Green Options » clean coal

5 Dirty Aspects of “Clean” Coal

Sarah Lozanova — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:09:14 +0000

Clean coal has been getting a lot of attention lately. Both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama consider it to be an important piece in their energy plans. Even the recent $900 billion bailout package included $1.5 billion for clean coal. Because coal is so plentiful and relatively cheap in the US, the notion of clean coal is particularly appealing. Unfortunately, clean coal is a myth.

Here’s why clean coal is so dirty:

1. Clean Coal Requires More Coal

30% more energy is required to pump carbon underground for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). The captured carbon dioxide has to be compressed to 100 times the atmospheric pressure, transferred to an underground storage reservoir and then pumped in the ground. All of this requires large amounts of energy, thus the coal plant must burn an additional 30% more coal to generate the same amount of usable electricity.

Read more of this story »

House Finally Releases Plan for Carbon Cap and Trade

Timothy B. Hurst — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:50:41 +0000

Leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have finally released their highly-anticipated draft legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal (pdf) is modeled after the Senate bill that was introduced, debated, but not voted on earlier this year. However, the draft legislation also contains some some substantial differences between the Senate version.

The draft would require 6 percent emission reductions by 2020, compared to 19 percent in the Senate bill. But the caps would accelerate in later years to require 80 percent reductions by 2050, which is actually faster than the total proposed reductions in the Senate version. The eighty percent reduction by 2050 would also matched the proposed targets released by Democratic candidate for President, Barack Obama.

Read more of this story »

Clean Words = Clean Policies? Politicians Seem to Think So

Amanda Peterka — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 20:40:48 +0000

Let’s say you’re a politician, and you have a policy you want to push to the public. How do you get the backing?

You turn to semantics.

Do you call it a bailout or a rescue plan? Invasion of privacy or the Patriot Act? A War on Terror or an invasion of a country that doesn’t possess WMD? Do you say we’re looking for oil independence or to drill in ANWR? Do you call it global warming, admitting that the earth is indeed warming, or do you call it climate change?

Read more of this story »

Vice-Presidential Debate: Palin vs. Biden On Global Warming

Reenita Malhotra — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 06:32:39 +0000

In the Vice Presidential debate earlier this evening, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden each had a strong point of view on global warming. Gwen Ifill, the moderator, specifically questioned Palin about her views on carbon emissions and Biden about his view on clean coal technology.

Here are some key excerpts from the debate:

Sarah Palin

She confirmed that John McCain wants to put a cap on carbon emissions.
She said that the nation had to become “energy independent,” conserving fuel and clean up the planet.
She talked of America’s cry for tapping into domestic energy sources, saying they support a “drill, baby, drill” attitude as a measure for becoming energy independent
She criticized Biden for an overheard comment he made on a rope line that appeared to contradict Barack Obama’s support of building clean coal plants.
Read more of this story »

What Does Pennsylvania Know About Clean Coal That No One Else Does?

Timothy B. Hurst — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:11:51 +0000

This photo is of a billboard I saw while driving through central Pennsylvania. The other had a similar message but said: “Clean Coal: Now Clean and Green with New Technologies.” The billboard is sponsored by an organization called Families Organized to Represent the Coal Economy (FORCE). I think people would be interested in how FORCE defines “clean & green.”

Image credit: Tim Hurst

Biden: No New Coal Plants in U.S. [video]

Timothy B. Hurst — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 22:21:35 +0000

While at a campaign stop in Maumee, OH, Democratic vice-presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden said there should be no new coal plants in the United States, clean or otherwise. Biden also stressed the need to get China on board. Watch for yourself:

This story contains additional media. Click here to view the media.

Think Clean Coal is Dirty? DARPA Says You’re Wrong!

Jerry James Stone — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:34:10 +0000

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - aka DARPA - has set its Big Brother eye on “clean coal” for airplane fuel. It’s unveiling a program to demonstrate both the economical, and environmentally friendly, conversion of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels.

