« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Coal? What Coal?

A Tale of Two Infographics.

Take a look at this info graphic and see if you can spot what is missing.

If you said “coal” then congratulations. You read the headline above. Yes, apparently the Obama administration’s “All of the Above” approach to energy is in need of an asterisk: *except coal.

But green energy is the future right? And the future is now! I mean how much does coal even constitute as a portion of energy consumption in America?

This much.

It’s no surprise that good old fashioned coal is omitted from Obama’s “everything” list. He announced as a candidate that he intended to bankrupt the coal industry and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has been more than happy to oblige.

Between the EPA’s Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Utility MACT rule, and cap-and-tax New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), an all out war on coal has been raging between the lifeblood of our economy and this administration. The EPA serving is serving as the administration’s very own Secret Police (that should get me some hate mail) bent on crucifying any opposition. And no amount of faulty research or projected job losses will get in their way.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) has introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval aimed at preventing implementation of the Utility MACT rule, which is scheduled for a June 12th vote. 

“The failure of the United States Senate to rein in the Obama-EPA is having a devastating impact on the pocketbooks of American families and threatens the jobs and livelihoods of millions of Americans,” Senator Inhofe warned. “Over the past year, more than a dozen Senate Democrats have claimed that they want to stop EPA’s destructive agenda, yet when the time comes, they hide behind alternative bills they know will never pass…Today the United States Senate can look forward to having one more opportunity to stand up to President Obama’s war on affordable energy: I am introducing a legislative measure that will put a halt to the Obama-EPA’s Utility MACT rule – one of the most expensive environmental rules in American history, second only to his proposed cap-and-trade rules that failed to pass legislatively.”

Interestingly, an administration that is constantly screaming about a lack of bi-partisanship in Washington, finds that once again, bi-partisanship exists only in opposition to his agenda.

The CRA swing votes include the usual suspects – vulnerable Democrats who perpetually try to ride the line between appeasing the environmentalist left and distancing themselves from Obama’s unpopular policies as they face reelection. Interestingly, each comes from a state highly dependent on coal, including five from the top ten states in coal usage.

1. Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
· Coal provides more than 85% of Ohio’s electricity
· Ohio ranks 3rd in US coal usage
· Coal accounts for more than 19,000 high-paying Ohio jobs and a combined payroll of more than $800 million dollars.

2. Jon Tester (D-MT)
· Coal provides more than 62% of Montana’s electricity
· Montana ranks 5th in US coal production
· Minerals and non-metal mining accounts for more than 13,000 high-paying Montana jobs

3. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
· Coal provides more than 80% of Missouri’s electricity
· Missouri ranks 6th in US coal use
· Coal accounts for more than 4,600 high-paying Missouri jobs and a combined payroll of more than $160 million dollars

4. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
· Coal provides more than 60% of Michigan’s electricity
· Michigan ranks 10th in US coal usage

5. Jim Webb (D-VA)
· Coal provides more than 43% of Virginia’s electricity
· Virginia ranks 13th in US coal production
· Coal accounts for more than 31,600 high-paying Virginia jobs and a combined payroll of more than $1.4 billion dollars.

6. Bob Casey (D-PA)
· Coal provides more than 52% of Pennsylvania’s electricity
· Pennsylvania ranks 5th in US coal usage
· Coal accounts for more than 49,100 high-paying Pennsylvania jobs and a combined payroll of more than $2.2 billion dollars

7. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
· Coal provides more than 62% of Tennessee’s electricity
· Tennessee ranks 20th in US coal production
· Coal accounts for more than 6,100 high-paying Tennessee jobs and a combined payroll of more than $220 million dollars.

With a Senate map that could go either way based on 2-3 seats, Democrats are likely to face increasing pressure to distance themselves from the Obama EPA’s job-killing, price-raising energy policy, particularly in these coal-heavy states. West Virginia Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin has already stated that Obama may not get his vote.

“[The president] has apparently made it his mission to drive the backbone of West Virginia’s economy, coal and the energy industry, out of business…I do not believe that either candidate has a real understanding of what is important to West Virginia. As governor, I go to work every day to stand up for West Virginians and create jobs. As governor, I know that I must work hard every day to earn the trust and the votes of my constituents. Neither President Obama nor Governor Romney has earned my vote at this point.”

Sen. Joe Manchin has made similar comments.

“Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who has done more than any other Democrat up for reelection this year to distance himself from President Obama, said he does not know if he will vote for Obama or presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney in November. ‘I’ll look at the options,’ Manchin said this week. The last three years “have made it pretty rough” for his state, he said.”

Luckily, they have other options.

Update: Yes, I realize the list includes “clean coal” but that’s little consolation to the traditional coal industry and it’s existing production plants.

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    Seems like they view them as one and the same?

    • acat

      The theory ..

      I had a few more thoughts (and links) on the subject here.

