Carrying On the Clean Coal Conversation

While the election is in its final stretch, it's clear that the clean coal conversation is just getting started. Just take a look at the clean coal supporters at a Sunday rally for Sen. John McCain:

You can keep the clean coal conversation going by joining Americans for Balanced Energy Choices.

Comments

[emily]

COAL IS NOT GREEN, THERE IS NOTHING GREEN OR CLEAN ABOUT IT. TOUCH A PIECE OF COAL, ROLL AROUND IN COAL... WILL YOU BE CLEAN?!, BURN A POUND OF COAL IN YOUR BEDROOM, WILL THE AIR IN YOUR ROOM BE CLEAN? I THINK NOT.

[Christian Perago]

Clean coal is a marketting ploy. I understand that we cannot just walk away from coal but lets be honest. There are no clean coal plants anywhere on the planet and injecting poison into the earth is just moving it around and does not make it clean by any stretch of the imagination. You should be ashamed of what you are doing by spreading the lies of "clean coal". Have you no shame.

[Megan at ACCCE]

Emily & Christian:

Thanks for your comments. A couple of things to consider:

1. Coal is 70 percent cleaner today based on regulated emissions per unit of energy produced. Department of Energy figures show that.

2. With new advances in technology, we’re looking at a future where coal will meet America’s growing electricity needs with little to no emissions of the pollutants regulated by the federal and state clean air laws.

3. As a nation, we can’t ignore coal as a source of energy—it accounts for nearly 50 percent to the electricity generated today.

Given the affordability and abundance of coal, combined with our proven ability to make it cleaner, there’s no reason to count coal out of the grand energy equation.

[Michael G.]

Don't worry you all! The new President Elect will bankrupted you all as he promised in Jan 2008!! So don't worry.

[mike kerin]

Clean coal is an oxymoron , it is not clean or green or as safe as solar, wind or hydro.

[Donna]

It's unfortunate that much of the population has no knowledge how far we have come to eliminate emissions of coal and how much we depend upon coal to generate our electricity. Of course our newspapers and TV news stations will not cooperate in pubicizing the true facts. You might benefit by advertising a website where more info can explain how many millions of dollars are being spent annually cleaning up the air of these electric producing plants!

[John in SE Ohio]

To Michael G

You are one dumb person. With Coal providing 50% nationaly to 90% of our electricity in some states any fuel switching will cause blackouts, high electric bills and very bad economic times. I know some coal miners that can give you a lesson in life and common sense that you apprear to lack. You won't get your electricty blowing in the wind This is a green dream that will not occur. Deal with Reality and the Obama Admin will soon find this out.

[Megan at ACCCE]

Mike: You're right—with our growing energy demand, we're going to have to call on all of our domestic resources. John in Ohio is right that 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal, and that some states, like West Virigina, get more than 90 percent of their electricity from coal.

And while wind and solar are attractive peaking power alteratives, they're no substitute for the baseload power that coal provides.

We've seen technology evolve over the last 30 years, and we believe coal to be one of those unique bridge fuels that will take us to the next energy renaissance.

Donna: Thanks for your comment. Awareness of clean coal electricity is one of our goals here at America's Power, and we're always happy to connect with a fellow supporter.

One thing to note here is that America's energy issues are complicated and many people are just learning about them. It's important to help each other learn; so let's please keep comments to each other respectful and on topic.

[JF]

The term "Clean Coal" is an oxymoron (no pun intended).
To get energy in the form of heat from coal you have to burn it. The burning of coal, aside from releasing trace amounts of heavy metals in the ash produced and toxic SO2 gas, produces CO2. That CO2 is either released to the air - contributing to global warming - or is captured. Captured CO2 has to be compressed and stored or injected into fissures in the bedrock at extreme pressure and cost. Currently sequestration of CO2 in bedrock is not economically viable, has not even be tested as feasible over the long term and has the real risk of its eventual seepage back into the atmosphere. Other methods of CO2 capture and storage are purely theoretical and untested. Sorry, you cannot change the laws of physics and chemistry... there is no clean coal.
Now can the stop using coal tomorrow,.. NO. Can it do so gradually over the next few decades?,.. probably Yes, but its going to require a will to do so. Also climate change likely will not wait that long.

[Kelly Beninga]

Megan -

Your facts are misleading. The 70% reduction in regulated emmisions does not include CO2. CO2 is the main problem with coal and global warming. The coal industry has fought regulation of CO2. What % reduction of CO2 has the coal industry acheived? That's right, 0%.

[Megan at ACCCE]

JF:

Over the past 30 years, we’ve developed a suite of technologies that have reduced emissions from coal-fired plants by 70 percent, including volatile organic compounds and harmful particulate matter (on top of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide).

Furthermore, in its 2007 Carbon Sequestration Atlas, the National Energy Technology Laboratory reported that North America has enough storage capacity at our current rate of production for more than 900 years worth of carbon dioxide. This storage capacity is located deep underground across the continent in varying types of geological formations—including unmineable coal seams and oil and gas reservoirs.

Judging from our past successes, our current research and the support of our president-elect who believes in funding clean coal project, we believe that we have the ability to develop and deploy CCS technologies right here at home.

Kelly:

If you look at our 70 percent cleaner page, you’ll see that the calculations are based on five pollutants: carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. The data from the EPA reflects the environmental performance of unit of energy produced. And from 1970–2000, the ratio fell from 30,510 short tons per billion kilowatt hours to just 8,040 short tons per billion kilowatt hours—a reduction of 73.66 percent.

With the amount of success we’ve had since 1970, it’s clear that we possess the innovation and support in this country to reach the next pinnacle of energy innovation. And given the significant role coal plays in meeting our growing energy demand, I don’t see how we can give CCS RD&D the cold shoulder.

[Gary]

The entire "clean coal" is wrapped up in the theory of global warming. Without directly attacking catastrophic man-induced global warming, the coal industry has no other alternative than to promote clean coal. While technology will eventually emerge, the public has not been informed of the massive cost and efficiency loss that this will entail. Clean coal is only necessary if you believe that it can affect computer-predicted global warming. This may be the public perception, but science has not come to that conclusion. Please don't try to tell me that a number of computer programs producing varying results is science. It is not! Consensus is also not science. So, the clean coal campaign is necessary in the short term to retain our existing coal generation fleet, but it will not work in the long run. Carbon capture may come, but sequestration which is already hear will be enormously expensive for many parts of the country.

[Megan at ACCCE]

Gary:

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment.

Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion and position. Ours is that we want to pursue CO2 reductions to make science irrelevant.

With more $6 billion in clean coal research underway in this country, we're optimistic about the outcome.

[Gary]

Megan:
Do you really mean what you said? "Make science irrelevant". That cannot be the basis for clean coal. Why would we pursue a solution for a problem that may not exist? Purely political reasons I suspect. To take that position on CO2 only opens that gates to other "trumped-up"/non-scientific environmental demands.
Obviously many utilities have conceded the issue, some I suspect because they will get cost recovery for whatever they do. I work for a small wholesale electric utility that is consumer-owned. Every dollar we pay, our members pay. We actively oppose the idea of catastrophic man-made global warming. Please note I said catastrophic. We do not suggest the world is not warming (or cooling), because it has always done so. Many scientists are not getting the media attention because they do not agree that this issue is settled. Nevertheless, they do exist and we continue to support their work.
I again believe that clean coal can only be an interim measure that will not save our coal industry in the long run.
We continue to hope that global warming science and economics will be constantly scrutinized as this debate continues.