Battle lines are drawn in Congress over clean coal and natural gas energy

Posted Sep 7th 2009 3:00PM by Connie Madon
Filed under: Industry, Politics, Commodities

Right now coal is still king. Coal provides 50% of the electricity production for the U.S. while natural gas provides about 20% of that production.

Now, however, with an energy bill in Congress, the battle lines are being drawn between the coal and natural gas companies. Each side is marshaling an army of lobbyists to descend upon Congress. Each side will make pitches to Congress to gain favor for their companies.

With a bill in Congress to cap greenhouse gases, these battle lines are shifting. The natural gas guys say that they can reduce carbon emission immediately. The coal guys say they can do it with their clean coal technology. The problem here is that clean coal technology has not been tested yet.

Under the present bill, natural gas companies would earn $30 billion over 10 years in carbon credits. But utilities that burn coal will receive tens of billions of dollars worth of free pollution credits. Supposedly this savings would be passed on to the consumer.

The House bill also includes $10 billion dollars for research and development of techniques to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions.

If the current bill passes, there would be 30% more power generated by gas while coal power would increase by 7%, over the next ten years.

Do you believe that this bill will reduce electricity costs to the consumer?

Tags: carbon credits, carbon emissions, clean coal, coal, Congress, electricity costs, featured, greenhouse gasses, inthenews, lobbying, lobbyists, natural gas

Print this

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

9-07-2009 @ 8:39PM

william lindblad said...

NO. (that's in short) (that is also the truth)

This argument has been around for at least the last 30 years and has been in part solved by simple logistics. One of the small and idiotic reasons is the simple fact that since 1950 rail service has been on the demise to many parts of this country. The only practical way to move coal is by rail, hence places without rail have power plants that burn natural gas. Natural gas/coal, given present technology, has coal at a disadvantage, but on the obverse, there is a supply of known coal that will last hundreds of years. There is an economic front to this also as putting coal on the backseat will also put those that mine it on the un-employment lines. Comparing the amount of manpower required on gas/vs/coal, coal wins in the payroll department. Gas takes many people in the exploration area, but when this is complete it is a matter of pipelines and few people. Given present economics and the fact that the economy itself is a consumer driven vehicle, these factors deserve consideration.
What is really here? The blog subject is only part of the greater whole. The world (and U.S.) population has doubled in the past fifty years. Overall, the population is also getting older. We hare pushing toward an imbalance that would make social programs like social security impractical, and by the way, we are not the country on earth with this type of system. The "graying" will also put strains on health care which is already a hot topic and will strain even the socialistic ideals of countries as Denmark.

I could go on, but simply put - problems abound - solutions short.

These days, I would not wish to be a congressman~!

9-07-2009 @ 10:10PM

LongshotX said...

I see

9-08-2009 @ 5:47AM

Dan Barnett said...

The William Lindblad I know always offers a solution. Wind power? (Been to West Texas lately?) Solar Power? Thorium based Nuclear? I'm not convinced there is such a thing as "Clean Coal".

How does immigration balance the "graying" of America?

But indeed, there are many problems in America and the world. Are they worse that the problems faced by our Parents? Or their Parents? Or the Parents before them who were faced with a country trying to tear itself apart over the issue of slavery?