According to Aviation Week, DARPA has issued a broad agency announcement (BAA) soliciting research proposals and plans to award 12-month contracts totaling $4.56 million to demonstrate the feasibility of alternative CTL technologies. Already investigating bio-fuels, the agency says its CTL program is intended to demonstrate processes that could meet Defense Department demand for JP-8 jet fuel from U.S. coal reserves at a cost-competitive price compared with petroleum-based fuels.

DARPA says existing direct and indirect coal liquefaction processes are “extremely expensive to implement, consume large amounts of water and produce unacceptable amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants.”

DARPA is aiming for a $1.5 billion plant that will make 100,000 barrels of fuel per day where each kilogram of coal converted uses only 0.5 kg. of water. Currently, each kilogram of coal converted uses about a kilogram of water and produces 1.3 kg of CO2 and 0.27 kg of oil, says DARPA. In fact, fuels from coal produce 80 percent more CO2 than petroleum-based fuel, but DARPA believes CTL concepts may exist that avoid the production of CO2. The need for water as a source of hydrogen is also an issue with existing methods.

It seems like flying less might also be a good option - 100,000 barrels a day!

Image source: James Gordon on Flickr

‘Eco-Terrorism’ Legitimized by British Court

Alex Felsinger — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:38:22 +0000

In a monumental ruling, a British jury acquitted six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage charges stemming from what the activists said was an attempt to shut down a coal-fired power plant. The jury decided that the activists’ action was justifiable because the plant, which emits 20,000 tons of CO2 every day, will hold some blame for immense damage caused by global warming in the future.

The ruling goes against years of convictions for similar actions and essentially praised the activists for their help in preventing global warming. To make their case, the defense argued that much of the lower-altitude areas that surround the plant could eventually be submerged in water from the effects of climate change.

Read more of this story »

Germany Opens Clean Coal Demonstration Plant

Amiel Blajchman — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:13:20 +0000

Germany’s Secretary of the Chancellery, Thomas de Maizière, and Prime Minister of Brandenburg, Matthias Platzeck, together with Swedish Minister for Higher Education and Research Lars Leijonborg opened on Tuesday the world’s first “clean coal” plant, one that is ready to capture and store its carbon dioxide emissions. The 30-megawatt, $100 million Schwarze Pumpe pilot plant will burn washed lignite coal in an atmosphere of oxygen instead of regular air, producing some 10 tons per hour of compressed CO2. This compressed CO2 will then be captured and buried under a depleted gas field.

Read more of this story »

New Study Says Commercial Carbon Capture Unlikely by 2020

Ariel Schwartz — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:25:47 +0000

The recent news that the demand for coal is climbing rapidly around the world has left many of us deeply unsettled. And a new study from Australian energy consultancy ACIL Talisman doesn’t make things sound any more cheery.

The company believes that clean coal technologies such as carbon capture and storage are unlikely to be commercially available before 2020 unless major technological breakthroughs occur in the very near future.

However, the firm predicts that both geothermal and concentrated solar will be in widespread commercial use by the 2020 target date. But none of these technologies can squelch the CO2 coming from the 40% increase in coal consumption expected by 2030.

Read more of this story »

Deptartment of Energy to Provide $36 Million for Carbon Capture Projects

Timothy B. Hurst — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:50:55 +0000

The U.S. Department of Energy announced today that it will provide $36 million for 15 projects to further the development of new technologies for the capture of carbon dioxide from the existing fleet of coal-fired power plants. Today’s 15 project announcements will focus on five areas of interest for CO2 capture: membranes, solvents, sorbents, oxycombustion, and chemical looping.

“Currently, the existing U.S. coal fleet accounts for over half of all electricity generated in this country,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman said in a release. “The projects announced today will combat climate change and help meet current and future energy needs by curbing CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired plants.”

But carbon capture and sequestration, along with “clean coal” are still perceived by many as mythical technologies that are simply not cost effective.

My question is this: If carbon capture and sequestration is such a central component of President Bush’s broader energy vision, why aren’t they doing more about it? To put things in perspective, since 2001 the Bush administration has invested more than $2.5 billion in clean coal research and development - roughly the same amount it spends per week on the Iraq war.

