Clean coal technology could be boon to state's economy

[Chuck]

FRANKFORT — Clean coal technology could make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil and turn Kentucky into a key player in the nation's energy needs, lawmakers heard today.

The General Assembly's Special Subcommittee on Energy heard testimony from Randy Eminger of the Center for Energy and Economic Development. "Kentucky is the OPEC of coal," Eminger said, referring to the cartel that controls most of the world's oil supply and prices.

Technology exists to turn coal into gasoline and other energy needs, Eminger said, but its cost effectiveness is poor compared to oil. With oil prices near $70 per barrel, however, small gains in efficiency can make coal a vital source for the nation's energy.

If coal were to take a more prominent role in our nation's energy plan, the U.S. would be less reliant on the Middle East and unstable countries in Africa and South America for such basics as motor fuel and heating gas.

"In the name of national security and in the name of stabilizing our economy Kentucky is well-positioned to advance with these types of technologies," said Sen. Katie Stine, R-Ft. Thomas. "As the cost of oil goes up these technologies become much more realistic and economical in the long run."

In addition to cost concerns, clean coal technology must be improved to meet future EPA requirements. Lawmakers heard a presentation on the latest trends in clean coal, including a zero-emissions coal-based power plant named PowerGen. Several states, from West Virginia to Montana, have already approved legislation to lure the $1 billion project to their state. Such a facility would virtually eliminate mercury and carbon dioxide emissions, making the state that lands PowerGen the hub of clean coal technology.

The General Assembly included tax credits for clean coal technology as part of its 2005 tax modernization package. The credits are an incentive for energy companies to pursue clean-coal technology.

[tkcomer]

I honestly do not feel we should use any fossil fuel to generate electricity. Just about every country in the world is converting to nuclear power because it is much cleaner to the environment as a whole. It’s not cheaper than a coal fired plant, but it is cleaner. Fossil fuels should be used to power conventional combustion engines until a break through in technology can put an end those engines. It will take decades to do this, but the United States should have started this in the 70s. We are already 3 decades behind.

[ponto]

Nuclear and Chemical Accidents



1952
Dec. 12, Chalk River, nr. Ottawa, Canada: a partial meltdown of the reactor's uranium fuel core resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water accumulated inside the reactor, there were no injuries.

1953
Love Canal, nr. Niagara Falls, N.Y.: was destroyed by waste from chemical plants. By the 1990s, the town had been cleaned up enough for families to begin moving back to the area.

1957
Oct. 7, Windscale Pile No. 1, north of Liverpool, England: fire in a graphite-cooled reactor spewed radiation over the countryside, contaminating a 200-square-mile area.
South Ural Mountains: explosion of radioactive wastes at Soviet nuclear weapons factory 12 mi from city of Kyshtym forced the evacuation of over 10,000 people from a contaminated area. No casualties were reported by Soviet officials.

1976
nr. Greifswald, East Germany: radioactive core of reactor in the Lubmin nuclear power plant nearly melted down due to the failure of safety systems during a fire.

1979
March 28, Three Mile Island, nr. Harrisburg, Pa.: one of two reactors lost its coolant, which caused overheating and partial meltdown of its uranium core. Some radioactive water and gases were released. This was the worst accident in U.S. nuclear-reactor history.

1986
April 26, Chernobyl, nr. Kiev, Ukraine: explosion and fire in the graphite core of one of four reactors released radioactive material that spread over part of the Soviet Union, eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and later western Europe. 31 claimed dead. Total casualties are unknown. Worst such accident to date.

1999
Sept. 30, Tokaimura, Japan: uncontrolled chain reaction in a uranium-processing nuclear fuel plant spewed high levels of radioactive gas into the air, killing two workers and seriously injuring one other.

2004
Aug. 9, Mihama, Japan: nonradioactive steam leaked from a nuclear power plant, killing four workers and severely burning seven others.

[tkcomer]

Ahh yes. Any accident in a nuke plant is highly documented and widely reported. Most of the accidents were of the old style, graphite core reactors. The operators did everything wrong at Three Mile, and still didn’t hurt the surrounding community. Now then, what you won’t find are the hundreds of deaths and injuries that have occurred (And still are) in the fossil fuel fired plants. Not to mention the well-documented pollution they spread for hundreds of miles. Nuclear reactor design has come a long way since the 70s. It’s not cheaper than coal. But then again, 3 to 4 bucks a gallon of gas ain’t cheap right now, is it? Coal can be converted to oil. Germany ran their war machine on it in the 40s. Technology has come a long way since then.

[MichaelB]

Nuclear power is very effecient but my concern is the residue. They haven't developed a reliable system to dispose of the spent fuel rods and that's very problematic. Until this is solved we shouldn't even consider producing more.

[tkcomer]

They do have the technology to deal with the spent fuel. It is encased in a glass like substance and can be buried. Radioactivity is all around us. Just go to your nearest hospital. Heck, a lot of smoke detectors have radioactive material in it. The health problems with coal fired plants are well documented also. Did you know that when you burn coal, it gives off radiation also? A very low level, but something the workers have to deal with. All our big war ships and subs are powered by nuclear reactors. I don’t think the military would use them if they were inherently unsafe. The media has burned the fear of nuclear power in the public’s mind. The public associates this fear with the nuclear bomb. Fossil fuel power plants use tons of chemicals in the process of generating electricity. Not just coal is delivered to these plants. It just seems to me to be a huge waste to use fossil fuels to generate electricity. Not when better ways of doing it is available. Not to mention, making the country more energy self-sufficient could keep us out of the wars going on trying to secure our future for combustion engines.