NBC Confirms That "Clean Coal" is an Oxymoron

It's Green Week at NBC (and all other NBC-Universal properties) and thus we're treated to an extra helping of energy and environment stories from Nightly's globe-trotting, business savvy environment correspondent, Anne Thompson. Tonight's report included some serious straight talk about so-called "clean coal."

Brian Williams began with a remarkable lead-in:

"Coal. While you might have heard the phrase 'clean coal' during the presidential campaign, it's actually an oxymoron. Wishful thinking. Coal does not burn cleanly and it's hugely expensive to make it burn that way..."

And Anne Thompson herself offers an equally honest lead-in:

"Coal: the fuel the world burns to make electricity. Plentiful and polluting. A major contributor to climate change."

She then profiles a $100 million CCS pilot project in Spremberg, Germany operated by Vattenfall. It is located adjacent to a what Thompson calls a "dirty coal plant." The pilot project apparently captures 95 percent of its CO2 emissions and stores the liquefied CO2 in giant tanks -- before it is trucked 200 miles away and pumped underground.

Thompson then notes that "this process could increase electric rates by 50 percent."

And the icing on the cake? A German environmentalist calling the burning of coal without CCS a "crime against the climate."

I could scarcely have said it better myself. Now, I don't agree with everything in this story and anything that suggests that clean coal is even close to being ready on the scale or at the cost needed to make it a reality is misleading. Still, it is stunning to see an accurate and honest assessment of what our continued reliance on coal would mean: a crime against the climate. And clean coal? A 50 percent increase in electricity rates.

So -- should America rely on a ruinously expensive, Rube Goldbergian technology that won't be ready for years (decades?) or put our money and our mouths into the cheap, truly clean, safe, and readily available clean energy technologies we already have?

Watch the full report:

Comments

[SiberianRat]

This is great as it's better than traditional coal use, but I'm with some others who have commented in that we MUST do ALL we can to completely cut carbon/fossil fuel usage. It pollutes, destroys environments, corrupts, and even is at the heart of violent conflicts. There's no redeeming value to this destructive addiction.

[Warbler7]

Germany is moving in the right direction as far as sequestering their CO2 for EXISTING plants, but NO new coal plants should be built. The money is far better spent on Enhanced Geothermal, solar, and wind.

But for existing plants that need to stay operable while the transition is taking place, lets try feeding that CO2 to algae, which will produce a clean renewable fuel to run plug-in hybrid flex-fuel cars without sending CO2 back to the atmosphere. It's a win-win. The CO2 feeds the algae, the algae fuels our cars.

[CaptD]

Electricity will RULE and if the developing Countries only have dirty coal then they will burn it 24/7/365, just like all us developed Countries did when we were "poor".

Want to save the Earth for future generations, then pony up the $ and Tech to provide the planet's poor with cheap electricity or realize that the Big Oil Co.'s and the oil producing countries will rule the Earth's population winning EWW1 (Energy World War One)!

[research]

Wind and solar CAN REPLACE NUKES AND FOSSIL.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/08/mini-nuclear-plants-power_n_142412.html?page=2&show_comment_id=17872302#comment_17872302

[Michale32086]

@11907281

}}}}
Ya cause Al's house is a much worse polluter than say, j-mac's 12 homes and private jets?
{{{{

Yes, I would say that Al's house is a MUCH worse polluter than all of McCain's 7 homes. As for Private Jets, how often does McCain fly around in a private jet and how often does Gore??

Regardless of all that, McCain is not the Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) "prophet"... Gore is.. Ergo, it behooves Gore to set the example instead of having the DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO attitude...

}}}}
I always find it funny when a repub point at a candy wrapper on your lawn while they are living in a garbage heap. But alas, all the power you have now is the power of hypocritical nitpicking, the grown-up are about to take the wheel. Enjoy the ride.
{{{{

Son, that is just hilarious.. :D

Michale.....

[research]

Bold Lies, Distractions and Projection. Got anything else?

[Michale32086]

Yes, a question..

Point out the Bold Lies, Distractions and Projection.

You can't, because they ain't there..

Michale....

[lastcallmd]

OK, absolutely correct that there is no such thing as clean coal. However, characterizing those efforts as Rube Goldbergian is kind of funny given the Rube Goldbergian nature of the alternatives favored by the Enviros--solar, wind, biomass, etc.

Much as you all might hate it, the only answer is nuclear.

[Michale32086]

On a large scale, I would agree that Nuclear power is the only way to go in the here and now. At least, until we can devise a ZPM... :D

But for the personal power usage, small solar systems can power entire households for free..

Of course, to power Al Gore's household, he would need a solar power system the size of Montana... But I digest....

Michale.....

[jp5472]

are digesting or digressing?

[simplelivingmama]

Yeah like nuclear power is so much cleaner. NOT! Think about your great great great grandchildren and stop thinking of just yourself's lifetime!!!

[Michale32086]

Uh.. Nuclear power IS a lot cleaner.. And the health problems are manageable with common sense...

Michale.....

[motodave]

"Clean Coal" is also an oxymoron when you look at the environmental devastation from mountain top removal. Poisoning people, filling in streams, turning lush, diverse hardwood environments (the second most diverse ecosystem in the world, next to the amazon) into moonscapes with scrub grass.

Almost level, West Virginia.

These people are sick perpetrators of ecocide even before the coal reaches the furnace.

[freshpavement]

The very phrase "Clean Coal" is contrived by the Coal lobby. There is no such thing. It is appallingly harmful to mine it (especially with mountaintop removal techniques) and cannot be made to burn in a "clean" manner and remain economically competitive.

