kmt coal da

8/14/2019 KMT Coal DA

1/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Coal DA IndexCoal DA Index............................................................................................................................................................................1Coal DA 1NC ............................................................................................................................................................................22NC MUST READ........................................................................................................................................................................3Coal DA Unq .............................................................................................................................................................................4

Coal DA Unq .............................................................................................................................................................................5Renewable Energy Link ...............................................................................................................................................................6RPS Link.......................................................................................................................................................................................7Emissions Cap Link.......................................................................................................................................................................8CAP-AND-TRADE LINKS..........................................................................................................................................................9 Nuclear Power Links ..................................................................................................................................................................10 Nuclear Power Links...................................................................................................................................................................11Clean Coal Solves Warming........................................................................................................................................................12DA TURNS THE CASE STABLE ENERGY MARKETS......................................................................................................13COAL GOOD ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................................................14CLEAN COAL KEY TO ECONOMY........................................................................................................................................15COAL KEY TO THE ECONOMY.............................................................................................................................................16***AFF ANSWERS***

Not Unique Industry Dying......................................................................................................................................................17Clean Coal Bad Environment...................................................................................................................................................18Clean Coal Bad Inefficient.......................................................................................................................................................19Clean Coal Bad............................................................................................................................................................................20WASHINGTON - One of the worlds top climate scientists called for an end to building new coal-fired power plants in theUnited States because of their huge role in spewing out greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. In the nextdecade of so, 159 coal-fired power plants are scheduled to be built, generating enough power for about 96 million homes,according to a study last month by the U.S. Department of Energy. There should be a moratorium on building any morecoal-fired power plants, NASA scientist James Hansen told the National Press Club Monday. Hansen was one of the earliesttop researchers to warn the world of global warming. Hansens call dovetails with an edict by the private equity groupbuying TXU, a massive Texas-based utility. The equity group, led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas PacificGroup, agreed to stop plans to build eight new coal-fired power plants, not to propose new coal-fired plants outside Texas andto support mandatory national caps on emissions linked to global warming. This is the first time Hansen, director of

NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, has called for an end to coal burning. He said its the No. 1solution to global warming, and that so far, no coal-fired plants can capture carbon dioxide emissions so they are not releasedinto the atmosphere. While burning oil and natural gas also release carbon dioxide, they will run out and theres more coalto burn and pollute the Earth, so its more of a threat, Hansen said. Coal is the big amount, Hansen said. Until we havethat clean coal power plant, we should not be building them. It is as clear as a bell. Hansen, who said he was speaking as aprivate citizen, also told the press club that by mid-century all coal-fired power plants that do not capture and bury carbondioxide must eventually be bulldozed. Its foolish to build new ones if the emissions cant be dealt with, he said. He saidthe increased efficiency could make up for the cutbacks in coal. ...........................................................................................20Clean Coal Bad............................................................................................................................................................................21COAL BAD - ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................................................................22

1


2/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Coal DA 1NC

UNQ Coal industry is gaining momentum clean coal

Montague director Environmental Research Foundation 08 Peter Rachel's Democracy & Health News 3/6 proquest

You may have heard that "coal is dead." But this is not the case; in its struggle for survival, the coal industry has an ace in thehole. In July of this year, the industrialized nations of the world are going to announce their united support for "clean coal."Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. are about to sanction burying today's globalwarming problem in the ground, passing it along to our children to manage essentially forever.

LINK - Transition to renewable energy kills the coal industry

Andrews, Analyst New York Times, 06/12/07 Edmund Senate Considers New Energy Packagehttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june07/energy_06-12.htmlMy own feeling is that the industry who has the most to gain and the most to lose,potentially, is the coal industry. Coal is the mainsource of electricity in this country, so the electric utilities are their biggest customer, the coal producer's biggest customer. Ifwe now go to a system that requires a much higher percentage of renewable fuels to be used by power-generating companies,that's going to whack them.

IMPACT - Strong coal production is critical to sustain global economic and political stability

Burke, 4 Vice President, Research & Development of CONSOL Energy, Inc(Dr. Francis P. Burke, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 4-27-2004, Sustainable Electricity Generation, Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP

The United States is not unique in its dependence on coal, and it is vital to our national interest to promote the increased useof coal not only domestically, but worldwide as a key component of our energy and economic security. The most compellingevidence of this is China. This year, the Chinese will mine and consume 1.5 billion tons of coal. In 15 years, they willconsume 2.5 billion tons; China's increase alone will equal our current consumption. They expect to double their coal-fueledelectricity generating capacity to 600 GW by 2020. By 2040, the Chinese expect to use 4 billion tons of coal annually.Throughout the world, economic growth and political stability are tied to electrification, and electricity is tied to coal.Therefore, the desire and, in fact, the necessity of the world to utilize its abundant coal resources will not be denied. Energyavailability and energy quality are key to meeting all three aspects of sustainable development: economic, societal andenvironmental. The question is not whether we need or will use coal for human development, but how we will use it.

Economic collapse leads to global conflict

Walter Russell Mead, contributing editor to Opinion and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Los Angeles

Times, August 23, 1998, p. M1Even with stock markets tottering around the world, the president and the Congress seem determined to spend the next six months arguing about dressstains. Too bad. The United States and the world are facing what could grow into the greatest threat to world peace in 60 years. Forget suicide car

bombers and Afghan fanatics. It's the financial markets, not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. How can

this be? Think about the mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse in October,staged a rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. Wages plummeted,

thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt, millions of people lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the biggestimpact of the Depression on the United States--and on world history--wasn't money. It wasblood: World War II, to be exact. The Depression

brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin's power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese

military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. That's the thing aboutdepressions. They aren't just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing "ThePrice is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Ryan."

