A raging debate has emerged as to whether clean coal is claptrap or crap trap.
On the one side are people who think that clean coal means coal plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) for the vast majority of the carbon dioxide they emit (or that coal isn’t clean under any plausible definition of the word “clean”). Since there are no commercial utility-scale CCS plants, that makes clean coal clap trap. This group consists of
- Virtually all enviros, like the the “Reality” Coalition (see “Memo to Gore: Don’t call coal ‘clean’ seven times in your ad“)
- NBC’s Brian Williams (who called clean coal “an oxymoron. Wishful thinking“)
- My boss at DOE (who used to practice saying “clean coal” in front of a mirror so he wouldn’t burst into laughter)
- Most rational people
This group can point to the fact that neither the Bush Administration nor the coal industry took CCS seriously enough to put in sufficient funds to save Futuregen, which “administration officials were calling … a ‘centerpiece‘ of their strategy for clean coal technologies” just a year ago. But then centerpieces are largely decorative, no?
On the other side are people who think that clean coal means “cleaner coal” with a focus on “criteria and hazardous air pollutants regulated by federal and state clean air act laws per unit of energy produced.” In other words, clean coal is coal power that traps some of the traditional crap that comes out of smoke stacks. This clean-coal-as-pooper-scooper group consists of
- The coal industry
- Coal industry front groups with oxymoronic names (i.e. American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity)
- Coal industry front groups with non-oxymoronic names (i.e. The Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy)
This group can point to the fact that greewashing, oxymorons, and general bullsh!t have become standard elements of modern political discourse (see “I see a green wash and I want it painted black” and Bush climate speech follows Luntz playbook: “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah”).
I side with the clean coal is claptrap group (see “Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution?“). I’m not at all against aggressive R&D and demonstration of CCS — far from it — I just don’t expect it to provide a cost-effective low carbon solution for a long time.
Claptrap or crap trap — pick your poison. Either way, we need to push efficiency and renewables super-aggressively now if we are to have any chance of averting catastrophic climate change (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?“).
Related Posts:
- In seeming flipflop, Bush drops mismanaged ‘NeverGen’ clean coal project
- Solar baseload outshines ‘clean coal’ — and it always will
- Breaking News: No new coal plants without “Best Available Control Technology” for CO2
- Revealing comments on coal from Obama
- Hansen et al: We must phase-out coal emissions by 2030 and stabilize at or below 350 ppm
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
I can appreciate the desire to breakdown the sides of this argument… but it seems too simplistic and ‘black and white’.
And yes, if we have two camps that are not going to meet in the middle the debate will only be ‘raging’. Coal is becoming another wedge issue- and that is not good for the planet. I’d say- we all need to be moving quickly towards carbon solutions.
I can’t find a place for me… especially since you’ve put ‘most rational people’ into one group. Because I see the use of coal expanding in places like China- and want ‘carbon solutions.’ Can I say that without being seen as ‘pro-coal’ or demonized? Can ‘rational’ people say that coal does have a future at least through 2030-50? And can’t rational people say that we need to enable fundamental breakthroughs to address emissions?
I refuse to particpate in a ‘raging’ debate with no way to end the battle…
I’d rather create a third group – around pragmatic policy and advanced carbon solutions
That would include entrepreneurs who see bioenergy (algae/microbes) solutions that can be retrofitted onto existing coal facilities to turn the emissions into a profitable resource. See beyond the hype cycle and short-term challenges…and this does appear to have the ingredients of a disruptive eco-technology.
Are we really sure that a ‘raging battle’ is best for the planet? Aren’t there lessons from demonizing tobacco? Plateau of use in the US, while rest of world smokes more than ever before.
Yes, we can rage in a debate in the US, while China rages on. I think that’s our real choice.
Garry G
Editor
TheEnergyRoadmap.com
http://www.theenergyroadmap.com
[JR: Uhh, "raging debate" was in the context of a semi-humorous post. But your analogy to demonizing tobacco makes my point. Only after tobacco was demonized and the dangers of cigarette smoking were widely and repeatedly publicized in the face of a massive disinformation campaign by the industry (and some right wingers), did usage start to drop in this country. Coal without CCS = planetary death.]
Hey Joe,
I saw a new “clean coal” commercial last night on Sunday night football. “ThisisReality.org”. Check it out.
http://www.thisisreality.org/#/?p=facility
As far as I’m concerned even if CCS were possible and feasible, coal could and should never be called “clean” as long as things like mountaintop removal are considered okay to get the sutff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Mountaintop_removal_mining
This is as dirty a praxis as can be, ravaging large areas and causing clean streams and valleys to become dirty runoffs and landfills.
There was an amusing interview on NPR
It is easy to shut down coal fired power plants. Just make them follow the same
rules that nuclear power plants have to obey.
Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes almost every element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where you found it are: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out of the ground. What would you expect of a rock? Coal also contains organics. When they dump overburden, it inevitably contains “stony coal,” by which I mean a combination of ordinary rock and coal.
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee
Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock. The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4 million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.:
“Modern electrostatic precipitator plants are capable of operating at greater than 99.5% collection efficiency but can still release 35 lb/year of uranium as just one component in almost 3 million tons of ash vented through stacks. In addition to this radiological species, all the radon in coal is released during combustion. An estimate for average Rn-222 release is about 2 Curies/year for each 1000 MWe coal fired facility15.”
Since a reactor full fuel load is 11 to 30 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million = 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load.
