Thursday, March 31, 2016
Dirty Coal, Dirty Energy Forever: Does the word "clean" have any place in any conversation about energy generated by fossil fuels, ever? even if we could do CCS and really wanted to? New York Times article on SaskPower's CCS failures: Technology to Make Clean Energy From Coal Is Stumbling in Practice
Updated April 3, 2016. After signing the university code of conduct on Friday, I was reminded that using the word 'clean' to describe coal-burning research is, in my view, a violation of the code of conduct that we all sign.
Figure it out New York Times. In print you used "cleaner coal." Now your headline uses "clean energy." How about just get "clean" all the way out of the conversation?
Coal and energy from coal (or other fossil fuels) will never be clean, CCS or not.
All you need to do is go see a toxic coal ash dump out here in Labadie, Missouri. Or go see the devastation of southern Illinois, thanks to Peabody and others. Or live near a coal train rail route. Or a coal mine. Or anywhere affected by oil and gas activities. Even if you take the CO2 out – and we can't do that in any viable or scaleable way that matters – it will never be clean. Not clean energy. Not clean coal. Not clean oil. Not even clean natural gas. Never. It's impossible. Against the laws of matter.
And, I'm thinking, if journalists shouldn't be using the word clean, why should scientists? They say the government uses the phrase 'clean coal'? Well, does it really matter what the government does? (They call torture 'enhanced interrogation' and dead civilians 'collateral damage'). So that's no argument. Question is, should scientists describe fossil fuel-related energy research with the word 'clean'?
After signing my university's code of conduct last Friday, which says I will not misrepresent research, I was reminded of the seriousness of this once again.
I'm pretty sure the use of the label "clean coal" or even "clean utilization of coal" is a breach of our university code of ethical conduct of scientific research. The keyword is "falsification" or "fabrication". Take your pick.
And, back to the article that set this whole thing in motion:
Technology to Make Clean Energy From Coal Is Stumbling in Practice
From the article, one of the slides from class:
And, since the university and Peabody hosted the IEA chief last year, who talked up a storm about what a success clean coal was at SaskPower, and so on and so forth, here are some more thoughts about that, after reading the NYT piece:
Figure it out New York Times. In print you used "cleaner coal." Now your headline uses "clean energy." How about just get "clean" all the way out of the conversation?
Coal and energy from coal (or other fossil fuels) will never be clean, CCS or not.
All you need to do is go see a toxic coal ash dump out here in Labadie, Missouri. Or go see the devastation of southern Illinois, thanks to Peabody and others. Or live near a coal train rail route. Or a coal mine. Or anywhere affected by oil and gas activities. Even if you take the CO2 out – and we can't do that in any viable or scaleable way that matters – it will never be clean. Not clean energy. Not clean coal. Not clean oil. Not even clean natural gas. Never. It's impossible. Against the laws of matter.
And, I'm thinking, if journalists shouldn't be using the word clean, why should scientists? They say the government uses the phrase 'clean coal'? Well, does it really matter what the government does? (They call torture 'enhanced interrogation' and dead civilians 'collateral damage'). So that's no argument. Question is, should scientists describe fossil fuel-related energy research with the word 'clean'?
After signing my university's code of conduct last Friday, which says I will not misrepresent research, I was reminded of the seriousness of this once again.
I'm pretty sure the use of the label "clean coal" or even "clean utilization of coal" is a breach of our university code of ethical conduct of scientific research. The keyword is "falsification" or "fabrication". Take your pick.
