Coal Q & A's

• If we don't build all these [150 proposed] new coal-fired power plants now, won't we be setting ourselves up for rolling blackouts and jeopardizing our energy future?
• Coal is a very inefficient source of energy. In fact the average coal plant in the U.S. is only 33% efficient-that's a lot of wasted resources. There are many, more efficient alternatives to coal-fired power plants that can both guarantee our energy future and provide cleaner, healthier options for meeting our energy needs. Instead of wasting more resources on coal, we can invest in efficiency technologies and renewables that don't cause serious health problems and global warming pollution.
• What role can coal play in a cleaner, healthier energy future?
• There is nothing clean about coal-fired power plants-from being the largest source of toxic mercury pollution to releasing 40% of our nation's total carbon dioxide emissions every year, coal-fired power plants are the dirtiest source of energy we use today. While we won't be able to wean ourselves off of coal tomorrow, we should be moving away from coal energy and cleaning up the existing plants that are the worst polluters. A truly cleaner and healthier energy future relies on smart solutions like efficiency and renewables, not on dirty coal.
• Isn't coal the most affordable energy choice, providing energy at half the cost of other fuels?
• Wrong. Coal is very expensive. The cost of coal prices has skyrocketed over the past year, and the cost of building coal plants has escalated more than 50 percent in some instances. And consider other costs associated with coal: From lung disease to the loss of mountaintops because of irresponsible mining to health care and environmental destruction, the hidden costs of coal are immense. Future carbon dioxide regulations may also increase the cost of coal. With the cost of efficiency and renewables like wind dropping to competitive levels, building new coal-fired power plants is a poor investment for our pocketbooks and our future.
• Can't coal help reduce our reliance on oil?
• Even though coal-to-liquids plants have been around since World War II, the truth is that liquid coal is not a practical way to lessen our dependence on oil. Liquid coal plants are costly and complex, requiring huge investments to produce even the smallest amount of synthetic fuels. Replacing a mere 10% of our fuel with liquid coal would require an increase in coal mining of over 40%, increasing the already devastating effects of mining on communities across the country. Burning liquid coal creates almost double the global warming emissions as the petroleum-based gas we use now. Instead of wasting our tax dollars on these plants, we should be investing in proven ways to cut our oil dependence like increasing fuel efficiency standards.
• Don't we have a 250 year supply of coal right here in America?
• Although the coal industry claims that we have a near endless supply of coal right here in America, the truth is that it is already becoming increasingly harder to mine, leading to the increased use of destructive techniques like mountaintop removal mining. Much of our nation's coal reserves are so hard to access that it simply doesn't make economic sense to mine them. Coal is a limited resource, and it will run out even sooner if we double our consumption by building a new rush of coal-fired power plants.
• Isn't clean energy too far away and too expensive to be practical?
• No, in fact many states across the nation are already investing heavily in efficiency and making the switch to renewable energy. California's aggressive efficiency programs have held per capita electricity use constant for over 10 years, while other states have seen energy use more than double. Over 20 states already require a percentage of their energy to come from renewable sources. Minnesota recently adopted a 30% renewable energy standard by 2020, while New Jersey has a 22.5% by 2020 requirement and New York is poised to get 24% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2013.
• Not only is clean energy good for the environment, it is good for the economy, too. Wind is already competitively priced and is cheaper than coal in many places. The cost of efficiency is as little as half the cost of new coal-fired power plants. A greater investment in renewables and efficiency would not only help lower our energy prices but would also help local economies. A recent study by the Apollo Alliance found that renewable energy generated 40% more jobs per dollar invested than coal.
• What about "clean coal" technologies, like IGCC?
• Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology has gotten a lot of attention because it can emit lower amounts of soot and smog pollution than traditional plants. However, while IGCC can lower some emissions, it emits just as much global warming pollution as other coal plants. There is no such thing as clean coal. It is an oxymoron. Although the coal companies have promised future technological innovations that will allow us to generate electricity from coal with less pollution somewhere down the road, that technology does not yet exist. And, even though technologies do exist that can make coal plants cleaner, coal companies have been dragging their feet on installing these modern pollution controls. Not surprisingly most of the proposed new plants are the same pulverized coal plants that were built in our grandparents' era-only bigger and more polluting.
• Can replacing light bulbs really reduce the need to build new coal fired power plants?
• Yes, it is a start. A study by McKinsey and Company found that by increasing energy efficiency we could cut our energy consumption by more than half. Switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs, which use 75% less electricity than regular bulbs, better insulating our homes, and buying Energy Star appliances are small actions that can make our energy savings really add up. Of course, light bulbs alone won't solve the entire problem-but they are a step in the right direction. We also need states to take action and provide incentives for our utilities to help us save energy, instead of rewarding utilities when they sell more electricity. The energy saved by reducing waste will actually add-up to be America's greatest, least tapped power source. By thinking of efficiency as another fuel at our disposal we can lower energy demand, which will keep energy prices low and combat global warming-all while eliminating the need for dirty and expensive new coal plants.
• Click HERE for more coal info. Tim Wagner (801-467-9294) is the Utah Sierra Club's Smart Energy Campaign Director.

TAKE ACTION

Take Action: Fund Progress, Not Nukes.
"The recently-passed energy bills in both the Senate and the House contain forward-thinking provisions like a Renewable Electricity Standard and increases in fuel economy. But they could also open the door for unlimited funding for dangerous and costly nuclear energy technology.

Nuclear energy is a bad investment, from outrageously huge subsidies to potential meltdowns to toxic waste that continues to accumulate without any permanent storage facilities. Take action now and urge your members of Congress to remove this provision that would give the nuclear industry a blank check to build new nuclear reactors across the country." -- A Sierra Club "Take Action" request. There are better, smarter, safer, healthier, sustainable energy alternatives such as solar, wind and geothermal the we should be supporting instead.

Tell your Senators and Representative to Refuse Unlimited Loan Guarantees to the Nuclear Industry!

Utah's Red Rock Areas Need Wilderness Protection

Legislation to designate over 9 million acres of Utah's world class redrock natural areas is now before congress. For many years this legislation has not passed. With the new congress we now have the best chance in years to enact this bill and protect this land from mining and other impacting activities. But we must let our congressional representatives know that we support this important legislation. Click HERE to learn more about ARWA and how to help protect these great parts of Utah.

All lands proposed for wilderness designation in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act are owned by the American public and administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The bill is supported by SUWA, the Wasatch Mountain Club, the Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and more than 200 other national and regional conservation organizations belonging to the Utah Wilderness Coalition.

Our thanks to the photographers supplying these images (see site above for their names).

Protect our Kids From New Freeway Pollution!

Help get the word out on the dangers to children from the health risks of the Mountain View Corridor. Click on the poster at right to ENLARGE. -->>

As several recent scientific studies have shown, children living near freeways are at extreme risk for severe health problems. For example, children within 250 yards from a freeway are 8-times more likely to develop leukemia and 6-times more likely to develop other cancers. In addition, children aged 12-18 living within 500 meters from a freeway are at highest risk for permanent deformities in lung development. There are also many other studies.

The proposed 8-lane freeway of the Mountain View Corridor (MVC) would travel along 5800 West in Salt Lake County. It will place several neighborhoods and schools in this deadly zone of distance next to this new freeway. Whittier and Hillside elementary schools and Hunter high school specifically would be inside this zone. [MVC would also split Lehi yet again, pollute the air, create health problems, create noise pollution and hurt residential property values. -Chair]

In the beginning of planning, UDOT appeared to be looking at new rail transit along 5600 West with the Mountain View Corridor studies. However, we have recently found that they have scrapped any new transit plans for this area until over a quarter of a century from now and have proposed the freeway to be even wider. Transit and non-freeway road expansion is the only solution to keep our children safe from these concentrated pollution threats.

Please contact me with any questions.

Marc Heileson, Sierra Club, (801) 467-9294, marc.heileson@sierraclub.org