2


3/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

2NC MUST READ

COAL INDUSTRY STRONG NOW INCREASING FOCUS ON RENEWABLE EXPANSIONAND CARBON REGULATION WILL COLLAPSE THE INDUSTRY COAL IS A CHEAPER,

MORE RELIABLE SOURCE OF ENERGY

DAVIS 2008 [Kirby, staff writer, JOURNAL RECORD, March 12, proquest/Scheurell]

Alliance Resource Partners will invest $600 million over the next three to four years to bring three new coal mines online,bringing its inventory to 11. That move reflects anticipated long-term growth for both U.S. and world demand for coal, driven byincreased electrical generation needs, President and Chief Executive Joseph W. Craft III told a sold-out University of Tulsa Friends of Financeaudience Tuesday. But investments such as Alliance plans come with increasing risk, as scientists and politicians debate potential carbon emission

regulations, said Craft. The head of the nation's fourth largest coal production operation warned that those environmental steps, if taken withoutregard for existing technological capabilities and increased research, could have drastic impact on U.S. and world economicgrowth by reducing usage of the key component to cheap power. "The cost of electricity is driven by a large part on thepercent of coal used to generate it," said Craft, defending his industry's performance and interests while linking future gross domestic product

growth to a continued abundance of inexpensive electricity. "Coal remains the low-cost alternative." Craft said electrical powergeneration by coal-fueled plants rose 50 percent last year to 3.9 billion kilowatts per hour. Federal government projectionsestimate that will grow to 4.9 billion kilowatts by 2030, with improved sulfur removal technologies allowing the coal-firedmarket share to hit 57 percent. Coal usage is projected to rise 48 percent over that period, he said, comprising the majority of powergeneration. Renewable sources would increase 60 percent, he said, while nuclear power generation would climb 19 percent and petroleum sources 9 percent.

Natural gas projections call for a 24-percent drop due to insufficient production and forced imports of liquid natural gas. But Craft warned carbonemission regulations could skew those projections. Craft did not urge regulators to turn away from alternative power sources. He said heembraced increase usage of renewable, nuclear, natural gas and other electrical power generators. "The question's going to be, 'How are we going to generate

that electricity?'" he said, with the answer helping determine not just future U.S. economic performance but its place in a competitive world environment.Renewable sources, he said, can not be developed in a scale necessary to replace the electricity generated by coal-fired plants.The sources also remain plagued by intermittent availability and continued storage problems. Craft said the nation now has 104nuclear power plants, the last ones built in the 1980s. Only five are now under construction for an industry that needs to build 40 just to maintain its marketshare. As for natural gas, Craft said the inability for domestic production to meet rising demand has not only driven natural gas prices higher but forcedimportation of LNG. As a result, Craft said states paying the highest electrical rates are those that draw the smallest percent of their power from coal-fired

plants. While natural gas prices rose, Craft said coal prices remained relatively stable until recent times, when rising international demand spurred a spikenot just in the U.S., but with export leader Australia and other sources. But he suggested that could aid the U.S., since it retains an abundance of coal despite

a century of mining. Even with rising consumption, Craft presented data suggesting the U.S. retains more than a 200-year coal supply,comprising 95 percent of the nation's energy reserves. Only the current low value of the U.S. dollar cast a shadow on rising coal exports, whichhe said have tripled since 2005. Craft warned that the environmental debate has slowed more than the construction of nuclear power plants. He said utilities

have not moved fast enough to refurbish or replace many coal-fired plants built in the 1980s. Across the nation, Craft said utilities have 28 coal-firedelectrical plants under construction, six starting construction and 13 permitted. Those 47 plants promise to generate 42.39 megawatts.Another 67 plants are in the early planning stages, promising 65.56 megawatts capacity. That compares to plant construction

promising 96 gigawatts underway in China. With electrical capacity playing a key role in GDP growth and standards of living, Craft worried that U.S.electrical capacity may soon not be able to keep pace with peak usage demands. He urged leaders to increase spending on research to solve these

environmental and electrical generation issues while providing another technology for the U.S. to export. "I hope we just think it through so that ifwe do have a cost, we do have a benefit," Craft said of new environmental regulations. "We should try not to create one crisisby trying to solve another crisis. "I'm going to do my best to try to educate them," he said of politicians. "Whether they listen or not is not mydecision, because more often than not all they want is more money."

3


4/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Coal DA Unq

COAL INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO EXPAND INCREASING NUMBER OF PLANTS AND

NEW TECHNOLOGY

PR NEWSWIRE 07-07-2008 [ACCCE Applauds Texas Public Utility Commissions Approvalof Arkansas Clean Coal Plant, proquest/Scheurell]

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) issued the following statement in support of the Texas PublicUtility Commission's approval of Southwestern Electric Power Co.'s (SWEPCO) proposed John W. Turk Jr. ultra-supercritical coal plant in Hempstead County, Arkansas."The Texas Public Utility Commission took a strong step forward in preserving access to secure, reliable and affordableelectricity for citizens of Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana," said Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for ACCCE."With energy costs skyrocketing, the ability to use more affordable fuel sources such as coal to generate electricity will go along way in keeping prices stable and the economy humming."The proposed Turk plant will be the first coal plant in the country to utilize advanced ultra-supercritical generationtechnology, which produces more electricity using less coal and helps reduce emissions," continued Lucas. "As new cleancoal projects continue to be approved and built, the coal-based utility sector moves even closer to the shared goal of

electricity generation with near-zero emissions, including carbon capture and storage."

COAL INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO EXPAND

Knight 2008 [Matthew, Fueling the Future, CNN, 11:55 a.m. EDT, Fri April 25, 2008,http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/Energy.intro/index.html?iref=newssearch, Taylor]Gas and oil face uncertain futures in term of long-term supply. And their negative impact on global warming is practically beyond doubt. Coal, of course, is

no better for the climate. But with plentiful supplies, coal-fired power stations are being built apace. Hundreds of them are goingup in China and India and the United States. Combined, these three nations own half of the world's coal reserves.The recent skyrocketing of oil prices is also compounding the problem, leading many manufacturers to buy coal to provide the rawmaterials for hundreds of products, including plastics and fertilizers.

CAPITOL HILL CONTINUING TO EXPAND INVESTMENT IN THE COAL INDUSTRY

Ling, 07/07/08 [Katherine Ling, ENERGY/WATER: Coal technology, water projects likely to see boost in markup, E&EDaily July 07, 2008 http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2008/07/07/archive/5?terms=coal, Taylor]The Senate's fiscal 2009 budget allocation exceeds the White House request by almost $2 billion and will likely includesignificant increases for advanced coal research, nuclear nonproliferation and cleanup programs, and the Army Corps of Engineers.Last month, the House Appropriations Committee approved a $33.3 billion energy and water spending bill, including significant increasesto the administration's requests for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, science and nuclear nonproliferation.House appropriators also gave a more than $750 million boost from the White House request to the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureauof Reclamation, but they remain $500 million short of fiscal 2008 levels.Appropriators have been highly critical of the White House's funding requests. "We have a budget without a lot of forethought. ... The[administration's] budget puts us in a bad position," said subcommittee Chairman Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.).

