Clean Coal Makes For Dirty Politics

Written by Adam Shake

Clean Coal is not a new “type of coal” that has been discovered, nor is it a process of turning “dirty coal”, clean.  The term “clean coal” is actually an advertising slogan that has been picked up by the fossil fuel pushers and politicians who receive campaign contributions and kickbacks from them.

We’ve been hearing a lot lately about Clean Coal.  So what exactly is it?

Clean Coal is more of a technology than an object.  It’s an umbrella term used in the promotion of the use of coal as an energy source by emphasizing methods being developed to reduce its environmental impact. These efforts include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification, treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, and carbon capture and storage (Also known as C.C.S.) technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas. These methods and the technology used are described as clean coal technology.

Carbon Capture and Storage is another piece of the “Clean Coal” puzzle, and sounds great when you hear a prominent politician talking about it in front of a crowd of people.  Lets take a closer look at what it is, what’s been promised, and what promises have been fulfilled.

What is C.C.S.?

C.C.S. is a processes, used at the coal fired energy plant, to capture the CO₂ that is emitted as a part of the electrical generation process, and storing it somewhere, so that it does not go into the atmosphere. Although CO₂ has been injected into geological formations for various purposes, the long term storage of CO₂ is a relatively untried concept, and like the storage of spent nuclear fuel, is only a short term solution to a long term problem that we will leave for future generations to deal with.

If C.C.S. were used, it would cut CO₂ emissions by 80 to 90 percent.  The problem however, is that the C.S.S. process itself, takes energy, and a typical coal fired plant would have to use up to 25 percent more coal, to capture the CO_2.

This means that we would have to produce (or mine) 25 percent more coal, to produce the same amount of energy.  Now we know why the fossil fuel pushers love the idea of “clean coal.”

Of course, with more coal feeding the engines of power plant, and more energy being used, the cost of electricity would go up.  Now we also know why Utilities are behind the idea of “clean coal”.  Except Utilities don’t want to pay the start up cost’s associated with this new technology, so they look to the Government.

What’s been promised? I think we have all heard politicians from both sides of the eisle, singing the praises of “Clean Coal.”  They are promising us “A brighter energy future.”  They promise us that “They have listened to us and are acting in cooperations with State and Federal Law Makers, to ensure the health of ourselves, our children and the planet for generations to come.  (Que the applause and zoom in on the smiling Mother holding her little child.)

The Government doesn’t want to pay the start-up costs either, and according to a New York Times article, in January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons.

Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled or thrown into regulatory limbo.

With all this taken into account,

• The earliest possibility for deployment of CCS at utility scale is not expected before 2030.

• CCS wastes energy. The technology uses between 10 and 40% of the energy produced by a power station. Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumption by one third.

• Storing carbon underground is risky. Safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed. Even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation efforts.

• CCS is expensive. It could lead to a doubling of plant costs, and an electricity price increase of 21-91%. Money spent on CCS will divert investments away from sustainable solutions to climate change.

• CCS carries significant liability risks. It poses a threat to health, ecosystems and the climate. It is unclear how severe these risks will be.

Is Clean Coal a good alternative?  I don’t think so.  It reminds me of the “drill more, use less” oil philosophy that just doesn’t work.  But as long as those who have vested interest in coals survival, have political sway over our elected officials, we will continue to hear the “green-washing” statements of people trying to placate us with lies, half truths and deceptions.

Thanks for stopping by. Please look around and feel free to comment or share some of you’re own knowledge with myself and others, and as always, keep up the good fight and Alter the Eco!

To receive updates to Twilight Earth, press the Orange RSS button in the header at the top of this page.

Photo Source: Letdown102 via Creative Commons License

Related posts:

1. Clean Coal – Hope or Hype? (video)
2. Listen To the Sound of Clean Coal Technology
3. Archaic, Inefficient, Dirty and Deadly Coal=Boiled Water=Electricity