"This Is Reality" Takes On the Clean Coal Lie

On the morning of the Presidential election I was waiting in line for coffee in a rural west North Carolina cafe when a "clean" coal ad blared from a wall-mounted flat screen tuned to CNN.

A local woman, Connie, I had been chatting with about the clean energy campaign I represented commented at the conclusion of the ad, "You know they play these ads all the time (around here), and McCain and Obama talk about it all the time, but I just don't understand it. How is it possible to make that stuff clean?"

"It's not." I told her.

Despite the millions spent to convince Connie and other Americans that clean coal is an answer to our energy dependence, in reality, there's no such thing as clean coal.

Thankfully, the folks who know the truth about clean coal are finally fighting back with a full frontal: http://www.thisisreality.org

The just launched This is Reality campaign is taking on the Goliath of King Coal and aims to take off the king's dirty head.

The "Reality Coalition" behind the campaign - led by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, NRDC, and the National Wildlife Federation - understands the importance enacting bold climate and energy policy absent of clean coal, and are fighting the industry's myths in a concerted effort that leading environmental organizations and politicians have thus far been afraid to take on.

Except for some great grassroots groups doing their damndest to get it out there, the truth about clean coal has been absent from the mainstream conversation because fighting against an all-out lie on the national stage is hard, scary, and expensive. And because King Coal is big, scary, and wealthy.

Unfortunately that fear has allowed Big Coal to spend more than the Tobacco industry did making us think cigarettes were ok, to make us believe the "Saudi Arabia of coal" - the United States - will lead a clean, prosperous, independent future by continuing to destroy mountains and extract one of the world's leading causes of carbon pollution.

The GOP took clean coal as gospel right off the bat because its base preached it as such. And Democrats took it as the pie in the sky they could aspire to while winning over swing votes in states like Virginia and North Carolina.

"Clean coal. Whee!"

Now, because we didn't squash it before the lie grew into fixtures in the speeches of political candidates on both sides of the aisle, the fight will unfortunately be longer and more expensive than it should have been... but it's a serious, important fight the climate community has now officially taken on, and it's great to have the right generals at the helm.

This is the This is Reality campaign's first video ad released today, December 5:

Comments

[MajorKong]

Even if you can burn the coal cleanly, and I'm not saying that you can, blowing the tops off mountains to get at the coal is hardly "clean".

[elizaconnors]

On NPR yesterday I heard someone from the coal industry say proudly that these mountains only look bad for 25 years and then they are "restored" to look like the Great Plains so that people can golf on them.

Some days it's just better to get to work in silence.

[jumperpin]

"Clean Coal" is like kosher bacon. Too bad even ivy leaguers (like Obama) don't understand the basic chemistry of combustion.

Am excited about this break through: http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6842

Curiously, the overseas press provided far more coverage.

[zoysia]

The coal PR and lobbying machine is so strong, they have even managed to convince many in the green building leaders that using toxic coal fly ash wastes in building products somehow reduces climate change. Coal is the pimary casue of climate change and buying toxic coal wastes to put them into products is a multi-billion subsidy for the coal.

To address climate change we need solar energy -- not coal & toxic fly ash wastes. Just in case you want more info on the toxics, see the tragic $45 million settlement for flyash contamination in Gambrills, MD http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2008/11_19-26/CWC

The coal waste toxics that we pay so much to keep out of the air with power plan pollution controls - mercury, arsenic, lead & many others - are instead being released into our building's indoor air and/or re-released when the fly ash is processed in cement kilns, made building materials, or eventually incenerated or landfilled.

This toxic shell game is insanity, and the stuff isn't tested or labelled anywhere. It's in lots of products: paints, carpet backing, drywall (FGD sludge), tile, "green" countertops, ceiling tile, palyground equipment, shingles, concrete, ...

The coal industry should pay dearly for - not profit from - the toxic wastes and carbon they generate!

[mjt218]

Fly ash does make nice fill for soccer fields and playgrounds!

[DontJustFollow]

Sounds a lot like Al Gore's money maker Global "Warming" or his newly branded "Climate Change" all over again.