 |
| Key part: "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, or reviewing research or in reporting results". The 'Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization' here at WUSTL does this on a daily basis. |
And, back to the article that set this whole thing in motion:
Technology to Make Clean Energy From Coal Is Stumbling in Practice
From the article, one of the slides from class:
And, since the university and Peabody hosted the IEA chief last year, who talked up a storm about what a success clean coal was at SaskPower, and so on and so forth, here are some more thoughts about that, after reading the NYT piece:
Updated:@IEA chief talking big @wustl last year about SaskPower CCS success. But sounds like failure & crooked dealshttps://t.co/dDPMfIa2gj— Energy Politics (@energy_politics) March 31, 2016
Dear @Sulliview: Might @nytimes consider not using the word "clean" at all when discussing fossil fuel energy? It is a misrepresentation.— Energy Politics (@energy_politics) March 31, 2016
Re: @Sulliview: I'm referring to the two titles used for the article on SaskPower:— Energy Politics (@energy_politics) March 31, 2016
https://t.co/C4e0gRoHtJ
https://t.co/zlQgKEOboC
For @sulliview: Even if CCS (carbon capture) was viable, and it is not, no fossil fuel energy will ever be clean. https://t.co/OF8TjQOJLM— Energy Politics (@energy_politics) March 31, 2016
Dear @sulliview.— Energy Politics (@energy_politics) March 31, 2016
So, the argument is to just take the word 'clean' out of the conversation.
Thank you.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Environmentalists Join Forces in New Orleans To Foster A Growing Alliance to Combat Climate Change and Fossil Fuels
Must read, watch. Thanks to Julie Dermansky, at DeSmogBlog, see the whole article here:
Environmentalists Join Forces in New Orleans To Foster A Growing Alliance to Combat Climate Change and Fossil Fuels
Great piece and great video on emergent alliances in New Orleans and Gulf region, ties to MTR struggle and the anti-Keystone movement.
Environmentalists Join Forces in New Orleans To Foster A Growing Alliance to Combat Climate Change and Fossil Fuels
Great piece and great video on emergent alliances in New Orleans and Gulf region, ties to MTR struggle and the anti-Keystone movement.
Dirty Coal, Criminal Coal: The Upper Big Branch Case: Don Blankenship's defense team is gearing up for sentencing scheduled April 6, read more here
The defense team's sentencing memo:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2778423-Blankenship-Defense-Sentencing-Memo.html
The prosecution's sentencing memo:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2778360-Government-Sentencing-Memo-Blankenship.html
Ken Ward's story: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/blankenship-trial/20160328/government-seeks-maximum-jail-fine-for-blankenship
Highlights (from Ken Ward):
See the whole article at: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/blankenship-trial/20160328/government-seeks-maximum-jail-fine-for-blankenship#sthash.wefDVkgh.dpuf
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2778423-Blankenship-Defense-Sentencing-Memo.html
The prosecution's sentencing memo:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2778360-Government-Sentencing-Memo-Blankenship.html
Ken Ward's story: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/blankenship-trial/20160328/government-seeks-maximum-jail-fine-for-blankenship
Highlights (from Ken Ward):
"Defense attorneys argued that Blankenship should receive probation and a fine, with no jail time. They said such a sentence would provide “ample warning and deterrence” to other coal executives.
...Arguing that Don Blankenship made a “cold-blooded decision to gamble with the lives of the men and women who worked for him,” prosecutors on Monday urged a federal judge to sentence the former Massey Energy Co. CEO to the maximum sentence allowed under a law government attorneys said provides for only “paltry” punishment for mine safety and health crimes. Prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Irene C. Berger to order Blankenship to serve a year in prison and pay a $250,000 fine. -
...
While Blankenship was not specifically charged or convicted of causing the Upper Big Branch explosion, Ruby argued that the mining industry has known “for a very long time what makes coal mines explode” and also has known “for a very long time that some mine operators will ignore these hard-learned lessons until the law compels them to take notice. “It shocks the conscience that in the 21st century, knowing all that has been learned from decades of grief in our nation’s mines, the CEO of a major coal company would willfully conspire against the laws that protect his workers’ lives,” Ruby wrote. “One struggles for words to describe the inhumanity required for a mogul like [the] defendant to send working men and women into needless, mortal jeopardy for no purpose other than to pile up more money.
“The law, as it stands, offers no adequate punishment for his crime. But what the law does allow, the court should impose: a year in prison and the maximum fine,” Ruby wrote. “Don Blankenship owes at least that much to the men and women who worked at UBB.”
See the whole article at: http://www.wvgazettemail.com/blankenship-trial/20160328/government-seeks-maximum-jail-fine-for-blankenship#sthash.wefDVkgh.dpuf
Oil, War, Imperialism, and Exceptionalism: The Case Against Bombing ISIS
This may seem counterintuitive, but it is definitely a compelling argument, given our discussions of the long history of oil wars in the Middle East:
The Case Against Bombing ISIS
The Case Against Bombing ISIS
Clean Air vs Dirty Coal: Concerned about toxins and GHGs tied to coal-fired power plants? Show your support for the "non-attainment" designation for Franklin County, MO (Labadie Power Plant)
Comment here: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464
This is to combat toxic SO2 emissions (sulfur dioxide). Look it up, it's making us sick.
What we need to say in the comments is this:
Comment here: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0464
Here is a great example:
This is to combat toxic SO2 emissions (sulfur dioxide). Look it up, it's making us sick.
We support the designation of Franklin Count Missouri (Labadie Power Plant) as a nonattainment area in need of a clean up plan with state and federal oversight.
Speak out. If we don't the industry and its hired guns will.
Here is a great example:
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Dirty Coal: Back of the napkin calculations on the cost of clean coal 'branding' research at our university, vs how much they spend on lobbying against clean air, water, and better climate in DC
Updated 9/1/18. The student newspaper reports that Peabody Energy has given the university 1.5 million dollars in support of the so-called 'Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization.' Most of that research is on carbon capture, not to help the climate, but to market CO2 to oil and gas producers so they can produce more oil and gas (this is called secondary or 'enhanced' recovery of oil and gas). With many millions of dollars spent and now well over ten years of work, we have heard of no major break through on coal, much less have they discovered 'clean coal' a scientific impossibility. How is that good for the earth? Although Peabody's former CEO left the board of trustees, Peabody's recent donation to the university might mean that the new CEO may come on board. That would be farcical, and very bad news for the university. Peabody is struggling against their bad reputation in the city, and their financial woes (high debt, shrinking coal markets). They even had to give up their naming rights of the city opera house. Word has it that they are also spreading 'clean coal' propaganda at the St. Louis Cardinals' baseball games. What this means, most problematically, is that Washington University is doing little more than advertising, through lies, for a coal company on its last legs.
Updated 6/6/17. The other so-called 'clean coal' (CCS) power plant that is often mentioned is Southern Co./Mississippi Power's Kemper plant. It has been nothing but a boondoggle. Billions have been spent, the coal is not clean (it can't be), and like all coal burning plants it has "ongoing challenges over ash removal and gas cleanup". Coal will never be clean. The Chancellor and the coal companies talk about helping poor people with 'clean coal', but it will never be economically viable either.
Updated 3/31/16. In July of 2015 (video below) the IEA chief Van der Houven goes on and on about the success of CCS technology at SaskPower in Canada, promulgating the myth of successful 'clean coal' technologies. But read this report in the New York Times from 3/31/16. Not only is Sask Power a very expensive failure, but there is plenty of malfeasance and misrepresentation going on. Sounds suspicious to say the least.
Updated 3/29/16, after watching the van der Hoeven presentation from last summer, some notes below. Basically a pro-fossil fuels 'technological fix' discourse. Clear why she was invited and got softball questions from a pro-fossil fuels, technological fix audience.
Original post: March 27, 2016 My source notes on the lecture for tomorrow, the part about 'What are they calling clean coal'? We don't know the details because the university has refused to disclose them. That alone is a bit dirty...
So rough calculation of things the coal industry (Arch, Ameren, and Peabody) bought in the past few years...
Local coverage. Consortium celebrates with Peabody and Arch Coal, a new round of undisclosed amount of funding til 2020 (July 2015). Ameren is in or out? We don't know, but their name is still on the websites.
