'60 Minutes' video: America's coal dilemma
The future of our climate might be summed up in one question: what do we do about coal?
Coal generates nearly half the electricity in the United States and the world. But it's the dirtiest fuel of all when it comes to carbon dioxide, or CO2, the leading greenhouse gas.
Last week, the Obama administration declared, for the first time, that CO2 is a threat to human health and it plans to impose limits. But making coal safe will come at an astronomical cost.
After the economy, this could be the biggest debate in Washington. One of the most influential people in this is Jim Rogers. Coal has made Rogers and his company rich and that's why we were surprised to hear what this high-flying power baron has to say about what coal does to the environment.
Rogers wanted "60 Minutes" to see America's enormous dependency on coal, so he flew correspondent Scott Pelley out to see one of his 20 coal burning power plants.
"I remember the first time I took a helicopter and looked down on a power plant like this. I was 41 years old and I said, 'Oh my goodness, I'm responsible for that!'" Rogers told Pelley.
Rogers is the CEO of Duke Energy, the nation's third largest electric utility. His stacks pump 100 million tons of carbon dioxide every year, which makes what comes out of Rogers' mouth so surprising.
"Controlling carbon emissions in the near future is inevitable in your view. This is going to happen," Pelley remarked.
"It's inevitable in my judgment," Rogers agreed.
"You're one of the biggest polluters in the world when it comes to carbon emissions," Pelley pointed out.
"We're one of the largest emitters. And it tells you how daunting the challenge is that we have in front of us," Rogers replied.
"You know, there are a lot of people many of them in your industry may who you probably know who say that global warming is not a big problem," Pelley said.
"It's my judgment it is a problem," Rogers said. "We need to go to work on it now. And it's critical that we start to act in this country."
Acknowledging a problem
Like a reformed tobacco executive, Rogers says we can't survive the emissions his industry creates. He showed "60 Minutes" what he means at a North Carolina power station that can light up one and a half million homes.
Rogers told Pelley that particular plant burns roughly 19,000 tons of coal. "That's two train loads. And each train has about 100 cars," he explained.
The fact is, America runs on coal and here's one of the reasons why: the Powder River Basin that stretches across Wyoming and Montana may be the largest coal reserve on Earth. We've got 200 years worth of reserves--cheap, and right under our feet. No wonder coal generates half of our electricity.
But here's the brutal part: coal is twice as dirty as natural gas and puts more carbon dioxide in the air than all of our cars and trucks. In short, the U.S. is caught between a rock and a hot place.
"I notice all of this coming out of the stacks. What is that?" Pelley asked.
"That's good news," Rogers said. "When you see a plume comin' out of a stack of a power plant, that's vapor. And it basically says that the emissions have been cleaned."
The power industry spent billions in the 1990s cleaning up much of the sulfur and nitrogen oxides that cause acid rain. But those pollutants are mere drops in a stream of carbon dioxide. Rogers says getting rid of the carbon will require a new federal law to limit emissions and a new technology to clean up coal. At the same time, he says, Duke will transition to more wind, solar, and nuclear power.
"Our goal line is substantially to reduce our carbon footprint, to de-carbonize our business, by 2050," he explained.
"Four decades? That's a long time," Pelley remarked.
"Well, it took a hundred years to get to where we are. And we can't do this overnight," Rogers said.
Too late?
But Jim Hansen, NASA's top climate scientists, says 2050 is too late.
"We will have guaranteed disasters for our children, grandchildren, and the unborn," he said.
Hansen is credited with some of the earliest and most accurate projections of climate change. He thinks Roger's plan leaves the Earth in the oven decades too long.
"We are going to have to phase out emissions from coal within the next 20 years if we hope to prevent climate disasters," Hansen told Pelley.
"Are you saying we can't build any new coal fired power plants in this country?" Pelley asked.
"Absolutely, not only in this country, but in the world. This is not yet understood. We are going to have to have a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants within the next few years and phase out the existing ones over the next 20 years or so if we have to preserve the climate like the one that has existed the last several thousand years," Hansen said.
You know, Jim Rogers will hasten to tell you he does share your sense of urgency," Pelley remarked.
"Well, his plan doesn't match that," Hansen replied.
In fact, right now Rogers is building two new coal plants. "You're talking a great game, but you're building coal-fired power plants," Pelley pointed out.
"I am following through on what is job one for me, making sure my customers have affordable, reliable, clean electricity," Rogers said.