      Mew

      • commonsenseobserver

        I understand that it hasn’t really succeeded (yet). And the WH muddles this up by bringing in carbon capture and storage…

      • naraht

        There are two massively different pieces to “Clean Coal”.
        1) Taking care of the CO2
        2) Taking care of the Nitrogen compounds.

        For 1, there really isn’t anything you can do about it at this point, so the answers are various forms of “pump it underground”. The hope there is for some form of Artificial Photosynthesis (which are aren’t quite at, but much closer than we were 10 years ago) which is basically CO2 + H20 equal sugar.

        For 2. There are various things that can be done, The technology is somewhat similar to the Catalytic Converters in Cars, The ultimate desire *there* is not to go from NO2 & NO3 to N2, it is to go all the way to NH4+ (Ammonium) compounds, which can be used for fertilizer.

    • sonoflalaland

      This post is comparing apples vs. oranges. Total energy use is dominated by Petroleum usage; coal is only 21% of total energy used, which is less than natural gas, etc. Here’s a chart of total energy use: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/LLNL_US_Energy_Flow_2009.png

      • acat

        sonoflalaland, you’re misreading the Livermore chart you linked.

        Vlad (erm, Steve) Ben is just discussing the electrical generation aspect here – and if you compare the inputs to the 38.19% electrical generation (brown box, top center on the Livermore chart) it looks a LOT like the chart Vlad (erm, Steve) Ben links.

        Obama’s decision to completely ignore coal, whether as 19.76% of the total U.S. energy consumption, or as 46% of electrical generation seems insane either way….

        Doubly so when you consider how much this administration has sunk into the electric car.

        Mew

        • 1stRichard

          The diesel was first invented to run on coal dust and with modern technology, a conversion kit is possible. Some of the first steam powered cars used coal, the museum down the road from where I live has a few where the first US production car was made and they do take them out on the road occasionally.

      • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

        The point is, Obama forgot that coal even existed. He remembered only when Keith Judd polled 41% in the WV Dem primary and beat Obama outright in 10 coal-producing counties.

        They yanked “Fuel Efficiency” from the main graphic and brought in “Clean Coal” off the bench sometime after Tuesday of this week. But they didn’t have time to scrub all the graphics.

        See the story at www.wattsupwiththat.com.

  • ss396

    As governor, I go to work every day to stand up for West Virginians and create jobs. [Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin]

    Yes, that is the Governor’s job. It is not the job of the Federal Government. I invite Governor Tomblin to expand on this theme of his.

  • larryag

    Why was clean coal included in the graphic and not coal? I don’t know but I guess I’ll learn. One thing i think is true is this: Had all of the money squandered on green energy ripoffs had been spent on improving the coal plants there wouldn’t be a big problem. Green energy is a boondoggle and and an enormous waste of time and money.

    • commonsenseobserver

      Could actually have worked, but of course they are not as “green” as some would have liked.

      • Dave_A

        Which is why they’re trying to demolish as many as they can out here in the West, where dams are a critical part of the energy mix….

  • toothpick

    Can you say in simple terms what is the difference between “clean coal” and “coal”? I am but a layman on this topic and would like to know what to say if a liberal friend points out that the word coal does indeed appear in the Obama infographic, prefixed with the word “clean.”

    • acat

      I included goes into what “clean coal” means.

      Mew

    • papabear

      Theoretically, you can use about 1/3 of the power plant’s output to power a giant carbon sequestration unit* that removes all CO2 from the power plant exhaust and buries it underground. However, the theory has only been proven in laboratory scale experiments.

      Carbon sequestration can be done by pumping the exhaust through a filter with a small enough orifice size to prevent CO2 from passing through. CO2 and larger molecules would then be highly pressurized and pumped into underground rock formations. The problems are legion:

      1.) Pressurizing the CO2 uses immense amount of energy.

      2.) Molecular sieves (filters) get plugged by particles in the exhaust.

      3.) It is extremely tough to seal the underground rock formation. If the CO2 were to leak out, it has the potential to kill all life in the leak zone.

      4.) All large scale efforts have demonstrated significant larger energy costs than the laboratory scale experiments. According to some engineers involved with the federally funded efforts, these large scale projects were scuttled by the power company because they used more energy to remove the CO2 than the energy that came from combusting the coal!!!

      5.) The cost of a full scale CO2 sequestration plant (if such a thing existed) would be more than an order of magnitude more expensive than the coal fired power plant.

      I could continue, but what is the point? The process is dangerous, not physically feasible, inordinately expensive, and ends up costing more money and energy than what is produced by the power plant.

  • lineholder

    Fox has the before-and-after Tuesday-WV-40%-vote-for-the-inmate comparison up.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/05/11/obama-evolves-coal-too

    Just another example of Obama “evolving”. Ironic how he tends to evolve very quickly when his butt is in a sling, isn’t it?

  • skorrent1

    “Hydro” and not coal is the missing component on the first graphic. As misleading as it is to give each source an equal segment of the circle, hydropower is surely more important than solar and wind. You could even throw “geothermal” in there if you wanted to be exotic.