A November 1 article in POWER Magazine relates the findings of recent MIT research which investigates the rapid development of coal-fueled generation throughout China.
Recent comments have been attributed to Senator Obama regarding the implementation of a cap and trade system for carbon dioxide emissions, that could "bankrupt" the coal industry or those who plan to build coal-fueled generation plants.
As a non-partisan organization, the American Coal Council does not take positions on the outcome of the election. Nor do we lobby for the implementation of specific policies or legislation.
It is extremely important, however, for both candidates to recognize the value and stability that the coal industry provides for our economy. "Bankrupting" the source of half of our electrical power would have profound negative economic, social, and environmental impacts.
Coal currently provides half of our domestic electricity supply. It does so at rates well below most other competing energy sources. "Bankrupting" one of our nation's most abundant and affordable, energy resources would cause rapid increases in energy costs for main street and our nation's businesses. Additionally, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost in our mining, utility, and related service industries.
The ACC believes that this issue points to the continuing need to educate policy makers on the pivitol role that coal plays in our economy.
Last September we reported in the Coalblog about former Vice President Al Gore's calls for young people to engage in civil disobedience as a means of stopping the construction of new coal plants.
We are now treating the Earth's atmosphere as an open sewer ... I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers ... and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.
In that post we also noted how NASA climate scientist James Hansen continued in his moves further into a more extreme activist form of "science" by joining Gore in his calls for direct action.
It seems to me that young people, especially, should be doing whatever is necessary to block construction of dirty (no CCS) coal-fired power plants.
At the September 24th meeting for the Clinton Global Initiative, the former Vice President upped the ante by once again calling for civil disobediance and direct action against new coal-fueled plants.
In a September 10, 08 ruling a British jury handed down a ruling that essentially encourages vandalism of the UKs coal-fueled power plants.
A Sept 17, Globe & Mail, Report on Business article (by Globe Reporter Neil Reynolds) provides an interesting look into the subsidies provided to various forms of energy in the U.S. Reporting statistics on energy subsidies from the April 2008 EIA study "Federal Financial Interventions & Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007", Reynolds questions the textbook rules for economics since, despite substantial subsidies, renewable energies still make up a minor portion of our generation capacity.
EIA - Federal Financial Interventions & Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007From the EIA website,
This report responds to a request from Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee that the EIA update its 1999 to 2000 work on Federal energy subsidies, including any additions or deletions of Federal subsidies based on Administration or Congressional action since 2000, and providing an estimate of the size of each current subsidy. Subsidies directed to electricity production are estimated on the basis of generation by fuel.
From the report Executive Summary,
Notwithstanding the doubling of Federal energy-related subsidies and support between 1999 and 2007, and a significant increase in most energy prices over that period, U.S. energy production is virtually unchanged since 1999 ... Basic economic principles suggest that higher real energy prices together with the significant incentives provided to various production segments of the energy sector would tend to raise domestic energy production. A variety of factors unrelated to prices or subsidy programs such as State and Federal statutory limitations imposed on onshore and offshore oil and natural gas exploration in environmentally sensitive areas, uncertainty regarding future environmental policies possibly restricting future emissions of greenhouse gases, and declines in future production from previously developed domestic oil and natural gas resources may have impeded growth in energy production despite modest growth in consumption.
