Da Coal1

UMKC SDI 2008 Coal Disadvantage
LouGie Lab
Coal Disadvantage
Coal Disadvantage..........................................................................................................................................................1
***Coal Proper***.........................................................................................................................................................3
Coal 1nc..........................................................................................................................................................................4
***Uniqueness***..........................................................................................................................................................5
2nc Uniqueness Bopper..................................................................................................................................................6
Coal Prices High.............................................................................................................................................................7
US Coal Industry Strong.................................................................................................................................................8
Coal Demand Rising.......................................................................................................................................................9
Now Key Time for US Coal..........................................................................................................................................10
A2: Renewables Now/Coming......................................................................................................................................11
A2: Emissions...............................................................................................................................................................12
A2: High Production Prices Now/Coming....................................................................................................................13
***Links***..................................................................................................................................................................14
2nc Link........................................................................................................................................................................15
Generic Renewables......................................................................................................................................................16
Generic Alternative Energy...........................................................................................................................................17
Solar Power...................................................................................................................................................................18
Wind..............................................................................................................................................................................19
Nuclear Power...............................................................................................................................................................20
RPS................................................................................................................................................................................21
Carbon Tax....................................................................................................................................................................22
Emissions Trading.........................................................................................................................................................23
***Impacts***..............................................................................................................................................................24
Economy: Coal Key......................................................................................................................................................25
Economy: Coal Key......................................................................................................................................................26
Railroads Module..........................................................................................................................................................27
Hegemony Module........................................................................................................................................................28
Coal Mining Good: Jobs...............................................................................................................................................29
***Clean Coal***.........................................................................................................................................................30
Clean Coal 1nc..............................................................................................................................................................31
***Uniqueness***........................................................................................................................................................32
Clean Coal Coming.......................................................................................................................................................33
A2: Clean Coal Not Possible........................................................................................................................................34
Coal Industry Expanding..............................................................................................................................................35
***Links***..................................................................................................................................................................36
Renewables Destroy Coal.............................................................................................................................................37
RPS Links.....................................................................................................................................................................38
Nuclear Power...............................................................................................................................................................39
***Impacts***..............................................................................................................................................................40
2nc Transition................................................................................................................................................................41
Clean Coal Solves Warming.........................................................................................................................................42
***Affirmative Answers***.........................................................................................................................................43
Alternative Energy Not Hurt Economy.........................................................................................................................44
Coal Industry Collapsing..............................................................................................................................................45
Transition From Coal Now...........................................................................................................................................46
Transition From Coal Now...........................................................................................................................................47
Coal Bad Warming........................................................................................................................................................48
Coal Bad: Environment.................................................................................................................................................49
Coal Bad: Mining- Generic...........................................................................................................................................50
Coal Bad: Mining- Underground..................................................................................................................................51
Coal Bad: Mining- Mountain Top.................................................................................................................................52
No Clean Coal: Politics.................................................................................................................................................53
No Clean Coal: Technology..........................................................................................................................................54
1
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Module................................................................................................................................55

Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Module................................................................................................................................56
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Pollution..............................................................................................................................57
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Pollution Bad......................................................................................................................58
Clean Coal Bad: Pollution Module...............................................................................................................................59
Clean Coal Bad: Causes Pollution................................................................................................................................60
Clean Coal Bad: Freshwater Contamination Bad.........................................................................................................61
Clean Coal Bad: Energy Costs Module........................................................................................................................62
Clean Coal Bad: Increase Energy Cost.........................................................................................................................63
Clean Coal Bad: Warming Turn....................................................................................................................................64
Clean Coal Bad: Mining...............................................................................................................................................65
***Peak Coal***..........................................................................................................................................................66
Peak Coal- Yes..............................................................................................................................................................67
Peak Coal- Yes..............................................................................................................................................................68
Peak Coal- Yes..............................................................................................................................................................69
Peak Coal- Yes- US.......................................................................................................................................................70
Peak Coal- Yes- US.......................................................................................................................................................71
Peak Coal- Yes- Best Evidence.....................................................................................................................................72
Peak Coal- No...............................................................................................................................................................73
2
LouGie Lab
***Coal Proper***
3
LouGie Lab
Coal 1nc
Coal prices are guaranteed to rise over the next few decades
Garry White editor of financial newsletters, 6/4/2008 ,Coal Price Guaranteed to Soar
[http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/coal-price-guaranteed-to-soar/2828
Demand for coal is through the roof. And I believe the price of a ton of the stuff is almost guaranteed to rise in the
years ahead. Currently, two-thirds of the world’s coal is used to generate electricity. The rest goes into steel and concrete production. The
US Department of Energy says China and India will account for 70% of the increase in world coal consumption over the next two decades. And
consider China’s plans for the next five years… they’re planning to build the equivalent of ten New York Cities, said a Canadian chief
executive and financier at the mining conference I attended yesterday! This will need unimaginable amounts of coal for steel production,
concrete production and energy generation. China used to be the largest coal producer in the world, but it is now a net importer. As the
communist Republic continues to develop, it will have to import more and more coal. There are no realistic alternatives. And that
will continue to boost the coal price. It’s great news for one brilliant investment. More on that in a moment.
Alternative energy development will lead to transition away from coal

Chris Pearson 7/1/2008; Alternative Energy Today; “Alternative Energies Drive to Meet, Then Beat Coal”;
http://alt-energystocks.com/blog/2008/07/01/alternative-energies-drive-to-meet-then-beat-coal/ accessed 07/24/08
With the renewed focus on alternative energies, which always means renewed investments toward advancing the
technologies, the per kWh costs of generating alternative energies will soon match, then fall below the equivalent cost
of coal. When this occurs, alternative energy will rightly assume the role of preferred provider and the transition of
an industry dependent upon coal to the more environmentally friendly energy sources will begin in earnest. At $.05-$.08 per kWh,
geothermal energy had already equaled and now surpasses the cost effectiveness of coal and, as drilling and harnessing technologies continue
to improve, we expect to see geothermal generation plants sprouting up more and more, first in Nevada then where ever the heat is within our
reach. Other alternative energies are not far behind. According to a 2008 Sandia National Laboratory presentation the cost of producing
electricity via concentrated solar power (CSP), the science of using parabolic mirrors to concentrate the heat of the sun onto a generating tower,
could fall to between $.08and $.10 per kWh when the capacity exceeds 3,000 megawatts. While photovoltaic generation on a commercial scale
would still cost between $.15 and $.22 per kWh in a prime location like Phoenix, Arizona, it is estimated that by 2015 PV generated electricity
should achieve “grid parity” and no longer require financial incentives or subsidies. In places like Hawaii and Italy, PV electricity is already
cheaper than conventional electricity. Wind power has already proven its cost effectiveness and has achieved significant use in Europe. Since
the power source, wind, is free, the cost of generating electricity by wind, solar and geothermal is computed considering the cost of
constructing the generating unit over its effective lifetime. By any measure, wind turbines produce the cheapest but least reliable power source
and it is only the concerns of environmentalists supported by rich politicians like Ted Kennedy who don’t want their view from their Cape Cod
or Florida ocean front mansions altered by a few wind turbines many miles offshore that keep wind from taking its rightful place as a prime
supplier to America’s electric grid.
Coal is key to the US economy

Steven Mufson and Blaine Harden March 20 2008 Washington Post, Coal Can't Fill World's Burning Appetite
With Supplies Short, Price Rise Surpasses Oil and U.S. Exporters Profit, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903859.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008032000989
In the United States, the boom in coal exports and prices has helped lower the trade deficit, which declined last year for the
first time since 2001. The value of coal exports, which account for 2.5 percent of all U.S. exports, grew by 19 percent last year, to $4.1 billion,
the National Mining Association said. An even bigger increase is expected this year. That means that, in a small way, higher revenues for
U.S. coal exports indirectly helped the U.S. economy cover the cost of iPods from China, flat-screen TVs from Japan and machinery
from Germany. The still-gaping trade deficit of the world's largest industrial power at the dawn of the 21st century was slightly eased by a fuel
from the era and pages of Charles Dickens.
Economic collapse causes global war

Walter Russel Mead (fellow a Council on Foreign Relations) Summer 1992 New perspectives quarterly
But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of
international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of
people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the
'30s.
4
LouGie Lab
***Uniqueness***
5
LouGie Lab
2nc Uniqueness Bopper

Now is the crucial time – The global coal boom will last, but continued commitment by the
governmentt is key to industry success – top industry experts agree
Bruce Nichols 6/27/2008 “Current US coal boom likely to last: experts”,
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/UPDATE-1-Current-US-coal-boom-likely-to-last---exp-
FYRWM?OpenDocument
NEW YORK -- Unlike previous US coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand
and output problems in other producing countries, an industry analyst has said. Jim Griffin, managing director of Rothschild Inc,
told the 2008 McCloskey Coal USA conference that some factors in today's coal market resemble the boom-bust cycle of the
1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of
expanding coal production amid regulatory, labour and financing challenges. He also cited the breadth of world
economic growth that is driving persistent coal demand. "I do not believe this cycle will end like the last," Mr Griffin
said. Mr Griffin was one of several speakers who foresee a bright future for the coal industry into the indefinite future.
Gerard McCloskey of The McCloskey Group, a conference sponsor, predicted world demand for seaborne coal will grow to 800 million tonnes
a year by 2017 from 650 million tonnes currently. Mr McCloskey said the anticipated growth in coal consumption comes against a
background of supply challenges that may see export coal coming from new places such as Tanzania and Alaska. Jeff Watkins, president of
Hill & Associates, a leading coal industry consultant, predicted that in the boom environment, US coal exports will top 90 million
short tons (81 million tonnes) in 2009. Steve Leer, chairman and CEO of Arch Coal Inc, a major US producer, went further,
predicting US exports will reach 100 million tonnes by 2010. Hill & Associates' current projection of exports in 2008 is between
84 million and 88 million tons (75 to 79 million tonnes), said Hill Vice President John Hanou. That is up from previous industry
estimates of about 80 million tons. Current world coal production is about 6 billion tonnes. Current US production is about 1.1 billion
short tons (990 million tonnes). Despite soaring demand, the industry faces a hostile political environment because of the
perception that coal worsens global warming. The point was illustrated by remarks from a Greenpeace spokesman at the conference.
"For us, coal isn't the answer. Coal is a part of the problem," Carroll Muffett of the environmental action group said. Kenneth Nemeth,
executive director of the Southern States Energy Board, a coalition of 16 states and two US territories, argued that coal is a key answer and that
it can be done cleanly. But he said coherent government energy policy is needed to develop it. "We have secure, real
alternatives to what we're doing now, and we're not doing anything about it," Mr Nemeth said. Fred Palmer, government relations vice
president for Peabody Energy, agreed policy has not been coherent and blasted US withdrawal from FutureGen, a
government-industry plan to build a "clean coal" power plant. He said development of the carbon capture and sequestration
technology associated with the project is needed to provide adequate electric power while minimising damage to the environment. He said
industry remains committed to FutureGen, and he predicted it will continue after a new US president and Congress take office in 2009.
6
LouGie Lab
Coal Prices High

Analyst are predicting up to a 130% increase for coal prices.
The Associated Press June 2 2008 “Analyst predicts coal price jump”,
www.courier
journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20080602/BUSINESS/80602006+%22coal+price%22&hl=en&ct=cl
nk&cd=30&gl=us
A Friedman, Billings, Ramsey analyst significantly raised his coal price predictions and upgraded a major miner to
"Outperform," suggesting that demand will far outpace supply through 2010. Analyst David Khani raised his price
forecast for metallurgical coal, which is used in steel production, by 90 percent for 2009 to $130 per ton. For 2010,
he raised his expectation by 130 percent to $250 per ton. For steam coal, used in boilers to produce electricity,
Khani raised his predictions by about 25 percent in 2009 and 2010
Coal prices are guaranteed to rise over the next few decades
Garry White (editor of financial newsletters) Jun 4 2008 “Coal Price Guaranteed to Soar”,
http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/coal-price-guaranteed-to-soar/2828.
Demand for coal is through the roof. And I believe the price of a ton of the stuff is almost guaranteed to rise in the
years ahead. Currently, two-thirds of the world’s coal is used to generate electricity. The rest goes into steel and
concrete production. The US Department of Energy says China and India will account for 70% of the increase in
world coal consumption over the next two decades. And consider China’s plans for the next five years… they’re
planning to build the equivalent of ten New York Cities, said a Canadian chief executive and financier at the
mining conference I attended yesterday! This will need unimaginable amounts of coal for steel production,
concrete production and energy generation. China used to be the largest coal producer in the world, but it is now a
net importer. As the communist Republic continues to develop, it will have to import more and more coal. There
are no realistic alternatives. And that will continue to boost the coal price. It’s great news for one brilliant
investment. More on that in a moment.
7
LouGie Lab
US Coal Industry Strong

Coal industry strong - locked and loaded
The U.S. Coal Review May 12 2008, “Some 60% of James River’s anticipated ’09 CAPP yield still to be
priced The U.S. Coal Review”
Some 60% of James River’s anticipated ’09 CAPP yield still to be priced James River Coal is locked and loaded. Results will be in
shortly. James River posted a 78 cents/share loss in the first quarter, which compared to a 46 cents/share deficit in the comparable 2007
quarter. But folks are just grazing right now at the salad bar. The main course is still to come – and dessert could be
aw fully rich. "The first quarter of 2008 will be remembered as a watershed period for the coal industry,” Peter T.
Socha, chairman and CEO of James River, said. “For the first time, it became clear to the general public that large
developing economies around the world have a voracious and growing appetite for all commodities, including coal. It
also became clear that the coal industry in the United States will play a much greater role in meeting the world's
demand for coal.” As has been clear for a while, James River has a substantial open position from which it ought to be able to take
advantage of record coal prices. A swap of some short-term pain for significant long-term gain appears sensible. “For our company, (Q1) was a
mixed quarter,” Socha said. “Our mine operations struggled against bad weather, new regulations, and commodity related cost inflation. On a
very positive note, we have now substantially completed two major milestones in our efforts to adjust the mine portfolio to the new regulatory
and cost environment.” James River completed the connection between Mine 81 and Mine 74 and is finishing reversing all belt drives. The
connection will allow the company to belt the coal directly into its preparation plant and eliminate a 23-mile truck haul during a period of very
high diesel prices, Socha noted. James River is also finishing all mining operations at one of its deepest, highest cost mines, BL-4. The new
replacement mine began operations in late April." But the bigger news probably is on the price front. James River is “completing our
shipments on many CAPP contracts that began during the past several years with much lower prices and replacing them with new contracts
with prices between $80 and $90 per ton,” Socha said. “Our shareholders will see the benefit of these new contracts going forward." The
strategy has been in place in Richmond for a while. “We have been able to capitalize on the stronger coal markets by patiently adding to our
contract position for 2009 and 2010,” Socha said. “The utility steam coal placed under contract during the current period had an average Btu of
12,500 and average sulfur of 1.4-1.5%. All of our recent contracts and contract discussions for CAPP have included steam coal prices above
$80 per ton and industrial stoker coal prices above $100 per ton. “We are also seeing a noticeable change in the market for our Indiana coal.
Both prices and inquiries from utilities in other coal-burning regions have increased during the past several
months. “Our current contract strategy for CAPP coal is to use our remaining open tonnage in 2008 as part of a package for customer
requirements for longer-term contracts. We would like to have a total of approximately 4-5 million tons of expected 2009 production and 2-3
million tons of expected 2010 production under contract by late July." Approximately 60 percent of James River’s expected 2009 CAPP
production remains open to new market pricing, which certainly leaves no room for regret.
Coal industry strong- dominate alternative to oil

Andrew Dolbeck (Editor of the Weekly Corporate Growth Report) April 28 2008 “Valuation of the Mining
Industry”, New York Times
The Coal Sector About 25 percent of the world's known coal reserves are located in the United States. Historically, the
domestic coal industry has been susceptible to economic changes. As budget concerned consumers carefully
monitor their power consumption, the demand for coal-generated power declines. The current weakening of the
US economy is likely to decrease demand. In addition, the industry is faced is increasing production and freight
expenses. Electricity producers consume about 90 percent of the coal produced in the United States, and coal
accounts for more than half the power consumed in the US. Mild weather in many parts of the country has left domestic power
generation facilities with unexpectedly high inventory levels of coal, limiting the demand for new coal. But as long as coal
remains an abundant, low-cost alternative to oil, it will continue to be the dominant fuel
source for electrical power generation.
8
LouGie Lab
Coal Demand Rising

Coal demand is on the rise- - Investor choice over renewable and nuclear
Richard R. Hall (Energy lawyer) and John S. Kirkham (Environmental Lawyers) June 4 2007 “Coal: Like It
or Not, It’s Here to Stay” http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484
Thirty years ago, coal was viewed as the fuel of the past. Nuclear power, natural gas, and renewable energy
sources were going to take us away from coal and place our reliance on cleaner alternatives. However, despite
these predictions, the use of coal for generating electricity has nearly tripled in the last 30 years, and the demand
for and consumption of coal is projected to increase for the foreseeable future. Coal has enabled America’s electric
utilities to keep up with ever increasing demand, and coal is now being used in record amounts. Last year, coal-
fired plants contributed 50% of the electricity produced in the United States, and it is anticipated that coal will
maintain this percentage through 2025. But while coal-fired plants contribute half of the electricity produced in the
United States, they also contribute four-fifths of the carbon emissions associated with electrical generation.
9
LouGie Lab
Now Key Time for US Coal

The US coal industry is experiencing a global boom – but proceeding with caution is crucial
Andrew Dolbeck (Editor of the Weekly Corporate Growth Report) April 28 2008 “Valuation of the Mining
Industry”, New York Times
The Mining industry covers establishments primarily engaged in the extraction of minerals, coals, and ores from the earth. The mining industry
provides ores and raw metals to mills and metal fabricators. Over the past few years, commodity prices have been trending
upwards. The global boom in commodities includes a number of metals. Historically, the domestic coal industry has been
susceptible to economic changes. The current weakening of the US economy is likely to decrease demand. Like the metals sector, the coal
industry is seeing increased demand from international markets. While international markets clearly provide an
opportunity for expansion, coal producers need to proceed carefully. Domestic demand for metals is likely to
fall, as the economy weakens and production continues to decline in the automotive and home construction sectors. The future also looks
bright for the coal sector. FULL TEXT: The Mining industry covers establishments primarily engaged in the extraction of minerals,
coals, and ores from the earth. Industry operations include quarrying, digging, and related support operations such as milling, crushing,
washing, and screening. The mining industry also covers the exploration for and development of mineral properties and services performed in
the development and operation of mineral properties. The Metals Sector The mining industry provides ores and raw metals to mills and metal
fabricators. The pricing for metals varies with demand, which is determined by a broad range of industrial' and economic factors. Over the past
few years, commodity prices have been trending upwards. The global boom in commodities includes a number of metals. Over the last five
years, the price of zinc has doubled and the price of copper has tripled. An economic downturn in the United States could bring a downward
trend in overall commodity prices, but rising consumption in China, India, and other developing countries should continue to generate demand.
International markets offer a possible means of expansion. According to a European Commission report, many metallic minerals
are either not geologically available within the European Union or are being extracted in relatively small volumes compared with global
production, including copper, iron ore, nickel, and zinc. Europe isn't the only market, either. China's economic and industrial expansion is
creating demand for copper, aluminum, and zinc. The metals sector has suffered from decreased demand from the North American housing
construction and automotive industries. These industries provide significant demand for a number of metals, particularly aluminum and cooper.
Disruptions in the production output of copper, due to labor disputes and natural disasters, have limited the supply relative to demand. As a
result, copper prices are holding up well, despite the downturn in the automotive and construction sectors, which account for roughly half of
US copper consumption
10
LouGie Lab
A2: Renewables Now/Coming

