West Virginia’s House of Delegates Speaker, Rick Thompson, just issued a press release announcing the House had formed a new committee to “closely examine all issues surrounding the coal mine permitting process.”
Thompson said:
For the past several months, I have been discussing my concern regarding the delays in the mine permitting process. This committee will work to monitor the status of pending mining permits, seek timetables for the issuance of permits and strive to better understand what issues need to be resolved to achieve consistency and uniformity throughout the permitting process.
Take a look at that language — Speaker Thompson isn’t calling for timetables for decisions to be made on whether permits will or won’t be issued. He wants timetables for the issuance of permits.
This committee was created by the House with the passage on Friday of House Resolution 14, which said the panel would work on:
… Ascertaining the status of all coal mining permits that are pending issuance in West Virginia and the role each agency has in the issuance of those permits, obtaining specific timetables for the issuance of coal mining permits in West Virginia, achieving consistency and uniformity throughout the permitting process, recommending those projects and sectors that provide the best opportunity for long term job creation and economic growth with obtaining these coal mining permits …
Notice anything missing there? Like maybe making sure that state regulators are properly reviewing permits to ensure that they comply with the law and minimize any environmental damage?
This seems to be another pretty clear example of what I previously called The Race to Stand Up for Coal. Maybe Speaker Thompson wants to get out in front of state Sen. Bob Williams, D-Taylor, who proposed a bill to give WVDEP strict deadlines for making decisions on mining permits.
Thompson further explained the reasons for the committee:
The fact that 82 members, both Democrat and Republican, chose to join me in sponsoring this resolution speaks volumes about the level of interest legislators have in supporting our state’s coal industry and its workers. We want to stay on top of this problem, and do everything in our power to help ensure a reasonable, efficient permitting process.
I wonder if Thompson is going to form another special committee to look into the growing scientific consensus that mountaintop removal is doing pervasive and irreversible damage to West Virginia’s environment and that current reclamation techniques don’t work.
Is Thompson going to schedule a hearing where the WVDEP can explain why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had to step in and do the state’s job of ensuring that the Hobet 45 permit truly minimized the damage to streams, while allowing the company to mine most of the coal it wanted?
Are the House’s Democratic leaders going to find out why Dunkard Creek died, and require WVDEP to come up with new pollution control requirements to prevent mining from doing the same thing to other streams across the state?
Maybe Thompson could schedule a public hearing where those guys from WVU and Marshall who published the coal lobby’s study of the industry’s positive impacts could debate WVU’s Michael Hendryx, who wrote an actual peer-reviewed journal article that concluded those economic benefits are far outpaced by negative health impacts of coal.
Or perhaps the House will ask the authors of the must-read study which warns that — regardless of new limits on mountaintop removal or restrictions on greenhouse gases — Central Appalachian coal production is going to be cut in half by 2020 to come in and brief lawmakers on this clear problem and what should be done to offset the inevitable job losses.
Gosh, the possibilities abound for House leaders to “embrace the future” and be “honest brokers” — to quote Sen. Robert C. Byrd — in the state’s ongoing discussion of coal … But remember, the House is the legislative body that last year wouldn’t even allow a discussion of the issue of wind versus coal.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
According to a recent article “Obtaining the permits and approvals needed to build a mine in the U.S. takes an average of seven years, among the longest wait time in the world. So despite having vast underground stores of raw materials, the U.S. is one of the last places miners go to start a project.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703822404575019123766644644.html
The permitting situation for surface mines in WV will cause the 7 year average to increase and push more GDP and employment increasing ventures outside WV and the U.S.
Casey,
Yeah … there’s more to that story … of course, first of all, the data comes from the National Mining Association. Have you looked at how they collected it, and determined whether it’s accurate?
Besides that, though, the WSJ article noted:
he time frame in the U.S. isn’t necessarily reflective of tougher laws. Australia and Canada have environmental laws for mine building that are on par with U.S. rules. But mine building often draws more opposition in the U.S. than in those countries. Part of that is due to mining’s checkered history and reputation for pollution, abandonment and sometimes-shoddy management.
But then threw in — without any attribution to justify it:
Mining companies in the U.S., have cleaned up their management for the most part, but reputations haven’t caught up.
In addition, I’m surprised you would believe anything in a story where the author cites one of the scientists who has criticized mountaintop removal:
Emily Bernhardt, ecologist and assistant professor at the biology department at Duke University, says a focus on the length of the permitting process in the U.S. is misplaced. “The length of time it takes for permitting is almost irrelevant because they are not always looking at the right issues,” she said.