Oh, and that $36 million figure mentioned at the top of this article? $36 million is roughly equal to what the U.S. spends on the Iraq war in two and a half hours.

Read more about the specific projects receiving funding at the DOE’s website.

McCain Wants 45 New Nuclear Reactors and Clean Coal

Max Lindberg — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:51:55 +0000

For a lot of years, I’ve respected and admired Arizona Senator John McCain, and even though he is a Republican, he seemed to be more moderate than his right-wing compatriots.

That changed today when I read that he has proposed construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. Adding insult to injury, he told a Missouri State University audience that he’d pledge $2 billion a year in federal funds to make clean coal a reality. All in the name of reducing dependence on foreign oil and fostering a cleaner environment.

Read more of this story »

The Best “Clean Coal” Ad Ever

Timothy B. Hurst — Mon, 26 May 2008 15:50:11 +0000

A new project from DeSmogBlog, Rainforest Action Network, and Greenpeace USA, called Coal is Dirty aims to address the spread of disinformation about the facts surrounding global warming, so governments and industry are held accountable for their actions. The site is a valuable resource for anyone interested in learning the facts about climate change. This short animation takes a humorous look at the emergence of “clean coal”[animation by Mark Fiore].

This story contains additional media. Click here to view the media.

Video: Obama on Climate and Energy

Timothy B. Hurst — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:50:19 +0000

If you ask me, one of the best things about this election season thus far, is that voters who never thought their state’s caucus or primary would actually matter in deciding a presidential nominee, are finding out that they do matter - quite considerably. Our friends over at EnviroWonk did an excellent job of covering the recent presidential candidates’ whirlwind visits to Missoula, Montana. As a digital media addendum, I’ve posted a 3-minute clip of Barack Obama speaking on climate and energy policy from Missoula. A couple of nuggets from the Obama stump:

“Exxon Mobil made $11 billion last quarter; last quarter! And we’re melting the polar ice caps in the bargain. It’s a bad deal all around - unless you’re ExxonMobil”
“There doesn’t have to be a contradiction between good environmental policy and good economic policy.”

This story contains additional media. Click here to view the media.

Wyoming Passes Carbon Capture & Sequestration Legislation

Timothy B. Hurst — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:57:54 +0000

Law Helps Smooth Way For “Clean Coal”

Last week, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed a bill that recognizes that surface owners control the underground pore spaces where carbon dioxide could be stored or sequestered. A companion bill, gives the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality the authority to regulate the long-term storage of carbon dioxide.

“With the signing of these two bills today, Wyoming puts itself in the forefront of carbon sequestration legislation. This is a forward-thinking approach to protect both Wyoming’s economy and Wyoming’s environment.” Gov. Freudenthal called the legislation a “groundbreaking” framework for carbon capture and sequestration

Earlier this year, Freudenthal told the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee that the Wyoming Legislature had an opportunity to lead the nation in regulating long-term carbon capture and sequestration.

Read more of this story »

Tangled Up in Green: A Tale of Two Energies

Adam Bowman — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:49:24 +0000

Editor’s note: Welcome to “Tangled Up in Green,” Red, Green and Blue’s weekly debate over the hot issues in environmental politics. Each week, writers Ranjit Arab and Adam Bowman will “throw down the glove” on current events involving environmental policy, legislation and citizen action. Adam and Ranjit are both graduate students in journalism at the University of Kansas, and currently enrolled in Professor Simran Sethi’s “Media and the Environment” course.

In Holcomb, Kansas, there rages a battle over energy, jobs, and economy.

The Sunflower Electric Company has a plan to build two coal-fired power plants that would produce 1400 megawatts of power. And until the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Roderick L. Bremby, denied the application for an air quality permit, they probably would be breaking ground right now.

People in the more populated Eastern part of Kansas, (which is pretty much all powered by coal), want to abandon the coal for sustainable wind energy. For Kansas, wind makes a lot of sense. Wind maps show that we are sitting in a very productive wind energy area. Basically any state in the Great Plains has an abundance of wind at their disposal. And the good news is, there isn’t any waste emissions or land ruining strip mining to harvest this energy.