The Coal Industry shows no sign of slowing down
Coal demand is on the rise- - Investor choice over renewable and nuclear
Richard R. Hall (Energy lawyer) and John S. Kirkham (Environmental Lawyers) June 4 2007 “Coal: Like It
or Not, It’s Here to Stay” http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484
Despite environmental concerns and the development of alternative energy sources, the coal industry (and coal
consumption) is on the rise, with no signs of slowing in the next few decades. The U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) indicates that U.S. coal production in 2005 increased 1.9% to 1133.3 million short tons. This
is the second straight year of increased production after significant declines from 2001-2003. This trend is
expected to continue. The EIA predicts that U.S. coal production will continue to increase by an average of 1.1%
each year until 2015, when total production will equal 1272 million short tons. Coal production growth should be
even stronger between 2015 and 2030, averaging 2% per year, as electricity demand continues to increase. This
demand will likely be met with new or expanded coal-fired power plants.
11
LouGie Lab
A2: Emissions
Threats of emissions caps aren’t enough to hurt the coal industry.
The Economist. November 15 2007 Still going strong
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10145492
But poor and fast-growing places are not the only ones with a hunger for coal. In America, more coal-fired generation is being
built than at any time in the past seven years, despite the threat of emissions caps, according to the Department of Energy.
In Europe, several power companies are building new coal-fired plants, even though every tonne of carbon dioxide that they emit will require
an expensive permit. For example, RWE, a German utility, plans to spend €6.2 billion ($9.1 billion) on three new coal-fired plants by 2012.
One of them is already under construction. All this has helped to push the price of coal steadily upwards in the past few years. Nonetheless, it
has risen less quickly than that of oil or natural gas. Coal is now by far the cheapest of the common fuels for power stations relative to the
amount of heat it generates when burnt (see chart). At the very least that is encouraging utilities to run their existing coal-fired plants flat out.
But it is also prompting some to convert oil-fired plants to run on coal instead. Enel, Italy's former electricity monopoly, has already performed
one such refurbishment, and has two more under way, at a cost of €3.8 billion. Leonardo Arrighi, who supervises the firm's investments in
generation, says it would like to build “more and more” coal-fired plants. In theory, the carbon price (in Europe) and the threat of
one (in America) should dent this enthusiasm for coal. But in practice many utilities are betting that the disparity in
fuel prices will outweigh the cost of extra permits to pollute. At the moment such permits cost pennies in Europe, because
governments handed out too many of them. Although there should be more of a shortage starting next year, the futures price would have to rise
from the current €22 per tonne of carbon to over €30 per tonne to prompt a significant switch away from coal over the next two years,
according to Henrik Hasselknippe of Point Carbon, a consultancy.
12
LouGie Lab
A2: High Production Prices Now/Coming

The new costs are irrelevant – the industries balancing of capitol spending and cash flows
solve
Business Wire February 7 2008 “Fitch: Higher Cost Headwinds for U.S. Coal Industry in 2008”,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_Feb_7/ai_n24252443?tag=content;col1
NEW YORK -- Higher operating and materials costs will constrain earnings growth for U.S. coal producers in 2008
despite an improved pricing environment, according to Fitch Ratings. Fitch expects only modest growth in coal production following
a 1% contraction in 2007. Coal producers are experiencing elevated prices of consumables such as fuel, explosives and
steel, in addition to high labor costs. Maintenance and capital costs continue to be on the rise, and can be amplified
when mining in new or challenging regions. A further uncertainty is the current regulatory environment regarding carbon
emissions, which has stalled plans for many new coal plant builds. These new coal plants would cap domestic demand in the intermediate term.
Despite the high cost environment, Fitch believes that coal producers will, for the most part, continue to balance
capital spending with free cash flows and maintain healthy capital structures. Growth in export demand may
underpin higher pricing and should help companies manage production volumes efficiently to lower unit costs.
Our evidence subsumes your warrants – new costs and high prices will not effect the
industry – they will take the necessary steps
Business Wire June 4 2008 “Fitch: Muted Supply Response to Strong International Coal Demand for U.S. Coal
Industry”, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_June_4/ai_n25476070?tag=content;col1
NEW YORK -- U.S. coal producers are benefiting from tight global markets for both steam and metallurgical coal
which is diverting imports from the United States and providing export opportunities for domestic producers,
according to a Fitch Ratings report. The supply response to improving price conditions should be measured, given high
operating and materials costs. Fitch expects only modest growth in U.S. coal production following a 1% contraction in 2007.
Constraints to building new mines include high capital costs, the need for sales contracts covering a high portion
of the new tonnage for a period of time, and a lengthy permitting process. While some producers are announcing new
projects, these have more than two years lead-time and may only replace declining production at existing mines. 'High consumables prices and
labor costs will constrain earnings growth over the next few months,' said Monica Bonar, Director, Fitch Ratings. 'Mining in new or
challenging regions can amplify already high maintenance and capital costs.' Capital raising for the industry has
been fairly active of late both for expansion capital and to improve weak capital structures. Fitch expects major coal
producers will continue to balance capital spending with free cash flows. Fitch notes that companies with weaker
capital structures are selling common stock or converting debt to common stock and taking other steps to shore up
liquidity.
13
LouGie Lab
***Links***
14
LouGie Lab
2nc Link
US coal industry is growing now, increase renewable expansion or emission regulations and
it will collapse the coal industry, which is key to US electricity supply
Kirby Davis March 12 2008 Journal Record
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 by increased electrical generation needs, President and Chief Executive Joseph W. Craft III told a sold-out University
of Tulsa Friends of Finance audience 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 without regard for existing technological capabilities and
increased research, could have drastic impact on U.S. and world economic growth by reducing usage of the key component to
cheap power. "The cost of electricity is driven by a large part on the percent 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 power generation by coal-fueled plants rose 50
percent last year to 3.9 billion kilowatts per hour. Federal government projections estimate that will grow to 4.9 billion kilowatts by 2030, with
improved sulfur removal technologies allowing the coal-fired market share to hit 57 percent. Coal usage is projected to rise 48
percent over that period, he said, comprising the majority of power generation. 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 carbon emission regulations could skew those
projections. Craft did not urge regulators to turn away from alternative power sources. He said he embraced 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 104 nuclear 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 market share. As for natural gas, Craft said the inability for domestic production to meet rising demand has not only driven
natural gas prices higher but forced importation 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 spike not 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, which he 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-fired electrical 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 if we do have a cost, we do
have a benefit," Craft said of new environmental regulations. "We should try not to create one crisis by 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 my decision, because more
often than not all they want is more money."
15
LouGie Lab
Generic Renewables
Sun Wind and water reduce our dependency on coal.
Eric McLamb 2008 The Union of Concerned Scientists, “Fossils Fuels vs. Renewable Energy
Resources:Energy's Future Today”
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:sDC7iU5crh4J:www.ecology.com/features/fossilvsrenewable/fossilvsrenewab
le.html+increase+in+solar+power+will+decrease+our+dependence+on+coal&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us.
7/24/08$
The oil, coal and natural gas companies know these are serious problems. But until our renewable energy sources become more
viable as major energy providers, the only the alternative for our global population is for these companies to
continue tapping into the fossil fuel reserves to meet our energy needs. And, you can pretty much count on these companies
being there providing energy from renewable sources when the fossil fuels are depleted. Many oil companies, for example, are involved in the
development of more reliable renewable energy technologies. For example, British Petroleum Company, today known as BP, has become one
of the world's leading providers of solar energy through its BP Solar division, a business that they are planning on eclipsing their oil production
business in the near future. Sun, wind and water are perfect energy sources...depending on where you are. They are non-polluting,
renewable and efficient. They are simple: all you need is sunlight, running water and/or wind. Not only do the use of renewable energy
sources help reduce global carbon dioxide emissions, but they also add some much-needed flexibility to the energy resource
mix by decreasing our dependence on limited reserves of fossil fuels.
16
LouGie Lab
Generic Alternative Energy

Alternative energy shifts the focus away from coal, deteriorating the industry; Florida
proves.
Peter Montague September 20 2007, “The Coal Industry is in deep trouble,” Rachel's Democracy & Health
News (Annapolis)
As recently as 2004, the coal industry seemed invincible. But since then the threat of global warming has produced a
scientific consensus, which has begun to produce a political consensus. 'Ban coal' is becoming a popular slogan.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has announced he opposes the construction of any new coal plants: "There's not a coal-
fired plant in America that's clean. They're all dirty," Reid told reporters recently. "Unless we do something quickly about global warming,
we're in trouble," he said. Some states have begun to force utilities to consider renewable energy sources. For example, in
June the bi-partisan Florida Public Service Commission rejected a proposal from Florida Power and Light to build a coal-fired electric plant.
Florida's Republican governor Charlie Crist said approvingly that the Public Service Commission's decision "sent a very powerful message"
and that Florida "should look to solar and wind and nuclear as alternatives to the way we've generated power in the Sunshine
State."In January the California Public Utilities Commission voted 4-0 to prohibit the state's three big electric companies from entering into
long-term contracts with sources that emit more carbon dioxide than a modern natural gas plant. This means no coal.
Coal industry is threatened by alternative energy sources

Sally Kohn August 24 2007 “Blood Coal, Not ‘Clean Coal” PC
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/24/3371/
Coal isn’t about electricity. Native American reservations in North and South Dakota alone have enough wind capacity to meet one-third of
America’s energy needs. Wind, solar and other technologies we have today are viable alternative sources of electricity,
and conservation efforts could dramatically reduce our electricity demand in the first place. But to the coal
industry, alternative energy is the real disaster. 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 try and distract us from the harm caused to mine workers,
Appalachian children and air that all of us need to breathe
Alternative energy sources trade off with the coal industry – this leads to industry collapse
Mark Clayton (Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor) March 4 2008 “U.S. coal power boom suddenly
wanes”, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s07-usec.html
The federal Energy Information Administration forecasts a need for only 4,000 megawatts of additional capacity by the same date. Bruce
Nilles, who organizes grass-roots opposition to coal power plants for the Sierra Club, an environmental group, says power-demand projections
are soft. "There's not going to be a big need for more coal," he says. "There are plenty of alternatives coming." In
fast-growing areas of the country like Texas, regulators worry that demand will outstrip power supplies. The big
Texas utility TXU last year canceled eight of 11 coal-fired power plants it had on the drawing boards. Yet Texas now
leads the nation in wind-power generation and is aggressively building more. The state also holds potential to lead the
nation in sequestering carbon emissions from power plants in old oil fields and saline aquifers. Tenaska Inc., a power company based in
Omaha, Neb., announced last month it was planning the nation's first new conventional coal-fired power plant to capture 90 percent of its
carbon-dioxide emissions. It aims to sell the CO2 to oil companies, who would pump it underground to boost oil production. Mr. Sergel's
organization has warned Texas it could have reliability problems if it doesn't build more power soon. Others in the coal-power industry
are adamant, too. "If they don't start building coal plants, it's going to be an economic prosperity problem for the
country," says Richard Storm, CEO of Storm Technologies, an Albemarle, N.C., company that specializes in optimizing coal-fired power
plants. "We need coal. Coal is a national treasure."
17
LouGie Lab
Solar Power
Solar Power Decreases coal consumption
Stewart Somerville 2008 “The United States gets 49% of its electricity from coal”APS.
http://www.utsolar.org/documents/Somerville%20Solar%20Paper.pdf
If a resource’s consumption increases exponentially it is not important how much is left. It will be consumed much faster than one can imagine.
On the other hand, if annual consumption is decreased exponentially it will last forever. To replace an increase of 5% of oil and coal
consumption growth, we need to increase renewable energy by 245% a year. This is just to offset the growth. This is not
possible. We need to increase the efficiency of the energy we use. If we could decrease the use of oil by 10% per year and increased
renewable energy by 10%we would effectively reduce our dependence on oil. An acceptable growth rate for renewable energy needs to be
increased to 25% per year. Production of renewable energy would double every 3 years. In 1983, we used 3quadrillionBTUs less energy than in
1973 due to our more efficient use of energy. That is a big change. What if we built smaller houses and made them net zero energy? Could we
effect an even larger savings? Solar can provide energy at the daytime peak. It is the peak demand that is really the problem for power
plants. If we could offset the peak, our power plants would have more capacity for normal demand. Solar costs are fixed once installed but
conventional power costs are going upand will never come back down. The cheap oil is gone. By building net zero energy homes and electric
cars, we could easily decrease our oil and coal consumption by 5% or more. By also increasing our renewable energy
production by 25%, we would decrease oil and coal consumption by another 7.35%. In a short time, we could be free of our
dependency on oil and coal.
18
LouGie Lab
Wind
Wind energy disrupts the coal market by competing with potential coal mines
The Bismarck Tribune July 24 2008 Coal vs. wind: It's about land, Jul 24, 2008 - 14:05:13 CDT Earth and sky
-- there is energy to be had from both
http://www.bismarktribune.com/articles/2008/07/24/news/opinion/editorials/doc4888876dd5c6a842921341.txt
Coal mines always have been big business. Wind farms are getting to be. And when heavy-hitting companies such
as North American Coal Corp., Minnesota Power and Florida Power and Light are eyeing an area of real estate,
you bet it's consequential. The real estate isn't paltry; it's a lot of acreage in Oliver and Morton counties. Minnesota Power and
FPL want to build separate wind farms. But the coal company says, "Wait a minute, we may want to mine where you guys
are talking about putting up wind turbines. That won't work." The companies should negotiate and not leave it to the Public
Service Commission to be King Solomon. Complicating matters is that the electric utility is a member of a corporate family that includes a coal
mining outfit that could offer a site for a wind farm, reclaimed land where the coal is gone. That's what the CEO of the parent company, Allete,
assumed. It sounds as if there have been a good many people doing a bunch of assuming rather than communicating.
Expansion of wind energy will trade off with coal investment

UPI Energy, July 25 2007 “Wind offsets carbon dioxide”
According to a new release by Washington-based Worldwatch, global wind power is offsetting tons of carbon dioxide. In 2006
the 15,200 megawatts of newly installed wind turbine capacity is expected to generate enough clean energy to offset nearly
43 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. According to the Worldwatch Institute, that is the equivalent of 23 U.S. coal
plants, 7,200 megawatts of coal-fired energy or 8 million cars. "Wind power is on track to soon play a major role in
reducing fossil fuel dependence and slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," said Janet Sawin,
Worldwatch senior researcher. "Already the 43 million tons of carbon dioxide displaced by the new wind plants installed last year equaled
more than 5 percent of the year's growth in global emissions. If the wind market quadruples over the next nine years -- a highly plausible
scenario -- wind power could be reducing global emissions growth by 20 percent in 2015," Sawin said. Investment in wind power has
jumped to $22 billion in 2006, and though it still only accounts for around 1 percent of U.S. electricity generation, more capacity
was added in wind in 2006 than in the coal and nuclear industries combined. Growth hasn't only been in the United States; efforts
are being undertaken all over the world. "China and the Unites States will compete for leadership of the global wind industry
in the years ahead," Sawin said. "Although the U.S. industry got a 2-year head start, the Chinese are gaining ground rapidly.
Whichever nation wins, it is encouraging to see the world's top two coal burners fighting for the top spot in wind energy."
19
LouGie Lab
Nuclear Power
Nuclear power kills the coal industry.
Watthead June 2 2007 “Carbon Backlash: Coal Companies Pitted Against Major U.S. Corporations Pushing for
Climate Regulations”
Murray, whose private company produces about 30 million tons of coal per year, has formed the Coal-based Stakeholders Chief Executive
Officers Group, comprising CEOs of railroads, some coal companies and utilities. It opposes so-called "cap and trade" regulations,
arguing that caps on emissions will devastate the U.S. coal industry which fuels about 50 percent of the country's electricity
generation. Murray said he sent Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens a letter a few months ago telling him he would no longer do business with him - a
decision he said will result in the loss of millions of dollars in business to Caterpillar. He also pointed out power company Exelon Corp's
(EXC) John Rowe, as "one of the biggest enemies of coal for decades because he's got nuclear." Chicago-based Exelon,
which is not a member of USCAP, said in a statement that Rowe is "a leading proponent of moderate and thoughtful climate change legislation
that preserves all technological alternatives." He co-chairs the National Commission on Energy Policy, which has advocated for a variety of
technologies to address climate change, including clean coal and carbon sequestration. "And certainly John is an advocate for nuclear power."
20
LouGie Lab
RPS
RPS would cause a dramatic shift away from coal
Foster Electric Report September 19 2007 “EIA finds that federal 25% rps would cause dramatic shift away
from coal generation,”
Meeting twin 25% national renewable portfolio standards for electricity and transportation fuels by 2025 would
require nearly a 13-fold increase from 2005 levels in non-hydropower renewable generation, and cause a "dramatic shift" away from
coal and natural gas generation, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a report released Sept. 11. "This analysis
suggests that, to comply with the twin 25-by-25 mandates, it will be necessary for electricity and motor fuel
producers to dramatically increase their use of technologies that play a relatively small role in today's energy markets," the
report said. For instance, EIA said the 13-fold increase in renewable electricity generation from 2005 levels would be accompanied by more
than a 12-fold increase in the amount of ethanol and biodiesel needed.
RPS would remove the need for coal.

Jim Madden (president of Chesapeake Renewable Energy) January 17 2007 “Support for RPS Legislation Is a
Stand for Clean Energy”, http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/news/news_detail.cfm?id=247
Virginia has an important choice to make, but it's a no-brainer. The Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) bill sponsored by Sen. Mary
Margaret Whipple would require that all retail electric utilities in Virginia obtain 12 percent of their electricity from
renewable sources -- such as wind, solar, and biomass -- by 2020. It would also require these utilities to enact energy
efficiency programs to save an additional 5 percent of electric usage by 2020. These limits are attainable and implementing them
is unlikely to increase our electric rates. If the General Assembly passes this bill, Virginia would join 23 other states in taking a stand in
support of clean energy. Every megawatt-hour of clean energy produced removes the need to generate a megawatt-hour
of electricity from other sources, such as coal and natural gas.
21
LouGie Lab
Carbon Tax
Capping Carbon emissions destroys the coal industry
Steve James and Timothy Gardner June 27 2007 “Congress wants U.S. coal industry destroyed: exec.”
Reuters. http://www.patchworkfilms.com/shockingfacts.htm
A senior coal company executive on Wednesday lambasted U.S. lawmakers for proposing caps on emissions
blamed for global warming, 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. Murray, who said he was giving testimony to the Senate's Environment and
Public Works Committee on Thursday, warned that proposed restrictions on carbon emissions would severely hurt the coal
industry, which supplies the fuel for approximately 50 percent of America's electricity generation. Congress is
considering several bills that aim to fight global warming by putting tough limits on greenhouse gases. Supporters say the bills would provide
incentives for companies to invest in technology to cut emissions. "This climate change issue is a human issue," Murray said, paraphrasing
what he said he would tell the Senate committee chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California. “The present course of action
that is proposed will result in little environmental benefit, but will destroy the lives of America's working
families."Murray said some studies estimated that reducing coal use would lead to the loss of 3 million to 4 million
jobs in the United States.
22
LouGie Lab
Emissions Trading
Regulating carbon emissions massively hurts the coal industry, its community, and the
workers.
Jonathan Rivoli January 20 2008 Bismarck Tribune “The Growing Concern Over CO2”
You can't see it or smell it as it rises from smokestacks into the clear blue sky above the prairie. But to an increasing number of
policymakers around the world, carbon dioxide emissions have become a very tangible concern. CO2 emissions from cars
and coal power plants like the ones in North Dakota are considered by many scientists to be a chief cause of global warming. The science is
complicated, and will be covered in much greater depth later in this series, but the basics are this: as more CO2 is emitted it causes a thickening
of the atmosphere that traps the sun's heat. Now that the problem is becoming more widely understood, the question becomes how to stop it.
The most obvious solution - regulating CO2 emissions - is gaining traction from Brussels, Belgium, to St. Paul, Minn. But both
environmental groups and the coal industry agree that such regulation will hurt the coal business and its customers.
For western North Dakota - where coal mining and power plant jobs are a way of life for some and an indirect
economic boon for all - the decisions made over the next few years could have a major impact.
The coal industry is a major part of the economy; cutting emissions hurts local coal
businesses and workers.
Jonathan Rivoli January 20 2008 Bismarck Tribune “The Growing Concern Over CO2”
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the state gets 93 percent of its electricity from coal - a ratio that,
despite much-hyped alternative energy projects over the last few years, remains unchanged from 1990. In addition to producing
most of its own power, North Dakota uses its coal to send power to neighboring states like Minnesota. The
production of all this coal-generated electricity energizes the region's economy. In Oliver and Mercer counties, the heart of
coal country, the industry accounts for nearly 41 percent of all employment and 66 percent of wages earned, according
to data compiled from Job Service North Dakota and local economic development officials. It pumps more than $43 million in wages
alone into those counties' economies. Indeed, coal is the lifeblood of places like Washburn and Underwood, where the nearby Coal
Creek Station Power Plant and Falkirk mine are at the center of life. For people like Hank Rasmusson, an Underwood resident
who has owned a small gas station near the center of town since the 1960s, decisions made half a continent or half a world away
could have a big effect on life. "It could have a tremendous impact," Rasmusson said. "I could lock up, that's what could
happen." Rasmusson, 66, said many of his customers at R and S Oil Co. work at the nearby mines and power plants. A
contraction in the coal industry means many of them might not stick around Underwood to shop at his store, he said.
23
LouGie Lab
***Impacts***
24
LouGie Lab
Economy: Coal Key

