Clean Coal?

Thanks for this article Steve. I would really like to know more about "clean coal." It is one of the options in the Obama/Biden energy plan (as voiced during the campaign and as listed on the transition web site). But my limited knowledge of coal itself is that it is inherently anything but clean.

Is clean coal something that we should pursue, or not?

Featured in Innovation Futures. Anyone have any thoughts on this important innovation?

Clean coal? I don't think so, although I'm not an expert. The ramifications from this disaster will be felt for years to come. We must start to think in a different way regarding energy and stop trying to hold on to energy sources that are not healthy or safe. The technology exists, but it's more about money and greed than anything else as to why we haven't done more to move in that direction.

Clean coal

Clean Coal 2

Thanks for the links Steve. They seem to be for normal coal mining and disposal (which I wouldn't call particularly clean). I guess "clean coal" is more the scrubbing and/or sequestration of COs and sulfur?

Thanks for posting, Steve. This event highlights another way in which coal is NOT clean. The phrase "clean coal" is in many respects an oxymoron. Typically, such "clean coal" claims merely propose to add carbon scrubbers to coal-fired power plants, which is only partially-effective and typically years if not decades away from practical implementation. Coal is not clean for many reasons, including:

- Even with scrubbers, only part of what is emitted at a plant will captured;
- Coal-fired power plants cause other emissions than CO2 (e.g. mercury);
- Mining for coal causes emissions, including from fugitive gases;
- Transport of coal causes emissions;
- Coal-fired power plants cause waste and require lots of water;
- Site restoration is all too often ignored, see wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal

See also the site coal is not the answer.org

Thanks Steve!

David, you are right that people are trying to claim "cleanness" for coal by ignoring most of the problems and addressing only a few of them. Steve and Sam have documented this nicely.

This is another case of politics getting in the way of good sense. Of course, some people, including many in West Virginia, are worried about losing their jobs if coal is phased out, and those are legitimate fears. However, with good vision and investment, we can provide such people with better and far safer jobs in the sustainable energy industry, and leave them a few mountains to enjoy (mountains with their tops still intact).

This is one of those topics that should be put openly on the table for discussion. "Clean coal" makes a good bumper sticker, but it may not be a preferred option as we move forward. I understand that half of our energy in the US comes from coal because it is "cheap" and "plentiful." But it is these things in part because we don't count the environmental cost of removing mountain tops, the carbon releases, the long term environmental degradation, the health aspects of mining and scrubbing, etc.

During the campaign it is common for the details of proposed plans and priorities to be less important than the overriding philosophy of how to find a solution. Now the details become important. I think we need to look closely at the details of a comprehensive energy strategy as we move forward so we can prioritize the best options for the future. Which means we need to be vigilant. Bad ideas can come from people whose policies we generally like, and good ideas can come from people whose policies we generally do not like. Everyone has a viewpoint, and an opposing one isn't invalid simply because it's different.

Best wishes for an innovative new year.

There is no such thing as "clean coal." There is reduced pollution burning of coal but that's about the best one can do with a fossil fuel.

The thermal depolymerization process is a much better source of energy because it works on all hydrocarbons (like plastics, old tires, garbage, hog and human wastes, medical wastes, agricultural wastes, and asphalt) and generates no pollution. Of course building the plants will create pollution but they more than make up for that by destroying pollution. (Byproducts include fertilizer and recoverable metals.)

Tagged at StumbleUpon.

Steve,

My inclination is that there is a contradiction in terms in the "clean coal" issue. I don't have all the facts and perhaps I am totally wrong here. My experience with coal is from using it to heat our home growing up and as an adult. I can assure you that was not clean. It was excellent heat, however.

I do not envision bituminous material as being a health hazard in and of itself and would have no real problem with the stuff in close proximity. The procurement of all fuels requires some pollution. Coal may require more than most but if they can get coal to where it does not emit in the usage process, it looks lots better.

However, like I said, I need a lot more knowledge on this than my first hand knowledge from using it. I would point out that coal, when poorly burned, may emit fumes which are poisonous and not duplicated by burning wood pellets. I changed over from coal to wood pellets in a furnace where I lived after the house was flooded with fumes one night while we were sleeping. My daughter awakened and I was awakened by hearing her running down the stairs.

David: "But it is these things in part (cheap and plentiful) because we don't count the environmental cost of removing mountain tops, the carbon releases, the long term environmental degradation, the health aspects of mining and scrubbing, etc.

Industry "externalizes" these costs, and the taxpayer is ultimately responsible for the - or the "victims" are.

James: "My inclination is that there is a contradiction in terms in the "clean coal" issue."

I think Sam described it as an oxymoron above. Coal pollution is ususally presented in terms of burning the stuff - not so much in its procurement. It is true that energy production produces pollution. However, renewables ultimately produce less. I think as you gather information, you'll see that renewables can provide our energy with less investment, less pollution, more quickly than building new "clean coal" power plants.

Larry: "The thermal depolymerization process is a much better source of energy because it works on all hydrocarbons (like plastics, old tires, garbage, hog and human wastes, medical wastes, agricultural wastes, and asphalt) and generates no pollution."

Not familiar with that process. I'll have to look it up.

STeve,

My concern about the time line of renewables is the NIMBY factor and getting the projects through without environmental lawsuits stopping them.

It would be nice if they could preempt both coal and nuclear technology, but I see many problems in deployment of alternatives. I read again today of a lawsuit to block a wind farm because a man said it would "destroy the view from my cabin" if it proceeds.

Advocates of "clean coal" admit that the technology does not yet exist and will not be in place for use for many years. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now if we want to stop global warming, so "clean coal" doesn't seem like much of a solution.

I'm all for technology that reduces pollution. But the destructive processes involved in mining coal are enough to ensure that coal will never be "clean" in my book.

Steve...there is no need to repeat our statements...unlike you we think for ourselves and know what we wrote. On the other hand, when we ask any of you enviro-Marxists to tell us why you think the earth is warming, we get some vacuous answer and some copy and paste nonsense. We make our own arguments, while you copy what is on MSNBC. You guys are the ones on here warning us of global warming so it is up to you to prove your case to us. You can't come on here with lies and get upset when we call you on it. Anyway, be prepared to be upset.

I am glad you brought up the IPCC report. I hope you actually read it. The whole report is based on models and not actual sampled data. The first big lie is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes runaway warming. Ice core samples have shown that warming comes first then CO2 levels follow (by about 800 years). Also, CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a gas. Plants need it to survive and thrive so how could it be a pollutant? CO2 is not even responsible for the majority of warming in the atmosphere. Do you know what is? Of course not, but let me educate you. Water vapor is responsible for the warming. Do you want to ban water vapor too? Maybe tax the oceans. Your entire premise is silly.

Whatever happened to that famous hockey stick graph that was in the first IPCC report that Gore was showing all of us? Thay had to ditch it because it was based on false data and none of it was coming true. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously, enough to erase all the warming that occured over the last century and most of that was in the 1930's. Do temperatures drop as a result of warming? Flint, Michigan had the coldest day in 95 years the other day. How would you explain that with a runaway warming trend?

I will stop there for now. I look forward to you changing my mind and proving me wrong.

Jack E is a coward and deletes my comments, so I wanted to post here to respond to you..sorry.

mark

I responded to your above comment on the other thread. And as far as I can tell, your identical comment still appears there. Go to:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977567049&nav=MyGather