Clean Coal Fantasy

by Vicki Wolf

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says the coal fuel cycle is “among the most environmentally destructive activities on earth.” In defense of using coal as a fuel, advocates say that there is plenty of it in the United States and it’s cheap compared to oil and natural gas
(http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/coal/contents.asp)

But the true cost of coal as it is extracted, transported and burned for fuel today is outrageous. Extraction involves mountain top removal and strip mining. There are underground mining accidents. Transportation requires diesel and pollutes. Burning coal for fuel creates air pollution and water pollution and harms the environment. Each year the health impact of  burning coal -- asthma, lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses - results in 21,000 hospitalizations and 24,000 deaths. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the burning of coal is a major contributor to climate change and global warming. So what do energy company commercials and coal advocates mean when they use the term “clean coal”?

There is no such thing as clean coal. It’s dirty from extraction to the pollution emitted when it is burned in coal-fired power plants. When the term is used, it refers to using new technology to clean up the emissions from coal. Advocates for “clean coal” technology say we need use this new technology to bring down carbon dioxide (CO2) emission from coal plants while we move toward more efficiency and clean, renewable energy sources. The U.S. Department of Energy and the coal industry refer to carbon capture and sequestration as “clean coal” technologies. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) also is discussed as a “clean coal” technology.

“There are compelling reasons why coal matters,” says Michael Webber, PHD, associate director, Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy, Jackson School of Geosciences. “As a resource base, it is domestic and large. This is important to national security and price. Clean coal technology is worthy of pursuing,” he adds. “I think it is going to be difficult and expensive.” Webber, who also is a co-director of the Clean Energy Incubator at the Austin Technology Incubator, advocates an array of solutions for global warming including conservation, renewable energy and low-carbon fuels.

But “clean coal” advocates fail to mention that the industry has been fighting requirements to clean up coal plants since the Clean Air Act was passed, Many older plants that were grandfathered in under the law still do not have the most basic, readily available pollution control devices.

Neil Carman, PHD, Lone Star Sierra Club air quality director, says most of the emissions coming from coal-fired power plants is carbon dioxide, and it’s not regulated. “The EPA and industry have never wanted to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. It’s too expensive,” Carman says. “What’s so shocking is that carbon dioxide is 99.5 percent of stack gases, a huge volume of waste gas.”

Taking carbon dioxide out of coal and storing it are enormous and expensive, according the Sierra Club report titled, “The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal: Why Yesterday’s Technology Should Not Be Part of Tomorrow’s Energy Future.” Separating out the CO2 and transporting it, and figuring out how to make sure it stays sealed off for thousands of years to come is just the beginning. The amount of storage needed for all of the carbon dioxide pollution from U.S. coal-fired plants is massive, and would require a huge undertaking to ensure that it does not leak into the atmosphere, according to the report.
(http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/dirtytruth/report/)

To date, there has been no demonstration of CO2 emission capture and storage from a coal-fired power plant. It is an unproven technology, and there is no agreement on how much it will cost or how long it will be before it is available for commercial use.

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is another “clean coal” technology that is promoted by coal advocates. This is a process that converts coal to a gas that can be burned for electricity. IGCC emits less soot and ozone pollution than coal, but it emits just as much greenhouse gas as other coal plants.

“Gasification would still produce emissions, and it is very expensive,” Carman says. “Why don’t we just go ahead and invest in solar, wind and efficiency.”

While we move toward efficiency and renewable energy, there is no question that coal mining and coal-fired power plants need to be cleaned up. The United States burns more than three million tons of coal every day. We mine more than one billion tons of coal a year, and about half of the country’s electricity comes from coal-fired plants.

Ask your representatives to call for policies and enforcement of laws to protect communities and the environment. The Clean Water Act’s prohibition on dumping waste into streams and wetlands should be restored. All power plants need to meet the highest standards for reducing greenhouse gas and toxic emissions.

Building more coal-fired power plants takes the planet toward a future of scarred landscapes, illness and global warming catastrophes. Many proposed new power plants can be avoided, and we can look forward to a better energy future by investing in energy efficiency and expansion of renewable energy sources.