Strong US coal industry is key to the economy – it provides a ripple effect for he rest of the
economy – top experts agree
CARE (Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy) 2003, “Study Shows Economic Impact of Coal Based
Electricity”, http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=43
Using abundant U.S. coal reserves to generate electricity creates economic empowerment for millions of American
businesses and working families. That is the finding of a new study by a team of economists working at Pennsylvania State University.
The study, Projected Economic Impacts of U.S. Coal Production and Utilization, examined the impact of coal-generated electricity on state
economies in the continental United States. The study found that coal-based electricity, including the production of coal from
the ground, creates substantial benefits to the overall U.S. economy. Today, coal provides the fuel for over half of
the power consumed in the United States, and the economists concluded that in 2010 coal production and
electricity generation would be responsible for: $163 to $659 billion in increased economic output; $40 to $224
billion in increased household earnings; and 800,000 to 6.4 million additional American jobs. Most of these
economic benefits derive from the extraordinary interdependence of the U.S. economy. Because all businesses rely on
electricity to produce and sell goods and services, the economic power of the electric utility industry extends far beyond the generation and sale
of electricity. Coal-based electricity produces powerful ripple effects that benefit the American economy as a whole.
The study was conducted by Dr. Adam Rose and Bo Yang, economists at Penn State University. Dr. Rose is a professor and head of the
Department of Energy Environmental, and Mineral Economics, and Yang is a graduate research assistant in the same department. Rose and
Yang used certain economic assumptions to present their findings. In the first instance, the study assumes varying levels of "linkage"
(maximum versus minimum) between the coal-based electricity industry and other sectors of the economy. The linkage variable
measures the degree to which coal-based electricity produces ripple effects that benefit other industries and
sectors. These data are then refined by taking into account the economic effects of using a higher-cost fuel (in this
case, natural gas) as a substitute for low-cost coal. By factoring in these substitution costs, the study shows how coal's
economic advantages are even greater when considering the costs of using a more expensive alternative fuel. The
year 2010 was selected for modeling because regulatory programs aimed at displacing coal would need to be implemented over time. Because
reliance on coal as a fuel source for generating electricity varies from region to region, the economic benefits are not evenly spread across the
nation. The economic advantages for coal-producing states are evident. More surprising, however, are the economic
benefits realized by states that do not produce coal, but use it as a primary fuel for electricity generation. The study
concludes that coal-based electricity will result in substantial economic benefits for large and small states alike. For
example, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania each stand to gain from $21 billion to $32 billion in increased economic output.
Smaller states also share in the advantages, with New Hampshire, Connecticut, Oregon and South Dakota each projected to gain from $560
million to $720 million in expanded output. "This new analysis proves what we have known for a long time," said Stephen L. Miller, President
and CEO of the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED). "Electricity from coal provides economic empowerment
to local communities, small businesses, and working families". According to Miller, the study provides an additional level of
details relative to the ongoing national energy policy debate. "Despite electricity from coal's low cost and improving environmental
performance, some special interest groups still believe we should abandon this abundant domestic energy resource. The Rose/Yang study
provides additional empirical proof that coal-based electricity is an essential element of a balanced energy portfolio that
increases energy security and provides economic empowerment for American families," said Miller. Dr. William A.
Schaffer, professor and former chairman of the Department of Economics at Georgia Institute of Technology and one of the preeminent experts
in state and regional input-output modeling, peer-reviewed the Rose/Yang study. According to Schaffer, the demand-driven multipliers used in
the PSU study are well-tested in the literature and provide a solid estimate of the impact of coal on incomes in the rest of the economy. In his
final peer review, Dr. Schaffer said, "[T]he study represents an impressive and massive combination of data, analytic
techniques, and modeling to address a large and significant problem. The authors are to be congratulated on their
boldness in arriving at what seems to be a most reasonable impact statement."
Coal powers the US Economy

Rob Cameron August 29 2006 “Coal keeps US economy burning.” BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5295922.stm
The United States is the world's most powerful economy, but much of that power is derived from rather old-fashioned
sources. Coal helps power the US economy. More than half of the country's electricity is produced by burning coal, and as demand for energy
increases, so does the pressure on those who supply But the people of America should be thankful to Wyoming, because its
colossal treasure trove of natural resources is helping - literally - to power the US economy. But most of all, Wyoming
has coal. Huge, thick, multi-layered seams of coal lie just a few metres below the surface.
25
LouGie Lab
Economy: Coal Key

Coal industry key to the economy.
Richard R. Hall (J.D. University of Chicago Law School) and John S. Kirkham (J.D., University of Utah
College of Law) june 4 2007 http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484
In addition to the benefits provided as a source of energy, the coal industry is an important component in both Utah’s and the
national economy. Based on the National Mining Association statistics, the average number of miners working daily in this
country is approximately 123,000. The Utah Geological Survey estimates that coal industry in Utah employed approximately 2,000
people in 2006. Employment totals could increase by another 200 to 300 people in 2007 and 2008 as demand for higher production continues
and proposed coal operations commence production. Revenues from coal produced in Utah increased substantially in recent
years, reaching an estimated $474.9 million in 2005, 23.0% higher than in 2004. Increases in production and prices are expected in
2006, pushing the estimated revenue up an additional 26.2% to $599.5 million, the highest amount ever recorded in nominal dollars.
Coal is fueling the economy.

PR Newswire October 18 2005 PR Newswire
"Peabody's 2005 performance continues on its record pace," said Peabody President and Chief Executive Officer Elect Gregory H. Boyce.
"Coal fundamentals are excellent, and coal is fueling the world's largest and fastest growing economies. Global
coal use will set another record in 2005, coal-fueled generating plants are being built around the world, metallurgical
coal remains in high demand, and projects are being developed to convert coal into natural gas and transportation
fuels." U.S. electricity generation increased an extraordinary 8.2 percent in the third quarter over the prior year, led by a 26 percent increase
in cooling degree days and continued economic growth. As Peabody anticipated, inventories of coal at electric utilities have been
driven to record low levels of approximately 95 million tons, which is approximately 30 million tons below average levels.
Nuclear generating units continue to run near full capacity, while soaring natural gas prices render gas generation extremely expensive.
[Peabody] believes that the U.S. coal supply- demand balance is likely to remain extremely tight for the foreseeable future as customers meet
electricity demand growth and replenish stockpiles.
Coal plays a huge role throughout the economy.

Adam Z. Rose, Ph.D. and Dan Wei, July 2006, (The Center for Energy and Economic Development, Inc., The
Economic Impacts of Coal Utilization and Displacement in the Continental United States, 2015,
http://www.ceednet.org/docs/PennState2006UpdateFinal072506.pdf, accessed 7/24/08 ZS)
Regional results of the basic “Coal Existence” scenarios are summarized in Table S1 below. Assigning equal
weight to each of the two energy price scenarios, we estimate that U.S. coal-fueled electric generation in 2015 will
contribute: $1.05 trillion (2005 $) in gross economic output; $362 billion in annual household incomes, and 6.8
million jobs. We also estimated the prospective net economic impacts of the “displacement” of coal-fueled
electricity generation at assumed levels of 66% and 33% from a projected 2015 base. These levels of displacement
are consistent with some of the potential impacts of major environmental policy initiatives in climate change or
other areas. In these cases, we again calculated backward linkage and price differential effects to determine
potential negative impacts on each state’s economy. Additionally, we calculated potential positive economic
benefits due to the operation of replacement electricity generation of various types. In all states, the net effect of
displacing coal-based electricity was negative for the “high-price” scenarios, and in nearly all states, the net effect
was negative for the “low-price” scenarios.
26
LouGie Lab
Railroads Module
27
LouGie Lab
Hegemony Module
Coal use is key to hegemony- key to coal to liquid transitions
James Hannah March 19 2006 “Military's push to turn coal into fuel picking up speed”,
http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/articles/pr_031906.htm
DAYTON, Ohio - The Pentagon is trying to persuade investors and the energy industry to embrace an 80-year-old
technology to turn coal into liquid fuel to power planes, tanks and other battlefield vehicles. Officials have been
crisscrossing the country, meeting with energy companies and state government officials to sell them on the idea. At the same time, military
researchers have been testing fuel produced by the process to make sure it is suitable for military vehicles, especially
older ones. Michael Aimone, an assistant Air Force deputy chief of staff, was in North Dakota last week to discuss a search for sites for a plant
to turn coal into fuel for jets and trucks. He said a study to explore the idea of a plant to make 30,000 barrels of fuel a day from coal is focusing
on North Dakota and Ohio, though other states will be considered as well. The military is worried that political pressure or terrorist acts could
cut the flow of oil from the Middle East or hurricanes or terrorists could destroy U.S. refineries. "We know what the technical challenges are,
but we don't see any show-stoppers," said William Harrison, senior adviser for the Pentagon's Assured Fuels Initiative. "There is still a
level of uncertainty, but it looks like the technology is mature enough." There are roadblocks. Building coal-to-fuel
plants is expensive - possibly up to $5 billion. Investors worry that their money could go up in smoke if the global price of
oil drops, budding government subsidies dry up, or tougher environmental rules are put into place, said Kevin Book, a Virginia-based senior
analyst for Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc. But then there is coal - lots of it. The Middle East has about 685 billion barrels of oil
compared with 22 billion barrels in the United States. However, there is enough coal in the United States to produce 964 billion barrels of fuel,
according to the Pentagon. Montana, with enough coal to produce 240 billion barrels of fuel, leads the pack, followed by Illinois, Wyoming,
West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Ohio. "We have probably 250 years' worth of coal," said Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal
Association. "It would have a tremendous impact on the coal industry." The industry is already on the rise. Demand for U.S. coal is expected
to be a record 1.2 billion tons this year, up from 1.18 billion in 2005, according to the National Mining Association. Production is forecast to be
1.16 billion tons, a 3.2 percent increase over 2005. Coal is used mainly to generate electricity and in steel-making. Although experts say the
coal-to-fuel process works, it is being done in just a few small demonstration projects. The Pentagon began looking at coal in 2001 when
Congress earmarked $13 million to investigate the Fischer-Tropsch process in which coal is gasified and then liquefied into fuel. The
technology was developed by Germany in the 1920s and used by South Africa beginning in the 1950s. The military accounts for about 4
percent of U.S. fuel consumption. The process promises to produce a cleaner fuel that gives off more energy per pound
and be less subject to freezing. It would reduce transportation costs and ease logistical headaches by enabling the
military to use one fuel for all its planes and vehicles instead of the more than half dozen different fuels now used.
"See how beautifully clean that fuel is," Harrison said, pointing to a dancing flame inside a large glass tube at a Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base lab. The flame turned from orange to blue as the soot was reduced when the fire began to burn fuel similar to what would be produced
from coal. Harrison, chief of the Air Force's fuels lab at the base, has been trying to light a fire in the private sector. He has spoken to state and
industry officials in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Montana and North Dakota. Some energy companies are eager to have the
military for a customer. Houston-based DKRW Energy hopes to begin producing coal-based diesel fuel in 2010. The company needs to
complete the permitting process and obtain financing for a $1 billion plant that would produce 11,000 barrels of fuel a day in Medicine Bow,
Wyo. Syntroleum, based in Tulsa, Okla., converts natural gas into liquid fuels and is currently involved in several coal-to-fuel projects.
President Jack Holmes said increasing demand for oil should keep the price high and coal-based fuel attractive. "We think that now's the
time," Holmes said. "If we can get these first few plants built and running and get the acceptability in the government
and industry, there's a big market to do this." Others point out that similar talk in previous years evaporated when Mideast
producers cut the price of oil. Dick Bajura, director of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy at West Virginia University advised
supporters of the coal-to-fuel idea to make sure "the people in OPEC land aren't going to pull the rug out from underneath you." Crude oil is
selling for more than $60 a barrel. In December, the U.S. Department of Energy scrapped its predictions that oil prices would drop to around
$30 a barrel by 2025, saying that costs will persist near or above $50 a barrel for years. As the military evaluates the fuel made from coal, the
Energy Department has funded efforts to refine the process. In January, the department awarded a $100 million grant for the construction of
what may end up being the nation's first commercial coal-to-fuel plant, in eastern Pennsylvania. Private financing is still being secured for the
$612 million plant, which could be up and running by 2009. The risk to Mideast oil supplies was underscored in February when suicide
bombers in explosives-packed cars attacked the world's largest oil processing facility. The attack was the first on an oil facility in Saudi Arabia
and sent world oil prices soaring. Syntroleum's Holmes said that even though a commercial plant would be expensive to build, it could operate
for 30 years or more. "We're not just trying to build a company, we're trying to build an industry," he said. "The acceptance of a new idea is
always difficult. Everybody wants to be the first person to build the second plant."
Hegemony prevents global nuclear exchange

Zalmay Khalilzad (Senior Analyst at RAND) Spring 1995 Washington Quarterly
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an
end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the
global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a
world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats
of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another
hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant
dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system
28
LouGie Lab
Coal Mining Good: Jobs

Coal mining is good and creates jobs and stability
David McDermott, Bruce Ackerman and William Hassler 1997 “Coal mining in the U.S. West: price and
employment trends”. Monthly Labor Review. http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/08/art2exc.htm
Coal produced in the Western1 States has increased in price relative to coal from other regions of the Nation. At
the same time, employment in coal mining has been virtually unchanged in the Western States, while it has declined in
most other parts of the country. Appalachia is still the country’s largest coal producer and employer, but a clear westward shift of coal mining is
underway. Much of both the increased price for western coal and the stability of employment in western coal mining
results from the low sulfur content of the area’s coal, which has increased its desirability, environmentally
speaking. Legislative initiatives, including the New Source Performance Standards of 19712 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,3
created incentives for electric utilities to burn low-sulfur coal. The Nation’s largest source of such coal is in the West: the Powder
River Basin of Wyoming.4 While other factors (relative freight costs, labor costs, production costs, regional variation in
demand for electricity, competing energy sources) undoubtedly contribute to both the increase in prices received
by western coal mines and the stability of mining employment in some Western States, much of the impact can be
attributed to the demand for coal with low sulfur content
Coal mining creates jobs that people depend on.

Joshua Hoffman (writer and miner) October 31 2007 ”College graduates heading to careers in ... the coal mines”.
The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1031/p01s05-usgn.html
For decades, coal mining was a risky career path, less because of the physical dangers and more so because of
fleeting job security. While college students previously avoided mining as a course of study, now, thanks to the coal boom and the
industry's growing need for college-educated engineers, mining has become a career that more young people are going to college to pursue,
rather than to escape. "Throughout the '80s and the biggest part of the '90s, we steered our youth away from mining because we were in a
period of austerity," says Chris Hamilton, vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association. Now, many West Virginians are no longer
discouraging their children from a career in the mining sector. Though Adam Patterson's family has mined coal in the mountain state for seven
generations, when he started school at West Virginia University (WVU) he was uncertain if he'd continue in their footsteps. "But when I got
here and saw the opportunities that were available, it became apparent that it was something I really wanted to do," says Mr. Patterson, now a
junior majoring in mining engineering. The number of mining jobs in West Virginia, the second-largest coal producer in
the United States, jumped 38 percent between 2003 and 2006. And because of looming retirements, demand for
new workers looks strong for years to come.
29
LouGie Lab
***Clean Coal***
30
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal 1nc

Clean coal technology is being accelerated coal industry
Peter Montague (director Environmental Research Foundation) March 6 2008 Peter Rachel's Democracy &
Health News
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 the hole. 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 global
warming problem in the ground, passing it along to our children to manage essentially forever.
Renewables will crush the coal industry

Margaret Kriz (National Journal staff correspondent) March 1 2008 Margaret, National Journal
Utilities planning for the future are facing some cold, hard realities. Most energy experts see no easy way to provide reliable, cheap, clean
electricity. 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 whole fleet 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.
Clean coal key to check warming

Ken Berlin (served as Deputy Administer of the EPA) and Robert M. Sussman (Board of Directors of the
Environmental Law Institute) May 31 2007 “Global Warming and the Future of Coal Carbon Capture and Storage”,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/05/coal_report.html
If the United States is successful in maintaining the viability of coal as a cost-competitive power source while addressing
climate concerns, our leadership position would enable U.S. industries to capture critical export opportunities to the
very nations facing the largest challenges from global warming. Once our domestic marketplace adopts CCS
systems as power industry standards, the opportunities to export this best-of-breed technology will grow
exponentially. This will be critical to combating the massive rise of coal-derived greenhouse gas emissions in the
developing world. Boosting exports while also helping China, India, and other developing nations reduce
emissions and sustain economic growth would be a win-win-win for our economy, their economies, and the global
climate.
Warming risk extinction

ECES (Earth crash earth spirit) 2002 ”documenting the collapse of a dying planet”,
http://eces.org/ec/globalwarming/oceans.shtml#090301, 8/11/03
Global warming risk assessment is complex, unlike risk assessment associated with the ozone depletion problem.
Ozone depletion is represented by one main variable: chlorine and bromine from halocarbons. The higher these
chemical concentrations, the lower the ozone concentrations. It is a proven process, and the thinning ozone layer
can be measured. Measurements in recent years, in fact, have shown that atmospheric scientists have consistently underestimated the pace
and extent of ozone depletion. What if the scientific community's underestimation of ozone depletion proves to apply to global warming as
well? Bad as the broad-consensus, best-estimate IPCC prognosis is, what might the worst-case analysis of global warming be? The main worry
is that a coalescing pattern of positive feedbacks might be awakened and continue unchecked by negative feedbacks. Some of nature's
carbon reservoirs are so huge that they could become involved, in principle, in a runaway greenhouse effect. The
world would simply go on warming, placing a viable future for human and animal life on the planet at risk.
31
LouGie Lab
***Uniqueness***
32
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Coming

Clean Coal is Coming
Associates Press 7/23 July 23, 2008, Coal and gas could power Maryland energy complex, CNN Money,
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/d1da6057fb3c6b79240ff285199db1e1.htm
The state's top economic development official expressed support for using western Maryland's untapped coal and natural gas reserves to
generate electricity and serve an energy technology research park in Garrett County. "Using clean coal technology to generate
energy to address our obvious energy shortage in the region would be something that we should look at investing
in and helping to inspire over time," State Business and Economic Development Secretary David Edgerley said Tuesday. Edgerley
joined about 40 other state, county and energy industry officials at a meeting to discuss the Casselman Basin Clean Coal Project, an ambitious,
multifaceted concept promoted by the Maryland Coal Association and state Sen. George Edwards, R-Garrett. The first step would be a
coal-burning power plant a few miles south of Grantsville that would consume coal produced by the region's
mines. The suppliers would include a prospective new underground mine in the Casselman Basin, the state's largest single remaining coal
reserve underlying an area five miles wide that stretches 18 miles from Deep Creek Lake north to the state line. Proponents say some of the
plant's carbon dioxide emissions could be injected into shale deposits 7,000 to 9,000 feet deep to both sequester the greenhouse gas and help
produce natural gas that is believed to be trapped in the shale. Consultant Jerry Duckett, a retired fuel engineer from Terra Alta, W.Va., said
another plant could be built at the site to convert coal into liquid fuels, including diesel and gasoline. The coal-to-
liquid plant and the CO2 sequestration project would require government funding, meeting participants said. Local official
expressed hope for federal funding. Steven M. Carpenter of the coal-industry consulting firm Marshall Miller & Associates in Bluefield, Va.,
distributed a document estimating it would cost $100,000 for a basic study of carbon sequestration and $20 million for a demonstration project.
Utility and power-generation representatives were skeptical about the feasibility of building a new power plant in western Maryland given the
economics of the electricity market. There is scant capacity for sending more electricity on existing transmission lines into the Baltimore-
Washington area, where rates are relatively high, so power from any new generation would likely be sent to areas where rates are lower and
less attractive to suppliers, said O. Ray Bourland, senior legislative counsel with Pepco Holdings Inc. “The key hurdle is economics,"
Bourland said. Both Pepco and Allegheny Energy are involved in efforts to build new transmission lines in the region. Edwards said the
Casselman Basin project should be viewed as part of the solution to high energy prices and constricted supplies
Clean coal is coming- Court Approval Proves