In an earlier hearing, Dorgan said he was trying to provide "robust" funding for clean coal research. According to estimates from theEnergy Information Administration and others, coal is going to be a major part of the nation's energy portfolio now and in thefuture, but the Bush administration has not funded it as the president has promised, Dorgan said. The White House's requestis $648 million for clean coal technology.Dorgan and ranking member Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) also stressed the need for technology to retrofit and increase efficiencyfor current coal plants -- such as those emphasized in DOE's Clean Coal Initiative -- and not concentrate solely on carboncapture and storage technologies, although they are important as well.

4
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/Energy.intro/index.html?iref=newssearchhttp://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2008/07/07/archive/5?terms=coalhttp://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/2008/07/07/archive/5?terms=coalhttp://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/Energy.intro/index.html?iref=newssearch


5/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Coal DA Unq

GLOBAL COAL USE WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE INDUSTRY EXPANDING

GLOBALLY

FOX NEWS 06-25-2008 [Worldwide Energy Demand Will Rise 51 Percent by 2030,Energy Department Report Says,http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371286,00.html, Taylor]

Still, the report predicted continued growth ofpetroleum use in transportation and heavy coal use to produce electricity.The report assumes in its analysis no additional measures to curtail carbon dioxide emissions to address climate change.The expected growth in energy demand is especially dramatic in developing countries, led by China, that are expected to have continued strong economicgrowth over the next two decades.

For example, the use of coal worldwide is expected to increase at a rate of 2 percent a year. China alone will account for nearly three-fourths of that increase, the report said.

Despite coal burning's significant impact on climate change "it's the fuel of choice for electricity production in the global economies,especially China," Caruso said at a meeting held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.The world's demand for liquid fuels mostly oil will continue to grow to 113 million barrels a day by 2030, nearly a third more than is consumed today.Unconventional oil such as oil shale and biofuels such as ethanol should grow to nearly 10 percent of total liquid fuels. Still, with continued demand forconventional crude oil, the OPEC cartel is expected to increase production at a pace that will keep its 40 percent market share, the report predicts.It also projects:

Electricity production from nuclear power plants growing by one-third with the addition of 124 new nuclear power plants by 2030, as many as 45 of themin China, 17 in India, 18 inError! Hyperlink reference not valid.and 15 in the United States.

Natural gas "will replace oil wherever possible" especially in industrial uses, causing demand to grow for the fuel, which has less of a greenhouse gasimpact than other fossil fuels.

A growth in the demand for liquefied natural gas, or LNG, with production concentrated in theError! Hyperlink reference not valid.and Africa. A 2.1 percent annual growth in renewable energy for electricity generation, but mostly because of increases in the use of hydroelectric power indeveloping countries.

5
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371286,00.htmlhttp://var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch2/%20/http://var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch2/%20/http://var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch2/%20/http://var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch2/%20/http://var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch2/%20/http://var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch2/%20/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371286,00.htmlhttp://var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch2/%20/http://var/www/apps/scribd/scribd/tmp/scratch2/%20/


6/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Renewable Energy Link

Renewable energy destroys the coal industry

Kohn Director of the Movement Vision Lab @ the Center for Community Change 08/24/07

Sally, Blood Coal, Not Clean Coalhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-kohn/blood-coal-not-clean-co_b_61696.htmlCoal isn't about electricity. Native American reservations in North and South Dakota alone have enough wind capacity to meet one-third of America's energyneeds. Wind, solar and other technologies we have today are viable alternative sources of electricity, and conservation effortscould dramatically reduce our electricity demand in the first place. But to the coal industry, alternative energy is the realdisaster. So the coal industry will do anything it can to procure coal as quickly and cheaply as possible, slapping a fresh coat of green paint on top to tryand distract us from the harm caused to mine workers, Appalachian children and air that all of us need to breathe.

Renewable Energy destroys the coal industry

Kriz National Journal staff correspondent 08 Margaret, National Journal 3/1 proquestUtilities planning for the future are facing some cold, hard realities. Most energy experts see no easy way to provide reliable, cheap, cleanelectricity. Environmentalists are pushing companies to focus primarily on energy efficiency and renewable-energy technologies. "Energy efficiency could

end growth in the electric sector," predicted Nilles of the Sierra Club. "And if you phase in large-scale renewables, we could retire a wholefleet of coal plants." He noted, for example, that Minnesota plans to get 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2025.Federal research, he argues, could lower the cost of wind, solar, and wave power, and other renewable-power sources.

6
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-kohn/blood-coal-not-clean-co_b_61696.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-kohn/blood-coal-not-clean-co_b_61696.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-kohn/blood-coal-not-clean-co_b_61696.html


7/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

RPS Link

RPS displaces the expansion of the coal industry

Union ofConcerned Scientists, Feb 05 Increasing the Texas Renewable Energy Standard: Economic and Employment

Benefits http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/increase-the-texas-renewable-energy-standard.htmlCurrently, Texas relies heavily on fossil fuels and nuclear power for most of its electricity. This reliance on fossil fuelsparticularly natural gas and coalfor electricity generation will increase if Texas continues on its current path. Increasing the existing state RPS would stimulate additionalrenewable energy development and help diversify the electricity mix. Under the 20 percent proposal, Texas would increase its totalhomegrown renewable power to more than 17,800 MW by 20253 producing enough electricity to meet the needs of 4.9 million average-sized homes.4Texas strong wind resources would power the majority of this development, with bioenergy and solar resources also making significant contributions to the

mix. For much of the 20-year forecast period, renewable energy primarily displaces natural gas generation. In the later years, renewable energy alsohelps to displace new coal generation.

NATIONAL RPS GUTS THE TRANSITION TO CLEAN COAL

Fershee, 8 Assistant Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, "Changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of a National Renewable PortfolioStandard on the U.S. Energy Industry," 29 Energy L. J. 49, Lexis-Nexis Academic / sam s)

Another significant issue facing investment decisions is what a national RPS would mean for decisions related to other typesof generation that utilities have considered. Some utilities, for example, have been considering building new nucleargeneration facilities.113 A national RPS would seem to make that less appealing, although it is not entirely clear that newnuclear facilities were that likely, or the best option, anyway. Nonetheless, a national RPS, at least absent a correspondinggreenhouse gas emissions' cap, would add another hurdle for nuclear investment. Clean coal technologies, another majorgeneration source in development,114 would face similar hurdles, unless, of course, the national RPS were to include cleancoal as a renewable source. And, of course, what constitutes "clean" is never an easy answer.115

RPS LEADS TO DECREASED RELIANCE ON COAL

JOSTEN 2007 [R. Bruce, exec vp of Government Affairs @ Chamber of Commerce, June15,http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2

007.pdf/ TTATE]On a different note, the Chamber does not promote the adoption of a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction policy, whether it be cap-and-trade, carbon tax oranother similar method. As detailed in the Chambers March 19, 2007, letter to you regarding climate change, any global climate solution should beinternational and economy-wide in scope, and should preserve competitiveness and promote conservation and efficiency, and must promote technologyresearch, development and demonstration. With that in mind, however, implementation of an economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction policy wouldcertainly negate the usefulness of a federally-mandated RPS. The greenhouse gas reduction policy would act as an incentive to develop renewable fuels; due

to carbon-constrictions, states and localities would have no choice. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) confirmed that theincreased use of renewables as mandated by an RPS would lead to correspondingly lower coal and natural gas generation;1virtually the same result would occur if a greenhouse gas reduction regulatory scheme were in place. However, such an approach would be unadvisable, asthe drawbacks of a mandatory greenhouse gas reduction policy seriously outweigh any potential benefits.

7
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdfhttp://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdfhttp://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdfhttp://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf


8/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Emissions Cap Link

Capping emissions destroys the coal industry

Washington Post 6/28/07 http://www.wvcoal.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=61

A senior coal company executive on Wednesday lambasted U.S. lawmakers for proposing caps on emissionsblamed for globalwarming, saying the Democrats were out to destroy America's coal industry.Robert Murray, chairman, president and chief executive of Murray Energy Corp., also blasted the federal government's mine safety agency for "outrageous"

new fines that he warned could put some miners out of business."There is no question that the majority party in this country wants to eliminate the coal industry," Murray told the McCloskey's CoalUSA conference, adding that some Republicans were also advocating tough measures.A prominent environmentalist was quick to dismiss the remarks. "We don't see a conflict between protecting the climate and continuing to use reasonable

amounts of coal," David Hawkins, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview.Murray, who said he was giving testimony to the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee on Thursday, warned that proposedrestrictions on carbon emissions would severely hurt the coal industry, which supplies the fuel for approximately 50 percent of America'selectricity generation.

Emission controls determine the future of the coal industry

Kriz National Journal staff correspondent 08 Margaret, National Journal 3/1 proquestIf Congress enacts controls on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the new law would determine what kind ofelectricity-generation plants get built in the United States. Global-warming legislation, which Congress could pass as soon as this year,will decide how fast utility companies must cut their pollution, how much the regulations will cost, and what impact the changes will have onconsumers.

Almost half of the electricity used in the United States comes from coal.Natural gas provides 20 percent; nuclear, 19 percent; andhydroelectric dams, 7 percent. Utilities looking for new sources of power see problems with all of the alternatives. Natural-gas prices are high, and,increasingly, utilities will have to import new supplies. Nuclear plants remain prohibitively expensive to build. And no major new sites are available for

hydropower.That leaves coal, which traditionally was considered the most reliable, lowest-cost fuel available. America has massive coal reserves-275 billion tons ofrecoverable coal. But the globalwarming debate has put this energy source in the spotlight. Electricity accounts for 40 percent of the nation's greenhouse-gas

emissions, and coal is the biggest contributor, producing almost twice as much carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour as does natural gas. As a result, thelegislation could decide the future of the nation's 501 coal-fired power plants and the fate of proposals to build new ones.

8


9/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

CAP-AND-TRADE LINKS

A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM WOULD SHUT-DOWN THE COAL INDUSTRY THIS

WOULD COLLAPSE THE US ECONOMY

Kudlow 2008 [Lawerence Kudlow, Coal-Cap Disaster, The New York Sun, 2008/03/28http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.12403761639913558&bhcp=1, Taylor]The Wall Street Journal notes that under Warner-Lieberman existing coal-fired power plants that currently provide about one-half of U.S. electric power will be shut down, to be replaced by new nuclear-power facilities and other alternativetechnologies yet to be developed. Let that idea sink in. By pulling the plug on half of our current electricity production, cap-and-trade will risk a massive undermining of the American economy, as well as our future economic and national security.The coal story is so important simply because America has massively undeveloped coal resources. With 27% of the world'scoal reserves estimated at 270 billion tons, the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And yet cap-and-trade would destroy this

critical sector. New coal technologies being developed right now wouldn't even be allowed to flourish under cap-and-trade.Synthetic-fuel-developed coal, through the Fisher-Tropsch technology, is a proven gas-to-liquid process that sequesters coal carbon.It could power the American economy for generations.

9
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.12403761639913558&bhcp=1http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.12403761639913558&bhcp=1http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.12403761639913558&bhcp=1http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/auth/checkbrowser.do?ipcounter=1&cookieState=0&rand=0.12403761639913558&bhcp=1


10/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Nuclear Power Links

PLAN BOOSTS NUKE POWER, MAKING CLEAN COAL NOT COST-COMPETITIVE

WNA 2004. ("'Clean Coal' Technologies", World Nuclear Association, July, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf83.htm)

The most promising "clean coal" technology involves using the coal to make hydrogen from water, thenburying the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen. The greatest challenge is bringingthe cost of this down sufficiently for "clean coal" to compete with nuclear power on the basis of near-zeroemissions for base-load power.

CLEAN COAL AND NUKE POWER ARE REPLACEMENTS FOR EACH OTHER

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '96. ("8. Alternatives to License Renewal", GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Vol. 1, May,http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v1/part08.html)

The United States has abundant low-cost coal reserves, and the price of coal for electric generation is likely toincrease at a relatively slow rate. Even with recent environmental legislation, new coal capacity is expected tobe an affordable technology for reliable, near-term development and for potential use as a replacementtechnology for retired nuclear power plants.

