David A. Lucas (left), his nephew, Ernie Lucas (center), and his son, David A. Lucas Jr., come to the surface after a day of mining anthracite coal at D & D Anthracite Coal Co. in Good Spring, Pa., in 2003. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
What is ‘clean coal,’ anyway?
By Eoin O'Carroll | 10.17.08
Call it a hat trick: The phrase “clean coal” turned up in all three presidential debates, with both McCain and Obama supporting it. It turned up four times if you count the vice-presidential debate.
And woe betide any politician who doesn’t appear to be in favor of it. Speaking Tuesday in Joe Biden’s hometown of Scranton, Pa., Sarah Palin blasted the Democratic vice-presidential candidate for telling an activist in Ohio last month that the Obama campaign doesn’t support clean coal. Biden says that his comments, which were posted on YouTube, were taken out of context. Since then, Biden has been emphasizing his pro-clean-coal Senate record, and reiterating his and Obama’s support for the stuff.
But what exactly is clean coal? And why are all the candidates so quick to proclaim their support for it?
To answer both those questions: It’s a vague concept with positive connotations. And it’s a vague concept with positive connotations.
“Clean coal” means different things to different people, and the meaning seems to shift over time. Prior to World War II, the term was sometimes used to describe the high-quality “smokeless coal” that was sold for use in the home.
Later in the 20th century, the term morphed into something new. The 1990 Clean Air Act defined clean coal technologies as those that achieve “significant reductions in air emissions” of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that contribute to the formation of acid rain. Utilities sought to effect these reductions through a variety of means, including the use of low-sulfur coal, acid gas scrubbers, electrostatic air cleaners, and the development of higher-efficiency combustion techniques to squeeze more electricity out of each lump of coal.
A glossary on the website for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, an advocacy group backed by coal mining and utility companies, sticks to this definition:
Clean coal technology: Any technology to reduce pollutants associated with the burning of coal that was not in widespread use prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
But when you watch those ubiquitous television commercials that the ACCCE puts out, it’s clear that they’re not always just talking about cutting out the sulfur. Sometimes these ads mention emissions that contribute to climate change, and coal produces more of these emissions than any other fossil fuel.
And so now we arrive at the latest definition of clean coal – “zero greenhouse-gas emission coal.”
Industry groups say they can achieve this by capturing the carbon dioxide produced by the burning coal and pumping it underground. This so-called carbon-capture-and-storage, or CCS, technology has been succesfully tested on a small scale, but it has yet to be proven economically viable. Citing rising costs, in February the Department of Energy pulled the plug on an ambitious CCS project, the $1.8 billion FutureGen power plant in Matoon, Ill.
One leading management consulting firm, McKinsey & Company, said in a recent report [PDF] that CCS technology will not be economical until 2030. That will most likely be too late to help avert catastrophic climate change.
Critics of CCS point out that the energy required to capture and sequester emissions will erase many of the efficiency gains made in recent decades.
But even if CCS technology does prove feasible, it does not mean that using coal will have no impact on the environment, because you still need to dig it out of the ground somehow. For much of the coal in Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee, this means mountaintop removal, that is, clearing a mountain’s summit of all topsoil and vegetation, blasting off the top with explosives, and dumping the debris into a nearby valley. To call mountaintop removal “clean” would be to wreak its equivalent on the English language.
Despite the rhetorical slipperiness, both candidates promise to pursue clean coal assiduously. On his campaign website, McCain promises to spend $2 billion annually on clean coal technology (he doesn’t define the term, but he has talked up CCS technology elsewhere), which he then hopes to commercialize and sell to China. Obama’s site says that his administration’s Department of Energy will enter into public-private partnerships to build five FutureGen-style CCS plants.
What the United States decides to do with its vast coal reserves will profoundly impact the future. Currently, coal accounts for about 50 percent of human-caused atmospheric increases in carbon dioxide. As oil peaks, coal is poised to fill the gap. Coal will determine the future levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and consequently the temperature of the planet. And much of it happens to be buried under swing states.