This month, Ms. Bernhardt co-authored a scientific paper calling on the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to stay all new mountaintop mining permits. One issue is the permits focus on mainly local mining-site environmental impacts but don’t take into account impacts far from the mine site, she said.
Also, much of the article focuses on metals mining, not coal.
Still an interesting read.
Perhaps the lesson for the industry is to write good permit applications up front to avoid lengthy delays … for example, why didn’t Patriot Coal propose the much smaller environmental impact in its original application, rather than having EPA step in and require it?
Ken.
Yes it was an interesting read and I take offense to your “I’m surprised you…..” statement. I don’t mind balance at all.
Casey,
You would think I would have learned in a year that humor doesn’t translate well to the comments section. Ken.
Ken,
Then I retract and also advise: keep the day job.
Ken,
Maybe I am too sensitive, but I missed any humorous tone as well. I feel you are sometimes unfairly criticized for bias, but the slant on this piece seemed obvious. Personally I feel the statement that the EPA had to step in and do the DEP’s job to minimize disturbance is pretty misleading. It is a balancing act to minimize disturbance while maximizing resource recovery (which is another directive to the DEP). The EPA is certainly minimizing disturbance by granting no permits. The fact is WV surface mines about 60 Million tons/year and last year about 8 million tons were permitted as far as I know Sounds like those massive job losses might be coming sooner than 2020.
Matt
Kinda nasty exchange there guys. Companies should just go back to the drawingboards, draw on that innovative American ingenuity. They are engineers, why dont just they re-think blasting off the tops of mountians? (I know, money). But the long, long, long seven year permit process has led to severe environmental degradation–time to change the status quo. When it takes centuries for the sulfates to finish leaching out of the spoil, and 500 years for the land to look like the same forest it was, 7 years is chump change. And the Corps, thinks the companies should be able to measure the lost ecological functions at a stream in one day. Otherwise, it’s not “permit friendly”. I dont see why permitting these dangerous, ecologically destructive operations shouldnt take decades to review. Look what is at stake!
What Rick Thompson really needs to do is sponsor a truth in labeling resolution, and call it the WV Department of Environmental PERMITTING, since he obviously feels that that is their sole function. Forget all that Protection stuff, that just gets in the way of issuing the permits in a timely, ie very fast, manner.
One of the authors of the declining coal production study provided a copy to Thompson and other legislators at the Jan 25 “meeting” in the governor’s party tent. He spoke, and Dr. Hendryx spoke as well. However, from all the “let’s get those permits moving at any cost” sentiment from WV legislators and governor, apparently they weren’t paying attention or didn’t care. Or left early…
Ken -
Your frustration ceratinly shows through and exemplifies the mistrust you engender as a reporter from the business community. On coal mining in general – putting aside mountaintop mining (or your views on business in general) – should coal mining cease altogether? The coal industry fears that banning of surface mining is really about banning ALL mining. As a reporter, can you address that issue? Are the environmentalists against coal mining altogether, or just surface mining as they claim? This is a HUGE issue for West Virginia and the country, but by just nipping at the heels of regulators you feel are compromised you ignore the true motives of the environmental community as well. Nothing will ever be solved here unless there is honesty and forthright dialogue from both sides. And more importantly your breathless anticipation of getting “that call” from the Times might not be in vain if you tackle this as thoroughly as possible.
Matt,
As I told Casey both on and off-line, that little snark at him was intended as humor. It was a bad idea, and I apologize. I’ve told other folks that humor often doesn’t come through on these comment sections, and I should have taken my own advice.
But as for that remark about WVDEP, well … probably the only thing I would change is that I should have included the Corps of Engineers in there as well. Both of those agencies are charged under SMCRA and the CWA with minimizing damage from surface mining. And with the Hobet 45 permit, EPA came in and pushed the guys at Patriot Coal to come up with a way to get 91 percent of the coal they wanted with half of the stream length buried. Those facts speak for themselves, and they show why EPA is getting involved in these permit reviews.
You’re right that it’s a balancing act — and what EPA has shown is that the balance was tilted pretty far in the direction of coal, and that more can be done to minimize the damage.
To his credit, WVDEP Secretary Randy Huffman has said publicly that his agency needs to do more to reduce and minimize the damage — and WVDEP is said to be working on a new policy to do that.