Asked what would happen if we abandoned coal at this point, Rogers said, "We can't abandon coal. We have to find a way to keep it and use it in the future. And that means the ability to clean it up."
To read the entire "60 Minutes" segment, click here.
Note also that the power companies themselves now acknowledge the problem, and also note the recent expose on their previous cover-up. They knew this was a real problem long before they finally acknowledged it publicly. Thankfully they have now acknowledged the science, as have most who truly study the data. I guess if you standard of measurement is the size of a coal plant thought then no, you will not get it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870
I agree biff. I live and work in Alaska, I've worked with people who take and study ice cores, and none of them work on the IPCC's panel of 'scientists'. Why is it that power companies are now agreeing with the current global warming scare? Money and politics - not science.
Martin1212, Humans are insignificant flec's of dust in the grand scheme of things. Stop listening to others and start thinking for yourself. Get a globe. Stare at it. Learn. See how small Los Angeles really is. Its a spec. Power companies and others jump on board simply because it is the politically correct thing to do, pure pressure, AND they will get government $$$ to help clean it up. Who can say NO to a chunk of cash?
ddoubledeuce is very wise indeed.
Seems to me, since the clean air regulations of the past may have caused the problem, that burning coal may actually be a solution. If so, that would be a real "Inconvenient Truth" . :)
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/39648
One "solution" to global warming might be to increase particulates in the upper atmosphere. Soot would be detrimental as it would absorb energy, therefore burning coal would not help. Salt might make clouds "whiter" so as to reflect more energy back into space. The article does reference sulfur particulates, which makes acid rain, something likely not desirable.
It's about control people. The tranzis and the U.S. government wants to control more of your life and this is just another way to do it. Stop being sheeple and start thinking for yourselves.
Your final paragraph shows your true motivation - it's not the science you don't like, it's the implications of that science on your political beliefs.
I am certain you can find thousands of "reputable scientists" who, apparently, have no idea about what they speak.
This is about control, saving ourselves from ourselves. I cannot quite understand why industries for whom lifetimes of resources have solidified their positions, now that they are in the position of the buggy whip industry of the early 1900s, will not change.
Isn't it pretty arrogant of humans to believe that we can change an entire planets climate, for the bad or the good? I'll never say it isn't good for us to try to leave a smaller footprint on the planet, we all should do better.
I guess if I was ever going to place a bet on any one organism that's ever lived on this planet destroying it then it would be on humans, we're an amazingly destructive species and We do seem to have ourselves placed at the center of the universe.
Why worry though, we've even made up a special place that we go when we die, none of the other creatures on this planet go there....just us. Humans rock!
ps. those percentages are only estimates (that's why you should do the research)
Why read further? It is unfortunate a respectable tech journalism site was taken over by a bunch of glorified stenographers at CBS.
That said: Coal is dirty. Atomic energy is clean. Anyone who claims to support clean energy who is not an emphatic supporter of atomic energy cannot , and should not, be taken seriously.
What concerns me more with this 60 minutes report is not following up on some questions it put. The most obvious one is why it would not be more effective to spend the hundreds of billions or more than a trillion possibly on a set of alternative power generation sources than CO2 sequestration. Wind and solar thermal, photovoltaic, biofuel, wastestream fuel, nuclear power generation plant all offer electricity without or a lot less CO2.
Coal fired power plant are so embedded into our infrastructure right now that we are stuck with existing ones for decades, but CO2 sequestration is bate and switch stategy again to get even more subsidies from the taxpayer after decades of subsidies and tax advantages and research dollars. It is time that the coal industry, which constantly points out that is such a low cost producer, to start to compete with cleaner technologies on fair terms. Duke is popular with stock investors because it is such a lucrative business. Time to pay it's own way.
There are far more jobs to be created in cleaner technologies if we would finally give them a fair chance with a comprehensive energy policy not written by the oil, gas and coal industries.
- by blieberman April 28, 2009 7:06 AM PDT
- This man speaks with a forked tongue. If he was so interested in doing something about the environment, instead of putting money into breaking ground and creating 2 new coal burning facilities which will pollute our air even more, for which even his family will be effected by, he should be taking that money and issuing grants and loans to businesses and individuals to replace their dirty energy source with a clean energy source
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(22 Comments)By stating "I am following through on what is job one for me, making sure my customers have affordable, reliable, clean electricity," he sounds like the "Nazis" who were doing their job too. it is time to think outside the box.It is time for a major change in this country before it is too late for everyone.