PR Newswire 7/18 July 18, 2008 / PRNewswire via COMTEX/ PRNewswire-USNewswire/
[http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/appeal-court-rules-seminoles-clean/story.aspx?guid=%7BCEC55655-
BD7E-4882-BCEA-DBBB119BDEFB%7D&dist=hppr]
This week Florida's 5th District Court of Appeal again ruled in favor of Seminole Electric Cooperative and its
planned clean coal project. The Court's July 16 order denies the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Motion for
Rehearing of the Court's June 13 decision that directs the state to issue the project's needed site certification. The project will add a 750
megawatt class, high efficiency generating unit at the Seminole Generating Station in Putnam County, Florida. The station's two
existing generation units are already in the process of significant environmental upgrades that will enable Unit 3 to be put into service with no
net increase in the station's regulated emissions. Timothy Woodbury, Seminole's CEO, said: "We are pleased with the Court's decision
because Floridians need clean coal technologies to keep our energy reliable and affordable, and Unit 3 will help us
accomplish those goals."
Half a billion dollars were just given to clean coal research

Olga Galacho, Writer for Hearld Sun, 7/22/2008, A paler shade of green, Hearld Sun,
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24056726-664,00.html
Senator Wong explained to the gathered corporate big guns that the Government intended sending them a "price signal" to overturn what
she called the "perverse incentive" they have to pollute for free. One audience member asked the minister why there were no incentives for
industry to use zero-emission solar power. "There are many big factories with big roofs across which solar panels could be installed to provide
a huge amount of electricity," he said. The minister replied that "there are a whole range of worthy initiatives" that could "fundamentally
change the perverse incentive" in our economy to pollute for free. She believed carbon trading would find the most cost-efficient measures to
reduce greenhouse gases. Another measure included giving away $500 million to so-called "clean coal" research, whether
that be finding ways to burn coal without producing as much pollution or capturing emissions and burying them,
known as carbon capture and storage. "We obviously need an answer on coal, which is why we have the half-a-
billion dollar clean coal fund," she said. One observer commented later that in the US some policy makers already had an answer. On
the same day that Senator Wong delivered her green paper, Fortune-500 company NRG Energy announced it had axed plans to build a clean
coal plant. "We recognize that the funding was not there," said NRG chief David Crane.
33
LouGie Lab
A2: Clean Coal Not Possible

Clean coal is viable- Australia’s CCS proves.
Next Energy News 4/3/08, “Australia to Open First Carbon Capture and Storage Plant,”
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news4.3.08a.html
The opening of Australia's first carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration plant in Victoria has been hailed as a
major step toward making "clean coal" viable. The Otway Basin Project in south-west Victoria will see up to 100,000 tons of
carbon dioxide captured from natural gas injected 2km underground in a depleted gas reservoir. During the two-year trial, CO2 will be
compressed and transported to the basin near Nirranda, about 30km east of Warrnambool. The project is part of research to learn if
emissions can be successfully trapped in geological formations, as a way of curbing the greenhouse gases
produced by fossil fuels. "The success of this program will confirm the CCS technology as a viable option to
reduce the carbon footprint of coal," federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said at the opening of the plant.
Clean coal technology is only 4 years away.

Next Energy News 3/14/08, “New Technology Removes CO2 and Mercury from Coal Plants,”
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news3.14a.html
Basin Electric Power Cooperative and Powerspan have announced the selection of Powerspan's carbon dioxide (CO2)
capture technology for a commercial demonstration at Basin Electric's coal-based electrical generation facility, the Antelope Valley
Station located near Beulah, North Dakota. Approximately one million tons of CO2 will be captured annually from the 120
megawatt slipstream project, making this demonstration among the largest in the world. The captured CO2 will be fed
into an existing CO2 compression and pipeline system owned by Basin Electric's wholly owned subsidiary, Dakota Gasification Company.
Today's announcement is the result of the first competitive solicitation process for a CO2 capture demonstration at
a coal-based power plant in the U.S. Six companies responded to the request for proposal issued by Basin Electric in June 2007.
Powerspan's CO2 capture process was selected as the most promising low cost option for commercial deployment and for its ability to best
integrate with Basin Electric's operations. The project is scheduled to move forward in 2009, subject to successful completion of engineering
studies and obtaining of necessary permits and government incentives for early demonstrations of CO2 capture and sequestration. The
facility is expected to be operational in 2012.
34
LouGie Lab
Coal Industry Expanding

Coal industry continues to expand – increasing number of plants and new technology
PR Newswire 7/7/2008 “ACCCE Applauds Texas Public Utility Commission’s Approval of Arkansas Clean
Coal Plant”
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) issued the following statement in support of the Texas Public Utility
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 affordable electricity 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 a long 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 generation technology,
which produces more electricity using less coal and helps reduce emissions," continued Lucas. "As new clean coal
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

Matthew Knight April 28 2008 “Fueling the Future”, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/Energy.intro/index.html?iref=newssearch
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 going up 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 raw materials for hundreds of products, including plastics and fertilizers.
35
LouGie Lab
***Links***
36
LouGie Lab
Renewables Destroy Coal

Renewable energy destroys the coal industry
Sally Kohn (Director of the Movement Vision Lab at the Center for Community Change) August 24 2007 “Blood
Coal, Not Clean Coal”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sally-kohn/blood-coal-not-clean-co_b_61696.html
Coal isn't about electricity. Native American reservations in North and South Dakota alone have enough wind capacity to meet one-third of
America's energy needs. Wind, solar and other technologies we have today are viable alternative sources of electricity,
and conservation efforts could dramatically reduce our electricity demand in the first place. But to the coal
industry, alternative energy is the real disaster. 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 try and distract us from the harm caused to mine workers, Appalachian children and air
that all of us need to breathe.
37
LouGie Lab
RPS Links
RPS displaces the expansion of the coal industry
UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) February 2005 “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.html
Currently, Texas relies heavily on fossil fuels and nuclear power for most of its electricity. This reliance on fossil fuels—particularly natural gas
and coal—for electricity generation will increase if Texas continues on its current path. Increasing the existing state RPS would
stimulate additional renewable energy development and help diversify the electricity mix. Under the 20 percent proposal,
Texas would increase its total homegrown renewable power to more than 17,800 MW by 20253 —producing enough electricity to meet the
needs of 4.9 million average-sized homes.4 Texas’ 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 also helps to displace new coal generation.
RPS leads to decreased reliance on coal

Bruce Josten (executive Vice Priesident of Government Affairs at Chamber of Commerce) June 15 2007
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf
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 or another similar method. As detailed in the Chamber’s March 19, 2007, letter to you regarding climate change, any global climate
solution should be international and economy-wide in scope, and should preserve competitiveness and promote conservation and efficiency,
and must promote technology research, development and demonstration. With that in mind, however, implementation of an economy-wide
greenhouse gas reduction policy would certainly 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 the increased use of renewables as mandated by an RPS would
lead to correspondingly lower coal and natural gas generation;1 virtually the same result would occur if a greenhouse gas
reduction regulatory scheme were in place. However, such an approach would be unadvisable, as the drawbacks of a mandatory greenhouse gas
reduction policy seriously outweigh any potential benefits.
38
LouGie Lab
Nuclear Power
Plan boosts nuke power, making clean coal not cost-competitive
WNA July 2004 "Clean Coal' Technologies", World Nuclear Association,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf83.htm
The most promising "clean coal" technology involves using the coal to make hydrogen from water, then burying
the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen. The greatest challenge is bringing the cost of
this down sufficiently for "clean coal" to compete with nuclear power on the basis of near-zero emissions for base-
load power.
Clean coal and nuke power are replacements for each other
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) May 1996 “Alternatives to License Renewal",
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 to increase at a
relatively slow rate. Even with recent environmental legislation, new coal capacity is expected to be an affordable technology
for reliable, near-term development and for potential use as a replacement technology for retired nuclear power
plants. Another potential alternative to license renewal would be to continue to generate electricity from non-
nuclear plants 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-nuclear generating facilities. Repowering is the primary process by
which utilities extend the life of their generating plants. It is comparable to refurbishing a nuclear plant. Since the average age of all types of
fossil units is over 30 years, utilities have been exploring repowering older fossil units as a way of avoiding even larger capital outlays for new
plants (Bretz 1994). As of March 1994, about 30 units with a total capacity of 3000 MW(e) had been proposed for repowering. Assuming
regulatory environmental compliance and a successful application of lessons learned from federal clean coal
technology demonstrations, DOE estimates that up to 248 GW(e) of generating 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 candidates for repowering) and that this total would rise to 3500 to 3700 in 1998. From a utility's
perspective, not only might repowering be cost-effective; but also environmental goals, particularly improved air quality, could be easier to
accomplish since improved, less polluting technologies would be installed during repowering.
39
LouGie Lab
***Impacts***
40
LouGie Lab
2nc Transition
Quick transition from coal will sink the US economy- -clean coal allows smooth transition
Tribune Business News April 23 2008 “Advocate: Coal not perfect, but vital”
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 to capsize. 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 favor of 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 our
electrical supply."
41
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Solves Warming

Clean coal technology is being accelerated to cut emissions and boost the economy
Keith Johnson May 28 2008 “Clean Coal: Hype or Hard Slog?”,
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/28/clean-coal-hype-or-hard-slog/?mod=googlenews_wsj
More and more companies are starting to dabble with “clean-coal” technology. Whether that’ll make a difference for the
economy or the environment 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 GE’s experience with a new
generation of power plants that can capture carbon dioxide, and Schlumberger’s experience 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 to make clean coal a viable power solution. As we’ve noted before, that’s crucial to curbing
emissions and keeping the economy functioning—even though many environmentalists see clean coal as an expensive oxymoron.
Clean coal is the key energy initiative for climate change

Tim Butler (manager of an environmental news service) 2006 “Clean coal could fight climate change”,
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0313-coal.html
Cleaner, more efficient use of coal could play a key role in addressing climate change, especially with the growing
importance of coal as an energy source as world crude oil supplies are diminished in the future. Coal presently
supplies about two-thirds of China's energy and one-third of the energy demand in the United States but, due to its
abundance, is forecast to become an increasingly important relative to petroleum around mid-century. Currently, coal is used mostly for
electricity generation, but is less thermally efficient than natural gas-fired power stations. Scientists say that identifying and
deploying effective ways of harnessing coal at acceptable environmental and economic cost is an urgent priority
for the global energy industry.
Clean coal is the most viable way to curb emissions.

Jerzy Buzek (Polish prime minister) June 24 2008 “Clean Coal Technology: A way to Offset Global Warming”,
http://www.warsawvoice.pl/view/17996
The package calls for a radical reduction in CO2 emissions, by as much as 20 percent by 2020. This is a very ambitious
goal that can only be achieved if clean coal technologies are developed. The largest amounts of CO2 are released
by coal-fired power plants, so the key issue is to work on zero-emission systems capable of generating power
while completely eliminating CO2 emissions. Europe and the whole world can only be saved from climate change by developing
better, more efficient and cheaper emission-reducing technologies. Stricter CO2 limits alone will not solve the problem, as they
could also restrict the competitiveness of European industry, whereas the impact on the global situation would be
negligible anyway. It's much better to earmark more funds for innovative technologies. The EU already has such a project, known as the
Flagship Program, under which 12 completely zero-emission coal-based power generation systems will be built in Europe by 2015. Poland has
to do everything in its power to develop such systems. In fact, the way I see it, at least two of the 12 systems should be built in Poland.
Developing new technologies is the only way to comply with EU requirements for reducing CO2 emissions
without hampering the development of our energy sector, which has no other option but coal. Energy from renewable
sources will always account for a marginal percentage of all energy generated in Poland. We have to do all we can for Poland to embrace the
EU's Flagship Program for producing clean energy from coal. This is the future of our economy.
42
LouGie Lab
***Affirmative Answers***
43
LouGie Lab
Alternative Energy Not Hurt Economy

New innovation in energy will spur innovation in the market not kill the economy-
empirically proven.
William B. Bonvillian (Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center in D.C. Issues in Science
and Technology) 2004 “Meeting the new challenge to U.S economic competitiveness”
A school of economic theory that has developed during the past two decades argues that technological
and related innovation
accounts for more than half of historical U.S. economic growth, which makes this a far more significant factor
than capital and labor supply, which are the dominant factors in traditional economic analysis. These economic
growth theorists see a pattern shared by important breakthrough technologies such as railroads, steamships, electricity,
telecommunications, aerospace, and computing. The new technology ignites a chain reaction of related innovation that leads
to a surge in productivity improvements throughout the economy and thus to overall economic growth. The most
recent example is the productivity boom that occurred in the mid-1990s following the IT revolution that spread through the manufacturing and
service sectors.
Alternative energy will spark specialization- helps the economy

Marketing Science 2007. “Does Marketing Cause bad unemployment?”
Experiments rarely refute conventional wisdom. However, as knowledge increases and technology advances, previously
infeasible (and possible unimaginable) options suddenly become both feasible and economical. When millions of
individuals and organizations each experiment with innovation, then a 1% success rate continuously produces tens
of thousands of small and large innovations. Innovation, in turn, spawns greater divisions of labor, specialization
and, consequently, growth in the net number of occupations. As knowledge increases, so does specialization.
Specialization brings more opportunities to develop unique skills that produce more valued output with the same input. There are more
opportunities to develop differentiated human capital with new, scarce (at least, at first), and valued skills. The consequence
is growth in the net number of occupations and higher average real wages. Of course, the primary danger that potentially undermines this
progress is the political and other coercive actions of entrenched incumbents. We now have new occupations in Internet services,
financial services, wireless telephone services, gaming services, and so on. Innovation and knowledge growth
leads to specialization
44
LouGie Lab
Coal Industry Collapsing

The US coal industry is on the decline – It will continue to be cut back in the status quo
Mark Clayton March 4 2008 “U.S. coal power boom suddenly wanes”,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s07-usec.html
Concerns about global warming and rising building costs are blocking construction of new coal-fired power plants
in the United States and pushing utilities to turn to natural gas and renewable power instead. Utilities canceled or put
on hold at least 45 coal plants in development last year, according to a new analysis by the US Department of Energy's National
Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh. These moves – a sharp reversal from a year ago, when the industry had more
than 150 such plants in development – signal the waning of a major US expansion into coal. Natural-gas and
renewable power projects have leapt ahead of coal in the development pipeline, according to Global Energy Decisions, a
Boulder, Colo., energy information supplier. Gas and renewables each show more than 70,000 megawatts under development compared with
about 66,000 megawatts in the coal-power pipeline. This year could diminish coal's future prospects even more. Wall Street
investment banks last month said they will now evaluate the cost of carbon emissions before approving power
plants, raising the bar much higher for new coal projects, analysts say. "What you're seeing is a de facto moratorium on coal
power right now," says Robert Linden, a senior oil and gas analyst at Pace Global in New York. "You turn off the money spigot, you've turned
off those plants." Aside from the 28 or so coal-fired power plants already under construction, prospects remain
tenuous for the half-dozen plants "near construction" and another 80 plants not nearly as far along, says Steve Piper,
managing director of power forecasting at Platts, the energy information division of McGraw-Hill. "Expansions [of existing plants]
still have a good chance. But others will come under increased pressure for deferral or outright cancellation."
Coal industry collapsing – environmental standards, public opinion and lack of financing
Salon.com May 15 2008 “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 for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told
the Christian Science Monitor is a "de facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more
environmentally friendly president may lead to the first federal 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 right now."
Coal industry is dying – lack of government funding and regulatory confusion

New York Times May 30 2008 “Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html
President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of “clean coal.” All three candidates to succeed him
favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are
practically begging for the technology. But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s 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 in Illinois 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 made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into
regulatory limbo.
Coal industry is struggling – construction costs

New York Times May 30 2008 “Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html
“Coal’s had a tough year,” said John Lavelle, head of a business at General Electric that 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. But scientists say the result, unless the situation can be turned around, will be a
long-term disaster.
45
LouGie Lab
Transition From Coal Now

Power Producers Move Away from Coal
CBS News Febuary 6 2008 “Power producers moving away from coal”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20080206/ai_n21228618
Stymied in their plans to build new coal-burning power plants, American utilities are turning to natural gas to meet
expected growth in demand, risking a new spiral in the price of that fuel. Utility executives say they have little
choice. With opposition to coal plants rising across the country, they see plants fired by natural gas as the only
kind that can be constructed quickly and can supply reliable power day and night. Now, with many coal plants being
canceled and demand for electricity rising by 2 percent or so a year, the prospect is that utilities will be forced to build and use a new
generation of gas- fired plants regardless of the operating cost -- and consumers will bear the burden of higher electric rates. "Coal has been
removed in many places as an option," said Art Holland, a vice president of Pace Global Energy Services, a consulting firm in Washington that
advises utilities. New nuclear plants are on the drawing board but will take at least a decade. Sun and wind power, though growing, remain a
small part of the nation's electricity mix, and they provide only intermittent power.
A Transition Away from Coal

Joe Follick July 4 2007 “Crist: Florida moving away from coal power”
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20070704/LOCAL/707040342/-1/news.%20BACK
Gov. Charlie Crist backed up the symbolism of next week's meeting on global climate change in Miami with a stern rebuke Tuesday to the
future of coal-powered energy plants in the state. Less than a month after the state's Public Service Commission turned down an application for
a coal plant in Glades County, Crist celebrated a group's decision Tuesday to halt plans for a coal plant in Taylor County, southeast of
Tallahassee. "It's not looking good,'' Crist said when asked about the future of coal plants in the state. "We're moving
in a different direction.'' The shift away from coal into the unrealized promises of wind and solar power, as well as an emphasis on
ethanol and more nuclear power, has quickly become one of Crist's clearest goals as governor.
Coal plants hype waning

Mark Clayton March 4 2008 “US Coal Power Boom Suddenly Wanes”; Christian Science Monitor;
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0304/p01s07-usec.html
Concerns about global warming and rising building costs are blocking construction of new coal-fired power plants
in the United States and pushing utilities to turn to natural gas and renewable power instead. Utilities canceled or
put on hold at least 45 coal plants in development last year, according to a new analysis by the US Department of Energy's
National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh. These moves – a sharp reversal from a year ago, when the industry
had more than 150 such plants in development – signal the waning of a major US expansion into coal. Natural-gas
and renewable power projects have leapt ahead of coal in the development pipeline, according to Global Energy
Decisions, a Boulder, Colo., energy information supplier. Gas and renewables each show more than 70,000 megawatts under development
compared with about 66,000 megawatts in the coal-power pipeline. This year could diminish coal's future prospects even more.
Wall Street investment banks last month said they will now evaluate the cost of carbon emissions before approving
power plants, raising the bar much higher for new coal projects, analysts say. "What you're seeing is a de facto
moratorium on coal power right now," says Robert Linden, a senior oil and gas analyst at Pace Global in New York. "You turn off the
money spigot, you've turned off those plants."
Coal plants face opposition and are being cancelled

CAP (Center for American Progress) September 6 2007 “Coal Industry Future Uncertain Without Carbon
Capture”; http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/09/coal.html
The growing drive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions responsible for global warming has dramatically increased
the uncertainty about the future of the U.S. coal industry. Although coal currently powers half of all electricity, proposals to
build new coal-fired power plants have met great resistance largely due to their contribution to global warming. As The
Washington Post noted in a headline earlier this week, “Coal Rush Reverses, Power Firms Follow; Plans for New Plants Stalled by Growing
Opposition.” But coal can continue to power a significant portion of our electricity in a carbon-constrained world if power plants employ new
technology that would capture and sequester this pollution. Carbon capture and sequestration technology must be deployed as soon as possible
to slow the growth of global warming pollution while also sustaining the coal industry. In the absence of CCS, proposals for new coal-fired
electric plants currently face great opposition, which has resulted in the cancellation of many projects. This opposition
manifests itself in the following ways: Rising public opposition and lawsuits in regard to new plants with
uncontrolled CO2 emissions, State opposition, such as new legislation in California that makes it impossible for
California utilities to sign new contracts with out-of-state coal plants without CCS, and energy policies in Florida
that foreclose coal plant construction, and Investor reluctance to finance or build new coal plants without CCS, as
seen in the cancellation of eight of the 11 proposed new coal plants as part of the acquisition of TXU.
46
LouGie Lab
Transition From Coal Now

Coal plants construction has slowed
Steven Mufson September 4 2007 Washington Post; “Coal Rush Reverses, Power Firms Follow”;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301119.html
A year after the nation appeared to be in the middle of a coal rush, widening alarm about greenhouse gas emissions
has slowed the efforts of electric companies to build coal-fired power plants from hills of eastern Montana to southern
Florida. Recently, proponents of coal-fired power plants acquired a new foe: Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid. In late July, Reid (D-Nev.)
sent a letter to the chief executives of four power companies in which he vowed to "use every means at my disposal" to stop their
plans to build three coal-fired plants in Nevada. Last month, after a speech in Reno, Reid said he was opposed to new coal-fired
plants anywhere. "There's not a coal-fired plant in America that's clean. They're all dirty," Reid told reporters after speaking at a conference on
renewable energy. He said that the United States should turn to wind, solar and geothermal power in an effort to slow climate change. "Unless
we do something quickly about global warming, we're in trouble," he said. Reid's opposition to coal plants is the latest in a series
of new obstacles for power companies seeking to use the fuel to generate electricity. A combination of rising
construction costs, state mandates for the use of renewable energy and lawsuits by environmental organizations
have forced many utilities to drop or postpone coal projects this summer.
47
LouGie Lab
Coal Bad Warming

Coal causes emissions, deforestation and destruction.
Jeff Biggers (editor to The Bloomsbury Review) March 2 2008 “Clean Coal? Don’t try to shovel that”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903390.html
More than 104,000 miners in America have died 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 report revealing that in the last six years the Mine
Safety and Health Administration decided not to assess fines for more than 4,000 violations, Bush administration officials 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 the last 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 750,000 to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand
miles of waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surrounding communities -- an area the size of Delaware --
have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in the last two decades. Thousands of tons of explosives --
the equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs -- are set off in Appalachian communities every year.
Coal industry causes massive emissions

Richard R. Hall (J.D. University of Chicago Law School) and John S. Kirkham (J.D., University of Utah
College of Law) June 24 2007 http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484
While coal supplies are abundant and production cost low, many still view coal as an unwelcome guest. The major
disadvantages of coal come from the adverse environmental impacts that accompany the mining, transportation
and combustion of coal. Coal faces significant environmental challenges in mining, air pollution, and emission of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Indeed, coal-fired plants contribute almost one-third of all the carbon emissions the United States generates –
roughly as much produced by every car and truck on the road. Clearly, no future effort against global climate
change will succeed without reducing coal-related emissions. However, reducing these emissions could significantly impact the
competitiveness of existing and new coal-fired plants, significantly increasing energy costs.
Coal burning is empirically proven to have caused global warming.

