can generate my own.

I'm happy that people are listening, let's hope that the people in power get the message too(and yes, I write them all the time)

Oh, a word of warning, if you go to make your own biodiesel, especially if you're in a meth manufacturing part of the country, let your local sheriff know what you're doing before potentially dangerous situations arise. One of my neighbors mistook my activities for meth making and I was paid a visit by the local sheriff. He got a big kick out of it, looked my equipment over and decided he's going to start making his own for his farm equipment. Farmers may be backwards in some respects, but the know and value praticality when they see it.

[zulchzulu]

24. How much energy does it take to make biodiesel?

I'm all for it...don't get me wrong...but you need a fair amount of energy to make it...no?

[MadHound]

27. I'm not sure of the numbers

Like I said, I toured the new biodiesel refinery that is opening up nearby. It is slated to put out over 100,000 bbls/day of biodiesel, and the manager said that their refinery process uses less energy than a normal oil refinery of the comparable size. Other than that:shrug:

Probably the most energy intensive section is the extraction of oil from soybeans or sunflower seeds. This involves moving massive quantities of beans arounds, pressing them, and filtering the waste product. The actual refining of biodiesel is essentially a chemical reation with lye, following by washing the biodiesel in water.

Growing soybeans and sunflower isn't nearly as energy intensive as corn is. Corn is a very harsh depleter of the soil, and if planted time and again out of crop rotation, requires massive use of fertilizers, usually chemical based. Soybeans are actually good for the soil, recommended as a cover crop to build the soil up, and thus doesn't need as much in the way of chemical fertilizers.

Algae, as I mention below, would be the ideal feedstock for biodiesel, and I've heard of a couple places starting this up in Australia. Let's hope it catches on over here. You could arrange algae ponds such that they would be very easy to and energy unintensive to farm and harvest. As far as fertilizers go, well, for those doing double duty as wastewater treatment, you wouldn't need any.

I imagine that if you put the farming, harvesting and refining process of biodiesel up against that of drilling, transporting and refining oil, they would be about the same, and in fact biodiesel would come out slightly behind oil in energy intensiveness. But even if it comes out slightly ahead, I still think that it is worthwhile to pursue, since it is a renewable resource, less polluting, and get's us off the addiction to foreign oil.

[zulchzulu]

28. I utterly, profoundly agree with you on going down the biodiesel road

If it comes to harvesting algae from lakes to make biodiesel, we here in Madison could do very, very well.

:hippie:

[athena]

31. It's more than a few years away. Please see my post #30 below. (nt)

[Totally Committed]

19. I respectfully disagree. From my post above:

“Clean coal” methods only move pollutants from one waste stream to another which are then still released into the environment. Any time coal is burnt, contaminants are released and they have to go somewhere. They can be released via the fly ash, the gaseous air emissions, water outflow or the ash left at the bottom after burning. Ultimately, they still end up polluting the environment.

There is no "clean" coal.

TC

[karynnj]

25. They are still researching clean coal

That is why they are saying things, like fund n (say, 10) groups with good peer reviewed proposals. This is the way the government funded basic research into mahy different things. Capture and sequester means exactly that.

Obviously, if there is sufficient energy from alternative that are cleaner they shouldn't do i, but it sounds like even with conservation and the best energy saving technology there isn't enough. I did see graceful, big, white windmills on the western coast of Cornwall in the UK, I think about a half hour north of Tintagel. I have no idea how much wind they generated, but they were not ugly.

[Tellurian]

4. I won't back using Coal as an alternative energy source.

I hope you don't mind me reposting this on the Obama thread..
And I appreciate your posting these informative articles.

[Totally Committed]

5. Please do...

I can't support Senator Clinton for a number of reasons, but this has become reason #1b very quickly.

TC

[Tellurian]

7. I will lobby her very hard not to support it..

and as more information becomes available concerning coal, please post it here and I will forward it to her.

Here is the latest from Gore on Coal:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Gore_defends_record_I_havent_been_0531.html

[underpants]

8. This is straight out of the textbook just like with Ethanol

"Conventional wisdom" in DC gives cover to take money from these industries in the process of backing a bad idea.

[Totally Committed]

13. With a lot of the world starving and in drought conditions, no foodstuffs should be used

for fuels. Food should feed the hungry not make it easier for us to drive our SUVs.

I do not support ethanol, either.

TC

[Tellurian]

15. I'm getting the sense..

you didn't realize Obama was in so deep with Liquid Coal technology..because Illinos enjoys huge deposits of coal and he is heavily promoting the development and use of it for his state.

The issue about using foodstuffs for alternative fuel, I believe is unjustified. Perhaps from a world perspective, but not here in the US..

[Totally Committed]

16. I have no horse in this race yet....

The candidate I end up backing will EARN my vote this time out, and not be able to sit back and rely on me to vote against the other side instead.

As far as foodstuff as fuel, may I ask you to consider what would happen if we reach "Peak" Oil, with ethanol as our only other biofuel? Will this country then invade other countries with climates and soil conditions to grow corn at the expense of the people who already rely on that land for what little they have to eat?

I'm done trusting the government to do the right thing by the rest of the world, thank you.

TC

[MadHound]

18. There is another biofuel out there that won't take up the needed soil for foodcrops

That's biodiesel, using algae as the feedstock. A physics prof at the University of New Hampshire figured out that we would need roughly 15,000 miles of water surface area to provide enough algae to supply all of our fuel needs. This isn't much if you think about it, especially considering that a lot of wastewater treatment centers already use algae as a first step treatment for wastewater. It would also benefit small farmers, being an energy unintensive crop to grow.