.... CARD CONTINUES...

Another potential alternative to license renewal would be to continue to generate electricity from non-nuclearplants beyond the original date at which they were scheduled to shut down permanently. This alternative would

have the effect mainly of substituting coal, gas, oil, or hydropower plants for nuclear facilities.

In recent years electric utilities have given considerable attention to the issue of repowering non-nucleargenerating facilities. Repowering is the primary process by which utilities extend the life of their generatingplants. It is comparable to refurbishing a nuclear plant. Since the average age of all types of fossil units is over30 years, utilities have been exploring repowering older fossil units as a way of avoiding even larger capitaloutlays for new plants (Bretz 1994). As of March 1994, about 30 units with a total capacity of 3000 MW(e) hadbeen proposed for repowering. Assuming regulatory environmental compliance and a successful application oflessons learned from federal clean coal technology demonstrations, DOE estimates that up to 248 GW(e) ofgenerating capacity could be repowered or retrofitted with clean coal technologies by the year 2010 (DOE/EIS-0146). In 1991 DOE estimated that 2500 coal-fired plants were 30 years old or older (making them candidatesfor repowering) and that this total would rise to 3500 to 3700 in 1998. From a utility's perspective, not onlymight repowering be cost-effective; but also environmental goals, particularly improved air quality, could beeasier to accomplish since improved, less polluting technologies would be installed during repowering.

10


11/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Nuclear Power Links

NUKE POWER TRADES OFF WITH COAL

Charleston Gazette 2004. (Nuclear-power industry sees signs of a revival, Pg. 9A,November 14, l/n)

Nuclear power currently accounts for nearly 20 percent of all the electricity producedin the U.S., compared with 51 percent coal and 17 percent natural gas. To maintainthat mix, the industry says new plants must be built in the U.S. as older ones areretired.

US PUSHING CLEAN COAL AS TRANSITION TO HYDROGEN PLAN TRADES OFFWITH GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

Greenwire 2003. (Climate Change: White House reports detail technology efforts, Vol. 10,No. 9, December 5, l/n)International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy: Ambassadors from 15 countries and the European Commissionlaunched IPHE, an international coalition to boost development of hydrogen energy, in late November, although membercountries disagreed about the best methods to produce hydrogen. European ministers advocated renewable energy sources ornuclear power, while the United States and other countries pushed for development of clean-coal technologies to producehydrogen

11


12/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Clean Coal Solves Warming

Clean coal technology is being accelerated to cut emissions and boost the economy

Johnson, 8 has spent the past decade reporting from Europe, increasingly on energy issues

(Keith, Clean Coal: Hype or Hard Slog? 5-28-2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/28/clean-coal-hype-or-hard-slog/?mod=googlenews_wsj) // JMPMore and more companies are starting to dabble with clean-coal technology. Whether thatll make a difference for the economy or theenvironment remains an open question.

General Electric and oil-field services firm Schlumberger announced Wednesday a deal to work together to develop clean-coal technology. The two would match GEs experience with a new generation of power plants that can capture carbon dioxide, and Schlumbergersexperience with pumping the stuff underground to goose reluctant oil wells.After the U.S. government pulled the plug on its big clean-coal demonstration project earlier this year, private industry is trying to fill the gap tomake clean coal a viable power solution. As weve noted before, thats crucial to curbing emissions and keeping the economyfunctioningeven though many environmentalists see clean coal as an expensive oxymoron.

Steady investment in coal outweighs the aff its a smoother less dangerous transition

McClatchy - Tribune Business News 4/23/08 Advocate: Coal not perfect, but vital proquest

Apr. 23--Coal industry advocate Joe Lucas likens the country's dependence on coal-fired power to a big liner crossing the ocean.Some people may think they can change the liner's direction instantaneously. But try to make a quick U-turn, and the ship is more likely tocapsize. A better approach is to slow down, make a calculated turn and then accelerate, he said Tuesday.Continuing the analogy, Lucas said that rather than junking coal-fired power plants as the primary source of U.S. electricity in favorof renewable-energy sources, it is wiser to invest more money steadily into clean coal technologies.Innovations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions then can be deployed across the industry, in conjunction with the development of other power sources, to

stem global warming without strangling the economy and hurting ordinary people by increasing the cost of electricity."There's no perfect energy resource. Coal's not, but neither are the other sources," Lucas, vice president of communications for the American Coalition for

Clean Coal Electricity, said on Earth Day to The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board."There should always be a search for continuous environmental improvement, and we think you can do it with coal," he added."We're not supportive of coal at the expense of other fuels. We think you should keep all on the table, including coal, because it is the bedrock of ourelectrical supply."

Clean coal solves CO2 emissions

Canine contributing editor to OnEarth 05 Craig, How to Clean Coal OnEarth, Fall proquestIn spite of this grim outlook, Hawkins is far from ready to concede defeat. He's among the most prominent and outspoken advocates of abold scheme that would take advantage of the nation's abundant coal resources while at the same time curbing CO2 levels inthe atmosphere. This scenario relies on a combination of technologies that would enable a new breed of coal-fueled powerplants to "capture" CO2 and other pollutants efficiently and economically. The captured CO2 gas would then be piped deep below theearth's surface for permanent storage. This concept, often referred to as "carbon capture and sequestration" (CCS, for short), has in recent years gained agreat deal of currency in the halls of Congress, in the boardrooms of utility companies, and nearly anyplace else-even the White House-where energy policyand responses to global warming are discussed.

The National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan panel of 16 energy experts from industry, academia, government, and nonprofit groups,released a landmark report last December that includes carbon capture and sequestration among its key policy recommendations. "Inaddition to our own domestic coal reserves, which are the largest in the world, China and India have enormous resources of low-cost coal," says Sasha

Madder, a senior analyst with the commission. "It's hard to imagine them not using it. Developing systems with which these countries cancontinue to utilize their coal, but in a way that does not increase carbon emissions, is a huge priority. Carbon capture andsequestration is the most viable pathway for that."

