Skip to main content

Waiting for Coal’s Next Act

Williams_I090831211140 Even if one allows that the coal industry solves outstanding issues with carbon capture and sequestration – and it might - the rising tide of nuclear and renewable energy sources can make the coal industry look, fairly or unfairly, retrograde and outmoded. Although coal has made out pretty well in energy legislation so far, the industry clearly feels vulnerable, which leads to things like this:

The chief executive of coal mining giant Massey Energy blasted supporters of climate-change legislation and other environmental issues affecting the coal industry at a free Labor Day concert and rally in southern West Virginia.

CEO Don Blankenship said he wanted to show people at the event how government regulation is hurting the coal industry, driving up energy prices and making the country less competitive.

Well, Blankenship has to say something, and these are arguable points.

But then:

Headlining the event were Fox News personality Sean Hannity and [Hank] Williams [Jr.], while rocker Ted Nugent served as master of ceremonies and played briefly.

Sean Hannity? Ted Nugent? Uh-oh.

"Barack Obama hates the coal industry. Barack Obama hates the oil industry," Hannity said. "If they shut down the coal industry, we lose America as we know it."

You can see the whole speech on YouTube.

Massey seems have taken politically neutral situations – concern about jobs, the long tradition of coal in West Virginia – and melded them with a highly politicized message.

Massey’s employees and other concert attendees likely range from across the political spectrum (McCain took West Virginia last year 56-43, but that’s still a lot of Obama voters). Coal doesn’t care who mines it, so a 10-minute screed against the Obama administration seems off-point.

Massey should be for something, encouraging people to militate for coal on its virtues – as a lot of Congressional figures and others have done - not solely against those who are for something else. Massey’s tactic seems to start with the premise that coal is indefensible unless all alternatives are obliterated, likely not the message it wants to project. When Blankenship says:

"In Washington, they sometimes say that those of us in Appalachia need help because we're not very smart. Well, we're smart enough to know that only God can change the earth's temperature - not Al Gore."

Massey may as well say it has lost the argument on points and must now depend on Sean Hannity’s brand of demagoguery to hold together the tattered remnants. It just isn’t so – or necessary.

Now, we’re all in favor of people getting just as political as they want in order to make a point – we thought USEC got this about right a few weeks ago – but Massey could have used its rally to focus on jobs and the value of coal. We can imagine a lot of concert goers tuning out while waiting for the next act to come on.

Hank Williams Jr.

Comments

DocForesight said…
If I may provide a defense of Sean Hannity (don't know why you had the response you had - care to elaborate?), it was candidate Obama who stated that his cap-and-trade scheme would cause coal-burning power plants to close due to the increased cost from CO2 emission taxes; and it was VP designate Biden who stated there would be no new coal-fired power plants with their administration.

I suspect that is the context in which Hannity made his comments.

If Mr. Blankenship is concerned about the long-term relevance of coal and mining, why isn't he forging alliances with the Coal-to-Liquid technology people? That would seem to provide jobs, energy security and maintain their "rice bowl" of profits, simultaneously.
D Kosloff said…
Your comment about Sean Hannity is childish and unsupported. If you think that there is some benefit realized from posting childish outbursts, I suggest that you hire some 10-year olds. They work cheap.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…