<< CO2 could worsen whales’ sonar problems | MainComments
2. Rick Saxton | 10.17.08
I think CCS is shortsighted. Where are these pollutants going to be stored? what will be the environmental impact of storing them? Instead of dumping the pollutants into the air, we will be dumping them into the ground. But we are still creating and dumping pollutants. I think we are still using outmoded ways of dealing with our mess. I think we should concentrate on ways of making unwanted pollutants into useful substances. To transmute and recycle them. Initially it may not be cost effective, but we would be killing two birds with one stone. We would be, figuratively speaking, “changing lead into gold”. Some municipalities throughout world are beginning to use their garbage dumps to produce methane for electricity. In the short term, it is more expensive than just buying methane, but in the long term it is an effective use of resources.
3. Paul Jacobson | 10.17.08
The national debate about so-called “clean coal” has settled into two entrenched positions. On one side are proponents of “FutureGen” carbon sequestration, a far-off technology that if even possible would collect billions of tons of coal emissions and then pipe them into deep underground caverns. On the other side are environmentalist activists who call clean coal an industry-perpetuated myth, and who demand that all future energy needs be met by alternative energy sources including solar, wind, thermal and even a renewed faith in nuclear power. What’s common to these concepts is that most of us will be gone before any of them come to fruition.
In the meantime, America’s demand for energy will continue to increase at least ten percent faster than our ability to supply it. It doesn’t matter if we never build another coal plant, or if tomorrow morning we break ground for all the wind farms and nuclear plants that we would ever need. The fact is that burning coal provides half of all America’s electricity, and will have to continue being our primary energy source for at least the next 50 years. This is not any side’s political, environmental or industry rhetoric. It’s just fact. But this reality underscores an option that despite its logical promise has been largely ignored in the nation’s energy debate. Far from the futuristic extremes of clean coal versus no coal is the ability to make the coal we must use both cleaner and more efficient. And we are able to accomplish this right now. Without the benefit of billion-dollar federal grants or publicity from celebrity environmentalists, companies like my company, Evergreen Energy and its development partner Bechtel, have spent years perfecting technology that refines western lower-quality coal before being burned. This “pre-combustion” method literally multiplies coal’s energy value so that it produces considerably more heat while spewing less mercury, sulfur dioxide, chlorides and nitrogen oxides. In some cases refined coal even shows real promise of lessening CO2 emissions. Considering technology advances in just the last 20 years, there’s good reason to believe that American ingenuity will figure out how to reconcile today’s conflicting energy and environmental agendas. In the meantime, refined coal offers a stable bridging technology, a way for America to get far more out of its 200 years worth of coal reserves while significantly improving the air we breathe. Yes, there are going to be opponents to refined coal. Some have all their money and political capital invested in carbon capture. Other activists will undoubtedly argue that making dirty coal cleaner just makes us even more dependent on it, to the detriment of alternative energy development. These are all legitimate concerns. But they shouldn’t justify leaving the potential, immediate benefits of refined coal technology out of the conversation altogether.
The path to America’s new energy economy is not a mile-wide chasm lined by coal lobbyists and environmentalist all debating how to best make an impossible leap to the other side. The first step is to get this country serious about the using hotter, cleaner coal right now.
4. Brian | 10.17.08
Clean coal and carbon capture is being worked on right now by Thermoenergy Corp. They are partnering up with Babcock Power and will be building a zero emissions plant soon. Their inventor of the technology, Alex Fassbender, was appointed on the national coal counsel several months ago. I found out if you arent a big corporation or oil company, you dont get recognized!