Updated 6/6/17. The other so-called 'clean coal' (CCS) power plant that is often mentioned is Southern Co./Mississippi Power's Kemper plant. It has been nothing but a boondoggle. Billions have been spent, the coal is not clean (it can't be), and like all coal burning plants it has "ongoing challenges over ash removal and gas cleanup". Coal will never be clean. The Chancellor and the coal companies talk about helping poor people with 'clean coal', but it will never be economically viable either.
Updated 3/31/16. In July of 2015 (video below) the IEA chief Van der Houven goes on and on about the success of CCS technology at SaskPower in Canada, promulgating the myth of successful 'clean coal' technologies. But read this report in the New York Times from 3/31/16. Not only is Sask Power a very expensive failure, but there is plenty of malfeasance and misrepresentation going on. Sounds suspicious to say the least.
Updated 3/29/16, after watching the van der Hoeven presentation from last summer, some notes below. Basically a pro-fossil fuels 'technological fix' discourse. Clear why she was invited and got softball questions from a pro-fossil fuels, technological fix audience.
Original post: March 27, 2016 My source notes on the lecture for tomorrow, the part about 'What are they calling clean coal'? We don't know the details because the university has refused to disclose them. That alone is a bit dirty...
What kind of research are they
calling “clean coal”?
“Consortium
for Clean Coal Utilization” founded, with statements by Chancellor Wrighton and
Greg Boyce, 2008.
$5 million dollars each from Ameren, Peabody Coal, and Arch Coal, paid over 5
years = $3 million per year
for naming rights. The students demanded access to the contract which
forces the university to speak in a certain way, but it was never disclosed. (In
2008, Peabody also ramped up its lobbying
against
climate science and cleaner air policy in DC. It spent more than 8
million alone on lobbying in 2008, approximately $30,000,000 between 2008 and
2015. Ameren spent over 3 million in
2008 on lobbying;
Arch about 3
million in 2008 and 2009, over 8 million by 2015. University ethics, it appears, are cheaper
than DC lobbyists and politicians).
WUSTL betrayal of public trust (2008-2013) =
$15,000,000.
Anti-public health lobbyists (2008-2015) = approx. $40,000,000
Coal burning research at WUSTL
today
CCS
research at WUSTL here. And: http://cleancoal.wustl.edu.
And here. Advertising
brochure (2015).
The latest spectacle
IEA Chief Maria
van der Hoeven speaks on carbon capture at WUSTL (July 2015), Chancellor Wrighton recognizes
Peabody “I would like to note the special
role that Peabody has played in bringing her to St. Louis...” ... “a great corporation
headquartered here in St. Louis and they extended the invitation” (and paid?)
and recognizes Peabody execs in the audience.
Maria
Van Der Hoeven says, at one point, [coal] has “also done almost irreparable damage to
our global climate.” And, existing
carbon emissions would be “50
gigatons” by 2050, about three times more than what we need to stay below 2
degrees. But, she goes on to make a case for CCS and “clean coal,” that pretty
much imagines something that seems pretty much impossible, clinging to fossil
fuels. Watch it for yourself:
Local coverage. Consortium celebrates with Peabody and Arch Coal, a new round of undisclosed amount of funding til 2020 (July 2015). Ameren is in or out? We don't know, but their name is still on the websites.
US DOE is funding ‘clean coal’?
Well, no.
Most recent
government-funded research is how
to burn coal differently and make it less inefficient, since it is very
inefficient now. Recently Wash U got 990K from DOE to build an experimental
unit that might reveal how to capture
more SOx and NOx. There is nothing in any of this research about “clean
coal”. Meanwhile, industry fighting
tooth and nail against Clean Power Act, tighter controls on mercury, etc. etc.