Richard A. Lovett August 9 2007 “U.S. Coal-Burning Boom Drastically Warmed Arctic”,
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070809-coal-arctic.html
Soot emissions from U.S. coal burning may have significantly contributed to pre-1950 global warming in the Arctic,
a new study suggests. Soot, emitted naturally into the atmosphere by forest fires, is also a pollutant from human activities such as burning
fossil fuels. Winds carried soot from the United States and possibly other countries to the Arctic, where it fell on the snow. The darkened snow
then absorbed more solar energy, warming the Arctic climate. Because the sunlight is not reflected back into the atmosphere, the Arctic climate
warmed. (Related: "'Brown Clouds' Contribute to Himalaya Glacier Melt" [August 1, 2007].) At its worst, U.S. soot pollution was eight times
more powerful in warming the Arctic springtime than the soot from forest fires, said study lead author Joseph McConnell, a snow hydrologist
at the Desert Research Institute in Nevada. In 1900 the soot's effect on warming was about as strong as the effect of all of the carbon dioxide
that the Industrial Age dumped into the atmosphere up until that time, McConnell said. "This is much bigger than anybody would
ever have expected," he said.
Coal Combustion Pollutes the Environment

Fred Bosselman (Professor of Law Emeritus, Chicago-Kent College of Law) 2007 “The new power generation:
environmental law and electricity innovation: colloquium article: the ecological advantages of nuclear power”, New
York University Environmental Law Journal, LexisNexis.
In their recent "Nutshell" book on energy law, Joseph Tomain and Richard Cudahy concisely summarize the primary types of air pollution
caused by coal combustion: [*30] Coal combustion generates four main sources of pollution: sulfur oxide, nitrogen
oxide, carbon dioxide, and particulate matter; all of which spoil land, water, and air. Sulfur oxide, which increases
with the sulfur content of the coal, causes human health problems, crop damage, and acid rain. Nitrogen oxide
contributes to the same problems and causes smog. Tons of particulate matter are emitted from coal burning
facilities daily and cause property damage and health hazards. Finally, carbon dioxide causes what is known as the
greenhouse effect, which is an increase in the temperature of the earth's surface. n148
48
LouGie Lab
Coal Bad: Environment

Coal industry will destroy the environment – causes warming, land and water ecosystem
destruction, and makes habitats inhabitable
Martha Keating June 2001 Cradle to Grave: TheEnvironmental Impacts from Coal, Clean Air Task Force,
The electric power industry is the largest toxic polluter in the country, and coal,
which is used to generate over half of the
electricity produced in the U.S., is the dirtiest of all fuels.1From mining to coal cleaning, from transportation to
electricity generation to disposal, coal releases numerous toxic pollut-ants into our air, our waters and onto our
lands.2Nation-ally, the cumulative impact of all of these effects is magnified by the enormous quantities of coal
burned each year – nearly 900 million tons. Promoting more coal use without also providing additional environmental safe-guards will only
increase this toxic abuse of our health and ecosystems. The trace elements contained in coal (and others formed during
combustion) are a large group of diverse pollutants with a number of health and environmentaleffects.3They are a public health concern
because at sufficient exposure levels they adversely affect human health. Some are known to cause cancer, others impair reproduc-tion and the
normal development of children, and still others damage the nervous and immunesystems. Many are also respira-tory irritants that can worsen
respiratory conditions such asasthma. They are an environmen-tal concern because they damage ecosystems. Power plants
also emit large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2), the “greenhouse gas” largely responsible for climate change.
The health and environmental effects caused by power plant emissions may vary over time and space, from short-term episodes of coal dust
blown from a passing train to the long-term global dispersion of mercury, to climate change. Because of different factors like geology,
demographics and climate, impacts will also vary from place to place. For example, effects from coalmining may be the biggest concern in the
coal-field regions of the country, while inhalation exposure may be the foremost risk in an urban setting and, in less populated rural America,
visibility impair-ment and haze may be of special concern. Coal mining harms land, surface waters, ground water and even
our air.4Impacts to the land from mining cause drastic changes in the local area. Damage to plants, animals and
humans occurs from the destruction and removal of habitat and environ-mental contamination. Surface mining
completely removes land from its normal uses. Property and scenic values are degraded as agricultural crops, forests, rangeland
and deserts are replaced by pits, quarries and tailing piles. Restoring or reclaiming a surface mine by replacing vegetation and restoring the
landscape to its original contours helps minimize any permanent disruption. However, hundreds of thousands of acres of surface mines have
not been reclaimed, and reclamation of steep terrain, such as found in Appalachia, is difficult.5Finally, despite reclama-tion efforts,
ecosystems may be destroyed and replaced by a totally different habitat. Mining impacts both surface waters and
ground water. In under-ground mining, waste materials are piled at the surface creating runoff that both pollutes
and alters the flow of local streams. As rain percolates through these piles, soluble components are dissolved in the
runoff and cause the elevation of total dissolved solids (TDS) in local water bodies. The presence of TDS in a stream usually
indicates that sulfates, calcium, carbonates and bicarbon-ates are present. While not a direct threat to human health, these pollutants make water undrinkable by
altering its taste and can also degrade water to the point where it can’t be used for industry or agriculture.6Acid mine drainage is a particularly severe by product of
The acidity of
mining especially where coal seams have abundant quantities of pyrite. When pyrite is exposed to water and air, it forms sulfuric acid and iron.
the run off is problematic by itself, but it also dissolves metals like manganese, zinc and nickel, which then
become part of the runoff. The resulting acidity and presence of metals in the runoff are directly toxic to aquatic
life and render the water unfit for use.8 Some metals bioaccumulate in the aquatic food chain. Addition-ally,
bottom-dwelling organ-isms can be smothered byiron that settles out of the water.Also of concern is the impact mining has
on ground-water, including contaminationand physical dislocation of aquifers.These are typically localized effects. Acid mine drainage that
seeps intogroundwater is a common cause of contamination.9Physical disruption of aquifers can occur from blastingwhich can
cause the groundwater to seep to a lower level or even connect two aquifers (leading to contamination of both).
When a mine is located below the water table,water seeps into the mine and has to be pumped out. Thiscan lower the water table and even dry up nearby wells.The
process of mining, followed by reclamation, changes the permeability of overlying soil, alters the rate ofgroundwater discharge and increases flooding
potential.10Underground mines not only impact groundwaterhydrology, they are prone to subsidence.11Subsidence occurs when the ground above the mine sinks
becausethe roof of the mine either shifts or collapses. Subsidence can alter ground slopes to such an extent that roads, water and gas lines and buildings are
damaged. Naturaldrainage patterns, river flows and aquifers can also be altered. The extent and severity of the subsidence depends on numerous factors including
how thick the overlying soil and rock layers are and the mining method. These problems can be addressed by preventive methods such as leaving enough coal in
Deliberately collapsing the mine after the coal is extracted causes subsidence
place to provide structuralsupport to the mine roof.
to occur sooner, but more evenly. For existing mines, one “correc-tive” measure that has been used is backfilling the minewith either
mine wastes or combustion wastes. While this approach may seem to solve both subsidence and waste disposal problems, it is actually
expensive and dangerous and releases contaminants to the groundwater.12 Inaddition, these wastes often lack the
structural strength to support the mine roof. Mine wastes are generated in huge quantities – on the order of tens of
millions of tons per year.13Thesewastes include the solid waste from the mine, called “gob,”refuse from coal washing and coal preparation,
and thesludge from treating acid mine drainage. There are anumber of environmental impacts from this waste generation. First, the land
where these wastes are dumped is no longer useable for other purposes. Second,the piles are flammable and
susceptible to spontaneous combustion. Third, they are prone to erosion which is amajor concern because the
runoff and seepage from these piles is highly acidic.
49
LouGie Lab
Coal Bad: Mining- Generic

The Ecological Impacts of Every Stage of the Use of Coal Are Disastrous
Virtually all of the coal mined in the United States is used as boiler fuel to generate electricity, n122 and although few users of that electricity
realize it, half of the nation's electric energy is provided by coal. n123 In his recent book, Big Coal, Jeff Goodell points out that
in the United States, the mining and combustion of coal typically occur in such remote locations that most
Americans have no idea "what our relationship with this black rock actually costs us." n124 This is particularly true
with regard to public understanding of ecological systems that are being destroyed in remote places or through
chains of causation that only experts understand. Coal is ecologically destructive through (1) mining, (2) air
pollution, (3) greenhouse gas emissions, and (4) water pollution; and (5) while so-called "clean-coal" technology is a long-range
hope, it is not likely to be common in the next decade.
Coal mining extremely harmful to the environment and people

Brianna Munroe (Journalist for the Mount Holyoke News) March 3 2006 “Talk Reveals Harms of Coal Mining.”
Mount Holyoke News.
main concern about
Although Freese clearly stated that coal was incredibly influential in shaping our world and led to the "oil age," her
the use of this harmful fossil fuel is the ever-growing issue of global warming. She went so far as to say that the
"survival of our civilization is at stake." The abundance of carbon dioxide released in the air as a result of burning
coal is drastically affecting the strength of our atmosphere, and she would really like to see more effort being put
forth to try to control this. Robin Webb is a former coal miner from Kentucky. She grew up in a mining town. Mining was, and still is, in
her blood. Webb worked in the mines from the time she turned eighteen until she graduated from law school, where she earned the respect of
her male coworkers. At the time female miners were not received well, but she was able to escape this. Webb is currently committed to getting
money to communities affected by coal mining, and is also a strong believer in the importance of finding alternative fuels. Hillary Hosta is a
veteran environmental activist from West Virginia. She first became interested in the effects of coal during her time working with the
Greenpeace organization in the Southern Appalachian Forest. This is where she first learned of mountain top-removal coal mining. In
this form of mining the tops of mountains are lined with dynamite, and the top, as the name suggests, is removed. In doing this important
forest life is destroyed. In the biologically rich Appalachian Forest over 150 different species of trees were "clean cut" from the area. Over
1200 mountains and streams have been hurt or completely destroyed. The waste created by the blasts can create a "sludge,"
which consists of many harmful chemicals such as mercury and arsenic. A dam is built to hold the sludge in one general area
this area is known as a "sludge pond." There are over 100 "ponds" in West Virginia alone. This is not the only affect of the mountain top
removal process. It can also cause a change in the winds over a valley, which allows the coal dust to blow over the
communities residing there. A woman from one of these areas that Hosta spoke with told her that she goes out to wipe her porch down
on a weekly basis, and every time her cloth turns black from all of the dust collecting on her home. This is harmful dust, and can cause
all kinds of health risks such as cancer, as well as shorten life spans significantly. Their homes become prisons, as
they do not want to spend time outside in the toxic air surrounding them. These facts were used to support Hosta's belief that
"mine safety issues go far beyond the mines."
50
LouGie Lab
Coal Bad: Mining- Underground

Underground Mining Pollutes Streams
Underground mining typically brings to the surface large volumes of minerals, only some of which constitutes
usable coal. n127 The residue is known as "gob" or "culm" and residue piles from both existing and abandoned underground
mines are common sights in older mining areas. n128 The rain penetrates the piles and leaches out the soluble
material, creating sulfuric and other acids, which are supposed to be stored in impoundments on the mine site but
often flow directly into local watersheds or potable aquifers, particularly if the mine has been abandoned. n129 This
kind of acid mine drainage pollutes streams throughout older mining regions, often turning them bright orange,
rendering the water non-potable and uninhabitable by wildlife, and changing the ecological processes on the
riparian landscape far beyond the mine site. n130
Underground Mining Destroys Landscapes

[*27] Underground mining also destroys landscapes through subsidence. If a mine shaft is not properly supported,
its roof will collapse, which typically causes the surface of the earth over the mine to subside. In older mines, such
subsidence regularly happened only after a mineshaft was abandoned, but many newer mines use a system called
"longwall" mining, which makes no attempt to support the roof over the area where coal is removed, resulting in
intentional subsidence. Both intentional and unintentional subsidence can change drainage patterns on the surface
in ways that may destroy existing ecosystems. n131
Surface Mining Directly Damages Landscapes

In the Southern Appalachians, surface mining is taking place in a forested landscape of rolling hills and mountains with relatively moist
conditions. n141 The current mining method is known as "mountaintop mining," and involves blasting and scraping
off the tops of mountains to obtain access to the coal underneath. In an earlier era, this coal would have been accessed by
underground shafts, but today's massive machinery and cheap explosives makes it more economical to remove the
mountaintop and use surface mining equipment to take out the coal. n142 The rubble that was once the top of the
mountain is simply dumped into a valley adjacent to the mountain, creating what is euphemistically called "valley
fill." The result is the destruction [*29] not only of the ecological characteristics of the mountain itself but also of
the adjacent valley. n143 Although this destruction has been widely criticized, it continues to be supported by both federal and state
regulating agencies. n144
51
LouGie Lab
Coal Bad: Mining- Mountain Top

Mountain top removal of coal mining wrecks the environment
Vernon Haltom (Co-director of Coal River Mountain Watch) and Melinda Tuhus 2007 “Mountain Top
Removal Coal Mining Destroys Environment and Communities.” Yonders Farm.
http://yondersfarm.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=46
While recent media headlines focused weeks of attention on the six coal miners tragically trapped in a collapsed mine in Utah, another coal-
related story has been unfolding for years in Appalachia that has generated very little media coverage: The physical destruction of mountains to
mine the coal underneath. The practice of mountain-top removal blasts the tops off mountains and dumps the soil, rock
and waste in valleys below. So far 1,000 miles of West Virginia streams have been buried. The process contaminates the water,
fouls the air, and threatens the continued existence of many rural communities. A coalition of groups opposing the practice
points to a federal study showing that between 1992 and 2002, 380,000 acres of mountaintops were destroyed. Yet less than five percent
of these flattened areas have seen any economic development, which was one of the benefits coal companies
maintained would result from destruction of the mountains. VERNON HALTOM: We call mountaintop removal eco-
terrorism because of the vast scope and scale and methods that they use are far more than any kind of a nuisance.
What this does is put people's lives in jeopardy, and we're not talking about just the miners. We know that surface
mining is at least as hazardous as underground mining, which is generally not publicized. But the communities in the
vicinity of these vast, vast mines are in danger. You think of, what do terrorists do? Well, they tend to blow things up and terrorize
and frighten people. Well, in West Virginia alone, the coal industry uses the explosive equivalent of 27 Hiroshima-style
bombs in a year. That is far more than a nuisance. And what this does, by removing the mountain, you subject communities to increased
flooding, which can be deadly; you remove their water supplies in some cases, either poisoning it or removing it altogether, and these are things
that average citizens are being subjected to every day here by mountain-top removal. The coal industry is promoting mt-top removal as a safer
way of mining. Every time there's an underground accident, the industry says, this is why we need to do mountaintop removal, and the average
citizen thinks, well, okay, I'd rather be on the surface than go down in a hole. But if properly regulated and enforced, underground mining can
be at least as safe as surface mining.
52
LouGie Lab
No Clean Coal: Politics

No clean coal – Bush pulled the plug on the program
Lester R. Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute, dubbed “one of the world's most influential thinkers” by the
Washington Post and the recipient of 23 honorary degrees, a MacArthur Fellowship, the 1987 UN Environment
Prize, the 1989 World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the 1994 Blue Planet Prize, the Presidential Medal of
Italy, the Borgström Prize by the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry. “U.S. Moving Toward Ban
on New Coal-Fired Power Plants,” Earth Policy Institute 2/14/08 http://www.earth-
policy.org/Updates/2008/Update70.htm
Utilities have argued that carbon dioxide (CO2) from coal plant smokestacks could be captured and stored underground, thus helping keep hope
for the industry alive. But on January 30, 2008, the Bush administration announced that it was pulling the plug on a joint
project with 13 utilities and coal companies to build a demonstration coal-fired power plant in Illinois with
underground carbon sequestration because of massive cost overruns. The original cost of $950 million when the project was
announced in 2003 had climbed beyond $1.5 billion by early 2008, with further rises in prospect. The cancellation effectively moves
the date for any coal plants with carbon sequestration so far into the future that this technology has little immediate
relevance. Some utilities are being refused licenses for coal plants because they have not examined alternative
methods of satisfying demand, such as increasing the efficiency of electricity use. For example, insulating buildings greatly reduces
energy needs for heating and cooling. Shifting to more-efficient light bulbs would save enough electricity to close 80 U.S. coal power plants.
There are only two IGCC clean coal plants and there are no plans for more
David Eggert. “New coal-fired power plants generate opposition,” The Associated Press April 14, 2008
http://blog.mlive.com/tricities/2008/04/new_coalfired_power_plants_opp.html
Citing climate change, the state Department of Environmental Quality has asked companies proposing new plants
to consider a new type of coal use: integrated gasification combined cycle technology, or IGCC. Such plants are
considered cleaner because they produce electricity by burning gas made from coal and have the potential to trap
greenhouse gases and store them underground. But only two of the plants exist in the U.S., leading Consumers
Energy to conclude building one near Bay City would be too expensive and unreliable. A 700-megawatt IGCC
plant is in the works in Alma, though Florida-based M&M Energy LLC hasn't yet sought air permits from the
state.
53
LouGie Lab
No Clean Coal: Technology

Clean coal technology is stall far from development
York University Environmental Law Journal, lexis
Large-Scale Use of "Clean-Coal" Technology Is Decades Away Scientists and engineers believe that it is technologically
possible to create a process for burning coal which creates no conventional air pollution and stores all of the potential carbon emissions in the
earth's underground layers. 186 In 2003, such a proposal was part of the President's State of the Union speech, 187 and the coal industry has
been talking about this idea without rushing to adopt it. 188 Whether the needed carbon storage and sequestration will ever come
about, however, is another question. The [*37] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released an extensive study of the
potential methods of carbon capture and storage. 189 They concluded that capturing carbon dioxide before it is released as power-plant
emissions is possible but expensive with current technology. 190 Once captured, existing technologies can be used to inject the gas
into underground layers, such as existing or depleted petroleum reservoirs. 191 But the risk of sudden escape of the injected
gas needs to be evaluated; the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can asphyxiate all
oxygen-dependent organisms enveloped by the cloud of carbon dioxide. 192 In summary, coal mining and
combustion adversely affects the natural environment in many ways, and the chances of seeing widespread use of
technological innovations that will reduce these impacts within the next decade are negligible.
Clean Coal is a myth and will still cause pollution – Real “clean” technology is still decades
away.
GPACE (Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy) 7/10/08 “Our Energy Economy,” http://www.gpace.org/?q=our-
energy-economy
Coal is not a clean energy source, whether considering pollutants such as mercury, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, or ozone (which
cause illness and premature death, especially among children) or the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Advances have been made in the
industry to develop and implement scrubbers that remove some of the mercury and other pollutants from coal-fired
emissions, but these processes simply remove those pollutants from airborne emissions and capture them in
sludges or slurries that are then stored at the plants and/or dumped into rivers or groundwater. As for the greenhouse
gas carbon dioxide, there is currently no existing technology that can remove carbon dioxide from coal-fired
emissions and effectively “sequester” it. Most credible experts agree that so-called “clean coal” technologies are
at least ten to twenty years off, if in fact ever feasible at all. Additionally, carbon capture and sequestration technology for
pulverized coal plants uses three times as much water as the coal plant alone – which already uses vast amounts of water.
Clean coal is a long way off. Alternative energy is more viable.

