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:
Follow Jake Brewer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jake_brewer
Loading comments… 
Some days it's just better to get to work in silence.
Am excited about this break through: http://www
Curiously, the overseas press provided far more coverage.
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 contaminat
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-release
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" countertop
The coal industry should pay dearly for - not profit from - the toxic wastes and carbon they generate!
Follow the money folks -
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
"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 unfortunat
Meanwhile Kennedy will not allow windmills where they can be seen from his vacation home -
Truth is a drag sometimes.
The former, becomes a ergonomica
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 automatica
The possibilit
You can of course use coal as a base for petrochemi
All of these are finite and new technologi
Plant a few trees.
The extra gas exhausted out now contains more SO2/SO3 and when mixed with water H2O, you get H2SO3/H2SO
The exhaust also causes nitrates to be released which causes nitric "acids", the latter helps with fertilizat
There is probably a theoretica
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 environmen
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 radioactiv
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.
The spent coal becomes ash and the ash is removed from the exhaust stream by electrosta
This exhaust and precipitat
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/a
When all these exhaust/wa
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.
Coal burned as a solid in a hearth or fireplace is inefficien
If you pour gasoline on the ground and ignite it, it gives off smoke which is the same inefficien
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.
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 sequesteri
Okay, so neither technology is sufficient
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?