Follow the money folks -

[jotunloki]

Industry Repug T R O L L.

[rockne]

Go ahead--cease using coal and enjoy freezing in the dark.

[Pleneras]

Coal is not the answer. We have alternatives to Coal and Oil! The SUN and green alternatives. Think millions of men and women want this kind of job? No! Coal is just as dangerous a job as is oil. I don't believe you would love to work in Oil and Coal digging. I'm sure you want a nice desk job. This is the problem with people who complain, they don't want to do the work yet whine about it.

[wendy31]

That's kinda the point. We're using coal(and every other resource) up and it's bad for us and the planet and we have no plan. It's like....a triple edged sword. And instead of working to find better solutions (as opposed to using it all so our grandkids can freeze in the dark- the dirty dark) big corp.'s are using big money to try and stay big. They do not care about you. We need to figure this stuff out now- 50 years ago now.

[camper65]

Rockne - right on! And to add another view, I'd much rather bank the energy future on clean coal and nuclear power than have 5 million windmills and 10 million square miles of solar panels ruining the landscape. We need the power NOW - and we'll need MORE as the population and demand grows We can't count on so called "green" technology that doesn't exist!

[MajorKong]

Or be like China and use lots of coal - and not be able to breath the air.

[canarypapers]

I, too, was inclined to mute the ad first time I saw it (thinking it was of the T. Bone-Picking ilk, or another of those obnoxious, pseudo-geek Exxon-Mobil ads).

I'm elated to see the Reality Coalition doing battle with the clean-coal myth. Wish I had a few dollars to kick their way. Lacking that, it'd be good to keep on top of our lawmakers & prez-elect, to make sure they know we know, because -- as the above article wisely points out:

"Now, because we didn't squash it before the lie grew into fixtures in the speeches of political candidates on both sides of the aisle, the fight will unfortunately be longer and more expensive than it should have been.... "

[JuniorNorman]

If you live near a coal burning plant get solar panels and lead-acid batteries (they are cheap and last a long time) The coal buring plant scrubers and waste disposal cost is skyrocketing. In NH one plant was 150 MILLION to install NOT! The price is now 280 MILLION and climbing!

[elizaconnors]

I heard on NPR this morning that Bank of American is now refusing to finance any mountaintop mining activities. That is a good step.

[Zubeck]

BoA is knee deep in big coal. They're just hedging their bets.

[elizaconnors]

Really? That's a bummer.

[bayside]

Europe has energy running from water and air..We are just as smart as they are where we dont have to rape the earth for our needs.

[DontJustFollow]

80 percent of electricity in Europe is produced by nuclear powerplants. The US hasn't opened a nuclear plant in 10 years thanks to the enviromentalist / wind / sun lobby.

Meanwhile Kennedy will not allow windmills where they can be seen from his vacation home -

Truth is a drag sometimes.

[OutsiderSA]

Part 4

The former, becomes a ergonomical eyesore too and the best places are coastal where there is always wind. Of course the oldest form is hydroelectric but that is again dependent on constant water flow. All of these cannot supply the USA's total power needs.

So even if or when you drive your electric car, that energy has to come from something more economic - like a power station.

With diesel engines, the amount of smoke you see, there is less harmful emissions in that exhaust than what you cannot see coming from your gasoline engine - hence catalytic converters which help is some way in reducing the nitrates and sulfates.

If one can scrub the CO emissions and convert back to C and O and release only O, that will automatically make more O2 and if the C can be extracted as a carbon powder, that could be useful in other processes like carbon fiber materials.

The possibilities are endless, but research is expensive and making plant that traps everything and only releases O2, that is the huge challenge.

You can of course use coal as a base for petrochemical like we do here in SA where more of the nitrates and sulfates are extracted into chemicals that can be utilized in other processes and materials like fertilizers. You also get gasoline as a by-product.

All of these are finite and new technologies are needed.

Plant a few trees.

