The coal industry's PR machine is in overdrive. Today's New York Times gives the dirtiest energy sector every invented a lot of space to make its case that coal power can save the world from climate change, free us from dependence on MidEast oil, enhance the economy and cure cancer. OK, it can't cure cancer. In fact, mining it causes a lot of cancer, but you get the idea. There's one problem with the idea of clean coal: it doesn't exist.
"For so many, filthy coal is a dirty four-letter word," said Representative Nick V. Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. "These individuals, I tell you, have their heads buried in the sand."
I like my sand. It's clean sand. My sand recognizes what's happened to much of West Virginia and other large stretches of the Appalachian Mountains thanks to coal mining. Removing mountaintops and replacing them with open wounds is not my idea of a clean and responsible way to secure an energy supply.
But even if you don't mind losing a few thousands square miles of mountain range to those who work the black seam, there is another damn fine reason to oppose coal as an answer to our energy and climate fears. As the NYT's accompanying graphic illustrates, coal-to-liquid, the current darling of the "clean coal" set, produces more than twice the greenhouse gases as conventional petroleum.
But, you say, what about coal gasification coupled with carbon capture and storage/sequestration? Well, in a paper just published by Jim Hansen and a long list of climatological co-authors (Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2287-2312), a paper about which I will have more to say soon, there's this little observation:
Climatic consequences of coal-fired power plants can be averted via coal gasification with CO2 sequestration (Hawkins, 2005), but during the next 10 years that technology is only being tested. Thus the alternative scenario's near-term requirement of stabilizing CO2 emissions requires emphasis on greater use of renewable energy sources and, especially, energy efficiency, which together have the potential to satisfy increased energy needs for at least 1-2 decades
In other words, clean coal is at least a decade away from completing the testing phase. And because we don't have 10 years to start chopping GHG emissions, we should be spending our money on known solutions, rather than fanciful ones.
But instead, here's what coal's back in Congress want:
Among the proposed inducements winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel; and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of coal-based jet fuel.
It's Tess of the d'Urbervilles, all over again.
- Log in to post comments
Maybe we should fight catch phrases with catch phrases. Look at the truely "clean" energy production systems: wind and solar. They are clean, yet no one calls them "clean wind" or "clean solar". Thus, I think that the term "clean coal" should be hit by scientists, and hit HARD. Call it what it is each time you refrence it so that it catches on, something like "The Clean Coal Crock" or "Phoney Clean Coal" or "The Clean Coal Sham" or "Counterfeit Clean Coal" or "The Clean Coal Delusion". The phrase "Big Tobacco" certainly caught on, pretty much everywhere... maybe that success can be repeated here.
I think that there is exaggeration and overblown rhetoric on both sides of the coal issue.
Coal industry representatives should stop trying to pretend that coal is clean and has clean usage potential. Coal is a dirty and problematic fuel and those are simply the facts. They need to figure out ways to improve the performance of the industry both in human terms and environmentally.
The environmental side needs to realize that, at least for the near future, burning coal is a fact of life. Renewable sources of generating electricity have scale and availability problems that will not be resolved soon. For example, a lot of people think that wind energy is an obvious and quick way to replace coal burning power plants. Part of the problem is, wind turbines are small (2 to 3 megawatts generating capacity) and it would take 400 or 500 to replace a modest sized coal burning plant, and only if they could generate electricity 24 hours a day without breakdowns. If you add wind variability and mechanical repairs you would need roughly twice that many to provide the energy. Then you need to consider that there are hundreds of coal power plants to replace. The wind turbines need factories using electrical power to manufacture them and vehicle burning gasoline and diesel fuel to erect them so we expend some of the potential renewable savings up front. Last, and probably the most difficult, you have to convince people to live with them nearby. Clearly this is a very large scale solution.
The coal burning technology with the best potential is Integrated Gasification and Combined Cycle (IGCC) coal burning power plants with carbon capture. These may be 10 years away from full scale use but so is the large scale availability of renewable energy for electric production. I don't think that there is a coal substitute that could be ready before 10 years.
What is needed is level headed thinking and planning and not rhetorical pugilism from opponents who will not budge from their rock solid beliefs. We need to keep burning coal to produce electricity for now but we need to work very hard at improving efficiency and learning how to capture and store carbon. We also need to work hard at increasing the mix of renewable energy input to the electrical grid. Wind and solar are the best near term but geothermal, tidal and wave energy need to be pursued as well. Personally, I think that nuclear, even given its problematic nature, is a good intermediate solution.
The thing is, people need to look at the situation with a sense of realism and put aside their fantasies of what an ideal world looks like. We all need to put our money where are mouth is and be willing to pay for solutions that make a difference because they won't be cheap.
Oh sure there is James. Didn't you see this?
(And then can we please get some motion together to over-ride the "Clean Coal" GE ads running over our blogs?)
Enercon's new E112 turbine produces 6 megawatts, that's enough to power 4000 homes in Germany.
Imagine if all the money that is and will be used to discover new ways to utilize coal and do something with its associated CO2, that that money is spent on wind and solar (and wave) and bringing the grid up to date and ready for it, everywhere.
matthew,
That one word in your comment, "imagine", is the crux of what is holding up real progress. Coal mining companies and electric utilities and environmentalists all imagine completely different scenarios. More real progress would be made if we leave aside our idealism (all sides) and focus on what can really be done. If we all agreed on the same thing then we could do anything but we don't all agree so we need to compromise.
I tend to agree with your imagined scenario but I don't think the will to make that happen exists in this country. The Europeans have us beat hands down on this an many other issues.
I want to second the things Gary is saying. Lets try to work from a few facts.
The bulk of any significant near-term increase in electrical generating capacity will come from coal.
CCS is only at the pilot plant stage.
This implies that until either alternative energy and/or Carbon Capture and Storage are available at a scale sufficient to capture virtually all new generating capacity being built most new capacity will be carbon intensive. Even worse these newish plants will likley be used for the next half century. This means the most effective near term strategy is conservation/efficiency.
We can reduce the time until we are able to mandate that virtually all new capacity be carbon-free by aggressive investment in BOTH alternative energy and Carbon Capture and Storage. For the later IMO building several early pilot plants is crucial.
Coal to liquids doesn't seem to lead to a low carbon future. IMO research funds spent here are not a good investment.
We need to control the definition of CleanCoal. CCS if workable is low carbon, coal to liquid and improved scrubbing of conventional pollutants should not be allowed to use the Clean Coal label.
Yep, the adverts have have green fields an' birdies chirpin' and the buzz of "carbon sequestration technology" an' the glorious future of (trumpets) Clean Coal! The next step will be a proclaimation of "Victory" an' "Mission Accomplished" with a celestial chorus of "Trust Clean Coal". The substantive lies are addressed with smiling obfuscation. Hey, advertising is cheaper than doin' anythin'. We callit CLEAN so it IS clean no matter what them borin' experts claim. If y' don't believe it we'll hire sommore PhDs 'cause they comes cheaper than changin'.
fuck you. FUTURE İS COAL!!!!
Yes, aydede, as clean as your mouth.
What I find most amazing about the whole "clean" energy debate is the lack of focus on improving energy efficiency and reducing waste, which must have the greatest potential for reducing GHG in the short term...or is it a case that everyone wants to reduce GHG except if they have to change their personal lifestyle habits???
Peter P,
You got it right. Methinks it is up to all of us to make personal and family choices and engage the Community in efficient operation. It isn't just GHG alone; think of "fossil" carbon (coal, petrogas, petroleum, lignite) versus sustainable cycle carbon and non-carbon sources.
If we think of our "fossil" resources as 'start-up' capital for a sustainable future then we have the idea!
Would anyone be ready to speculate on "fossil" Carbon AND "fossil" Oxygen ratios in out Nitrogen atmosphere over time?
Folks,
I live in the heart of what most of the rest the world has been told in going flat. I ain't.
Coal mining even surface mining is alive and well and respected by those of us that live here. We will be digging coal to power all your computers long after you have moved on to the next pet-rock-fad-issue.
Coal mining is high tech business. It involves advanced engineering and computerized technology. Despite what the media stories it is safer than most other industries and I think you will find more people have been killed from dust explosions in the grain industry than in US coal mines over the last decade.
Regarding coal to liquids, my current passion, gasification of coal produces syngas. Syngas is than converted into long chain hydro-carbons with out all the toxic compounds found in petroleum or most forms of bio-fuel liquids. The CO2 is captured routinely for gasification using proven chemical industry technology. It is true that doing so from combustions is proven but not commercial levels nor costs. But gasification does not involve combustion it is chemical process and it is quite possible.
If you use a bio-mass co-feed such as wood waste. The effective CO2 foot prints drops below zero. Plus you get the capture in the glass slag of most of toxics that would have ended up in your lungs.
The costs for the plants are higher because they are bigger. An entry level coal to ultra-low sulfur diesel plant makes almost 900,000 gallons per day of product. That is more than the all but largest bio-fuel plants will make in year.
The called subsidies that are mentioned are loans not grants. Price tax credits are the same ones given to ethanol only in order to get them you have agree to pay an excise tax if the price of oil goes over certain level and you have to agree to invest an extra 20% of your billion dollar plant to capture and sequester CO2 even if nobody wants to pay you for it.
So why would anybody want to do this?
Because in Appalachia we mine coal. Thats what we do. Be glade that we do it well or you would be able to run this blog.
ya come see us soon, hear
No matter how idealistic people like myself may get sometimes, we all understand that coal plants are not going away any time soon. But that doesn't mean that we want it to take its time walking out the door or that we won't continue to support the development of new, vastly cleaner technologies at break neck speed to finally phase out coal once and for all. It is a worthy cause, and an important one.
