Clean Coal: Fuel of the Future or a Fallacy?

In a surprising reversal of a reversal, the Department of Energy has announced new funding for the "FutureGen" clean coal project, less than 18 months after the previous DOE Secretary pulled the plug. DOE Secretary Stephen Chu, who previously called coal "very, very bad," said the government will spend more than $1 billion on research on a prototype coal power plant that will capture and sequester the CO2 produced.
That's more than double the amount that the private sector will spend on the joint venture.

Though the DOE's plan has turned plenty of heads, down under they are acting even more decisively on clean coal technologies. German company Direct Invest will put $1.5 billion into clean coal development in Australia. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is also reportedly working on a deal on a clean coal plant in Australia.

The use of the words "clean coal" has sparked an advertising war between the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a consortium of coal industry companies, and The Reality Coalition, whose participants include the Alliance for Climate Protection, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters.

"Clean coal" is a bit of a misnomer since most of the technologies being developed aren't really cleaning the coal burning process but capturing and storing the CO2. Clean diesel was introduced into the marketplace a few years ago with much less contention because the EPA standards required cleaning up diesel fuel's environmental impact in many aspects. Since CO2 is only one of many pollutants generated, for the clean moniker to be applied to coal, a future generation of coal power plants should also greatly reduce the amount of nitrogen oxides, mercury, sulfur dioxides and particulates.

The government's investment in the FutureGen project of more than 2:1 to private dollars is disproportionate when considering who will benefit if the project is a success. The burden should at the minimum be equally split between the public and private sector.

Having the DOE lead the building and financing of a small scale production plant is an aberration from how government research usually works. The DOE's research is ordinarily aimed at basic research for a specific scientific challenge, not the entire process of an industry.

For example, the DOE didn't help out the auto industry by funding the creation of a prototype plug-in hybrid and charging infrastructure; it limited support to components of basic research, such as advanced battery chemistry. (The power of the coal lobby and the President's time spent in Illinois probably had something to do with the revival of interest in FutureGen.)

Because of the importance of coal in the global economy, clean coal in theory is worth pursuing. (We're still spending federal money on hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles after more than 30 years of trying, and today it remains even more of a technical challenge.) Clean coal is needed even more so in developing nations such as China, India and South Africa, whose rapidly growing future energy needs would make a transition to renewables a substantial economic challenge, so it should really be an international effort.

A more effective (and less contention) role for the U.S. government in facing environmental/energy challenges would be to set a new standard requiring an industry-wide reduction in emissions, and then along with basic research provide generous tax incentives for research and implementation of whatever technologies are needed to comply. The private sector should lead in product development, not the DOE.

One significant obstacle is that coal plants can't be easily retrofitted to clean up the process, so the new standard will likely only be required when replacing existing coal plants that reach their end of life. Finally, rather than putting coal underground in the hopes that it won't impact future generations, shouldn't the aim be to either use CO2 as an energy source as has been proposed, or to have nature take care of it by aggressively planting trees and other plants?

Follow John Gartner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jggpdx

Comments

[Thomas Murphy]

Why government officials and investors are still dragging their feet (when it comes to supporting the development and financing of safe energy sources) surprises me: old ways seem best to them, and innovation is a dirty word. I grew up in the '60s, in central Illinois, and there were plenty of strip mines surrounding my home town....bu­t that was years and years ago, and the threat of global warming and a carbon-filled atmosphere were never mentioned. Windmills, garbage-char, geothermal: these safe sources and others ARE the wave of the future. Get used to it, America: we can be heroes or we can continue to live in a dream world. It's up to us to save the planet: we have the resources and the money and the wisdom. Human knowledge is being wasted....­let's use it before it's too late.

[tompoe]

Clean coal plants with coal ash dumps protected by Obama's "secret" list, so as to protect national security. This is all a joke, right?

[cody03]

First, I would like to question why the government is focusing specifically on CCS. Scientific tests and studies prove that the other chemicals found in coal, such as arsenic,chlorine, mercury and sulfur are more dangerous and possibly lethal. Arsenic has even been proven to cause the swine flu. We at CBA/USEP, have developed a clean coal technology that lowers the levels of these dangerous chemicals and other pathogens(nitrogen oxide,sulfur dioxide) anywhere from 20%-100% while still increasing BTU value by 50%. This will aid in creating a healthier and safer environment if power plants use our process to clean their coal. I have attached a link to the bottom of this comment that will take you to a youtube video where you can see our process in action. Along with the overall improvement of the environment, our clean coal processes would help in creating over 250,000 jobs and greatly aid to a depleting economy and workforce. CBA/USEP has also used its own resources to create this process. Although many large power companies have expressed great interest, we have yet to receive funding. Clean coal is a reality, and we invite any doubters to see our process for themselves. This is a world revolutionizing technology and one that the world must recognize.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmctxH-8LtE

[Mildmannered]

unless we can get china to quit building dirty coal power plants and get their power from some cleaner source (such as clean coal, if possible) we have lost the global warming battle.

[quidam56]

In Wise County, Virginia, this is what clean coal looks like. http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138

[research]

FBI: Our governmnet has been Bought!

Investigate our Senators, looking for Bribes (campaign contribution).

[Rhetticent]

Just one more example that the government, while agreeing with the greens and encouraging their activism, are cynically cutting deals in back rooms to preserve the status quo, knowing that climate change is a farce they are selling as a great tax revenue source. Environmentalists have been successfully manipulated for years to make people more and more wealthy... can't believe that smart people can't see what they're doing.