5. arie de V. | 10.17.08
The article forgets to mention the ash;
That ash has to go somewhere - so it usually ends up in landfills, along with the rest of the unusable waste. “You’re replacing an air problem with a land problem - a disposal problem,” said Bruce Dockter, a research engineer with the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota… And the chemicals added to clean up emissions - such as ammonia, lime and calcium hydroxide - make the ash worse, environmental groups say, because they take toxins such as mercury out of the air but leave higher levels of it in the ash.”
Historially, coal combustion wastes rarely exhibit the characteristics of hazardous waste. However, if coal burning utilities and the so-called “clean coal plants” were required to meet air emissions standards protective of human health, fly ash produced by them could be regulated as hazardous waste due to the elevated levels of mercury that would result. We might suppose that any fly ash with hazardous characteristics due to heavy metal content would have to be sent to special and expensive waste fills or be treated at great cost.
USEPA made fly ash exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste far before the risks of mercury and lead exposure were well understood and before air emission limits on heavy metals were contemplated.
There is another unintended consequence of making fly ash toxic. Reduced use of fly ash as a concrete amendment means more cement must be added to the mix, increasing the carbon emissions footprint per Kg of concrete used.
These two reasons together explain why the coal utility industry has been opposed to more stringent mercury emission standards and why even the lenient mercury emission standards recently recommended by EPA were scheduled to be phased in so very slowly. Were high levels of mercury found in commercially sold fly ash, you can bet that a can o’ regulatory worms would be opened. So, nothing to see here, move along now.
6. william | 10.17.08
I noticed that co-firing of coal and biomass is not included. This is a proven technology that eliminates S02.Algae bioreactors should be included as a clean coal technology.The algae will produce biodiesel from the coal emissions. these two methods are organic in nature while once again we are dependent on high technology methods and excluding the organic methods. Its funny today organic produce costs more, when we use less pesticides.
8. James | 10.18.08
I am an environmental scientist and I think that the term “Clean Coal” is mis-leading. If you were to remove all the components of coal that make up the chemistry of coal, iron, sulfur, and other impurities that make up coal, you would cease to have what is called coal. It would be reduced to a lower grade of coal which would be even more polluting. They state that carbon sequestering would be implemented to control emissions of carbon dioxide by burying it underground. This would be great if they could guarantee that the areas where they intend to store the gases would indeed be confined for long periods of time. The earth is full of cracks, openings, and other places where the gases can escape. Salt mines, old wells, Etc. have not been proven gas tight even though they once held gases and liquids before. The process of mining or drilling may have altered their gas or liquid holding capabilities. Also, there are a phenomena called subsidence, geologic rebound in which the land swells due to the pressure of the gas lifting the land, pollution of ground water by contaminated gases, and other unforeseen environmental problems. Also, as we increase the use of coal, the price of coal will rise astronomically and cause electricity to go up. The estimated reserve audit would be changed due to the increased use. The coal reserves will not last as long as the estimates state. In other words, the coal reserves would be used up much quicker than estimated. We need to scale back on the total use of energy and assign priorities as to how we want to use our energy and eliminate the unnecessary uses. Focus should be on solar, wind, and muscle power
9. Laura | 10.20.08
Thanks James! I am a graduate student in natural resources–clean coal IS for the most part an industrial myth (or at least something so far off by the time it comes online, efforts to stem climate change will be moot because they will probably have occurred) and all comments to the contrary are just political propagandizing to satiate the masses that are too scared to admit they might need to drastically scale back on their energy use. The U.S. and the world keeps saying that we have hundreds of years of coal supplies, but the National Academies of Science estimates we have more like 75 years (and other estimates, though somewhat controversial, say 25 years). We’re already resorting to MTR to get a good chunk of our coal, and in the process destroying ecosystems and effectively oppressing and obliterating the people of Appalachia. Most of the time ‘clean coal’ really refers to ‘capture and storage’–the repercussions of such practices that are potentially very dangerous and include ocean acidification, groundwater pollution, and even tectonic plate disruption.