[OutsiderSA]

Part 3

The extra gas exhausted out now contains more SO2/SO3 and when mixed with water H2O, you get H2SO3/H2SO4 aka sulfuric acid aka acid rain.

The exhaust also causes nitrates to be released which causes nitric "acids", the latter helps with fertilization promoting plant growth.

There is probably a theoretical converter one can use to remove nitrates and sulfates but the energy to drive such would be cost prohibitive.

The whole problem is, while man is connected to the grid, energy is needed at the most cost effective manner, coal fired power stations provide that.

Gas fired stations are more environment friendly but all emissions are CO (Carbon monoxide) based hence if we get to a system of only CO, the trees and plants do the rest.

What you see in China, is boilers using outdated coal burning with no filtering of emissions - hence the thick cloud visible from space.

Nuclear power stations provide clean energy but you are then left with radioactive spent fuel that has a half life of thousands of years - you can bury it but the long term effects of radiation poisoning far outweighs CO emissions of coal/gas.

When you have a BBQ, remember you too are releasing CO2, when you drive your car - CO. If you heat your home with gas/oil - CO.

Wind turbines are very expensive but are renewable in that they have no spent fuel problems, solar is also good but very expensive.

Cont.

[OutsiderSA]

Part 2

The spent coal becomes ash and the ash is removed from the exhaust stream by electrostatic precipitators that attract the particles to plates which in turn are hammered to drop the ash into hoppers.

This exhaust and precipitators are not always efficient resulting in ash emissions from the smoke stacks. Nowadays they introduce molten sulfur into the exhaust stream prior to the precipitators and this makes the ash more "sticky" so that it attracts better to the electrostatic precipitators.

The exhaust of the smoke stacks are thus "cleaner" with no fallout of ash as it combines with moisture to form "ash droplets". The ash is highly corrosive containing alkaline/acids in dry form so that when mixed with water, forms acids or normally alkalines.

When all these exhaust/waste processes are working properly, the emission is mainly CO which then combines with O to form CO2 or carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is converted back to O2 and the C is absorbed in the plant/trees in photosynthesis.

In theory the process is "clean" except that at night, plants use oxygen and thus only convert co2 to O2 in daylight. With the molten sulfur injected, it creates SO3.

Cont.

[OutsiderSA]

While there is no real "clean coal" I feel I should offer some information wrt the power generation industry.

Coal burned as a solid in a hearth or fireplace is inefficient burning and minimal conversion of the calorific value of the coal resulting in thick grey smoke.

If you pour gasoline on the ground and ignite it, it gives off smoke which is the same inefficiency. In a car it is injected as minute particles and combusted at pressure deriving the energy - no smoke.

This is the same in power stations where the coal, usually of low calorific value is perforated (ground up into powder) and introduced into boiler burners by air. This is similar to blowing flour through a straw into a candle flame which causes a huge ball of flame.

Cont.

[Alvarask]

Every time I have seen this ad on I have switched it off because I will not listen to pro-clean coal propaganda. So without reading this article, I would never have known the ad was anti-clean coal. It doesn't get to the point quickly and easily enough.

[Pleneras]

I agree. At first I thought it was a pro commercial. It took a few views to figure it out and a good notice of the ashy background. It's a good commercial but not for the ADD person. Maybe they should flash a notice in the beginning of the clip.

[karinova]

Random thought:
The thing they're looking for is a way to sequester the CO2, right? Basically, they need to find a way to inject it into the ground. And at this point, the only thing that seems to be stopping nuclear is sequestering the waste, right? Basically, they want to seal it up and put it in a big ol' hole in the ground. I'm simplifying here. Heh.

Okay, so neither technology is sufficiently developed, but essentially, we need to find a way to put waste products into the ground in a safe and secure way.

I'm thinking, why waste the time, money and brainpower on trying to find a way to deal with the coal waste? Consider all of its attendant nastiness. Doesn't it make more sense to shift more resources to finding a way to deal with nuclear waste?

[OutsiderSA]

The problem with this is no matter where you bury it and how well it is "secured", the life threatening aspects are multi-generational.