EM:/ The lie behind the term "clean coal" in Michigan

Friends:

 

I was recently asked to comment on why Sierra Club would not support "clean
coal" technologies as a way to meet energy needs in our state.  The simple
answer is that "clean coal technology" does not exist.  The term is being
used by the coal industry and power plant proponents to sell their wares
(and make a tidy profit), and is usually couched in terms suggesting that
the proposed new plants would be cleaner than existing one and are therefore
"clean."

 

But there is pretty no way to get to "clean" coal mining, and the amount of
mercury, acid rain precursors, soot and greenhouse gases to be produced from
even the as yet unbuilt new coal plants enormous.  Coal mining today
involves strip mining in the Powder River Basin and "mountain top removal"
in the Appalachians, both of which have devastating and permanent impacts on
the land, and cause air and water pollution as well as threats to
communities.  The Wikipedia site describing mountain top removal
(http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/downloads/permits/PubNotice/341-07/341-07%20
Fact%20Sheet.pdf) provides an overview, and a variety of organizations
calling for the end of this practice, including Sierra Club at
http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/mtr/ go to the politics and policies that
promote these destructive practices. 

 

And the current proposals for coal plants in Michigan (still out for public
comment!) are far from clean!  If you visit the Department of Environmental
Quality's fact sheet on the proposed Consumers Energy plant in Essexville at
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/downloads/permits/PubNotice/341-07/341-07%20F
act%20Sheet.pdf and go to page 7, you'll see a chart that lists the proposed
emissions from this new plant that Consumers has argued is "clean".  The
same is true for Wolverine Power Cooperatives so called "Clean Energy
Venture," the original DEQ fact sheet for which is at
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/downloads/permits/PubNotice/317-07/317-07%20F
act%20Sheet.pdf  with expected emissions on page 5 of the pdf (there have
been some changes and a new submission on soot may change it again, but
there are substantial emissions proposed) and the Holland Board of Public
Works permit application
(http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aps/downloads/permits/PubNotice/25-07/25-07%20Fa
ct%20Sheet.pdf on page 5 of the pdf). 

 

In addition, global warming gases such carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides are
not regulated by the DEQ today, and the applicants for new coal fired power
plants have not been able to demonstrate that they will in fact capture and
permanently remove these pollutants from the air.  Keep in mind that coal
plants are already the largest single source of greenhouse gases in the
country. There are references to future plans that might help control
greenhouse gases that are not actually part of the permit applications, but
there are no proven technologies to do that today.  These companies are
seeking permission to build plants today, with today's technology.  In fact,
the plant proposals in Michigan are not proposing to build plants that today
are the only ones considered to be greenhouse gas control ready (Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle or IGCC), but are opting for less expensive
plants that would impose a much larger cost later, if technology to
sequester these gases were successfully developed. 

 

Lastly, even if they succeed in getting all of the regulated pollutants out
of the air, the ash that is collected and is full of mercury and other
pollutants has to be disposed of as well.  Next to the proposed Consumers
site in Essexville is its smaller existing coal fired power plants that has
an ash disposal lagoon that has been leaking toxic contaminants into Saginaw
Bay for many years (see article from the Bay City Times at
http://blog.mlive.com/bctimes/2008/10/ash_landfills_at_consumers_ene.html ).
And the second largest emitter of mercury in Michigan, if not the Great
Lakes, is a cement factory in Alpena (Lafarge) that takes ash from coal
fired power plants and processes it into cement, ironically and disturbingly
re-emitting the captured mercury from the coal plant ash (see
http://www.ejmagazine.com/2009a/15.mercury.html ).

 

"Clean coal" is a marketing term designed to try to convince the public and
regulators that there is a way to clean up this dirty technology, when in
reality it is just not the case.  Michigan needs to make sure we don't get
stuck with the cost and impact of dirty, polluting coal plants because of
the marketing campaigns of those who stand to make huge amounts of money
from these plants. 

 

Anne

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anne Woiwode, State Director 

Sierra Club Michigan Chapter

109 E. Grand River Ave, Lansing, MI 48906

517-484-2372     anne.woiwode at sierraclub.org 

 

Support Sierra Club Michigan Chapter!  Go to
http://tiny.cc/MISierraClubSupport to make your donation!

 

"Is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as
usual? Yes, it is - and that's why it's unforgivable."  Paul Krugman, NYT,
6.29.09

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/attachments/20090806/6605f135/attachment.html