The Future of Clean Coal

After two weeks of outreach at the Democratic and Republican National conventions, the blogs of many of the environmental groups are loaded with claims that “clean coal is no more than a working hypothesis.”

On substance, I respectfully disagree.

Why do these groups think that clean coal is any less of a certainty than the notion that renewables can displace significant quantities of baseload generation currently supplied by traditional energy resources like coal?

The fact is, the path of ensuring the widespread deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies for coal-based power plants is better defined and ultimately more doable than what these other groups would have you accept (that energy efficiency and renewables alone could result in significant displacement of traditional fuels currently used to meet baseload generation needs).

I suspect this simple fact is why both Barack Obama and John McCain have endorsed continued investments in clean coal technology to ensure that America can continue to rely on our domestic coal reserves as a means of providing affordable, reliable and increasingly clean electricity.

Comments

[Charles M.Farley]

We agree with the concept of "clean coal" but we have not found an article explaining,in laymen terms" exactly the status of the research being done and approximately when it could be operational. There many wind and bio articles -- purely emotional -- but they involve ten years in the future and even then only able to supply a small percent of our needs. Clean Coal must tell us the specifics -- give us "X" dollars per year and in "X" years it can replace "X" of imported oil needs. Keep it simple so that we can understand it. If such information exists now please tell us where we can find it. Thank you

[Mark Flower]

Charles

How about this as an answer - all the way from the UK (okay, and a bit UK specific).

The worlds first "clean coal" power station was switched on in Germany last week (http://news.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2008_09_09_Vattenfall_fires_up_clean_coal_plant_in_Germany/srvc=home&position=recent).

This is one technology. Here in the UK we are also persueing a different, complementory technology. A similar sized plant (possibly a bit smaller) is due to be switched on sometime next year (it will be an Amine capture plant at Aberthaw, outside Cardiff, South Wales).

Moving forwards from there, by 2014 a new plant will be built (and we're not sure where yet) which can capture around half (perhaps a little less) of the CO2 emissions from a power station.
This is a government led initiative, and they are providing the difference in funding between the cost of the plant, and the revenue stream from the avoided carbon.

This route aims for commercialisation of the technology by 2020.

So - what funding is required?

Well, here in the UK private companies and research councils (which are government funded) will probably get all the research done.

The funding that is required (in the UK) will be one to the energy companies - to match the difference in price between the costs of the plant, and the income from not emitting the carbon that it captures (which, unless you have a price for carbon - today it's $32.56 / tonne in the EU, is zero).
Naturally if this price rises high enough (and stays high) no funding will be required. This is pretty remote though as the market has had a turbulant past.

That answers the first part of your question - as for the second part of foreign oil, well, not so straight forward.

Really, if we're going to make a difference on this front, [in the UK] we're going to need electric cars for short journeys and electric trains for long journeys.
After having spent a month in the US I have to say that I rate the chances of this model taking place over there as zero - I don't want to be rude, but you seem addicted to your cars, won't consider an alternative and complain bitterly when the price of petrol reaches half that of western europe.
I would look to increase the fuel economy of vehicles to around 50-90mpg (or just buy european / japanese cars which do that anyway) rather than look for electrification.

Over here? A little better perhaps - we already see electric cars in central london quite often (it's $16 / day to drive a petrol / diesel vehicle into central london, free for electric) - and the rail network is heavily used.

A final thought to go away with - if we want to limit the global warming temperature rise to 2DegC (about 4DegF) we need all the technolgies we can lay our hands on - wind, solar, nuclear and of course clean coal.

[Deniz]

Wind power is here, there are wind farms. Solar power is here, there are already deployed.

Where is a working, commercial-scale, 0-carbon producing "clean coal" plant?

It doesn't exist. It is very misleading to compare "clean coal" to wind and power. The later two are commercially deployed already.

Clean Coal is decades away. We need to act now, global warming can't wait.