Roger Vanderlely (senior Chemistry teacher) 7/8/2008, “Clean Coal and Business As Usual”, NM,
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/clean-coal-and-business-as-usual.html
The problem with clean coal is that the technology is not yet a commercially proven solution. In a move likely to be
mirrored around the world, the Australian government recently ditched its support for solar energy in favor of pursuing the development of
clean coal technology. For any other form of energy supply still in development such backing from government would be seen as ludicrous.
This approach is dangerous. Solar and wind are proven energy generating technologies that are ready to be implemented
NOW. Commercial production of these technologies could easily be ramped up to meet new energy demands and
replace existing power stations. Ignoring these in favor of a method that does not yet exist and that may not even
work is foolhardy. If climate change is not addressed the economic losses alone are beyond imagination. They will make the amount of
money saved by continuing with coal instead of solar power look like a drop in the ocean. Once the environmental damage is done, the cost of
fixing the problem will be vastly more than preventing it in the first place. Add to this the fact that coal is still a finite resource
and the foolishness of proceeding with clean coal becomes even clearer.
54
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Module

Clean coal dramatically increases Mercury pollution.
Stephen Bernow May 2001 “COAL: America’s Past America’s Future? President Bush’s Plan and the Risk of
Global Warming” http://www.tellus.org/energy/publications/E01-073-1.pdf
The mercury is rising. Coal plants are the single leading source of all mercury pollution in the US, accounting for a third of
all airborne mercury releases. Mercury has already contaminated over 50,000 lakes and streams in the US. Coal plant
mercury emissions are expected to increase 33% by 2010, and yet they are the only major mercury sources that are unregulated.
Ironically, a proposed “clean coal” plant (fluidized bed) proposed in Kentucky could actually emit up to 1.8 tons of mercury per year,
twice as much as any other coal plant currently in operation.
Mercury destroys ecosystems, and contaminates food supplies

Clear The Air April 2002 “Mercury, Your Health and the Environment”,
http://www.cleartheair.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=17321
Mercury is a hazardous air pollutant that can cause serious adverse health effects. Depending on the dose, the effects range from
subtle losses of sensory or cognitive ability, delays in developmental milestones (e.g. walking, talking), to birth defects, tremors and even
death. Once released into the environment mercury is easily transported through the air, sometimes for thousands of miles,
where even a relatively small amount can contaminate an entire ecosystem. Although there are numerous sources of mercury
pollution, the largest source is the electric power industry. Power plants are responsible for 34 percent of the total
mercury emitted by all known sources. More than 99 percent of that mercury comes from coal-fired plants. According to EPA,
mercury from coal-fired power plants is the most hazardous air pollutant emitted by utilities. Coal-fired power plants emitted 46
tons of mercury in 1990, and this amount is expected to climb 33 percent by 2010. Power Plants: The Only Unregulated Source of Mercury Air
Pollution In stark contrast to coal burning power plants, the other major sources of mercury pollution have been made subject to mercury
emission reductions. Recently issued EPA regulations for municipal and medical waste incinerators will require that mercury air pollution be
reduced by 90 percent and 94 percent respectively by 2002. Similarly, as a result of pollution prevention efforts and restrictions on mercury in
paints and pesticides, domestic industrial demand for mercury decreased by more than 75 percent from 1988 to 1996. In contrast, the electric
power industry has done nothing to help solve the mercury pollution problem. Instead, their lobbyists have aggressively sought special
loopholes from Congress. The coal and utility industries got Congress to exclude mercury emissions from regulation under the 1990 Clean Air
Act - an exemption that applied to no other industry. This lethal loophole creates a powerful economic incentive for the electric industry to
operate its dirty old coal plants at the expense of our health and the environment. Mercury Puts Our Health at Risk Americans are being warned
that eating the fish from our rivers, lakes and oceans can be harmful to our health. Mercury contamination is responsible for 60
percent of state fish consumption advisories. Over forty states advise their citizens to reduce their consumption of
fish from contaminated waterways. Ten states have issued statewide mercury warnings. Between 1993 and 1998 alone, advisories
due to mercury pollution rose by 115 percent (from 899 to 1,931). Infants and children are the most at risk from mercury contamination. Nearly
all the mercury that accumulates in fish tissue is the organic form called methyl mercury. Dietary methyl mercury is almost completely
absorbed into the blood and distributed to all tissues including the brain. It also readily passes through the placenta to the fetus and fetal brain.
From there it can cause serious neurological and developmental damage, including subtle losses of sensory or cognitive ability, delays in
developmental milestones such as walking and talking, and birth defects. Mercury Severely Damages Our Environment Mercury exposure
harms wildlife, with fish-eating birds and mammals receiving the highest exposures. Documented adverse effects in birds and mammals
include reduced reproductive success, impaired growth and development, behavioral abnormalities, and death. Mercury contamination has
also tarnished the second most popular sport in the US - recreational fishing. Throughout significant regions of the country fishermen can no
longer consume their "catch" because of mercury contamination. It is estimated that nearly 49 million Americans participate in recreational
fishing, adding $69 billion annually to the economy. To ensure the safety of our food supply and the health of millions of
Americans who eat fish, we must reduce current releases of mercury from coal-fired power plants. Because mercury persists in
the environment and bioaccumulates in the food chain, the sooner we begin to reduce mercury emissions, the better. Legislation in
Congress has been introduced that would finally close the 30-year old loophole that lets power plants off the hook and that would set a
reasonable and achievable cap on mercury emissions. Only when dirty old power plants are made to comply with modern pollution control
standards can we all begin to breathe easier.
55
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Module

Toxins accumulate as they work their way through the food chain. This culminates in
extinction
Rachel's Hazardous Waste News March 20 1991 “Real hope for the great lakes: local groups form 'zero
discharge alliance'”, Environmental Research Foundation, http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn225.htm
Bioaccumulative toxins are dangerous because amounts that seem harmless are multiplied as they pass through the
food chain; often the result is environmental destruction. The adverse consequences of bioaccumulative toxins may
become understood only after it is too late. For example, human breast milk is now contaminated with hundreds of persistent,
bioaccumulative toxins (see RHWN #193), but the effects of these poisons upon breast-fed infants is not known except in rare cases. Such
dousing of infant children with persistent, bioaccumulative toxins is a massive experiment; the full results may become known in the future, but
one thing is known beyond any doubt today: it cannot help the human species to expose it from birth onward to a constant
bath of industrial toxins. (People who are tempted to think that the human species might be improved by random meddling with our
genetic structure should remind themselves that a human is something like a TV set [though of course much more complex] and the hope of
improving a human by randomly introducing poisons into its diet at an early age is like splashing hot solder into a TV set's electronic circuits
hoping to improve the picture.) It is important to note that many of the most toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative chemicals are formed by the
use of the element chlorine. DDT, PCBs, dioxins, CFCs, and many pesticides are chlorine compounds. Most people know of chlorine because it
disinfects their drinking water, kills germs in the local swimming pool, or bleaches their clothes in the washing machine. Unfortunately, when it
is used by industry, chlorine produces a broad spectrum of toxins that persist in the environment and bioaccumulate. In a very real sense,
chlorine lies at the heart of the toxics problem, world-wide. For two decades, government has tried to control toxic pollutants one
at a time, by establishing the exact amount that could be safely released into the environment, issuing "permits" giving industry permission to
discharge toxics into air and water, then trying to police the polluters to force compliance with the permitted limits. The entire effort was
foolish from the start: there are over 40,000 chemicals in use today and 1000 to 2000 new ones enter commercial channels each year.
Meanwhile during its 20-year effort, government has managed to establish "safe" limits for fewer than 100 chemicals. Meanwhile, government
has gone ahead and issued permits that ignored most chemicals entirely (because there was no basis for saying how much was safe). Finally,
government never showed any real interest (or ability) in enforcing these silly per-mits. A classic house of cards. This
wrong-headed effort at pollution control (instead of pollution prevention) has led to massive damage to wildlife
throughout the Great Lakes (see RHWN #146) and, worldwide, a dangerous accumulation of toxics in creatures that eat at the top of the food
chain, like large birds, large fish, bears, and humans. It is now crystal clear that the old way has been a complete failure, which, if it is
continued, can only lead to the extinction of humans.
56
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Pollution

Clean coal tech uses low-grade coal, which increases mercury pollution.
Hoosier Environmental Council, February 2001, “Clean Coal Technology”,
http://www.hecweb.org/Programs%20and%20Initatives/CCW/wastenewsmstr1.htm
Steel and other industries are increasing their use of the fluidized bed combustion (FBC) process to power their factories. Now power
companies want to use this process to make electricity. They claim it is a "clean coal" technology that reduces pollution and cleans the
environment. Does it? No. FBC plants do produce smaller amounts of some air pollutants than conventional coal-fired power plants, but
they also produce more mercury and increase the pollution of water and land. FBC plants can burn low-grade coal and waste
coal ("gob"), the material that is left after preparing and cleaning coal before it is burned in a conventional power plant boiler. Because huge
gob piles still blight the Appalachian and Midwestern coal fields and are a major source of acid drainage into rivers and lakes, "clean coal"
advocates work to convince communities that FBC plants help clean up the environment while producing electricity. They neglect to mention
that waste coal contains much higher levels of mercury than cleaned coal. More mercury emitted Air pollution from
conventional power plants is already the largest man-made source of mercury, one of the most toxic substances for
humans and wildlife. One teaspoon of mercury can poison a 20-acre lake. EPA decided last year to set mercury emission limits
under the Clean Air Act for power plants by December 2004. In September 2000, EPA researchers found that waste coal contained
nearly 8 times more mercury than the ordinary coal burned in power plants. This means fluidized bed combustion plants
spew out even more mercury than conventional plants.
Clean coal fails to remove mercury pollution from emissions.

Greenpeace, January 2005, ““Clean Coal” Technology”,
http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/pdfs/CleanCoalBriefing.pdf
Mercury is a particular problem. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), mercury and its compounds are
highly toxic and pose a ‘global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.’2 Coal-fired power and heat production are
the largest single source of atmospheric mercury emissions.3 There are no commercially available technologies to
prevent mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.4 “Clean coal” is the industry’s attempt to “clean up” its dirty image – the
industry’s greenwash buzzword. It is not a new type of coal. “Clean coal” technology (CCT) refers to technologies intended to reduce
pollution. But no coal-fired power plants are truly ‘clean’. Despite over 10 years of research, and $5.2 billion of
investment in the US alone5, scientists are still unable to completely remove harmful emissions from coal-fired power
plants. Clean coal technologies are expensive and do nothing to mitigate the environmental effects of coal mining, or
the devastating effects of global warming. Furthermore, clean coal research risks diverting investment away from renewable energy, which is
available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now.
Clean coal tech actually emits more than conventional coal.

FBC does appear to be making some inroads. For example, the 440 MW Red Hills Power Project enters service this year is using
FBC technology to burn lignite coal mined near the plant, as part of a so-called Eco-Industrial Park. Coal wastes will be recycled into bricks
and wallboard. Because of its inherent fuel flexibility, FBC is also the proposed technology for a Kentucky plant, which would
burn coal wastes. Ironically, this “clean coal” plant could actually emit up to 1.8 tons of mercury per year, twice as much as any
other coal plant currently in operation.18
57
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Pollution Bad

Mercury can spread for hundreds of miles, and even tiny amounts can cause death. No tech
exists to control mercury pollution.
Greenpeace Southeast Asia, No Date, “The Myth of ‘Clean Coal’”,
http://www.greenpeacesoutheastasia.org/en/rpt/prm_ce_cleancoalmyth.pdf
Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury pollution in the US, responsible for 33% of the total mercury emissions from
all known manmade sources nationwide. 2 Mercury emissions from coal plants in the US reach over 43 tons each year.3 According to the US
National Wildlife Federation (NWF), a single 100-MW coal-fired power plant emits approximately 25 pounds of mercury a year.4
According to the US Center for Clean Air Policy, 50% of the mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants can travel up
to 600 miles from the power plant.5 According to the US Department of Energy, “[C]oal presents an environmental challenge …
[T]here is no commercially available technology that uniformly controls mercury emissions to the limits anticipated from all of
the nation's coal-fired boilers. New technology will have to be developed.” An American congressman has this to add: “There is nothing new
being developed in the clean coal technology program except for new ways to squander taxpayers money.”6 According to NWF, as little as
1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury a year can contaminate a 10.12-hectare lake to the point where fish are no longer safe
to eat.7 Contamination of methyl mercury, the more lethal form that mercury takes when it is absorbed by fish or comes into contact with
sediment, in food sources as low as one part per million has been shown to cause death in some animals.8 CO2 represents the major
portion of greenhouse gases. Over the last 30 years, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by 30%, Nine of the
ten warmest years in recorded history have occurred in the last decade. Last year was the second warmest year while 1998 is considered the
hottest year of all.9
58
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Pollution Module

Clean coal pollutants are dumped into water destroying biodiversity
Hoosier Environmental Council February 2001 “Clean Coal Technology”,
The sulfur, nitrogen and particulates remain in the waste created from burning the coal. In fact, because plants using
FBC produce less air emissions, they produce much more solid waste than today’s conventional coal-fired power plants. The
wastes will likely be dumped in sites with little environmental protection, possibly right into ground water in strip mines or
quarries. An EPA report to Congress in 1999 said mines are the most common dump sites for the 10 million tons of wastes that
fluidized bed combustion plants produce annually. Coal power plant wastes are toxic to living organisms and contain concentrated levels of
heavy metals and other pollutants such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, molybdenum, boron, and sulfates. Power plant wastes
have caused death, deformities and reproductive problems in plants, wildlife and livestock.
Biodiversity is key to preventing extinction

Richard Margoluis, Biodiversity Support Program, 1996,
http://www.bsponline.org/publications/showhtml.php3?10
Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us a "life support
system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is also responsible for
mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Because biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in
weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control. The importance of biodiversity to a healthy
environment has become increasingly clear. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends on
our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival.
59
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Causes Pollution

Waste released from clean coal plants is worse
Hoosier Environmental Council, February 2001, “Clean Coal Technology”,
The wastes are highly caustic. Because the FBC process uses lime, the wastes can have a pH as high as 13. A pH this high
means the waste is as caustic than lye and kills living organisms. The wastes contain even higher concentrations of
cancer-causing compounds than other power plant wastes. Fluidized bed combustion uses much lower temperatures and less
oxygen than traditional burning processes. As a result, some of the really nasty organic compounds in coal are not readily
broken down or they reform because of the incomplete burning. The compounds include anthracene, chrysene, fluorene, pyrene,
benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene; some of these compounds are well-known carcinogens. Dumping
permits do not required the companies to test the wastes for these compounds or to monitor the ground water for them. The wastes are highly
reactive. FBC wastes contain a higher concentration of sodium than other power plant wastes. Although the sodium itself is not
much of a danger, the higher concentrations of sodium make the wastes more chemically reactive with other
substances. This can result in more pollutants being leached out of the wastes and into ground and surface water.
Even the best-performing clean coal plants release huge amounts of pollutants.
Greenpeace January 2005 “Clean Coal” Technology”,
Clean Coal” Still Pollutes The industry prides itself on the efficiency of some of its pollution controls. However when you look at the
actual quantities of pollutants emitted the figures are not so impressive. For example, the World Coal Institute uses the Lethabo
Power Station in South Africa as an example of a successful emissions control programme. The plant’s ESPs remove 99.8% of the
fly ash. Nevertheless the plant still emits around 60,000 tons of particulates into the atmosphere every year. Futuregen – what
kind of future? The industry rhetoric sounds very enticing – working towards a zero-emission coal-fired future. The $1 billion dollar Futuregen
project in the USA is based on experimental IGCC technology. Intended to create the world's first ‘zero-emissions’ fossil fuel plant, the project
will take 10 years to complete. It will be even longer before the technology is commercially available.40 In reality however, there can be no
such thing as a zero-emission plant. After being collected by pollution control devices to prevent emissions to the air,
pollutants are merely shifted to another waste stream as solid or liquid wastes.41 Either that, or waste products, which are
contaminated with heavy metals, are sold on for construction use. This results in these dangerous contaminants being released
into the environment.
Coal washing results in acidic runoff, which destroys entire ecosystems.

