I don't think you need to worry, These plants can only burn coal the receive. and most coal is delivered by rail,
Last I read the rail capacity was overstretched and some cement plants that burn coal could get no promises that coal would even be delivered 27 additional plants depending on there size, and location may run into coal supply difficulties. with rail being a private industry and one that doesn't place any priority over cargos, unless the government passes legislation to get coal delivered before other cargos, there may be no additional energy security. I've also noted that coal prices have risen 200%+ over the last year, and are most likely set to rise on the back of china, once a major exporter of coal, is now importing massive quantities. there's also different grades of coal, the best coal burns hot has less sulfur and water content. where as lignite (spelling?) is a much much lower quality fuel. My own country has a coal fired plant built right on top of a major coal field, yet every year we now import upwards of 1 - 100 million tons (not sure on specific) this is then driven by truck from the port its landed at 100 km's and burnt, as the coal fields its built on cant provide enough coal of the right sort of quality. there's also the disposal problem of the coal ash. amazingly this stuff builds up in huge quantities across the us, while some is used as fly ash in construction as a cement replacement, you can still only use so much. Most is dumped in landfills. I've passed this article along to a few people and I have to say one of them was major pissed Id most certainly like to be kept informed of this 'clean coal' legislation as well as more specifics of these bankrupt projects Cheers, Bede -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Addison Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 5:04 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Dirty Money - coal http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/05/clean_coal.html Dirty Money News: As coal plants win the right to burn dirtier and dirtier, the administration is subsidizing coal as the "clean fuel" of the future. By Daphne Eviatar May 26, 2005 Early in his first term, President George W. Bush attended a roundtable discussion with employers of National Guard and Reservists in Charleston, West Virginia. When the question of energy security came up, Bush, who had been introduced by William B. Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, told the audience, "It is up to all of us to remind folks that we can safely mine coal and we can cleanly burn it with the right technology. We've got to do it, we've got to sell the country on that." Well, it seems he has. As analysts predict the price of oil could soon top $100 a barrel, coal -- cheap, abundant and politically powerful in the United States -- is enjoying a huge comeback. More than 100 new coal-fired power plants have been proposed across the country, and the federal government is predicting a 25 percent increase in the amount of U.S. energy derived from coal by 2025. "The coal industry is trying to rush the gates before the United States gets its act together on climate change and regulating carbon emissions," says Dave Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs at the Sierra Club. "Even if just 72 new plants are built, the U.S. alone will wipe out half the progress the rest of the world makes through the Kyoto protocols." But not to worry, the administration argues: Sure, it's rolled back clean-air regulations, but it's also proudly promoting a program that will give away billions of dollars to subsidize the development of clean energy. As the President announced with much fanfare in presenting his National Energy Policy in May 17, 2001, "More than half of the electricity generated in America today comes from coal. If we weren't blessed with this natural resource, we would face even greater [energy] shortages and higher prices today. Yet, coal presents an environmental challenge. So our plan funds research into new, clean coal technologies." There's just one catch: The money isn't going to wind or solar power. It's going directly toŠ. coal. As coal plants win the right to burn dirtier and dirtier, the administration is pitching coal as the "clean fuel" of the future. In fact, technological advances have made it possible to drastically reduce coal's toxic emissions-and even the greenhouse gases coal plants spew: Many scientists believe that eventually, virtually all the carbon dioxide emitted at power plants could be captured and stored underground. Even the Bush Administration, while denying that CO2 is harmful, has touted its $1 billion FutureGen plan, which would use public and private money to build a zero-carbon power plant. (The project is still in the early planning stages.) But the bulk of the $250 million a year the Administration has been handing out in "clean-coal" subsidies doesn't do anything like that. Most are aimed at getting companies to develop technologies that will reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. And the General Accounting Office, the independent research arm of Congress, has repeatedly found this "Clean Coal Technology Program" wasteful and mismanaged. A 2001 report, for example, found eight clean coal projects suffering "serious delays and financial problems" and two of them in bankruptcy. Subsidized technologies, it reported, had limited potential for widespread use or weren't economically viable. And of those that were successful, the GAO found they might well have succeeded in the marketplace--without any government assistance. Perhaps most importantly, the new technologies are doing little to actually "clean" coal. The Energy Department's own evaluations of clean-coal projects have shown that many new "clean coal" technologies are actually 40 percent less effective in removing sulfur dioxide emissions than the more conventional smokestack "scrubbers"-the technology required under the laws the administration has so diligently weakened. Bottom line: Many of the subsidies "have been not just disappointments but abuses," says John Walke, Clean Air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, who argues that the most effective way to promote clean coal is to penalize polluters and let the marketplace do the rest. Indeed, the coal subsidies seem odd for an administration whose hands-off regulatory philosophy relies so heavily on its faith in market forces. Of course, power companies will happily accept government subsidies to make half-baked efforts to come up with new ways of doing what existing technology can already more do more effectively. But new or old, pollution-control technologies cost money -- and the Bush Administration's regulatory rollbacks - and most importantly, its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions -- have eliminated any incentive for power plants to invest in them. Daphne Eviatar is a New York-based journalist. Her work has appeared in the New York Times, the New York Times Magazine, Newsweek International, The Nation and other publications. She is a 2005 fellow of the Alicia Patterson Foundation. _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Search the Biofuels-biz list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/ _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the full Biofuel list archives (46,000 messages): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Search the Biofuels-biz list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuels-biz/