12


13/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

DA TURNS THE CASE STABLE ENERGY MARKETS

OUR RELIANCE ON COAL IS PERVASIVE AN ABRUPT SHIFT FROM COAL WOULDDESTABILIZE OUR ENERGY MARKETS

HALL AND KIRKHAM, environmental/energy attorneys, 2007

[Coal: Like It or Not, Its Here to Stay, Stoel Rives, 6/4/07, http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484, Sui]The challenge facing government and industry is reconciling rapid economic growth and energy demand with theenvironmental impacts and risks of climate change. Despite the environmental concerns and promising advances in thedevelopment of alternative energy sources, coal will undoubtedly continue to play a significant role in power generation fordecades to come. Attempts to abruptly eliminate coal from current and/or future energy options would be imprudent andjeopardize the availability, reliability and security of a countrys overall energy supply.

13


14/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

COAL GOOD ENVIRONMENT

NEW TECH, LIKE IGCC, MOVING COAL TO A CLEAN ENERGY


[Coal: Like It or Not, Its Here to Stay, Stoel Rives, 6/4/07, http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484,Sui]While it is clear that the demand for coal will continue to grow in the foreseeable future, developing pollution-reductiontechnologies appear to have the potential to significantly reduce the environmental impacts of coal consumption. Onepromising avenue is the integrated combined-cycle (IGCC) process, which chemically turns coal into synthetic gas that canthen be burned in a turbine. This method permits the segregation and capture of most of the pollutants, including carbon,before combustion. It also results in improved efficiency compared to conventional pulverized coal. In the form of carbondioxide, carbon can be injected underground for permanent storage in geological formations, without harming theenvironment. IGCC, however, remains a developing technology and has not been shown to work reliably at the scale of a large utility power plant.However, with increasing gas prices, IGCC has become increasingly cost competitive and ongoing improvements are lowering the cost further andimproving reliability.

MORE EVIDENCE COAL INDUSTRY DECREASING EMISSIONS


[Coal: Like It or Not, Its Here to Stay, Stoel Rives, 6/4/07, http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484,Sui]Without question, there are significant environmental impacts that accompany the mining, transportation and combustion ofcoal. That said, coal is not going away, but it is getting cleaner.Technology, innovation and awareness have createdincreasing opportunities for coal to reduce its environmental impacts across all aspects of the industry most importantly,reducing the impact at the point of primary use, which is combustion for generation of electricity. Broader global deployment

of generally-accepted industry practice, along with the implementation of proven and developing pollution-reductiontechnologies, is key. Energy and technology must be used as tools for global development while achieving environmentally-sound, worldwide sustainability in energy supply, delivery and efficient utilization. To ensure the availability of affordable,secure and reliable energy, the United States and the world must include coal as a major component of its energy portfolio.Therefore, support for the development of new energy technologies must include significant research into and developmentof clean coal technologies along with improving the competitiveness of alternative energy sources.

14
http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484


15/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

CLEAN COAL KEY TO ECONOMY

CLEAN COAL INDUSTRY KEY TO US ECONOMIC SECURITY

Clean Coal Power Initiative Program Facts 2006

[December, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/ccpi/Prog052.pdf, Sui]

The governments investment in CCPI recognizes that crucial benefits to our nations economic stability

and security can be achieved through clean coal research. The program, providing opportunity for promising

technologies emerging from the FE core R&D program, is a critical strategy for overcoming risk barriers to

commercialization. Successful outcomes of the CCPI program provide an important part of the technology needed to

supply our energy needs. Over the last 20 years, our Nation has seen a correlation between economic growth andincreasing electricity production. Success of the CCPI program will provide an important part of the

technology needed to supply our immediate and long-term energy needs in support of our economic well

being, while improving our environment. When the CCPI concept was introduced in 2001/2002, the U.S. power

industry was heavily focused on gas-fired generation growth. Nevertheless, coal-fired units were forecast to provide a

significant amount of incremental power generation through 2020. In todays energy forecast, due to evolving

perspectives of fuel availability, coal-fired generation is expected to play an even greater role in the

Nations incremental power generation through 2025. This substantial increase in reliance on coal can only be

achieved through longer and more efficient operation of existing coal-fired plants, incorporating new CCT in ongoing

operations, and adding new clean-coal plant capacity. Today, CCT development programs are providing a valuable

option to permit increasing use of our most abundant, indigenous energy source to meet the Nations electricity

and economic growth demands in an environmentally acceptable manner while reducing reliance on

energy imports. By demonstrating the latest technology to improve efficiency and low-cost, high-performance emissions

controls, CCPI technologies can help us to achieve a more secure energy future.

15


16/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

COAL KEY TO THE ECONOMY

COAL INDUSTRY KEY TO THE ECONOMY VAST SUPPLY MAKES IT RELIABLE ANDKEY TO JOB GROWTH

DAVIS 06-28-2008 [David, congressman, So Close, Yet So Far Away, STATES NEWS SERVICE,lexis/taylor]

We need to use more of our vast coal supply. Coal is not some dirty leftover from the Industrial Revolution. During WorldWar II, the Germans were using coal to gas technologies to fuel their war machines. Certain clean-coal technologies makeconverting a lump of coal to liquid fuel simple, cost effective, and it is another solution to America' energy crisis. Accordingto Americaspower.org, the U.S. has more than 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves, the equivalent of 800 billionbarrels of oil, more than three times Saudi Arabia' proven oil reserves.We need to build new refineries in the United States. Not one new refinery has been built since 1976 (Tennessean,6/15/2008). I have supported legislation that will open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of sighting new, safe, and reliableAmerican refineries. Some think that new refineries are not environmentally safe. It is important to note that one of strongest hurricanes to pass over theUnited States, Hurricane Katrina, passed over where most American refineries are located, the Gulf of Mexico. Not one single drop of oil was spilled into theGulf of Mexico or onto land during Hurricane Katrina because we can immediately shut down refineries when a hurricane or other natural disaster mayaffect production and the ability to safely operate.Out of touch policies like adding a $0.50 tax on each gallon of gasoline (a Washington favorite), proposals allowing government employees to work fromhome, socializing the energy industry, launching seven investigations into price gouging, launching 4 investigations into speculators and passing policies thatwill potentially force Americans to go from cars to bicycles have not lowered the price of gasoline or diesel at the pump. It is time for no more excuses. It istime to support our comprehensive, balanced plan that addresses all facets of energy and energy production.

