Fallon Against Clean Energy Research
May 27th, 2008 at 08:11am Geraldine
In an interview the other day, Ed Fallon stated “if coal interests want to research clean coal technology and carbon sequestration they, not the tax-payers, should fund the research.” This is a noble statement based on a belief in renewable energy and a green future. Unfortunately it’s not based on reality. The most ambitious goal for renewable energy involves Americans getting 20% from our energy from renewable sources in the next 20 years. So where do we get the remaining 80% of our energy? While natural gas is relatively clean, it is a commodity that cannot be transported across oceans. The U.S. currently gets about 25% of its energy from natural gas. This leaves 55% of our energy to be accounted for and three possibilities, coal, oil and nuclear energy. Fallon has expressed his opposition to coal and also is vehemently against nuclear energy, stating that “When all costs are factored in, nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy. More nuclear power plants mean more plutonium, and reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make a nuclear weapon. And there is no real solution to the problem of storing nuclear wastes.” So that leaves one source of energy acceptable to Ed Fallon to supply over half of America’s energy needs, imported foreign oil.
Relying on foreign oil is bad for the environment, bad for consumers already paying high gas prices and bad for the United States as a whole, as it forces our economy to continue to rely on oil imported from the Middle East. Fallon’s opposition to coal seems to be demagoguery, designed to play on the fears of environmentalists opposed to the Marshalltown coal plant, rather than real environmental policy. While no one can argue that coal is the best source of energy for the United States, unfortunately, compared to oil or nuclear, it is probably the least bad of the three. But with increased funding and emphasis on clean coal research, coal will become much more environmentally friendly. In fact, clean coal is a central part of Barack Obama’s energy plan.
Unlike oil, coal doesn’t have to be imported from Middle Eastern nations and unlike nuclear power, it doesn’t produce radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. In contrast, the United States has a plentiful supply of coal. In fact, Iowa’s third district is sitting on significant coal deposits and towns like Melcher-Dallas and Lucas used to be coal mining centers.
A lot of work and research still needs to be done to make clean coal a reality. Ed Fallon seems to think that this work should be left to private businesses, not the government. While this free market attitude is nice in theory, it is not based in reality. Without government funding over the past few decades, the United States has lagged far behind in research in solar energy and wind energy. Stripping government funding for clean coal research would be just as disastrous. In the meantime, Fallon would rather have us import oil instead. With an energy policy based on reliance on free markets and importing foreign oil, Fallon seems to want to continue the George Bush-Dick Cheney energy plan. Such a misguided attitude would be disastrous for our country and disastrous for our planet.
Related Posts
- Culver’s Energy Plan Was So Good, A Candidate for KY Governor Stole It
- Fallon Credibility Gap Grows
- Ed Fallon Visit (Recap)
- Is Ed Fallon A Hypocrite?
- Fallon Attacks Barney Frank As Insufficiently Pro Gay Rights
Entry Filed under: Environment, US House, Leonard Boswell
Related Searches: clean coal technology, nuclear power plants, ed fallon, coal interests, reactor grade
4 Comments Add your own
1. RenovateDSM | May 27th, 2008 at 10:24 am
You are conflating two completely different energy sources.
The vast majority of oil is used for transportation and industrial production (with some minor exceptions for kerosene and home heating oil). Coal is generally used for heating and power generation. Development of so-called “clean coal” technology for power generation simply will not impact oil use and the problems inherent in an oil dependent economy - they are separate issues.
Iowa coal tends to have a high sulphur content, and is simply not as useful or interesting as a fuel for major electricity generation because of that. Researching ways to reduce toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants is probably good, but we actually already know how to reduce emissions significantly in many cases. Our current environmental policies may actually discourage major coal plant upgrades.
A progressive energy policy would focus on overall reduction of energy use (electric, transportation, and production), particularly energy that comes from fossil fuels, instead of technical solutions for maintaining current growth trends.
2. time machine | May 27th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I agree that this blog post needed some more research but turning back the clock is not the solution. You so called progressives think the solution to everything is everyone should be doing the right thing. What is wrong with making are current technologies as clean as possible until we have developed clean technologies that can meet our needs
3. barackstar2008 | May 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I am disappointed that Ed Fallon is disagreeing with Barack Obama on yet another issue (besides campaign finance reform) You can do better Ed!
4. RenovateDSM | May 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Um… if everyone always did the right thing, wouldn’t that indeed be the solution to everything? Gosh, though, it would be pretty hard to always do the right thing, or even to know what the right things is all the time. I’m not building myself a mountain compound and raising organic soybeans to make my own tofu. I even drive a car and leave my DVD player plugged in all day (even when I’m not at home)!
On the other hand, I strongly believe that the end solution to the so-called “energy problem” is not going to be a technical one. Technical solutions like clean coal may help ease the transition. It will be necessary to fundamentally change development patterns, transportation priorities, and individual habits. James Howard Kunstler is kind of a doomsday nutcase about the implications, but the underlying thesis in “The Long Emergency” is worth considering.
Reducing pollution from coal-fired power plants should be a short term goal - we agree on that. The government should help fund research towards that goal and require that all power plants implement pollution reduction measures. This will most definitely raise the cost of electricity, which has definite economic implications.
Right now, the government incentivizes the “wrong” decisions pretty much across the board. Old coal-fired power plants don’t upgrade because they would trigger massive clean air investments (scrubbers, etc). Transportation and development infrastructure expenditures promote low-occupancy vehicles and low density. Gasoline prices don’t reflect the external costs of use.
Obama couldn’t win an election on an “gasoline and electricity will keep getting more and more expensive” platform. My sense is that we are headed in that direction. Clean coal may deal with some of the ecological externalities of electricity generation, but it won’t help the price.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed