There Is No Such Thing as 'Clean Coal'

If you are a politician running for national office -- or a coal or utility executive -- the notion of "clean coal" is alluring, much like pledging to lower taxes without cutting services. Like other campaign promises, however, citizens are well advised to seek the truth before committing.

During their recent debates, neither the presidential nor the vice presidential candidates dared admit the truth: There is no such thing as clean coal. Despite years of research and billions in government subsidies, not a single commercial coal plant in the United States can capture and store its greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, many scientists and even coal utility executives say the technology is at least a decade away. For policymakers and others concerned about climate change, the real question is not whether coal can be made clean, but whether we should even try.

Clean coal can mean many things to many people. Until recently, the phrase was often used to describe various processes to reduce air and water pollution caused by mining and burning coal, such as installing scrubbers on smokestacks to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions that cause acid rain. But the industry's biggest problem is that coal is the country's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. So now clean coal usually refers to carbon capture and sequestration, an attempt to capture a plant's carbon emissions and store them underground, permanently, rather than releasing them into the atmosphere to contribute to global climate change.

The biggest challenges of carbon capture for the U.S. coal industry pertain to scale and cost, both of which are huge. Researchers at MIT estimate that if less than two-thirds of the carbon dioxide from U.S. coal plants were captured and compressed for storage, the collective volume to be stored underground "would about equal the total U.S. oil consumption of 20 million barrels per day."

Building an infrastructure to accomplish this would not be cheap. The Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory found that adding carbon capture to existing coal plants would increase the cost of electricity generation by 81 percent. This includes neither the rising cost of coal, nor the heightened cost of new coal plant construction, which has surged by more than 130 percent since 2000.

Assuming these challenges can be met, then what? Coal will still be dirty. The American Lung Association estimates that pollution from coal-fired power plants triggers 550,000 asthma attacks and 38,000 heart attacks annually, helping to cause an estimated 24,000 Americans to die prematurely each year. Coal combustion is also the country's largest source of mercury poisoning and releases more than five dozen different types of hazardous air pollutants.

And don't tell the residents of Appalachia that coal is clean. Mountaintop removal coal mining has flattened 450 mountains and buried more than 700 miles of rivers and streams in one of the country's most beautiful regions.

Rather than perpetuate our country's dependence on dirty energy, we can rejuvenate our economy with a transition to truly clean and renewable energy resources. Each year, the price of coal soars, while the costs of solar and wind decline. A report prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission earlier this year estimated that clean coal plants would cost $.1732 per kilowatt hour, compared to $.1265 for utility-scale solar power and just $.0891 for wind. Moreover, an analysis of more than a dozen independent reports studying the impacts of clean energy on employment found that wind power produces up to three times as many jobs as coal per unit of power produced. Rooftop solar produces seven to 10 times as many jobs.

"Clean coal" is both an oxymoron and an excuse policymakers use to avoid developing a responsible energy policy. Every dollar spent on a clean coal infrastructure is a dollar better invested in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Michael Brune is the executive director of Rainforest Action Network (RAN), and is a founding Board member of Oil Change International. His book Coming Clean was published by Sierra Club Books and Counterpoint this past September.

Re: There Is No Such Thing as 'Clean Coal'

In common usage, "environmental science" and "ecology" are often used interchangeably, but technically, ecology refers only to the study of organisms and their interactions with each other and their environment. Ecology could be considered a subset of environmental science, which also could involve purely chemical, or public health issues (for example) ecologists would be unlikely to study. In practice, there is considerable overlap between the work of ecologists and other environmental scientists. Moving forward lets lessen our stress from this issue and have ourselves a relaxing ambiance of sports. Professional women's basketball is a relatively young phenomenon, and lots of people think that WNBA salaries are far too low. For instance, some were talking combined WNBA salaries for an entire squad here are less than single NBA players. They aren't likely to need payday loans, though – league minimum salary is about $50 thousand – but it's still enough of a deterrent for college players to find careers in the work world rather than enter the WNBA draft. The WNBA hasn't been nearly as profitable as the NBA, and their viewership isn't enormous. However, the athletic commitment is arduous, so perhaps it would be worth some cash advances to raise WNBA salaries and ratings.

No such thing?

You have to stretch the definition of 'exist' to argue that just because clean coal is challenging and not currently used in commercial utilities means it doesn't exist; does that mean that concentrating solar power doesn't exist? How about enhanced geothermal systems? It's too early to discount carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) just yet.

Also you didn't mention what is for me the most compelling argument against CCS, which is that there won't be enough room in the ground. CO2, with it's two oxygens for every carbon, just takes up more space than the hydrocarbons that led to its production. So if you dig a big hole by pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground, burn those hydrocarbons and sequester the CO2, there won't be enough room in the hole you dug to store the CO2. Now to be sure there are other large geological holes in the ground, too, but my gut feeling is that the size of those holes doesn't compare well with the amount of coal out there.

Much more promising to me is the idea of using vast ponds of algae next to coal plants and running the mostly CO2 and water gas from the flue over them so they can breathe it in and convert it to useful hydrocarbons again. Maybe we can coax them to pull sulfur and mercury out too.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options