The other thing I’ll mention is that I’m sorry that the tone of my comments directed at Casey got in the way of readers taking a look at this post, and at the story Casey posted in his comment…both are important for a couple of reasons.
First, there’s a lot of talk from Gov. Manchin about wanting balance on these issues … and it’s important to note that Speaker Thompson hasn’t indicated any interest in that. If he had, he would be forming special committees to look at some of the other issues I outlined.
Press releases like the one he put out on his “Issue Those Permits” committee simply don’t meet Sen. Byrd’s call for West Virginia leaders to be honest brokers on coal mining issues. Randy Huffman has been more of an honest broker, in saying that if the state expects EPA to let these permits be issued, the state has to come up with a way to do more to reduce the damage.
Second, the story Casey posted is very interesting, though it focuses mostly on metals mining and not coal.
Casey thought the most interesting part of the story was the lead about the U.S. taking longer to issue permits than other parts of the world. To me, I wonder if such comparisons aren’t seeking some race to the bottom … permits companies here do have to compete in a global economy — but do we want to lower ourselves to the workplace safety standards, for example, of China? Or do we want to bring those nations up to our standards?
For my part, I thought the most interesting passage in the WSJ story was the part about how the substance of the permit is the key thing, not the time it takes to review it.
Casey would probably say the coal industry has already done a lot to improve its permit applications, and I don’t doubt that is true. But the message now that the industry might want to consider hearing is that even more needs to be done — and the best way to get a permit quickly is to truly minimize the damage, rather than trying to do the absolute minimize you think EPA would approve.
Anyway, I apologize again for making a very poor effort at humor, and will try to learn that lesson and not do so again.
Ken.
Ward Stradlater,
Gosh … I hadn’t seen your comment when I posted the above response to Matt and Casey … I’ll give it a shot here to respond to you as well.
First, I don’t doubt that there are folks in the environmental community who want to ban all coal mining. But I don’t speak for them on this or any other issue … despite what folks in the industry think, many of the most active and vocal environmentalists on issues like mountaintop removal aren’t especially happy with my coverage in the Gazette or on this blog. I take it from both sides, and that’s OK. It’s part of the job.
Should mining cease altogether? I don’t think that’s the right question … though I certainly concede your point that there are folks who advocate that. Gene Kitts and Roger Nicholson would point out that the Sierra Club’s campaign is called “Beyond Coal.” I don’t know if that’s the same as “End Coal,” but I can certainly understand why folks like Gene and Roger would think so. And, I think their company was in front of the Surface Mine Board again this week on a permit challenge to an underground mine up in Taylor County.
So, there is absolutely no question that many folks in the environmental community are very concerned about the effects on water quality (and quantity) and communities of underground mining. But there are also folks in the environmental community who publicly advocate for more underground mining and less surface mining.
It’s always dangerous to pigeonhole folks — there is not one bit “environmental community” where everyone has agreed on a 10-point plan about coal. Folks agree on some things, and disagree on others.
It’s tough to assume what other people’s motives are — and always a bit unfair to assume everyone has a hidden secret motive. It’s also human nature to do so with folks you disagree with. We should all try not to do that on these issues.
If you were to ask folks from OVEC or Coal River Mountain Watch or even Joe Lovett, I think they would say I’ve pressed them very hard to be forthright and honest and I most sincerely want Coal Tattoo to be a place for that dialogue.
But asking “should all mining cease,” over-simplifies these issues, and it sets up a straw man argument on the one side of things. To argue that everyone who doesn’t like mountaintop removal really is just hiding the fact that they want all mining to cease makes things easy on the coal industry — you can write off legitimate concerns about mountaintop removal, and never have to face tougher restrictions on surface mining.
Taking one person from the environmental community who argues for a ban on all coal mining and pretending that’s where everyone on that general side of things is … well, it’s like assuming that Don Blankenship speaks for the entire coal industry, and I know from talking to many coal operators that simply isn’t the case.
The real issues, as I’ve tried to summarize before on this blog many times:
– Mountaintop removal is causing very serious damage to the environment. That’s what the science says. The science also says current reclamation practices aren’t good enough.
– Science tells us something has to be done about climate change, and part of that must be reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Many in the industry agree with this, and think CCS is the solution — others aren’t so sure about CCS.
– The best estimates available tell us that coal mining in Central Appalachia is going to be cut in half before the end of these decade — and that’s without any greenhouse gas restrictions or new limits on mountaintop removal. If those things were implemented, coal production would drop even more.