In the meantime, we are forced to pay very close attention to the information that people tied to the coal industry give us. "Clean Coal" is just part of their latest marketing campaign and it is very misleading, as James pointed out. It is because they keep pulling stunts like this we have to put their feet to the fire and demand honesty and clarification until they are no longer a major player.
I live in Wv where these"horrible,nasty, scarring surface mines exist. The terrain of this state is so steep that its useless for any industry that would want to locate here. Surface mining creates the only flat land suitable for this purpose. This whole state cant live off of "cottage industries and tourism", both of which we have in my home county. We can start to produce our own fuel at home or the government will bring back the draft when the energy supply becomes constrained enough. Ask congressman Charlie Wrangle.
I would rather pay a high price for domestic energy than send my son to hell to fight for Big Oil.
Sure Ron, to hell with the environment, I mean, the ends justify the means right? We are in a war afterall, it's us or the environment. Everyone knows that the future of American energy independence lies within the mountains of WV. There is no compromise, there is no other way.
What is your opinion on K-Fuel? Maybe it's not "clean" coal but at least "cleaner" coal?
http://www.evgenergy.com/about.shtml
Matthew, Go preach to the Chinese about cleaning up their environmental act. I am doing more personally to reduce my carbon footprint than you will ever do. Examples 380w SOLAR PANEL w/10 batteries. Added 6" insulation to my attic, All compact flo. lights in my home. Set thermostat on 68 in winter and 76 in summer. Heat with wood stove in winter w/ wood from my own property, tried a small wind genny with no luck because I live on a hillside. Now Matt what the hell are YOU doing to SAVE the environment. PS traded in minivan w/ 6clyinder for a 4 banger econ. car.
Ron, what you're supposidly doing to reduce your own CO2 footprint is great. But how can you bother doing any of those things for the sake of conservation one the one hand and support something like mountain top removal with its wide ranging and long term environmental impacts on the other? And telling me that China is doing worse things than your state is not a defense or a justification. I worry about my closest neighbors first and I don't just bitch at them in blogs, I work with them in the field, in person; because I'm an ecologist, and I have degree in environmental science. Nature is my passion, and you can bet that I do everything I can for it.
Matthew, I am also a realist. I know the limitations of solar power and wind power. The Environmental groups in my state OPPOSE both wind power projects currently under consideration. They say it spoils the vista. I dont care about a vista if you want to go green get over it! I would allow a wind power farm on the hill above my property if they would build one. But the Wv highlands conservency and the Ohio valley environmental coalition would oppose it! Now What Matt?
Coal may well be able to cure cancer. Wasn't cheap Aspirin found to be extractable from coal tar? More recently, some nifty anti-cancer drugs have been tested in animals where the polymer shell that delivers the lethal toxin only releaases it inside cancer cells. It's the polymer thingy that is coal or oil derived. Cool stuff.
Coal curing global warming is counter intuitive at best.
This summer, i'm thinking of installing a solar powered clothing dryer in my back yard. Yes, that's right, a clothesline. I already own some rope. But even if i have to buy new rope, i expect the investment to pay for itself rapidly. Natural gas is getting expensive.
Ron,
Both the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and WV Highlands Conservancy opposes MTR and speak out against the misleading phrase "Clean Coal". And while WVHC does speak out against wind farms if they think animals or vistas will be effected, I question how influential their role is in the grand scheme of things. Almost all of the opposition towards wind turbines come from organizations that, at some point, recieve monies from coal and oil, as you would expect. The vast majority of the public is in favor of wind. According to their online statements, OVEC is not opposed to any particular wind farming plans in WV.
Now lets chronicle this. First you belittle the effects of MTR and defend it as a practise by saying that it can help ween us off of foriegn oil. Then you defend it by saying that advocates against it should send their focus half way across the world because worse things are going on there. Then you accurately list the name of a single environmental group that opposes the plan of some wind farms. All the while you are getting further and further from the point of the initial post ("Clean Coal").
If you have resigned yourself to the belief that coal mining is unstopable in your backyard, for whatever reason, you DON"T send out the message that the environment can be treated as cheaply as possible, because it will be if allowed. That is exactly what is happening in Appalachia. There are many ways to mine for coal, and MTR and strip mining are the cheapest because its less danergous (for the workers, it's more dangerous for the public) and it requires a lot less employes than say, underground mining. So it's REALLY nice for the mining companies. It's also nice for them that they are able to easily get waivers to avoid restoring the topology, and when they cannot, they are allowed to take decades to do so. If you cannot, or do not want to to get rid of "King Coal" in your background, you should at least hold them to the highest possible standards, your asthmatic children will thank you.
thank you