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:

Follow Josh Dorner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/joshydo

Comments

[SiberianRat]

10:18 PM on 12/03/2008

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]

10:30 AM on 11/21/2008

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]

12:28 AM on 11/21/2008

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]

08:39 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

05:47 PM on 11/20/2008

@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]

09:42 PM on 11/20/2008

Bold Lies, Distractio­ns and Projection­. Got anything else?

[Michale32086]

05:52 AM on 11/21/2008

Yes, a question..

Point out the Bold Lies, Distractio­ns and Projection­.

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

Michale...­.

[lastcallmd]

11:46 PM on 11/19/2008

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]

07:46 AM on 11/20/2008

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]

02:13 PM on 11/20/2008

are digesting or digressing­?

[simplelivingmama]

05:02 PM on 11/20/2008

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]

05:44 PM on 11/20/2008

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

Michale...­..

[motodave]

11:17 PM on 11/19/2008

"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]

11:02 PM on 11/19/2008

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]

10:53 PM on 11/19/2008

ABSOLUTELY­! There is no such thing as clean coal!

[redlinemetro]

10:45 PM on 11/19/2008

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]

08:04 PM on 11/19/2008

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]

09:00 PM on 11/19/2008

Please give a more specific link.

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

The gasificati­on process takes energy.

[tigereye]

10:52 PM on 11/19/2008

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]

07:31 PM on 11/19/2008

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]

10:28 AM on 11/20/2008

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]

05:30 PM on 11/19/2008

"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]

05:25 PM on 11/19/2008

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]

05:42 PM on 11/19/2008

low power density. Needs lots of land.

[bcinbigd]

04:25 PM on 11/19/2008

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]

04:40 PM on 11/19/2008

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

[Big0725]

06:26 PM on 11/19/2008

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

[Michale32086]

04:55 PM on 11/19/2008

And do you install in Florida?? :D

Michale

[Big0725]

06:25 PM on 11/19/2008

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.