Imagine the jobs that would be created by using American oil, natural gas, clean-coal technologies, switchgrass, ethanol, and by buildingnew refineries. Not only would these create jobs and lower energy prices, they would act as a stimulus to Americas falteringeconomy. America is still that shining city on the hill. We are an amazing country full of amazing people. We have an abundance of American energy andwe have an abundance intelligent and creative citizens; it is time to put all of our resources to use and end the energy crisis that is affecting so many peopleacross the First District of Tennessee and all across America

16


17/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

***AFF ANSWERS***

Not Unique Industry Dying

Coal industry collapsing environmental standards, public opinion and lack of financing

Salon.com 5/15/08 Celebrate clean coal, come on!http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and

related industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear as prospects fornew plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told the Christian Science Monitor is a "defacto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more environmentally friendly president may lead to the firstfederal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Even red states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants.Last year, 59 new plants were either canceled or halted across the nation.When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate

strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiral rightnow."

Coal industry is dying lack of government funding and regulatory confusion

New York Times 5/30/08 Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.htmlPresident Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of clean coal. All three candidates to succeed him favor theapproach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging forthe technology.

But it has become clearin recent months that the nations effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site inIllinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.

Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have madeit easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.

Coal industry is struggling construction costs

New York Times 5/30/08 Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.htmlCoals had a tough year, said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that makes equipment for processing coalinto a form from which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of risingconstruction costs. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster.

PUBLIC OPPOSITION WITH COAL CAUSING INSTABILITY IN INDUSTRY

BROWN AND DORN 2008 [The Beginning of the End for Coal: A Long Year in the Life ofthe US Coal Industry, April 02, http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htm/Beck]

What began as a few local ripples of resistance to coal-fired power plants is quickly evolving into a national tidal wave ofopposition from environmental, health, farm, and community organizations as well as leading climate scientists and state

governments. Growing concern over pending legislation to regulate carbon emissions is creating uncertainty in financialmarkets. Leading financial groups are now downgrading coal stocks and requiring utilities seeking funding for coal plants toinclude a cost for carbon emissions when proving economic viability.

17
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htmhttp://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htmhttp://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htmhttp://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update70_timeline.htm


18/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Clean Coal Bad Environment

Coal cannot be clean we dont have the technology

Salon.com 5/15/08 Celebrate clean coal, come on!http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/

The problem with the "trust us, we'll fix this" approach is that carbon capture and storage isn't close to being technicallyperfected or to becoming economically feasible. "When they say 'clean coal,' the first question that comes to mind is havethey invented a new product that actually solves global warming, because right now that doesn't exist," says Bruce Nilles,director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "It is a figment of their imagination." The Clean Coal campaign, he says, "is thelatest example of trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge."Achieving workable carbon capture and storage may be even more difficult than first thought. The New York Times recently reported that many energyexperts have likened it to putting a man on the moon. Among the many problems is the fact that this moon shot has to be replicated at coal plants throughout

the world. Many of those plants are in economically and technologically poor countries. The task is so expensive that the federal government'sonly major project designed to demonstrate the technology, a full-scale plant called FutureGen, is in danger of going under.The Department of Energy is attempting to revamp the project, while the latest word from Congress is that it might be put on hold until a new president takesover.

18
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/15/coal_marketing/


19/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Clean Coal Bad Inefficient

Clean Coal is a pipedream too expensive and inefficient

Johnson lead writer WSJ 5/9/08 Keith clean coal black gold or fools gold?

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/09/clean-coal-black-gold-or-fools-gold/Greenpeace doesnt think so. In a big report published this week, the environmental group says that carbon capture and storage is an expensive,inefficient pipe dream thatif it ever does come to fruitionwill arrive too late to save the planet. Greenpeace (and plenty of folksin the industry) doubts clean coal plants will be a reality before 2030. For Greenpeace, which also opposes nuclear power, the global push for cleancoal is just a smokescreen to keep fossil fuels at the top of the heap for decades to come.

19


20/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Clean Coal Bad

CLEAN COAL DOES NOT EXIST COAL IS STILL THE NUMBER ONE CONTRIBUTOR

TO GLOBAL WARMING NO CURRENT COAL PLANT IS EFFECTIVELY CLEANING ITS

COAL

MSNBC NEWS 2007 [NASA Climate Guru: Dont Build Coal Plants, February 27,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17359704/DGuo}

WASHINGTON - One of the worlds top climate scientists called for an end to

building new coal-fired power plants in the United States because of their huge role

in spewing out greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. In the next

decade of so, 159 coal-fired power plants are scheduled to be built, generating

enough power for about 96 million homes, according to a study last month by the

U.S. Department of Energy. There should be a moratorium on building any more

coal-fired power plants, NASA scientist James Hansen told the National Press Club

Monday. Hansen was one of the earliest top researchers to warn the world of global

warming. Hansens call dovetails with an edict by the private equity group buying

TXU, a massive Texas-based utility. The equity group, led by Kohlberg Kravis

Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group, agreed to stop plans to build eight new

coal-fired power plants, not to propose new coal-fired plants outside Texas and to

support mandatory national caps on emissions linked to global warming. This is

the first time Hansen, director of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies in

New York, has called for an end to coal burning. He said its the No. 1 solution to

global warming, and that so far, no coal-fired plants can capture carbon dioxideemissions so they are not released into the atmosphere. While burning oil and

natural gas also release carbon dioxide, they will run out and theres more coal to

burn and pollute the Earth, so its more of a threat, Hansen said. Coal is the big

amount, Hansen said. Until we have that clean coal power plant, we should not be

building them. It is as clear as a bell. Hansen, who said he was speaking as a

private citizen, also told the press club that by mid-century all coal-fired power

plants that do not capture and bury carbon dioxide must eventually be bulldozed.

Its foolish to build new ones if the emissions cant be dealt with, he said. He said

the increased efficiency could make up for the cutbacks in coal.

20
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17359704/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17359704/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17359704/


21/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

Clean Coal Bad

COAL INDUSTRY NOT TRANSITIONING TO CLEAN COAL EFFECTIVELY NOEFFECTIVE TECH

WALD, staff writer, 2008 [Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal, The New York Times, 5/30/08,http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=425f6009b9e65c19&ex=1212292800, Sui

But it has become clear in recent months that the nations effort to develop the technique is lagging badly.

In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at acarefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbondioxide for eons.

Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington

State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.

Coal is abundant and cheap, assuring that it will continue to be used. But the failure to start building, testing, tweaking andperfecting carbon capture and storage means that developing the technology may come too late to make coal compatible withlimiting global warming.