These are three major issues that face the coalfields in this region. Sen. Byrd has said we should all work together honestly to try to deal with them. Does anyone really think that’s such a bad idea?
And Ward Stradler, as for this comment:
“And more importantly your breathless anticipation of getting “that call” from the Times might not be in vain if you tackle this as thoroughly as possible.”
Well, I’ve had many opportunities to move on to bigger newspapers in bigger cities. I kind of like it here. It’s my home. It’s where me and my wife are both from, and it’s where we want to raise our son. And I can’t think of anyplace that needs good journalism more.
Thanks for reading and commenting,
Ken.
My family owns land close to the Spruce #1 mine. Why should we have to suffer because the coal cos want to mine the coal for Chinese export ? Does’nt make sense.
Shelby,
What makes you believe the coal from the Spruce Mine would be exported to China? I doubt that would be the case.
Ken.
Ken,
Thanks again for the apology from the misunderstanding and for the insightful replies to Matt and Ward.
The Speaker’s statement includes “…strive to better understand what issues need to be resolved to achieve consistency and uniformity throughout the permitting process”. I think that certainly includes considering the environmental concerns that are at issue. Maybe we should give the group a chance. The status quo that the EPA has caused is not acceptable to most stakeholders.
I linked the article due to its relevance to your story with respect to permit timing but thought it was important also for a couple of reasons. One is that apparently other countries are equally demanding of environmental protection but have a more streamlined approval process (they know what they want). Secondly the environmentalist actions in the U.S. have the unintended consequences of encouraging mining to be done where protections are less. This is also a national security issue.
Apparently the Hobet permit was a unique situation for southern WV in that the lowest most recoverable coal seam was near the stream where its gradient had lessened. That is not usually the case so this type of favorable trade off is not easily duplicated.
So here we are in permit stagnation. There are a lot of folks that want MTM (and coal mining) to be abolished but it is still extremely important to our economy and standard of living. Mining today certainly has minimized many impacts compared to the 60’s. How much more impact minimization can be done and still have a viable industry? When will WV try to move up as a better place to do business so that needed diversification can occur? Why are a “wise man” and a “wise guy” opposites?
Casey,
Speaker Thompson is a pretty smart and articulate guy … had he wanted to say that this group was going to examine ways to reduce the impacts of mountaintop removal, he would have done so.
That sort of discussion simply doesn’t happen in the West Virginia Legislature, unfortunately…the discussion is always phrased in terms of “what can we do to get EPA off our backs,” not, what can we do to protect our environment and our citizens from coal-mining impacts.
As I said, you’re right that some folks want mountaintop removal (or all coal mining) abolished.
But, if you look at some of the work that’s come out — the Sierra Club study on the economic impacts of restrictions of surface mining and Hendryx’s study on the costs and benefits of coal — you can see clear examples where critics of this industry have in their detailed reports and work tried to address, account for, and give credit to, the economic side of the equation.
But, when the coal association commissions a study, it specifically tells the authors not to look at anything negative…
On climate change, the coal industry has some voices — AEP, the UMWA, for example — who are arguing for middle ground. Where are the industry voices who are doing the same on mountaintop removal? What company will be the first to come forward and say, we’re still not doing enough to minimize damage, and we need to commit to doing more?
Ken.
Ken, can you address Shelby’s question with regard to what percent of central appalachian coal (either in general, or more specific) is exported to China, etc? If homeland security was an issue, we would be stockpiling it like we do the oil reserves. I think leveling an Appalachian mountain and burying it’s stream forever isnt worth the money gained from an export shipment to China. Thanks.
jpd22,
First, I think Shelby stated it as fact that the Spruce Mine coal would be going to China …
Why should we have to suffer because the coal cos want to mine the coal for Chinese export ?
Her question was — why should we have to suffer?
And then she said, “because … ” they want to send the coal to China.
I asked what evidence she had of that, but she hasn’t responded.
Last year, about 44 million tons of U.S. coal were exported.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t8p01p1.html
That’s out of something like 1.1 billion tons of coal produced in the U.S.,
West Virginia exports about 26 million tons of coal, or half of all U.S. exports:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coaldistrib/2008/o_08foreign.pdf
That’s out of something like 146 million tons of coal produced in West Virginia. That’s about 18 percent.
Personally, my view is that this whole line of debate isn’t very useful — that being this discussion where the coal industry says we need to mine more coal to protect homeland security and folks who don’t like coal (or MTR) say, well, if you cared about homeland security you won’t sell coal to China.