This whole clean coal stuff is just a way for the coal industry to keep building dirty plants NOW by saying "oh we'll fix it later 20 years later by retrofiting them with carbon capture * sequestration".

It's like a roommate who always promises to clean up later while wanting to party some more now.

The party is over.

[Howard]

In the Bill Oreilly interview of Barack Obama, regarding the discussion
about Obama's energy plan, in response to Bill asking
Barack, what if the development of alternate energy
sources don't deliver. Obama compared his approach
to John Kennedy's space program, and how if you go
for it , the answers will come. But, the distinction between
our space program and our energy challenge is ... If it had taken
us longer than we thought to get to the moon ... or, if we hadn't
gotten to the moon ... no big deal. But, if we put all our hopes
into alternative energy, and it doesn't happen in time ... or, if
it doesn't work, our entire economy, as well as our national
security could end up in ruins. Our country's entire energy
infrastructure revolves around petroleum. 167,000 gas stations,
the 250 million vehicles. Democrats keep citing how long it will take
to get more oil out of the ground. But, even if an alternative
fuel is found tomorrow, how long will it take America to
transition from our existing infrastructure to a completely
new one? In the meantime, people have to get to work, and
goods have to get to market. This is an important reason to
secure our energy needs with oil drilling and mining oil shale,
while we try to develop alternate energy. Obama and
Pelosi also want to dip into the strategic oil reserve, as a way
of pandering to voters, but what if we have a true emergency,
like Hurricane Ike, or Hugo Chavez cuts us off, or Amadinajad
cripples the straits of Hormuz? Obama seems to be
playing fast and loose with our country's future ... gambling
with our future, all based on hope and faith ... with consequences
which could be dire. Obama's plans, or lack thereof, are
extremely irresponsible. Not suprising from a candidate who
does not have the experience, qualifications, or judgement to lead, as
President of the United States.

[john gensheimer]

"clean coal" will be a misnomer as long as current extraction and processing practices are employed by coal providers. Mountain top removal strip mining and valley fills in appalachia is among one of the most environmentally destructive practices deployed today. It ruins ground water and buries streams, blights the landscape and offers very few jobs for the local community. Coal processing leaves behind hundreds of dangerous slurry ponds throughout the region, an ecological time bomb that threatens communities and water supplies. Yes, we will have to rely on king coal for our energy needs for sometime until cleaner and greener alternatives come on line. However, we don't need the self interests of the oil and coal industry to get in the way of cleaner alternatives coming to market. In the meantime, please don't greenwash a dirty fuel that will never become truly "clean".

[Richard]

Clean coal to me means that arsenic and mercury are captured and recycled or safely stored. I have briefly reviewed some of the processes for particulate and gas recovery and it seems these are very possible in the near future. Mercury is very dangerous and has been. As Cina and the US expand coal fired plants this one issue become the top hot button... Thanks Richard B. Carpenter

[Sara]

"Clean" coal is simply a band-aid to America's (and the world's) addiction to coal and oil energies. Alternative renewables work in the areas that allow for them. For example, Arizona could house large solar PV fields that could run over half the country. Yes, they are expensive to construct, but why can't more money be invested into renewable technologies? America needs to ween off fuels that produce CO2 emissions in general. The weening off process won't be easy, but it can be done. Also, constructing facilities to create "clean" coal could harm surrounding communities and bioregions. If one thing bad happens, it will cause a chain reaction downstream, whether they are animals or humans. Obama endorses the "clean" coal movement, but he also plans on investing in renewable and other alternative energies. If only renewables would make mainstream, we would not have a need for "clean" coal.

[Mike]

Nice propaganda TV campaign trying to make coal look like a savior for our energy ills. This is nothing more corporate greed to make money off of an antiquated energy resource that pollutes our environment and destroys our land through strip mining. You’re no better than big oil. I look forward to the day when you coal executives go belly up with you horse and buggy mentality.