Students mobilize against Peabody
and greenwashing. Remembering when the
Students protested against corporate greenwashing: Wash
U Students Against Peabody (Spring 2014). And meanwhile, the struggle
continues: Wash
U Students Against Peabody
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Monday, March 21, 2016
Dirty Coal: Jedediah Purdy on MTR: The Violent Remaking of Appalachia
As we were saying:
"Coal, more than any other fuel, does harm where it is burned, and where it is dug. "
The Violent Remaking of Appalachia
"Coal, more than any other fuel, does harm where it is burned, and where it is dug. "
The Violent Remaking of Appalachia
Sunday, March 20, 2016
Dirty Coal: We'll be talking about the coal industry for next few lectures. Here are some Mountaintop Removal Videos to get you started.
I Love Mountains (2006)
Smithsonian
Smithsonian
Friday, March 18, 2016
Dirty Coal: Or, spending last day of Spring Break reading Peabody's 10-K prepping for next week's classes. And here are some notes.
Peabody's 10-K: (1) long term contracts lock us in to coal dependence (2) Management will get rich while workers and nature bear the costs.— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
Peabody's 10-K: 352 pages of how it works… https://t.co/KKqdLqS0jA
— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
Peabody's 10-K: Problem is, their cronies, like @AmerenMissouri, have fought against solar, renewables, while signing long-term contracts— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
We should have been working to transition grid toward solar, wind many years ago but @AmerenMissouri was contracting coal far into future.— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
And, since they must do country club together @peabodyenergy & @AmerenMissouri CEOs were doing coal deals while earth on fire. They knew.— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
And @AmerenMissouri, fought to end solar rebates while fighting local MO communities to build a new coal ash dump in MO River flood plain.— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
New coal ash dump means their only plan is to burn more coal, which their cronies over at @peabodyenergy will supply. @AmerenMissouri— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
This is what you call carbon lock-in. They use political and economic power to block change. They knew. @peabodyenergy @AmerenMissouri— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
Not only did they know they were willfully warming the planet, they fought against climate science. #criminal @peabodyenergy @AmerenMissouri— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
And they've got willing cronies over on my own campus @wustl who were green-washing for them. #cleancoal @peabodyenergy @AmerenMissouri— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
Now who's laughing? Well nobody, we should not be happy at state of the earth or our dirty air. Thanks @wustl @peabodyenergy @AmerenMissouri— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
Problem is, we still have long fight to seize and change the grid. Communities, movements, universities, get off of dirty energy.— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
To the end of dirty energy: pic.twitter.com/08ZBV3n7l1— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 18, 2016
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Dirty Coal: Peabody is going bankrupt, slowly. This does not mean they will go away. They are down but not out. The struggle goes on to defend earth and labor from the destructive power of coal
Peabody's 10-K filed 3/16/16
(good old Washington University is in there!)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1064728/000106472816000157/btu-20151231x10k.htm
On Peabody bankruptcy:— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 17, 2016
1) @stlpublicradio is doing a story on laid off miners. That's good. But workers need #JustTransition, not more mines
On Peabody:— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 17, 2016
2) After you finish that story @stlpublicradio, please do one on the toxic pock-marked wasteland that coal left in S. Illinois.On Peabody:— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 17, 2016
3) This will get you started @slsproject @stlpublicradio @radioaltman- look on google maps: 'Rocky Branch School Harrisburg IL'
On Peabody:— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 17, 2016
3) Guess what no school, road's gone. All you have is scarred earth -- here's pic @stlpublicradio pic.twitter.com/lPH4KXqlST
On Peabody:— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 17, 2016
4) Don't just tell story of laid off workers. They need state help yes. Tell long history of #coal destruction. @stlpublicradio
On Peabody— SLSProject (@slsproject) March 17, 2016
6) Bankruptcy means they're down, but not out. Protect workers and the earth. pic.twitter.com/LJgKlf2jGK
Peabody admits bankruptcy may be in its future
Peabody Energy’s ability to pay mine clean-up costs questioned
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/peabody-energy-s-ability-pay-mine-clean-costs-questioned
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)