That’s a sideshow discussion, in my view, and doesn’t get to the heart of the matter.
The latest figures I saw for overall U.S. exports didn’t show a whole lot of coal going to China — something like 385,000 tons.
But I don’t really follow the export market very closely … Coal Tattoo readers who do, please jump in.
Ken.
Ken:
First of all , I am a male (named for Gen. Isaac Shelby,a rev. war hero) second; when steam coal falters in years to come, I have no doubt WV will export much more coal to China. I believe you misinterpreted my statement. Sorry to get away from the subject matter.
The U.S. is principally a swing exporter, increasing exports when market tightness exists. The U.S. is unlikely to be a significant exporter to China in any kind of near term. Increased Chinese demand – China only became a net importer of coal in 2008- is significant in tightening seaborne met coal, but only to the extent that it tends to take other coals out of the market and creating opportunities for U.S. coal. Australia is the principle exporter to China followed by Indonesia and Russia. By sucking those tons out of the market China creates increased opportunities for U.S. coal in Brazil and Europe. Long term China may be an interesting Market for lower quality western steam coals, but even that is pretty speculative.
AFC
Ken,
Thanks for the reply. I understand your position, but I don’t think companies have enough information to make the changes you suggest. There is a trade off for every change made to a permit and to the best of my knowledge no one really knows what the EPA considers acceptable. From what I have read the Hobet permit that got approved had no valley fills and more minimization was required. Most new permits will not work with NO valley fills. The EPA essentially has companies over a barrel. Need a permit now? Make these cuts, add $10/ton to your costs and you can have a permit. Some companies will be able to make a profit under these conditions, some will not. Will this lead to people submitting oversized permits, then “cutting drastically” to what they really want? Who knows? Not me.
Ken,
You asked “where’s the honest brokers for MTM”. Being an honest broker on coal CO2 is much easier than MTM. With CO2 the choices are quit burning coal, status quo or burn to greatly lessen CO2 (IGCC and CCS). By the way transportation in the U.S. generates about the same CO2 as the 600 coal plants and U.S. total generation is somewhat small compared to the world.
http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
Being the neutral mediator on MTM is not so easy. The concerns listed in the Science article include flooding, ecosystems, numerous water pollutants, groundwater, re-growth, mitigation, and human health impacts. The authors call for an immediate ban to MTM which is one option. But I’m sure most of the same Science concerns could be claimed for underground mining that requires processing and refuse fills, and even road construction and other land uses in Appalachia. Is it even possible to address these concerns and still mine in Appalachia?
Perhaps if you are the Sierra Club or Lovett your strategy is to pick off the low hanging fruit of MTM then attack the rest of coal. Coal and nuclear do the heavy lifting and realistically can not be replaced any time soon and then not without huge investments and increases in electrical prices.
What is the transition that Obama mentions relative to coal? Is it clean coal technology, no Appalachia mining, or away from coal?
Matt and Casey,
You’re right Matt … there were no “valley fills” with Hobet 45. But this idea of a “mine through”, while kind of confusing for the general public, has the same end-game impact on the stream — it’s still buried and gone.
Does EPA have the companies in a tough spot — yep. So it seems like the very smart folks in the coal industry might want to spend a little more time designing mines with fewer impacts and a little less time campaigning against change.
I don’t speak for the Sierra Club or Joe Lovett, Casey, and I don’t know what their strategy is …
As for Obama, while the EPA has not been as clear as coal would like about exactly what it wants in a permit, I can imagine that if EPA set up a very specific set of limits on valley fills and stream burials, the industry would 1) argue against it; and 2) say that one-size doesn’t fit all and every site is different.
I still believe that the first step needs to be someone from the coal industry — anyone, anyone? – saying, hey, you know what, that Science article is right — mountaintop removal is having really bad effects, and we’re going to get to work and figure out how to change that. It’s important to note that the Science article did not advocate a permanent ban, but simply said that new permits should not be issued until reclamation and mitigation can be shown to do what it’s supposed to do.
And Casey, you have repeatedly posted this notion that you have that coal cannot be replaced anytime soon … you don’t provide any scientific articles or data to back this up. I’d be interested to see what you think supports that statement …
I’ve posted here before about an article I did for the Gazette in December 2008 about a Worldwatch Institute report…here’s the lead:
New technologies will move the world economy away from coal and other fossil fuels much more rapidly than experts from the energy industry would have the public believe, according to a new study by the Worldwatch Institute.