I agree, ethanol is a chimera, designed to profit ADM and Monsanto. But biodiesel can save this country, if only we would start using it.

[Totally Committed]

23. I've heard of that, and would like to know more.

Thanks very much. I'll look into it.

TC

[IDemo]

33. Mike Briggs ->

was a frequent poster on the old John Kerry forum. Haven't seen him on E/E here, though.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

[ieoeja]

29. After Ethanol.

I have heard a lot from Obama over the years about Ethanol and E85. I have only heard him talk about liquid coal once.

[Tellurian]

32. Well, ck on his Energy Bill Liquid Coal..

The Republicans are jumping on this like stink on skunk..

so,you know what that means..It's not a good thing if they want it!

Read here and see what I mean:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3293846#3295305

[Sequoia]

26. Thanks. She's bats. I cannot support her at all for this.

Not that I did anyway. What's bad too is those commercials using children to say how clean "clean" coal really is. Coal is never clean. NEVER.

[leveymg]

3. You have permission to put " " around clean in that headline

Please.

[spanone]

9. Dear Hillary, that is an oxymoron.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. Obama and Edwards also

support "clean coal." Clean coal is an oxymoron.

On edit to the poster above: Didn't see your post when I wrote mine. GMTA. ;-)

[welshTerrier2]

17. Clinton's speech to Nat'l Press Club on Energy Policy - 5/23/06

the following is an excerpt from the speech where Clinton talked about coal and nuclear.

source: http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=52056

But we have to deal with coal, because we have huge resources of coal. Coal is to us what oil is to Saudi Arabia. And part of our domestic strategy must involve coal.

But unless we learn to burn it cleanly, the price of independence from imported oil by using coal will be accelerated global warming. Even if the United States never burned another lump of coal, China is bringing on-line a 1,000 megawatt coal-fired power plant every 10 days. So if we're going to reassert our leadership on climate change -- which I think we should -- we've got to deal with coal.

And the first step is to take a mandatory cap-and-trade system, like that developed in the McCain Lieberman legislation that I support, but obviously going out and trying to reengage the rest of the world in this issue.

But unless we get to clean coal, it's going to be very hard to achieve.

Geologic sequestration, storing carbon deep within the earth after you extract the carbon from the burning coal, holds the key to making coal use compatible with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientists believe we will be able to store nearly all of the carbon dioxide we currently emit for hundreds of years. But we need more real-world data, and that can only come from large-scale testing.

I propose we do two things to scale up the potential of clean coal.

First, undertake five large-scale tests of geologic sequestration in a variety of settings to really investigate the viability of this technology.

Second, provide tax credits for carbon sequestration to encourage domestic oil production. Oil companies already inject carbon dioxide into mature fields like the ones we have here in the United States to recover oil. The Department of Energy estimates that with oil priced at $40 or higher per barrel, it is economical, with ample CO2 supply, to use CO2 to recover 47 billion barrels of oil from existing U.S. fields.

Think of what we could recover at today's prices, as we were cleaning the air at the same time.

Nuclear is now very much in the news as a potential power source because of its lack of contribution to global warming. If you look at nuclear energy, which currently provides 20 percent of our energy with virtually

no emission of greenhouse gases, we do have to take a serious look, but there remain very serious questions about nuclear power and our ability to manage it in a world with suicidal terrorists.

[Ethelk2044]

36. K&R

[doggyboy]

22. Disappointing

Coal is not clean

[athena]

30. The Nation recently had a very good article on the problems with "clean" coal.

Unfortunately, it's for subscribers only:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/goodell

To summarize the main points of the article, the so-called "clean coal" idea is to capture the CO2 from coal plants, liquify it, and bury it underground. The problems with this are as follows:

• CO2 is exteremely difficult to capture from a smokestack. To capture CO2, it is likely that completely different types of plants will have to be built, where coal is first transformed into a gas before it is burned.
  
• It is far from clear how to bury CO2 on a large-enough scale to make a difference.
  
• Liquifying the CO2 will use up 10% of the energy obtained from burning the coal.
  
• There is no guarantee that the CO2 that has been pumped underground will not seep out
  
• Considering that CO2 can cause asphyxiation at concentrations greater than 20%, who is going to want to live on top of a giant pool of CO2?
  
• Pumping CO2 underground may make water more acidic, and acidic water dissolves more toxic heavy metals.

In summary, while "clean" coal is is a convenient cause for politicians to champion, it is not a simple solution. Even if the main problems are solved, it will be many decades before coal burning will be environmentally friendly. As The Nation article states:

Not surprisingly, for the past two decades Big Coal has worked hard to deny the existence of global warming and to undermine any legislation that would put a price on carbon. Today, even the dinosaurs of the industry know that carbon legislation is inevitable; the game now is to delay legislation and to make sure that when it does pass, the cost of carbon stays as low as possible for as long as possible. So get ready for years of talk about the promise of carbon capture and storage but very little action.

[XemaSab]

34. To answer a couple of your questions

There will have to be new plants built (such as gasification plants) or old plants will have to be greatly redesigned to capture the CO2.

The CO2 will then be injected into deep saline aquifers (to buffer the pH) in rural areas such as the intermountain West where there are very few people.

Any more questions? :shrug:

[Gloria]

35. Article in new LungHealth magazine I just got has an article about how

the East is getting worse in terms of air quality due to an increase in SOOT.

All they need there is "clean" coal....


I left NJ 7 years ago because of the small particulates and my constant breathing problems....