Coal washing results in the formation of large quantities of slurry. This is placed in waste piles. Rain drains
through the piles, picking up pollutants which end up in rivers and streams. This runoff is acidic and contains heavy
metals.26 In October 2000, a dam at an impoundment in Kentucky burst, releasing 250 million gallons of slurry into
rivers and streams in Kentucky and West Virginia. More than 75 miles of the river was choked by the slurry, which killed all
fish and river life. The spill affected the drinking water of 4,500 people.27 Runoff from the waste piles also increases total dissolved solids
(TDS) in waterways which lowers water quality.
60
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Freshwater Contamination Bad

Contamination of our freshwater destroys any possibility for life on Earth.
Robert B. Jackson and Stephen R. Carpenter Spring 2001 “Water in a Changing World”, Issues in Ecology,
Ecological Society of America, http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson/issues9.pdf
Life on earth depends on the continuous flow of materials through the air, water, soil, and food webs of the biosphere. The
movement of water through the hydrological cycle comprises the largest of these flows, delivering an estimated 110,000 cubic
kilometers (km3) of water to the land each year as snow and rainfall. Solar energy drives the hydrological cycle, vaporizing water from the
surface of oceans, lakes, and rivers as well as from soils and plants (evapotranspiration). Water vapor rises into the atmosphere where it cools,
condenses, and eventually rains down anew. This renewable freshwater supply sustains life on the land, in estuaries, and in
the freshwater ecosystems of the earth. Renewable fresh water provides many services essential to human health and well being,
including water for drinking, industrial production, and irrigation, and the production of fish, waterfowl, and
shellfish. Fresh water also provides many benefits while it remains in its channels (nonextractive or instream benefits), including flood
control, transportation, recreation, waste processing, hydroelectric power, and habitat for aquatic plants and animals. Some benefits,
such as irrigation and hydroelectric power, can be achieved only by damming, diverting, or creating other major changes to natural water flows.
Such changes often diminish or preclude other instream benefits of fresh water, such as providing habitat for aquatic life or maintaining
suitable water quality for human use.
61
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Energy Costs Module

Clean coal causes energy prices to rise
Expectations for “clean coal” often rest on such wishful hyperbole. It may be possible to eventually produce electricity
from coal with low emissions and limited impacts across its fuel cycle. The technologies to increase combustion efficiency, to
remove most pollutants, to mine in a low-impact fashion, and to recycle or reuse the waste products of the coal fuel chain, are either identified
or within reach in the coming decade or two. Of course, these could impose quite substantial additional costs on coal use. Carbon
dioxide is more difficult to control than other pollutants. To burn coal with near zero carbon emissions will require a combination
of high efficiency and carbon capture technologies. Even if the high cost of such technologies were not an issue,
doubts remain about the impacts and security of most options for CO2 storage, to ensure it is permanently kept out of the
atmosphere. This raises three big questions. How much will coal-based electricity cost once all these factors are taken into account?
How long will it take to get to low impact coal, and how much irreversible damage will occur before we get there (i.e.
climate impacts from the billions of tons of carbon dioxide emitted in the meanwhile, tons of mercury and other toxic pollutants released,
streams and habitats destroyed, etc.)? How does this path compare to one that invests instead in available zero or low carbon alternatives?
Electricity is the backbone to the U.S. economy and stable electricity prices are to generate
sufficient amounts of electricity
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) 2004 “Nuclear Energy and the Nations Future Prosperity”,
http://www.nei.org/documents/Vision2020_Booklet.pdf
More than half of the academy’s top 20 achievements depend on electricity. What is more striking, however, is how the diffuse items on the list
interact, in combination with electricity, to power the nation’s economic progress. One prominent example is the
country’s technology-reliant digital economy. Such an economy could not operate, let alone prosper, without
reliable electricity to power computers (ranked eighth), electronics (ranked ninth) and the Internet (ranked thirteenth) that are so basic
to our economic success. In other words, electricity is an economic multiplier—a gateway technology that fosters
economic growth and additional technological progress. The strong historical correlation between electricity
demand and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is powerful evidence that electricity plays an essential role in economic
growth (see Fig.5 ). As the nation’s GDP rises,electricity demand follows with near lockstep precision. Stated differently,increased
availability of electricity spurred wider and more diverse applications of that electricity. This in turn spawned
increasing economic growth as the nation developed new ways to derive increased economic value from electricity and to improve the
overall standard of living. While these supply and demand variables remain in balance, electricity prices remain stable
and economic growth continues. Moreover,the wider application of electrotechnologies results in greater productivity gains and the
more efficient use of this valuable commodity. This can be seen in the measure of electricity intensity—the ratio of kilowatthours per unit of
GDP. As electricity demand increases over time,electricity intensity has fallen since 1974 (see Fig.6 ).
Economic declines leads to global war and nuclear use

Walter Russell Mead (Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations) Summer 1992 New Perspectives Quarterly
What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict:
South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear
weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
62
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Increase Energy Cost

Gasification plants necessitate huge federal subsidies to offset costs.
E,Jan-Feb 2002 v13 i1 p24
One way to reduce a power plant's CO2 emissions is to make it more efficient, which means getting more energy out of less fuel.
So far, the best hope for improving coal's efficiency is a process called gasification, in which coal is converted to a gas. A gasification plant
is about 40 percent efficient, compared to the 33 to 36 percent efficiency of a conventional steam-driven coal plant. Small efficiency increases
can produce big results: A 500-megawatt plant will generate 180 million fewer pounds per year of CO2 if its efficiency is increased just one
percentage point. Gasification plants cost between $1.2 million and $1.6 million per megawatt of capacity to build, compared to
$550,000 for a natural gas plant and $1 million for a conventional coal plant. Consequently, the only gasification
plants in the U.S. have been built with financial help from the DOE.
Clean coal incurs huge costs in plant construction and waste disposal. And it doesn’t work.
CNNMoney October 19 2004
But critics say that newer "clean coal" technology, for all its promised benefits, is expensive. And some say that the technology, despite
its positive-sounding name, will create expensive environmental headaches. The need for power "With nuclear and hydro resources
pretty much tapped out, it comes down to a debate between coal and gas," said Mark Morey, director of the Cambridge Energy Resource
Association's North America power group. According to the EIA, coal is plentiful and cheap, with domestic supplies projected to last two
centuries or more. About half the nation's electricity is already generated by coal-fired plants, so there's an infrastructure for coal in place. And
with electricity demand expected to grow sharply in coming decades, proponents say clean coal is the way to go. "Clean coal technology is the
future," said Ohio Coal Association President Mike Carey. Some big companies are betting heavily on the technology. General Electric
(Research) and Bechtel are jointly developing a model for coal gasification plants, which convert coal into a gas. The plants are considered the
most vaunted of the clean coal technologies by the EIA and coal industry leaders. An expensive proposal Clean coal plants aren't cheap to
build, and costs to dispose of their waste are steep. Bechtel said the initial cost to build a coal gasification plant is 25 percent
more than a medium-sized conventional coal-fired power plant. A conventional plant costs about $780 million to build, according to
Bechtel, so a comparable coal-gas plant would cost about $975 million. "There are a lot of parallels between coal and nuclear energy," said
Cambridge Energy's Morey. "The plants are really expensive to build and there's an issue about disposing of large amounts of
[carbon dioxide] waste that could get really costly." While there has never been a law regulating carbon dioxide emissions in the
U.S., many scientists, utility analysts, environmentalists and business executives admit that CO2 emissions are the chief cause of global
warming. "In ways we've looked at pollution in the past, coal has cleaned up. But the bigger problem we face now is carbon dioxide, which
clean coal plants still emit," said Dave Hamilton, the Sierra Club's director of Global Warming and Energy Programs. "Businesses know carbon
dioxide will be regulated in the future and would rather make it part of the cost to build a new plant now rather than wait and have to add
technology," said Morey. "These plants are 40- to 50-year investments." "Many ways of taking care of carbon dioxide are being studied,
particularly carbon sequestration," said Carey. Trapping and holding CO2 is the most popular method of dealing with emissions from coal-gas
plants; and it's part of President Bush's FutureGen initiative to create the world's first zero-emissions fossil fuel plant. But trapping carbon
is expensive. For an average traditional coal-fired plant, which produces some 750 million tons of carbon a year, the annual cost of trapping
CO2 is about $31 million a year, said Stephan Singer, head of European Climate and Energy policy with WWF International, which works
closely with the EU on climate change and energy. Analysts and environmentalists also say there's little evidence to show
this process will ever work. "If it all leaks, then you're right back where you started, plus you've wasted all that money,"
said Hamilton.
Clean coal is billions of dollars and several years away. Once it’s up and running, daily
operating costs are through the roof.
Many of the ‘clean coal’ technologies that industry is currently touting are still in the development stage and will
take hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars and many more years before they are commercially available.
“Clean coal” technologies are also extremely expensive in terms of day to day running costs. The US Energy
Information Administration (EIA) estimates the capital costs of a typical IGCC plant (an experimental low-
emission coal power station) to be US$1,383/kW, $2,088/kW with carbon sequestration. This compares with
US$1,015/kW for a typical wind farm.7
63
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Warming Turn

Clean coal technology increases CO2 emissions because they take energy to run
Salon.com October 5 2004
But the irony is that some of the
technologies now used to make coal burn cleaner can increase CO2 emissions, since the
new technologies also require energy to run. "When you have a scrubber on a plant, it decreases efficiencies. It's
like putting a muffler on your car. If you're adding scrubbers, they use energy to run them, and you have to burn
more coal to get the same amount of power. So, there would be more carbon for unit of juice coming out of the plant," says Davies,
of Greenpeace. Even coal gasification doesn't entirely escape the problem of CO2 emissions and global warming.
"We need to get to close to zero total CO2 emissions, and you're not going to do that with efficiency," says Keith.
Clean coal will increase emissions

Natural Resources Defense Council, 5/8/01, Environmental Media Services,
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/clean_coal.html
The unfortunate truth is that there is no such thing as "clean coal." Proposed "clean coal" plants will still emit
substantial levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, smog-forming nitrogen oxide, lung- damaging particulates and cause
mercury contamination of water and land. "Clean coal" refers to a variety of technologies that in theory are supposed to allow coal to be
burned while producing little pollution. None has fulfilled that promise, however. Use of new technologies has helped reduce smokestack
emissions, but Clean Coal Technology (CCT) power plants are still very dirty, much dirtier than natural gas fired plants. For example,
levels of nitrogen oxide at the Fort Lonesome, Fla., "clean coal" plant are seven times higher than at a natural gas- fired facility.
Unlike Fort Lonesome, natural gas plants also emit no sulfur dioxide. No other source of pollution causes as many adverse health impacts as
coal-burning power plants. Coal is America's dirtiest energy source and also our largest, generating 52 percent of the nation's electricity. Coal-
burning power plants are the single biggest source of industrial air pollution. Increasing dependence on any type of coal technology is not a true
move towards a cleaner energy policy, as coal produces pollution when it is mined, transported, burned and when the waste from burning is
disposed. Clearly, the term clean coal is a misnomer. General Accounting Office (GAO) audits of the Clean Coal Technology Program
(CCTP) have said, "emerging clean coal technologies will probably not contribute significantly to the reduction of acid rain
causing emissions during the next 15 years." The Energy Department's own evaluations of some of its projects showed that new
"clean coal" technologies were 40 percent less effective in removing sulfur dioxide emissions than conventional
smokestack "scrubbers." A History of Waste and Mismanagement Since its beginning in 1985, DOE's "clean coal" research and
development program has received more than $2.3 billion in federal funds through two separate programs. The coal industry also receives
hundreds of millions of dollars through a separate DOE coal research and development program. As of March 2000, one-fifth (10) of the total
projects funded had been either withdrawn or terminated. Numerous attempts to build "clean coal" plants have failed because of high
construction and design costs, environmental worries, technology problems, risky business plans and wobbly investor confidence.
64
LouGie Lab
Clean Coal Bad: Mining

Clean coal requires mining, which devastates ecosystems.
World Wildlife Fund, 2004, “Coal-Focused Strategy in Bush Energy Plan Would Increase Global Warming”,
http://www.ecoworld.org/Home/articles2.cfm?TID=295
The experts argue that coal will not be truly clean in the foreseeable future and that efforts to produce so-called "clean coal" are
misguided as a centrepiece of national energy policy because there are much cheaper ways to make clean electricity. In the meantime, however,
the Administration's plan to promote coal and relax clean air standards could increase the output of existing "dirty coal" plants, and raise CO2
emissions from the electricity sector by 40 to 60% over present day levels by the year 2020. "This kind of impact will have a devastating
effect on global warming and the threat it poses to both people and wildlife," said Jennifer Morgan, director of World Wildlife
Fund's Climate Change Campaign. "Because, 20 years from now, more than 90% of coal-fired electricity could still come from
today's existing plants, 'clean coal' is, and for the foreseeable future will remain, an oxymoron." Coal plants are the electricity
sector's principal source of pollution, accounting for more than three-quarters of the industry's emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,
mercury and carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of global warming. Most of the 500-plus coal plants in operation in the US today are
"grandfathered" into clean air regulations, meaning they are largely exempt from the regulations, and thus, have continued to operate at
emission levels 10 times that of plants meeting current standards. The Bush energy plan would make it possible for some "mothballed" plants,
no longer in use because they cannot meet clean air standards, to be placed back in operation. The United States has indicated that it does not
intend to pursue the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement that would set limits for carbon pollution and other emissions that contribute to
global warming. "When President Bush backed away from the protocol, he promised to come up with a plan to reduce carbon emissions in the
United States," said Morgan. "An energy policy based on fossil fuels such as coal and oil is certainly not the way to go to achieve this goal.
This administration needs to take global warming seriously, and get back on track with the Kyoto protocol," said Morgan. "If we accept, as
President Bush stated in his campaign, that global warming is real and requires urgent action, then we must start facing the fact that the coal
age may soon be over," Morgan added. "As an energy source for the future, coal is as dated as leaded gasoline." A coal-focused energy strategy
would continue and worsen the following problems: · Good money after bad. Instead of subsidies for polluting fuels like coal, we should use
tax dollars to promote promising clean technologies. Bush has proposed $2 billion in new coal subsidies on top of the $2 billion already
squandered on the Clean Coal Technologies program. · Going against the flow. Total US coal consumption has grown 17% since 1990, in stark
contrast to the rest of the world, where coal use has dropped 16%. Over this same period, China removed its long-standing coal subsidies and
many OECD countries such as the UK and Germany shifted away from coal to cleaner burning and less expensive gas. · Still the culprit. Coal
plants are the electricity industry's principal source of pollution. They account for 92% of that sector's sulphur oxide emissions, 85% of its
nitrogen oxide emissions, 76% of its carbon dioxide emissions, and 99% of its mercury emissions. · The mercury is rising. Coal plants are the
single leading source of all mercury pollution in the US, accounting for a third of all airborne mercury releases. Coal plant mercury emissions
are expected to increase 33% by 2010, and yet they are the only major mercury sources that are unregulated. · It's not just the air. Coal is
increasingly extracted from surface mines and mountaintop mining. Coal mining also results in 95% of acidic mine drainage
in the US which harms aquatic life in 12,000 miles of American rivers. ·
Clean coal requires coal mining, and creates environmental damage.

UCS, 11/1/04, Union of Concerned Scientists, “Common Sense Solution #2: Modernize America’s Electricity
System”, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=796
"Clean coal" technologies allow coal to burn with less pollution, and have the potential to reduce heat-trapping emissions if combined with
carbon capture and storage technology. However, there are still technological and financial hurdles to overcome for these
technologies to be viable, and there would still be significant upstream environmental damage from the mining and
transportation of coal resources. In the meantime, new power plant proposals continue to rely mostly on conventional dirty coal
technology. The fact is, coal-burning power plants remain the single biggest source of industrial air pollution. We have better options.
65
LouGie Lab
***Peak Coal***
66
LouGie Lab
Peak Coal- Yes

US coal production has already peaked – the most recent studies conclude that remaining
reserves are of LOW QUALITY and impossible to mine. Global coal reserves face a similar
fate, and will peak within 15 years
Richard Heinberg (Faculty member of New College of California and a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute) May
21 2007 “Peak coal: sooner than you think,” Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919
Coal provides over a quarter of the world's primary energy needs and generates 40 per cent of the world's electricity. Two thirds of global steel
production depends on coal. Global consumption of coal is growing faster than that of oil or natural gas - a reverse of the
situation in earlier decades. From 2000 to 2005, coal extraction expanded at an average of 4.8 per cent per year compared to 1.6 per cent per
year for oil: although world natural gas consumption had been racing ahead in past years, in 2005 it actually fell slightly. Looking to the future,
many analysts who are concerned about emerging supply constraints for oil and gas foresee a compensating shift to lower-quality fuels. Coal
can be converted to a gaseous or liquid fuel, and coal gasification and coal-to-liquids plants are being constructed at record rates. This
expanded use of coal is worrisome to advocates of policies to protect the global climate, some of whom place great hopes in new (mostly
untested) technologies to capture and sequester carbon from coal gasification. With or without such technologies, there will almost certainly be
more coal in our near future. According to the widely accepted view, at current production levels proven coal reserves
will last 155 years (this according to the World Coal Institute). The US Department of Energy (USDoE) projects annual global coal
consumption to grow 2.5 per cent a year through 2030, by which time world consumption will be nearly double that of today. A startling report:
less than we thought! However, future scenarios for global coal consumption are cast into doubt by two recent
European studies on world coal supplies. The first, Coal: Resources and Future Production (PDF 630KB), published on April 5 by
the Energy Watch Group, which reports to the German Parliament, found that global coal production could peak in as few
as 15 years. This astonishing conclusion was based on a careful analysis of recent reserves revisions for several
nations. The report's authors (Werner Zittel and JÃ¶rg Schindler) note that, with regard to global coal reserves, "the data quality is
very unreliable", especially for China, South Asia, and the Former Soviet Union countries. Some nations (such as Vietnam) have not updated their proved reserves for decades, in
some instances not since the 1960s. China's last update was in 1992; since then, 20 per cent of its reserves have been consumed, though this is not revealed in official figures. However,
since 1986 all nations with significant coal resources (except India and Australia) that have made the effort to update
their reserves estimates have reported substantial downward revisions. Some countries - including Botswana,
Germany, and the UK - have downgraded their reserves by more than 90 per cent. Poland's reserves are now 50 per cent smaller
than was the case 20 years ago. These downgrades cannot be explained by volumes produced during this period. The best
explanation, say the EWG report's authors, is that nations now have better data from more thorough surveys. If that is the case,
then future downward revisions are likely from countries that still rely on decades-old reserves estimates. Altogether, the
world's reserves of coal have dwindled from 10 trillion tons of hard coal equivalent to 4.2 trillion tons in 2005 - a 60 per cent downward revision in 25 years. China (the world's primary
consumer) and the US (the nation with the largest reserves) are keys to the future of coal. China reports 55 years of coal reserves at current consumption rates. Subtracting quantities consumed
since 1992, the last year reserves figures were updated, this declines to 40 to 45 years. However, the calculation assumes constant rates of usage, which is unrealistic since consumption is
increasing rapidly. Already China has shifted from being a minor coal exporter to being a net coal importer. Moreover, we must factor in the peaking phenomenon common to the extraction of
all non-renewable resources (the peak of production typically occurs long before the resource is exhausted). The EWG report's authors, taking these factors into account, state: "it is likely that
China will experience peak production within the next 5-15 years, followed by a steep decline." Only if China's reported coal reserves are in reality much larger than reported will Chinese coal
production rates not peak "very soon" and fall rapidly. The United States is the world's second-largest producer, surpassing the two next important producer states (India and Australia) by
The US has already passed its peak of production
nearly a factor of three. Its reserves are so large that America has been called "the Saudi Arabia of coal".
for high-quality coal (from the Appalachian Mountains and the Illinois basin) and has seen production of bituminous coal
decline since 1990. However, growing extraction of sub-bituminous coal in Wyoming has more than compensated for this. Taking reserves
into account, the EWG concludes that growth in total volumes can continue for 10 to 15 years. However, in terms of
energy content US coal production peaked in 1998 at 598 million tons of oil equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen to 576
Mtoe. Confirmation: a second study The EWG study so contradicts widespread assumptions about future coal supplies
that most energy analysts would probably prefer to ignore it. However, an even more recent study, The Future of Coal,
by B. Kavalov and S. D. Peteves of the Institute for Energy (IFE), prepared for European Commission Joint Research Centre and not yet
published, reaches similar conclusions. Unlike the EWG team, Kavalov and Peteves do not attempt to forecast a peak in production. Future supply is discussed in terms
of the familiar but often misleading reserves to-production (R/P) ratio. Nevertheless, the IFG's conclusions broadly confirm the EWG report. The three primary take-away
conclusions from the newer study are as follows: "world proven reserves (i.e. the reserves that are economically
recoverable at current economic and operating conditions) of coal are decreasing fast"; "the bulk of coal production and
exports is getting concentrated within a few countries and market players, which creates the risk of market imperfections"; and "coal
production costs are steadily rising all over the world, due to the need to develop new fields, increasingly difficult
geological conditions and additional infrastructure costs associated with the exploitation of new fields". Early in the
paper the authors ask, "Will coal be a fuel of the future?" Their disturbing conclusion, many pages later, is that "coal might not be so
abundant, widely available and reliable as an energy source in the future". Along the way, they state "the world could
run out of economically recoverable (at current economic and operating conditions) reserves of coal much earlier than
widely anticipated". The authors also highlight problems noted in the EWG study having to do with differing grades of coal and the likelihood of supply problems arising first
with the highest-grade ores. All of this translates to higher coal prices in coming years. The conclusion is repeated throughout the IFE report: "[I]t is true that historically coal has been cheaper
than oil and gas on an energy content basis. This may change, however ... The regional and country overview in the preceding chapter has revealed that coal recovery in most countries will
incur higher production costs in future. Since international coal prices are still linked to production costs ... an increase in the global price levels of coal can be expected ..." As prices for coal
rise, "the relative gap between coal prices and oil and gas prices will most likely narrow", with the result that "the future world oil, gas and coal markets will most likely become increasingly
inter-related and the energy market will tend to develop into a global market of hydrocarbons".
67
LouGie Lab
Peak Coal- Yes