I say we stop buying into the frame that "clean coal" is even possible. That's what the Coal Industry wants us to do - they want us to think it can be clean, if only we were doing it right.

If it could be made "clean" and simultaneously competitive on an economic basis, why has that not yet been done? Why are there no "clean coal" energy plants in existence, at all, anywhere?

There is no such thing as Clean Coal. It doesn't exist. Let's stop pretending otherwise.

[lmvd3]

ABSOLUTELY! There is no such thing as clean coal!

[redlinemetro]

No such thing as clean coal. US needs to embrace renewable energy now instead of emitting more carcinogens into the air and building another toxic nuclear plant that no one wants in their backyard.

[tigereye]

Based on reports from MIT's Global Change Program (http://globalchange.mit.edu/index.html), "Clean Coal" may become cost effective--i.e., cheaper than natural gas--when carbon emissions cost around $60-$80/ton CO2. This may happen in 20-30 years--who knows. Their forecasts assume ~90% carbon capture efficiency, and no major, unexpected technological breakthroughs. Given this and the large supply of coal worldwide, it seems reasonable to invest in "Clean Coal" technologies and research for the long term.

[research]

Please give a more specific link.

Clean coal generates way more CO2 without sequestering than natural gas.

The gasification process takes energy.

[tigereye]

Good point. I assumed "Clean Coal" included sequestration.

In the reports, their model includes two types of electricity production from coal: with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), and without. They also include natural gas with and without CCS. The specific report I'm referencing is here:

http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=870

View the appendix (a separate download) to see the breakdown of energy production by resource for several different carbon tax proposals (and the cap-and-trade equivalents). The model is neither complete nor perfect, so it is best to consider salient trends in the data, not quantitative values. Notable input assumptions include no new nuclear plant being built in the US (presumably due to political, not economical, reasons), and that biofuels and CCS are allowed to compete for market share on a purely economic basis.

The Millennium Institute has a similar modelling program that is actually much more interactive, although I haven't had a chance to "play" with it yet. Check it out:

http://www.millenniuminstitute.net/

[Palemoon]

Saw some people here earlier posting stuff, and even the article leaves a bit to be desired. But the bad stuff about coal burning isn't about carbon dioxide, or CO2, so much. It's mostly about the sulfur dioxide along with the several particulate matters that are found in the soot, one of which is traceable levels of mercury. While this stuff in itself isn't lethal immediately or in a small scale. In a large scale and over time, it can cause harm to humans, animals and the environment in general. And there are ways that coal can be cleaned up it turns out, as the industry does sell a clean burning coal that is intended for home heating/cooking usage in which the coal gives off neither soot or smoke, and has largely been purged of contaminants and particulate matter. However, doing this on a large scale for factories and power plants to use, probably isn't feasible at the moment. And I'm willing to bet would be extremely expensive.

I'm all in favor of utilizing all our resources to meet our needs, but we should do so responsibly. And if it takes coming up with systems to prevent the release or stuff, or "capture" as I guess it's called, the stuff before it goes out into the environment, I'd have to live with I suppose. Still, I don't see that as a long term solution.

[nmabry]

This is basically the coal industry's explanation. They claim that "Clean Coal is here already!!" because they are required to emit lower levels of SO2 and particulates. Just because it is visibly cleaner doesn't mean it's good for the environment. Coal plants do release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and are therefore contributing to GLOBAL WARMING.

In addition to this there is another huge issue related to the whole mountaintop removal process of mining that others have already mentioned.

[Mr Grey]

"Clean Coal" Every time I hear someone say those words I cringe. Clean coal is a myth. We should be phasing out coal completely.It is time to move on to a variety of alternative energy sources which will drop dramatically in price with government subsidies and mass production and use.

[Mikeeee]

Still can't believe there's so little ground source heat being discussed. It's quiet and hardly noticeable, a steady source 24/7, low maintenance, can be built into the basement of a sky scraper for distribution of power to the downtown core area of a city. Not sexy enough I guess, doesn't have fancy paint on wind turbines, doesn't take up acres of land for solar panels, no chimney.
Nah forget I brought it up.

[research]

low power density. Needs lots of land.

[bcinbigd]

I am amazed and mostly dismayed when the discussion of future energy sources tends to discount the many advantages of solar. For the record, I am a solar contractor and have installed 22 grid integrated residential and commercial systems. Discussions about solar always involve , at some point, the words "expensive" or "not economically feasible". In fact, solar distributed installations are, I believe one of the very few ways that individuals can produce electricity for their own use and see a complete return on their investment. The systems that I have installed are producing from one third to all of the power needs of their owners, and not one system has exceeded the cost of a Lexus or Cadillac SUV.

We will all continue to use electricity, and regardless of whether it comes from a coal plant (clean or dirty) nuclear reactor, hydrogen fuel cell, or wind farm, we will either continue to pay the going rate from the producers or we will become truly independent and generate our own clean electricity. We do have the choice.

I would suggest that grad students get out of the classroom some time and actually do something in the real world. You would be amazed.

[research]

What is the payback break even time on the systems you have installed at today energy prices?

[Big0725]

When I crunch the numbers, it looks like about 10 years.

[Michale32086]

And do you install in Florida?? :D

Michale

[Big0725]

Lots of people do install down here. And I believe the State of Florida will assist in purchasing and installation of the equipment.

Plus, the one really cool thing about this is when you are at work and using very little energy during the day, you can send extra power back to FPL (or whomever your supplier is) and they will buy back that excess.