Corps of Engineers to Hold Meeting in Charleston October 13

The Coal Association reports that the US Army Corps of Engineers is holding a public hearing on October 13 at 7 pm in the Charleston Civic Center Little Theater. The subject will be continued use of Nationwide Permit 21, which makes mountaintop mining possible in many instances.

Meetings will be held elsewhere as well



OCTOBER 13
Knoxville, TN
Pikeville, KY
Charleston, WV


OCTOBER 15
Pittsburgh, PA
Big Stone Gap, VA
Cambridge, OH


Attached is the notice of the meetings and the request for comment from the Army Corps of Engineers

Improved Batteries Mean More Electricity Is Needed

Electric cars are exciting. The Wall Street Journal even had an article on a hybrid Formula One car that has an advantage by having to make fewer pit stops. However, electric cars only substitute one energy source for another. Gasoline, which is pretty energy dense, is replaced by batteries, which are not yet as efficient. But work is being done to improve batteries, by companies large and small. One of the large companies is IBM, which is beginning work on the next generation of battery that uses lithium as the anode and oxygen as the cathode. I can't explain any more than that, so go to Ecogeek to learn more.

Keep in mind this, though - the more batteries we use, the more electricity we have to generate. And for the time being, that means burning more coal.

The Cost of Global Warming Prevention

Global warming doomsayers have a tough row to hoe. Not only do they need to prove that the world a) is warming b) as a result of anthropogenic activity, they also have to prove c) that the cure they propose won't hurt more than the disease. The cost of reducing carbon emissions is huge - would warming be worse than delaying development, or investing in more expensive, "greener" sources of energy?

Bjorn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, a must-read for anyone looking for the good news behind the headlines. The fact is, we're much better off now than we were a few years ago, and he has the data to prove it. He is evidently a believer in human-induced climate change, so he satisfies the a) and b) tests above, but he makes a convincing case that the cost of preventing warming is much greater than the benefits to be achieved. His most recent article on the subject was in today's Daily Mail.

Lomborg notes that "Japan's commitment in June to cut greenhouse gas levels 8 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 was scoffed at for being far too little. Yet for Japan - which has led the world in improving energy efficiency - to have any hope of reaching its target, it needs to build nine new nuclear power plants and increase their use by one-third, construct more than 1 million wind turbines, install solar panels on 3 million homes, double the percentage of new homes that meet rigorous insulation standards, and increase sales of "green" vehicles from 4 percent to 50 percent of its auto purchases." That's quite a tall order.

The costs aren't small. "Imagine for a moment that the fantasists win the day, and that at the climate conference in Copenhagen in December every nation commits to reductions even larger than Japan's, designed to keep temperature increases under 2 degrees Celsius.
The result will be a global price tag of $46 trillion in 2100, to avoid expected climate damage costing just $1.1 trillion, according to climate economist Richard Tol, a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His findings were commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center and are to be published by Cambridge University Press."

We in the West can talk about the costs imposed on wealthy nations, but the greatest cost is imposed on smaller nations that are deprived of reasonably-priced energy sources to power their development.

Global Temperatures HIt a Plateau, But Don't Worry, More Bad News to Follow

If it seems chillier outside, it may be more than the fall weather. Temperatures have plateaued, or are dropping, across the world. For supporters of climate change legislation, this is coming at a bad time, just before the meeting in Copenhagen where plans were to be made for further greenhouse gas reductions. George Will reports on several inconvenient truths.

Why Surface Mine?

I missed this when it ran in July, but Ken Ward offered space on his blog Coal Tattoo, to Gene Kitts of International Coal Group to explain why surface mining makes sense in some situations. It and some of the comments that followed were a thoughtful and informative debate on surface mining, its costs and its benefits. For someone like me with only passing familiarity with the technical, as opposed to legal, issues, it was very helpful. Kudos to Ken for sponsoring an opposing view.

EPA To Regulate Large Sources of Carbon Dioxide

EPA recently announced that it will be proposing regulations to regulate large sources of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide. The fact sheet is here, and the proposed rule is here. This is widely seen as an attempt by EPA to force Congress into amending the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Republicans and moderate Democrats who aren't sold on the need to regulate GHGs may be willing to agree to some limits to avoid more stringent limits being imposed by the EPA.


You have to give EPA credit for doing this in a clever way. EPA has said it will begin regulating GHGs, and wants to help regulated industry by increasing the amount of emissions that are allowed before facilities would be dragged into PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) or new source review. EPA has basically said that the rule is intended as a way to ameliorate the terrible effect of imposing limits on CO2 and other GHGs. Of course, no mention is made of whether such regulation is really needed in the first place. Right now, EPA only intends to cover large sources (at least 25,000 tons of annual emissions), like utilities, petroleum refiners and landfills, all places that environmentalists love to hate. Later, of course, the thresholds will likely be dropped to encompass more sources.

Someone is sure to challenge this, and EPA probably doesn't care, because it is likely to win either way. If you believe in the need to control GHGs, this is a great action. If you're a skeptic like me, you just sigh.

Sixty days will be allowed for public comment. Here's a news report from the Environmental Newswire

EPA To Review 79 Mountaintop MIning Permits

You have probably seen from other sources EPA's decision to review 79 mountaintop mining permits. The action taken was a letter from Peter Silva of the EPA to Jo-Ellen Darcy of the US Army Corps of Engineers stating EPA's concern that all 79 permits it was reviewing pose environmental risks. EPA wants further review by the Corps of water quality impacts, the adequacy of mitigation for stream losses, cumulative impacts, and other concerns.

The permits haven't been denied, but they are now headed into administrative limbo where they will be studied to death. One could conclude that one of the goals of this action is to drag out the permitting process so that new mines aren't started because they're economically nonviable, and existing mines can't expand.

You can see the letter from EPA here (from Ken Ward's Coal Tattoo blog) and Ken Ward's report on what is happening, which contains a good summary of the next steps in the permitting process. The Associated Press report is here . WV Public Radio has done several stories, including this one