Hundreds of old coal-fired power plants that provide 40 percent of the world’s power could be retired in the process, eliminating up to one-third of global carbon dioxide emissions, while creating millions of new jobs, the study asserted.
“We are on the verge of an energy revolution,” said Christopher Flavin, president of Worldwatch and author of the report, “Low-Carbon Energy: A Roadmap,” issued earlier this month.
Unfortunately, that article isn’t on our Web site … I’ll try to go back and re-post it. But, here are links to the report it was based on:
http://www.worldwatch.org/press/prerelease/EWP178.pdf
Here’s the lead of the report:
Technologies available today, and those
expected to become competitive over
the next decade, will permit a rapid
decarbonization of the global energy
economy. New renewable energy technologies,
combined with a broad suite of energy-efficiency
advances, will allow global energy needs
to be met without fossil fuels and by adding
only minimally to the cost of energy services.
Ken.
Because coal is a finite resource, and declining quickly, the transition away from coal can be somewhat smooth and planned, with first steps being rapid increases in efficiency (weatherizing, using more efficient appliances and lighting, etc.) and beginning to convert to renewable sources of electricity. I know, some days the wind doesn’t blow and the sun goes down every night, but there are energy storing technologies available, and development and deployment of better energy storage technology is a far better investment than experimenting with costly CCS, which will cause us to have to burn more of a depleting resource.
Otherwise, the transition away from coal will be abrupt and painful, with electricity costs climbing as supplies decrease, and then it’s gone. “Freezing in the dark” is something we really want to avoid, but will be more likely the longer we wait to take serious, significant steps in the transition.
Back to Thompson, I feel like a Who in the Dr. Seuss book, Horton Hears a Who. It seems like no one heard us at the Jan 25 meeting. Dr. Hendryx spoke about his study, Rory McIlmoil spoke about his study, and coalfield residents spoke about their experiences with MTR. Thompson, Manchin, Rahall, and others were there, but might as well have been cardboard cutouts for all the listening they did. We’re here! We’re here!
Dr. Clemente states “coal is essentially irreplaceable as a baseload fuel in the United States”. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy states “Prosperity depends upon reliable, affordable access to energy. Coal … is likely to be a major and growing source of electricity generation for the foreseeable future….”
http://energy-facts.org/
I think natgas can grow to a certain extent above 20% but increased usage for generation, even when production has increased, has caused higher costs to consumers and industry i.e. inflationary. The article states that nuclear is not growing although there has been rhetoric in D.C. that “hopes” to “change” that.
Of solar and wind, wind is probably the most likely to grow. The New York Times article refers to a couple of studies that has huge price tags ($175 billion and $1,200 billion) and extensive transmission lines (23,000 miles- compare that to PATH of 250 miles). These represent formidable obstacles to displacing coal anytime soon.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/20/20greenwire-big-boost-in-wind-power-doable-but-complicated-58125.html
Coal plants are up and running providing low cost, reliable electricity. Wind has a couple of problems, dispatch and costs. Wind farms are very difficult to get approved and need backup baseload generation. Even when approved, farms can be further hamstringed in some circumstances by operating during the daytime only for half of the year. I believe technology developments will improve wind generation and it will greatly increase its share over time. I think we need all of the energy sources plus the R&D and investments to lower costs, increase conservation and decrease pollution.
Thanks for providing some sources … I think that 50 percent number is outdated now … coal has dropped below that and has been dropping rather consistently for a few years.
Interesting that you quoted Obama’s Nobel Prize-winning Energy Secretary and his comments about how important coal is — given that coal industry folks most frequently like to point out Chu’s other statements about coal being his “worst nightmare” because of carbon dioxide emissions and the difficulties with CCS.
Give that Worldwatch report a read … I’d be interested in what you think.
Ken.
ken said
Hear hear. There will be no justice nor peace until these specific points are addressed. Industry is banking on a teaparty approach where shouting and mooing about tangential issues takes over the discussion over these effects. Environmentalists may be counting on being factually correct as being enough to win the argument.
So far I’ve seen responses to the Science paper, and others, varying from Gene Kitts “just pointing out that the authors aren’t exactly unbiased” to less distinguished and more abundant commentatory “scientists will say anything to further their global warming agenda”.
All of that is attacking the messenger instead of the data. The notion that facts are plastic and up for interpretation is a hallmark of postmodern science denial, which is most curious to me. Fiscal conservatives and pro-business types casting lots with anti-realist social constructivists? Surely the apocalypse is nigh.