See also: http://www.ornl.gov/ ORNLReview/ rev26-34/ text/ coalmain.html
and
http://www.ornl.gov/ info/ ornlreview/ rev26-34/ text/ colside1.html
For many years the coal industry aggressively lobbied congress to pour taxpayer funds into FutureGen, a company purportedly researching CCS coal, and other coal power technologies. The whole time, FurtureGen was faking research, putting glossy PR, and spending the lion’s share of the money on perks. The coal industry execs knew this all along, yet they continued to lobby congress for support of FurtureGen. Most likely, they did this to ensure the money would not go to an R&D group that could actually develop the technologies – because then the poor old tired coal power companies might be expected to upgrade their power plants.
In short – we know – due to an established record of deliberate deception on the part of the coal industry – that they would rather spend billions stalling ‘clean coal‘ technologies than developing them.
I don’t see any reason to believe they’ve turned over a new leaf. I think the coal industry will probably waste another 10 years before getting serious about CCS. That’s too late. In fact – even if they got serious today, it would be too late for many of the coal power plants in the US.
Many of the pragmatic promoters of ‘clean coal‘ – have their hearts in the right place – but they’ve no choice but to trust industry execs with an established record of deceit and delay.
The Gore “in reality there’s no such thing as clean coal campaign” leaves people with the impression that the technology couldn’t be implemented at full scale now, even if someone wanted to pay for it.
On the other hand, Stephen Chu co-chaired a study panel for the InterAcademy Council, and their October 2007 “Lighting the Way” report recommended that civilization:
“Aggressively pursue efforts to commercialize carbon capture and storage. Moving forward with full scale demonstration projects is critical, as is continued study and experimentation to reduce costs, improve reliability, and address concerns about leakage, public safety, and other issues.”
This is similar to the language found in all the reputable reports, i.e. the IPCC CCS report, the MIT study or the McKinsey work. The technology is “well understood” (says the IPCC) but what remains is finally proving it out for cost and feasibility at full scale, and this is what all these reports call for. It could have been done by now, but the Bush Department of Energy was controlling what happened with FutureGen.
The long lead times everyone brings up are more to do with the assessment that it will take a long time for the politics around carbon pricing to force this development than any problems with the technology.
These reports disagree with your statement that the technology would not be cost effective. The only point they see to developing it is because coal is so cost effective that tacking on as much as 50% additional cost due to adding CCS still leaves it as cost effective for many countries. Its baseload power. The Economist recently stated that wholesale coal power costs 5 cents a kw/hr. The IPCC work suggests that with CCS, depending how advanced the burner is, CCS coal fired plants would produce power for 6 to 7.5 cents a kw/hr.
Solel, developers of the 553 MW Mojave Solar Park, the world’s largest solar thermal plant, state on their current FAQ on their website that the cost of solar thermal power “can be close to 12 cents a kw/hr”. The McKinsey report, which is the latest one, states that the first CCS full scale plants would generate power for less than this. Its hard to interpret their figures exactly as they state them in extra cost per tonne CO2 abated in Euros, i.e. 35 – 50 E per tonne CO2, declining to 30 – 45 E or less as time goes on.
The Schwarze Pumpe 30 MW CCS plant in Germany is undergoing operational testing right now. Their process removes nitrogen from the incoming air, burns the coal in pure oxygen, so they just have to cool and compress the almost pure CO2 exhaust. They are aiming for 95% capture. It is this type of advanced burner design the IPCC had in mind when it estimated costs. It isn’t rocket science.
Big Coal doesn’t want coal power to cost one dime more because that would reduce their market share, as well as cost them money. They’ve been confident until relatively recently but I sense hysteria as it dawns on them Obama just might be serious about pricing carbon.
The coal industry all talk and no build campaign, coupled with their twenty year effort to stop any action at all on climate has really poisoned the atmosphere, but Gore’s campaign goes too far. People farther away from the issue will see both sides using overblown rhetoric as they stretch the truth.
It isn’t like civilization has to ask Big Coal to do something and complain when they don’t do it. The matter could be approached the way smog reduction technology for cars was put in. The manufacturers were forced, kicking and screaming to reduce their tailpipe emissions by passing laws.
The Royal Society report “Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide” contained this recommendation:
“Action needs to be taken now to reduce global emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere to avoid the risk of large and irreversible damage to the oceans. We recommend that all possible approaches be considered to prevent CO2 reaching the atmosphere. No option that can make a significant contribution should be dismissed”.
After reading several sites and your concerns about coal and its pollution then maybe we need to rethink how coal is used and what would happen if we were to stop using it tomorrow. First we can not just stop using coal, we can either move slowly away from coal to Nuclear and other alternatives or we can look at alternatives in how coal is being used and the process of the power plant.
First you need to know the different types of power plants and how they work. Most power plant have some kind of a heat source to generate steam to turn turbines that power generators. Coal just happens to be one of the cheapest source of heat currently available. Solar does not work at night and Wind does not always blow. And the transition lines needed to transfer the electricity from areas that have enough wind are costly or inefficient. The farther the power line is from the source power weakens.
If we turn off all coal fired power about 55% to 75% of the US would be with out sustainable power. Also the price would go up for those who still had power. If we want to not use Coal, gas or Nuclear power then we need researchers to put there mines together and come up with a cheap alternative, but what about the mean time?
One thing is maybe look at the way coal is being used. Currently its just burned, but if you crush it to a powder and add it to water or other liquid to separate the none carbon from the carbon then catch and filter the exhaust which is not that difficult, just there is no commercial product available yet because there is no demand.
I am working on an exhaust trapping system for cars that would actually let you re burn unburned carbon. And it might even work on a larger scale on coal plants. I currently do not have a working model available but hope to have one soon.
Think, what is the cheapest way to create electricity on a large scale that can be implemented anywhere in the US? What are low cost alternative to this solution?
This is just my thought!