Coal production will peak within twenty years. Coal numbers are more inflated than oil
reserves
Ryan McGreal February 26 2007 Raise the Hammer; “The Oil Depletion Protocol: An Interview with Richard
Heinberg”; http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=526
Ryan McGreal, Raise the Hammer: Coal is cheap and abundant. Other than the fact that it would increase CO2 production, can countries resist
ramping up coaltoliquids programs to replace declines in conventional oil? Richard Heinberg: Actually, future global coal production
is routinely overestimated. That, at least, is the conclusion of an as yet unpublished study by the Energy Watch
Group of Germany. That team has found that in the countries where coal reserves are well reported, the size of
resources has been downgraded dramatically in recent years. There are other countries that have not changed reserves
reports for decades, and it appears that those numbers are probably even more inflated than oil reserves numbers
for OPEC. The study concludes that global coal production will peak in 10 to 20 years. I'm tracking a Dutch study-in-
progress where the researchers are using different criteria, and their preliminary results confirm the German study. All of this has enormous
implications for the climate debate (which is mostly about coal) as well as discussions about substituting coal-to-liquids for diminishing oil.
Ultimately we are facing not just a liquid fuels crisis, but a general energy crisis. Oil, coal, and natural gas together supply over 85
percent of the world's energy. All will peak in production within the next 20 years. The world had better start
thinking about how to get along with less energy.
Peak coal will happen within then next fifteen years

Richard Heinberg (Faculty member of New College of California and a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute) May
21 2007 “Peak coal: sooner than you think,” Energy Bulletin, http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919
However, future scenarios for global coal consumption are cast into doubt by two recent European studies on world
coal supplies. The first, Coal: Resources and Future Production (PDF 630KB), published on April 5 by the Energy Watch Group, which
reports to the German Parliament, found that global coal production could peak in as few as 15 years. This astonishing
conclusion was based on a careful analysis of recent reserves revisions for several nations. The report’s authors (Werner
Zittel and Jörg Schindler) note that, with regard to global coal reserves, “the data quality is very unreliable”, especially for
China, South Asia, and the Former Soviet Union countries. Some nations (such as Vietnam) have not updated their
proved reserves for decades, in some instances not since the 1960s. China’s last update was in 1992; since then, 20
per cent of its reserves have been consumed, though this is not revealed in official figures. However, since 1986 all
nations with significant coal resources (except India and Australia) that have made the effort to update their reserves estimates have reported
substantial downward revisions. Some countries - including Botswana, Germany, and the UK - have downgraded their
reserves by more than 90 per cent. Poland’s reserves are now 50 per cent smaller than was the case 20 years ago.
These downgrades cannot be explained by volumes produced during this period. The best explanation, say the EWG report’s authors, is that
nations now have better data from more thorough surveys. If that is the case, then future downward revisions are likely from countries that still
rely on decades-old reserves estimates. Altogether, the world’s reserves of coal have dwindled from 10 trillion tons of hard
coal equivalent to 4.2 trillion tons in 2005 - a 60 per cent downward revision in 25 years
Coal will not last another 250 years

Richard Heinberg (Faculty member of New College of California and a Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute) June
2008 Global Public Media, “Richard Heinberg's MuseLetter: Coal in the United States”
http://globalpublicmedia.com/museletter_194_coal_in_the_united_states
It is not possible to confirm that there is a sufficient supply of coal for the next 250 years, as is often asserted. A
combination of increased rates of production with more detailed reserve analyses that take into account location,
quality, recoverability, and transportation issues may substantially reduce the estimated number of years supply.
This increasing uncertainty associated with the longer-term projections arises because significant information is
incomplete or unreliable. The data that are publicly available for such projections are outdated, fragmentary, or
inaccurate. These doubts about current reserves figures were based upon recent Coal Recoverability Studies undertaken in Kentucky,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming—in effect, spot checks to determine whether reserves figures were indeed reliable within restricted areas
where coal recoverability could be determined with some accuracy as the result of mining experience. A total of 65 areas in 22 coal fields have
been analyzed, and these studies suggest that 8 to 89 percent of the identified resources in these coal fields are recoverable and 5 to 25 percent
of identified resources may be classified as reserves. Because they are based on sitespecific criteria, these studies provide considerably
improved estimates compared to the ERR [Estimated Recoverable Reserves]. One such study, of the Matewan quadrangle of eastern Kentucky,
concluded: "a strong argument can be made that traditional coal producing regions may soon be experiencing
resource depletion problems far greater and much sooner than previously thought."
68
LouGie Lab
Peak Coal- Yes

Coal will peak soon
Considering the insights of the regional analysis it is very likely that bituminous coal production in the US has
already peaked, and that total (volumetric) coal production will peak between 2020 and 2030. The possible growth to arrive
at peak measured in energy terms will be lower, only about 20% above today’s level. . . . [T]he 250 billion ton figure [the current official
estimate of recoverable reserves] should not be the basis for energy planning. The various EWG scenarios suggest that if Montana and Illinois
can resolve their production blockages, or the nation becomes so desperate for energy supplies that environmental concerns are simply swept
away, then the peak will come somewhat later, while the decline will be longer, slower, and probably far dirtier.
69
LouGie Lab
Peak Coal- Yes- US

US reserves of HIGH QUALITY coal have ALREADY peaked – remaining reserves of
mostly of low-quality bituminous and lignite coal
Energy Watch Group, an group of independent scientists and experts who investigate sustainable concepts for
global energy supply, initiated by the German member of parliament Hans-Josef Fell. “Coal: Resources And Future
Production,” background paper prepared, March 2007
The country with the largest reported coal reserves is the United States of America. But as already discussed above, also these
reserves have been revised downward for several times in the past. Nevertheless, the present R/P-ratio allows the continuation of
present production rates for more than 200 years. First it has to be noted that the current proved reserve figures as stated in the BP statistics –
which correspond to the WEC definition of proved recoverable reserve – are identical with the estimated recoverable reserve according to EIA.
The EIA definition seems to be somewhat weaker than the BP and WEC definitions. Here we observe that the same values have misteriously
changed from estimated to proved. Our understanding is that only the EIA definition of “recoverable reserves at producing mines” can be
regarded as “proved reserves”, whereas the EIA category “estimated recoverable reserves” in analogy to the definitions used for mineral oil
would not be regarded as “proved reserves” but as “proved + probable reserves”. A more detailed analysis reveals that in the USA
the era of high quality coal is nearing its end and the efforts to produce the coal are steadily increasing.
The following figure A-4 shows coal production rates since 1950, distinguishing between anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous and lignite.
Anthracite production has been steadily declining since 1950, from 5.5 million tons in 1950 to 1.5 million tons in 2005.
Bituminous coal production has also been declining since about 1990. But total coal production has still been rising by about 20 million tons
per year since 1960. This increase seems to have flattened out somewhat since 1998 but is still rising reaching its maximum in 2005. Since
1970 lower quality subbituminous and low qualitiy lignite have been contributing with rising volumes. The growing
share of lower quality coal is the reason why total coal production in terms of energy content peaked in 1998 at 598.4 Mtoe and has since
declined to 576.2 Mtoe in 2005 in spite of the continuous rise in produced volumes (BP 2006). overall data quality might be rather poor,
general trends are obvious for the USA (probably with highest data quality), Brazil and Poland. Australia is the only investigated
country where the coal quality is still increasing. The slight decline of German coal quality, interrupted by an increase during the 1990ies, is a
result of the German reunification in 1990 when coal production in the eastern states was restructured and inefficient coal mines were closed.
The observed steady decline of coal quality is due to the steadily rising share of lower quality coal shifting from
anthracite and bituminous to subbituminous and to lignite. The declining coal quality is not only due to a steady
shift towards subbituminous and lignite. Also within each class, the quality declines. Another aspect is the productivity
of the US coal industry in terms of produced tons per miner. Until the year 2000, productivity steadily increased for all types of coal produced
covering surface and subsurface mining. But since then productivity has declined by about 10% (see the figure below). The decline in
productivity can only be explained by the necessity of rising efforts in production. This might be due to deeper digging and/or to a higher
level of waste production. Are these already indications for the era of "easy coal" drawing to a close? The rising effort for coal mining has also
been reflected in rising coal prices since about the year 2000 but the price rice certainly has also other causes. These price rises are summarised
in the following table.
US production of high-quality coal peaked 5 years ago

Energy Watch Group, independent scientists and experts who investigate sustainable concepts for global
energy supply, initiated by the German member of parliament Hans-Josef Fell.. “Coal: Resources And Future
Production,” background paper prepared, March 2007
The USA, being the second largest producer, have already passed peak production of high quality coal in 1990 in the
Appalachian and the Illinois basin. Production of subbituminous coal in Wyoming more than compensated for this decline in
terms of volume and – according to its stated reserves – this trend can continue for another 10 to 15 years. However, due
to the lower energy content of subbituminous coal, US coal production in terms of energy has already
peaked 5 years ago – it is unclear whether this trend can be reversed. Also specific productivity per miner is declining since about
2000. About 60 percent of US reserves are located in the three states of Illinois, Wyoming and Montana. Illinois and Montana
show no signs of expanding their production which since two decades remains at low levels or even declines. There are a number
of possible reasons for this: low quality coal, political opposition because of competing land use and environmental
issues, overestimated coal reserves because of poor geological data or a weaker definition of “proven”.
70
LouGie Lab
Peak Coal- Yes- US

Their “200 year” timeframe is a pathetic trope – most of those reserves are useless because
they’re low quality and un-mineable
Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, former Core Faculty member of New College of
California. “Richard Heinberg's Museletter #179: Burning the Furniture,” 3/33/2007
http://globalpublicmedia.com/richard_heinbergs_museletter_179_burning_the_furniture
The United States is the world’s second-largest producer, surpassing the two next important producer states (India and Australia) by nearly a
factor of three. Its reserves are so large that America has sometimes been called “the Saudi Arabia of coal.” The U.S. has
already passed its peak of production for high-quality coal (from the Appalachian mountains and the Illinois basin) and has
seen production of bituminous coal decline since 1990. However, growing extraction of sub-bituminous coal in Wyoming has
more than compensated for this. Taking reserves into account, the authors of the report conclude that growth in total
volumes can continue for 10 to 15 years. However, in terms of energy content U.S. coal production peaked in 1998
at 598 million tons of oil equivalents (Mtoe); by 2005 this had fallen to 576 Mtoe. This forecast for a near-term peak in
U.S. coal extraction flies in the face of frequently repeated statements that the nation has 200 years’ worth of coal
reserves at current levels of consumption. The report notes: “all of these reserves will probably not be converted
into production volumes, as most of them are of low quality with high sulfur content or other restrictions.” It also
points out that “the productivity of mines in terms of produced tons per miner steadily increased until 2000, but
declines since then.” The report’s key findings regarding future U.S. coal production are summed up in the following paragraph: Three
federal states (Montana, Illinois, Wyoming) own more than 70% of US coal reserves. Over the last 20 years two of these three states (Montana
and Illinois) have been producing at remarkably low levels in relation to their reported reserves. Moreover, the production in Montana has
remained constant for the last 10 years and the production in Illinois has steadily declined by 50% since 1986. This casts severe doubts on the
reliability of their reported reserves. Even if these reported recoverable reserves do exist, some other reasons prevented their extraction and it is
therefore very uncertain whether these reserves will ever be converted into produced volumes. Considering the insights of the regional analysis
it is very likely that bituminous coal production in the US already has peaked, and that total coal production will peak between 2020 and 2030.
US running out of high quality coal

Three states (Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia) produce 52 percent of the higher-quality coal in the US.
All three of these states seem to be in decline or plateau. Since the Northeast was the area of the nation earliest settled and was
long a primary center for industrial manufacture, it is not surprising that the coal of this region was exploited preferentially. Today,
Pennsylvania’s anthracite is almost gone. Mining companies there are now exploiting seams as thin as 28 inches.
West Virginia, the second largest coal-producing state (after Wyoming), where much coal is surface mined in an
environmentally ruinous practice known as mountaintop removal, is nearing its maximum production rate and will
see declines commence within the next few years, according to a recent USGS report.
71
LouGie Lab
Peak Coal- Yes- Best Evidence

Their numbers are wrong – US reserves are OVER estimated because they’re based upon
biased USGS surveys
Dave Rutledge, Chair for the Division of Engineering and Applied Science at Caltech. “The Coal Question and
Climate Change,” The Oil Drum, 6/25 2007 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697
Why are coal reserves high? In his book Hubbert’s Peak, Ken Deffeyes says this about the US Geological Survey, “When USGS workers
tried to estimate resources, they acted, well, like bureaucrats. Whenever a judgment call was made about choosing a
statistical method, the USGS almost invariably tended to pick the one that gave the higher estimate.” My theory relates to
my sister-in-law, Nancy Yee. Nancy appraises apartments for a bank. If her estimates are too high, the bank loses money,
and she loses her job. My suspicion is that no one in a geological survey ever lost her job for being optimistic
about coal reserves.
Don’t buy any evidence written before 2008 – world coal reserves are being re-estimated
David Strahan, award-winning investigative journalist. “The great coal hole,” The Last Oil Shock/New Scientist
1/17 2008 http://www.energybulletin.net/node/39236
Mine below the surface, however, and the numbers are not so reassuring. Over
the past 20 years, official reserves have fallen by
more than 170 billion tonnes, even though we have consumed nothing like that much. What’s more, by a measure
known as the reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio – the number of years the reserves would last at the current rate of consumption –
coal has declined even more dramatically. In February 2007, the European Commission’s Institute for Energy reported that the R/P
ratio had dropped by more than a third between 2000 and 2005, from 277 years to just 155. If this rate of decline were to continue, the institute
warns, “the world could run out of economically recoverable …reserves of coal much earlier than widely anticipated”. In 2006, according to
figures from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, the R/P fell again, to 144 years. So why are estimates of coal reserves falling so fast –
and why now? One reason is clear: consumption is soaring, particularly in the developing world. Global coal consumption rose 35 per cent
between 2000 and 2006. In 2006, China alone added 102 gigawatts of coal-fired generating capacity, enough to produce three times as much
electricity as California consumed that year. China is by far the world’s largest producer of coal, but such is its appetite for the fuel that in 2007
it became a net importer. According to the International Energy Agency, coal consumption is likely to grow ever faster in both China and India.
Another less noticed reason is that in recent years many countries have revised their official coal reserves downwards, in
some cases massively, and often by far more than had been mined since the previous assessment. For instance, the
UK and Germany have cut their reserves by more than 90 per cent and Poland by 50 per cent. Declared global
reserves of high-quality “hard coal” have fallen by 25 per cent since 1990, from almost 640 billion tonnes to less
than 480 billion – again more than could be accounted for by consumption.
72
LouGie Lab
Peak Coal- No
The DOE concludes that we have 200 years of coal reserves
Cathy Booth Thomas. “Is Coal Golden?” Time Oct. 02, 2006
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541270,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
Over the next 25 years, the Department of Energy predicts the use of coal will provide an increasing portion of our power--up to nearly 60%,
from 52%. Convened by the Secretary of Energy, the National Coal Council (McCall is a member) has laid out an aggressive energy plan using
coal over the next two decades. Coal production is expected to soar from 1.1 billion tons a year to 1.8 billion--mostly
from the West, especially Wyoming's Powder River Basin. New transmission lines, like the $6 billion Frontier Line, will carry electricity
from the coalfields of Wyoming to consumers in California. Peabody Energy, the nation's largest coal company, with 2005 sales of $4.6 billion,
up 28%, and earnings of $423 million, up 140%, is in acquisition mode worldwide. The Bush Administration has put down its own $2 billion
bet, largely by pursuing FutureGen, a next-generation coal- fired plant promising near zero pollution emissions--all in the hope of making the
nation less oil dependent. The U.S. is, after all, the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have more than 200 years of coal reserves at
our current burn rate. There are 440 coal-fired plants across the nation, with proposals to build 153 more in 42 states over the next decade,
at a cost of $137 billion, to provide electricity to 93 million homes and support our energy-guzzling lifestyles.
Their arguments about bias are wrong – coal reserves are well known and accurately
surveyed
Dave Rutledge, Chair for the Division of Engineering and Applied Science at Caltech. “The Coal Question and
Climate Change,” The Oil Drum, 6/25 2007 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697
Oil reserves are rightly viewed skeptically at The Oil Drum, in large part because of fraud by the OPEC countries. Coal reserves are
compiled by the national geological surveys, and unlike oil reserves, they are honest. However, recently Dr. Werner Zittel
and Jorg Schindler and their Energy Watch Group have written an important paper “Coal: Resources and Future Production” that shows that
there are major problems with the reliability of coal reserves, and indicates that the reserves may be too high. Coal is different from oil,
and much of the intuition that we may have developed about oil from nights pondering TOD posts is wrong for
coal. Finding oil is hard, and we have not found it all yet. In contrast, people knew where the coal was a century
ago. Once oil is found, it is likely to be produced quickly, so much so that discovery history is routinely used to
predict future production. On the other hand, there are large coal fields that are almost undeveloped. As an example,
Montana has larger coal reserves than Europe, Africa, or South America, but it is producing less than 0.1% of that coal each year. Our
estimate of future coal production depends a lot on whether we think that the people of Montana will get into serious
coal production. Finally, in contrast to the situation for oil, the world market for coal is only partially developed. Most coal is consumed in
the country it is produced in, and there are large differences in prices, even in the same country. For this reason, we will analyze production on
a regional basis. I will apply the techniques to coal that are routinely used here for oil, and consider the consequences for future climate change.
People who are interested in more details can get the spreadsheets with the raw data at my web site, with lots of additional figures and source
links.
The US has a 300 year supply of coal

ACF (American Coal Foundation) 2007
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:DnsasfCvfakJ:www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/coalconvert.html+the+u
nited+states+has+300+years+of+coal&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us
Natural gas and oil are also used to make electricity. How does coal compare to these other fossil fuels? In terms
of supply, coal has a clear advantage. The United States has nearly 300 billion tons of recoverable coal. That is
enough to last about 300 years if we continue to use coal at the same rate as we use it today. In addition, coal is a
versatile fuel. It can be used as a solid fuel or it can be converted to a gas to replace expensive imported fuels
The US has a lot of recoverable coal

ACF (American Coal Foundation) 2007 http://www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/faqs.html#howmuch
Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for 95
percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. The United States
has about 275 billion tons of recoverable coal, which could last us more than 250 years if we continue using coal
at the same rate as we use it today. In addition, the United States has more than 25 percent of the world's estimated
coal reserves. To meet energy and metallurgical needs, the United States mines over a billion tons a year of coal.
The rest of the world mines another 4 billion tons per year.
73

Da Coal1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Da Coal1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UMKC SDI 2008 Coal Disadvantage

Clean Coal Bad: Mercury Module................................................................................................................................55

Alternative energy development will lead to transition away from coal

Coal is key to the US economy

Economic collapse causes global war

2nc Uniqueness Bopper

Coal Prices High

US Coal Industry Strong

Coal industry strong- dominate alternative to oil

Coal Demand Rising

Now Key Time for US Coal

A2: Renewables Now/Coming

A2: High Production Prices Now/Coming

Generic Alternative Energy

Coal industry is threatened by alternative energy sources

Expansion of wind energy will trade off with coal investment

RPS would remove the need for coal.

Economy: Coal Key

Coal powers the US Economy

Economy: Coal Key

Coal is fueling the economy.

Coal plays a huge role throughout the economy.

Hegemony prevents global nuclear exchange

Coal Mining Good: Jobs

Coal mining creates jobs that people depend on.

Clean Coal 1nc

Renewables will crush the coal industry

Clean coal key to check warming

Warming risk extinction

Clean Coal Coming

Clean coal is coming- Court Approval Proves

Half a billion dollars were just given to clean coal research

A2: Clean Coal Not Possible

Clean coal technology is only 4 years away.

Coal Industry Expanding

Coal industry continues to expand

Renewables Destroy Coal

RPS leads to decreased reliance on coal

Clean Coal Solves Warming

Clean coal is the key energy initiative for climate change

Clean coal is the most viable way to curb emissions.

Alternative Energy Not Hurt Economy

Alternative energy will spark specialization- helps the economy

Coal Industry Collapsing

Coal industry is dying – lack of government funding and regulatory confusion

Coal industry is struggling – construction costs

Transition From Coal Now

A Transition Away from Coal

Coal plants hype waning

Coal plants face opposition and are being cancelled

Transition From Coal Now

Coal Bad Warming

Coal industry causes massive emissions

Coal burning is empirically proven to have caused global warming.

Coal Combustion Pollutes the Environment

Coal Bad: Environment

Coal Bad: Mining- Generic

Coal mining extremely harmful to the environment and people

Coal Bad: Mining- Underground

Underground Mining Destroys Landscapes

Surface Mining Directly Damages Landscapes

Coal Bad: Mining- Mountain Top

No Clean Coal: Politics