The Myth of Clean Coal
I think Wikipedia nails the definition perfectly, describing “clean coal” as “an oxymoronic umbrella term”, used to convince people that there is a way to clean up the dirtiest fossil fuels in use today. Coal emits many dangerous substances when burned, including: sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, heavy metals (uranium, thorium, and mercury), and radiation. Coal is 50% carbon, so it has a fairly high energy yield, but this also means it produces CO2 like crazy. Mining of coal can turn the surrounding environment into a wasteland (mountaintop removal), and even invisible underground coal mines can be dangerous as they can destabilize the ground above. According to the DoE, in 2006 48.9% of the power generated in the United States was from coal.
So how do you clean up something so dirty? Some of the sulfur and nitrogen compounds can be captured after the burning process, but this isn’t 100% effective and still leaves dangerous compounds such as CO2 and radioactive particulate matter. People living near a coal plant are exposed to more radiation than people living near a nuclear planet — up to 100 times more. The burning process also concentrates the heavy metals and radioactive isotopes, meaning that the resulting waste is even more dangerous and the threat to humans and the environment increases over time. The energy content of the the nuclear byproducts of burning coal is actually higher than the energy available in the coal itself. According to some estimates, burning coal releases more radioactive fuel than nuclear plants consume on a yearly basis. Even if you keep the radioactive particles and heavy metals out of the air, you still have to dispose of them somewhere — and people are worried about storing waste from nuclear power plants!
Clean coal is also very expensive and it will not be commercially viable for another 10-20 years. Further, all of the technologies used to clean up the burning process require energy, reducing the efficiency of the coal plants and therefore requiring more to be built to meet energy needs. Some of the plans to deal with CO2 emissions entail pumping the gas back into the ground, hopefully sequestering it (forever?) or using it to help force oil deposits out of the ground. This poses a danger to ground water supplies and also opens up the risk of the gas being released due to a geological event. Imagine the mess if several years worth of CO2 emissions were suddenly released all at once.
The United States isn’t the only country struggling with coal. Most of the new power plants in the works for Great Britain will be coal-fired — enough that every other bit of effort to curb CO2 production by citizens there will be completely negated by the CO2 produced by these power plants. China plans on building about 55GW of coal-fired power plants this year. Do you think these plants will just shut down when a new, cleaner energy source is available? Not likely. Any new coal plants built now will be in operation for years to come.
When will people stop messing around with trying to clean up fossil fuels and start to focus on renewable energy sources that do not threaten our future? Are people wary of change because of the amount of money invested in infrastructure for acquiring, refining, and using fossil fuels? Unfortunately this is one of the few points I disagree with the Obama campaign on (they are pushing subsidies for clean coal), but hopefully they will see the light of day before it comes to actually implementing such silliness.
Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger?
Power Generation by Source (DoE)
Wikipedia: Clean Coal Technology
October 15, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hi,
I am curious to know the reference for this statement:
“People living near a coal plant are exposed to more radiation than people living near a nuclear planet — up to 100 times more.”
For what it is worth, coal supplies 51% of US electricity production. Replacing this “baseload” supply will not be an easy task.
New technologies such as underground coal gasification can minimize the environmental impacts of coal mining, but they have their own special challenges.
October 15, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Most of the facts and figures came from Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger? (see citations at bottom of the article). The radiation exposure from 1000MWe coal-fired and nuclear plants are 490 person-rem/year and 4.8 person-rem/year, respectively. Even if you consider the entire life cycle of nuclear fuel from mining to disposal, the radioactive footprint is only 136 person-rem/year.
October 17, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Thanks for the link..I will have to digest this before I reply :-)
November 11, 2008 at 4:06 am
The site tells about the problems which are raising through Clean Coal.Many dangerous gases are emitting while the coal burns.Coal is 50% carbon, so it has a fairly high energy yield, but this also means it produces CO2.Mining of coal causes many problems in surrounding areas.
January 4, 2009 at 8:07 am
Many scientists who work in the coal industry, like me, have no aversion to the development of new, renewable, sources of energy. The fact of the matter is that energy and steel demand by America (and the world) is on the rise and will continue to be on the rise as long as the population grows and consumers demand it. Coal companies only exist because there is a demand for the product. Without inexpensive, coal American industry would not be able to pay high salaries to its employees thus reducing the standard of living for Americans. Coal is not going away any time soon unless the politicians trash the economy with huge power rate increases. People pollution is the problem, not coal. Less people,… less demand, …less coal need. Simple. Now go build some dam wind mills. Oh… I forgot… even T Boone Pickens is backing off wind mills now that energy prices are in the tank.
January 5, 2009 at 10:19 pm
The problem isn’t with the scientists, and I commend the effort of those who are seeking better, cleaner alternatives, but calling it “clean coal” skews public perception and gives a false sense of security. Yes, a cheap energy source is important, but at what risk to the population? You can’t say it raises the standard of living if people are dying from lung cancer and heavy metal poisoning. Calling it “clean coal” masks the dangers and skews public opinion, possibly even limiting the push for funding truly clean and renewable resources.
I’d have to agree that the root problem is the number of people around, but that is a totally different issue and not one that you can deal with from the perspective of an energy provider. There is a good video floating around regarding exponential growth and why the human mind has such difficulty understanding why something like “3% annual growth” is a bad thing.