Its a total mess, said Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California,Berkeley.

Coals had a tough year, said John Lavelle, head of a business atGeneral Electricthat makes equipment for processing coal into a form from

which carbon can be captured. Many of these projects were derailed by the short-term pressure of rising construction costs. Butscientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a long-term disaster.

Plans to combat global warming generally assume that continued use of coal for power plants is unavoidable for atleast several decades. Therefore, starting as early as 2020, forecasters assume that carbon dioxide emitted by new power plants will have to be capturedand stored underground, to cut down on the amount of global-warming gases in the atmosphere.

Yet, simple as the idea may sound, considerable research is still needed to be certain the technique would be safe, effective and affordable.

Scientists need to figure out which kinds of rock and soil formations are best at holding carbon dioxide. They need to be sure the gas will not bubble back tothe surface. They need to find optimal designs for new power plants so as to cut costs. And some complex legal questions need to be resolved, such as whowould be liable if such a project polluted the groundwater or caused other damage far from the power plant.

Major corporations sense the possibility of a profitable new business, and G.E. signed a partnership on Wednesday withSchlumberger, the oil field servicescompany, to advance the technology of carbon capture and sequestration.

But only a handful of small projects survive, and the recent cancellations mean that most of this work has come to ahalt, raising doubts that the technique can be ready any time in the next few decades. And without it, were not going to have much ofa chance for stabilizing the climate, said John Thompson, who oversees work on the issue for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.

The fear is that utilities, lacking proven chemical techniques for capturing carbon dioxide and proven methods forstoring it underground by the billions of tons per year, will build the next generation of coal plants using existing technology.That would ensure that vast amounts of global warming gases would be pumped into the atmosphere for decades.

21
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_electric_company/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_electric_company/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_electric_company/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/schlumberger_ltd/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/schlumberger_ltd/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_electric_company/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/schlumberger_ltd/index.html?inline=nyt-org


22/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

COAL BAD - ENVIRONMENT

CLEAN COAL IS A FARCE COAL STILL EMITS CARBON DIOXIDE AND IT IS

DANGEROUS TO EXTRACT FROM THE EARTH

BIGGERS 2008 [Jeff, staff writer, Clean Coal? Dont Try to Shovel That,WASHINGTON POST, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html/ DGuo]

Every time I hear our political leaders talk about "clean coal," I think about Burl, an irascible old coal miner in West Virginia. After 35 years underground, hestruggled to conjure enough breath to match his storytelling verve, as if the iron hoops of a whiskey barrel had been strapped around his lungs. In 1983,during my first visit to Appalachia as a young man, Burl rolled up his pants and showed me the leg that had been mangled in a mining accident. The scarssnaked down to his ankles. "My grandpa barely survived an accident in the mines in southern Illinois," I told him. "He had these blue marks and bits of

coal buried in his face." "Coal tattoo," Burl wheezed. "Don't let anyone ever tell you that coal is clean." Clean coal: Never was therean oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health. Invoked as often by the Democratic presidential candidates as by the

Republicans and by liberals and conservatives alike, this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward a sustainable energypolicy. Democrats excoriated President Bush last month when he released a budget calling for more -- billions more -- in funds to reduce carbonemissions from coal-burning power plants to create "clean coal." But hardly a hoot could be heard about his proposed cuts to more practical investments in

solar energy, hydrogen fuel and home energy efficiency. Meanwhile, leading Democrats were up in arms over the EnergyDepartment's recent decision to abandon the $1.8 billion FutureGen project in eastern Illinois, planned as the first coal-firedplant to capture and store harmful carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Department officials, unlike politicians, had to confrontthe spiraling costs of this fantasy. Orwellian language has led to Orwellian politics. With the imaginary vocabulary of"clean coal," too many Democrats and Republicans, as well as a surprising number of environmentalists, have forgotten the dirty realities ofextracting coal from the earth. Pummeled by warnings that global warming is triggering the apocalypse, Americans havefallen for the ruse of futuristic science that is clean coal. And in the meantime, swaths of the country are being destroyedbefore our eyes. Here's the hog-killing reality that a coal miner like Burl or my grandfather knew firsthand: No matter how "cap 'n trade"schemes pan out in the distant future for coal-fired plants, strip mining and underground coal mining remain the dirtiest andmost destructive ways of making energy. Coal ain't clean. Coal is deadly. More than 104,000 miners in America havedied in coal mines since 1900. Twice as many have died from black lung disease. Dangerous pollutants, including mercury,

filter into our air and water. The injuries and deaths caused by overburdened coal trucks are innumerable. Yet even on the heels of a recent reportrevealing that in the last six years the Mine Safety and Health Administration decided not to assess fines for more than 4,000 violations, Bush administrationofficials have called for cutting mine-safety funds by 6.5 percent. Have they already forgotten the coal miners who were entombed underground in Utah last

summer? Above ground, millions of acres across 36 states have been dynamited, torn and churned into bits by strip mining in thelast 150 years. More than 60 percent of all coal mined in the United States today, in fact, comes from strip mines. In the "United States of Coal,"

Appalachia has become the poster child for strip mining's worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An estimated 750,000to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surroundingcommunities -- an area the size of Delaware -- have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in the last two decades. Thousandsof tons of explosives -- the equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities everyyear. How can anyone call this clean? When the Bush administration announced a plan last year to do away with a poorly enforced 1983regulation that protected streams from being buried by strip-mining waste -- one of the last ramparts protecting some of the nation's oldest forests andcommunities -- tens of thousands of people wrote to the Office of Surface Mining in outrage. Citizens' groups also effectively halted the proposedconstruction of 59 coal-fired plants in the past year. Yet at last weekend's meeting of the National Governors Association, Democratic and Republicangovernors once again joined forces, ignored the disastrous reality of mining and championed the chimera of clean coal. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell even

declared that coal states will be "back in business big time." How much more death and destruction will it take to strip coal of thisbright, shining "clean" lie? As Burl might have said, if our country can rally to save Arctic polar bears from global warming, perhaps Congress canpass the Endangered Appalachians Act to save American miners, their children and their communities from ruin by a reckless industry. Or at least stoptalking about "clean coal."

22
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html


23/23

SDI 2008 Coal DA

kmt coal da

Documents