People will then say, well, we can’t bridge our energy needs as they exist today with wind and solar. Well, they’re right. But the average American has 20 times the footprint as other global citizens. If we re-structured our society and learned to conserve significantly and substantially improved efficiency measures (most appliances and electrical lights can be approved by as much as 40%) perhaps then it could bridge the gap.
Let’s stop our addiction on fossil energy! Excuses like ‘clean coal’ just impedes progress towards implementing more sustainable methods of energy and changing our fundamental philosophies on consumption.
10. WV Rafter | 11.03.08
Clean Coal, yes, it’s an oxymoron. And yet in all these posts, I don’t see one mention of mountain top removal as a way of accessing the coal and the devastation it leaves behind. It’s raping the Appalachian Mountains and is NOT clean. For all you who have never visited the area, go to ilovemountains.org and see what coal mining does. And then go read Lost Mountain by Erik Reese.
11. Ed Atlanta | 11.29.08
There is a technology that generates electric energy with zero emissions.
Check out the Thermoenergy website. This was invented by Alex Fassbender, who is on the NETL Coal Advisory Board, appointed by Henry Bodman.
It is just a matter of months before we see this TIPS technolgy demonstrated on a large scale.
12. adonispayton | 12.04.08
Coal cleaning techniques take advantage of the differences in specific gravity of the coal and its impurities. Hydrocyclones and gravity concentration devices are examples of such systems. When coal is finely ground, physical processes that take advantage of the surface properties of the coal materials can be used. For instance, froth flotation exploits the hydrophilic surface characteristics of mineral impurities and the hydrophobic nature of coal particles to achieve separation.
13. David Dierdorff | 12.05.08
Clean coal is no better than regular coal, in fact, it could be worse. As Rick Saxton said, we’re just dumping the pollutants into the ground instead of into the air. In addition, there is even more pollution created by the scrubbers. Clean coal also costs more than regular coal. Why does Obama support this? [and McCain too] What is so good about clean coal, and what makes it so popular? I don’t know.
14. Ed Atlanta | 01.19.09
Clean coal is different. Scientists have fianlly found a means of burning coal and eliminating all harmful residue. Look at the Thermoenergy (TMEN) website.
15. David Ahlport | 01.22.09
If the scale of the resource is a legitimate argument,
Then what about our vast resources of Solarthermal and Geothermal energy?
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
A stretch of Desert area 1/3rd the size of what we already have dedicated in farmland exclusively for corn ethanol would be enough to power the entire country, day and night.
http://greyfalcon.net/92×92
http://greyfalcon.net/solarbaseload
Sure would be nice if Solarthermal or Geothermal got anywhere near the subsidies of coal.
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
http://greyfalcon.net/coalptc.png
16. Justin | 03.01.09
While reviewing the comments here I noticed several mentions of ThermoEnergy’s
“TIPS” system. This system was selected and announced by Babcock Power just last week as under active development.
The TIPS system is a radical new technology that is so clean no smoke stack is needed..Pure CO2 is captured in a liquid form where it can be used in several applications from making plastics, beverage and oil field recovery.
17. Chris | 05.29.09
Check out thermoenergy’s website. http://www.thermoenergy.com
Babcock Power has teamed up them and it is only a matter of time when we see the REAL Clean Coal power plant.
Alex Fassbender is a genious. He is on the Coal Council board.
Thermoenergy also has an ammonia recovery system (ARP). NY city is about to sign a huge contract with Thermoenergy. (Any time now)
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
2. News Updates: Both prez candidates support carbon regulation, transmission in OK, Wind jobs in KS, the meaning of “clean” coal, energy savings tips, bat study re wind turbines « Climate and energy | 10.23.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Dejay | 10.17.08
I must say that there is a great need to improve the way coal is mined, to reduce the impact on our planet but as an engineer that is employed by a company that makes coal fired electrical power generation plants here in the USA, that “clean coal” is defined by our latest boiler technologies that produce less pollutants in one year than a international airport in one day,,, let that spark some thoughts!