But what about Eastern and Western States that aren’t sitting on a wind gold mine?

Read more of this story »

The Lindberg Report Podcast: Sarah Lozanova of CleanTechnica

Max Lindberg — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:52:11 +0000

Sarah Lozanova is a native Chicagoan who is passionate about renewable energy. She has an MBA in Sustainable Management from the Presidio School of Management in San Francisco and she is working on developing ways for corporations to solve environmental and social challenges that face society. When she can escape the Internet vortex, she enjoys playing in the forest, paddling down rivers, or twisting into yoga poses.

Sarah spoke with us from her home in Chicago.

This story contains additional media. Click here to view the media.

Here is the link to the anniversary podcast:
The Lindberg Report Podcast: Green Options Turns One: Looking Back… and Forward

New Plant Strives to Generate Cleaner Coal Electricity

Sarah Lozanova — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:21:31 +0000

Carbon sequestration will be used in this new coal-fired power plant to reduce the carbon footprint of electricity.

The town of Mattoon, Illinois rejoiced when the developers of a $1.8 billion low-pollution power plant announced the selected location. This rust-belt town will no longer be primarily known as the bagel capital of the world. The 275-megawatt prototype plant will generate both electricity and hydrogen. Carbon dioxide emissions will be captured and pumped deep into the ground.

The Department of Energy quickly issued a warning about the experimental plant, stating that it might cost too much and urging a reassessment of the design. The public-private partnership between FutureGen and the DOE entails the DOE providing 74% of the required funds. This plant will provide information on the feasibility of carbon sequestration.

Matthew Wald of the New York Times explained the technology that will be implemented by the plant on All Things Considered: “They take the coal, and instead of grinding it up and burning it, the way you do in a conventional plant, they cook it, and it gives off two gasses: hydrogen, which is benign — when you burn it you get nothing but water — and carbon monoxide, which we think of as a pollutant, but here as a fuel gas. You mix the carbon monoxide with water; it grabs hydrogen out of the water, so you then end up with carbon dioxide, nicely separated, and more hydrogen. You burn the hydrogen to make power, and then you have this nice clean flow of CO2 that you can dispose of.”

In 2006, coal power plants generated about 50% of the nation’s electricity, while emitting roughly 40% of the total carbon dioxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change considers capturing carbon and pumping it underground to be a likely solution for slowing climate change. Although carbon sequestration has the potential to significantly decrease emissions, the word clean perhaps can never accurately be used to describe coal.

Putting the carbon emission aside, coal mining is responsible for extensive environmental damage. Forests and streams are destroyed, impacting water quality and wildlife habitat.

Despite the environmental impacts of coal mining, the low-emissions plant in Mattoon, IL is certainly an improvement from business as usual. This prototype plant will help answer some of the questions that surround carbon sequestration and its feasibility for mitigating climate change.

Clean Coal is Like a Porous Condom

Philip C. Curtis — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:32:39 +0000

I didn’t say it…Robin Williams did. But it makes sense. Clean compared to what? Compared to the black lung producing crap that we used to burn?

I live in Michigan and our Governor has been paying a lot of lip service to environmentally-friendly practices and energy-conservation and so has our regional utility, Consumers Energy. However, that’s about it. The same thing is also going on in Seattle.

Recently, Consumers announced it will build a new 800 megawatt coal buring power plant near Bay City Michigan. A Consumer’s spokes person said the plant will have lower emissions than existing plants. This isn’t impressive. The spokes person also stated that wind and solar were not economically viable options for Consumers.
The problem that I have with Consumer’s economic analysis of this matter is that it does not seem to take into consideration the environmental cost of the pollution the coal burning plant will generate. I haven’t seen the financial plans for this new plant but I doubt this cost is considered in the analysis. What Consumers and other utility companies should say is that coal plants are more lucrative for them because they don’t have to pay for any of the environmental costs.
I am sure that wind and solar will eventually become more cost-effective even if one does not consider the environmental costs of operating a power plant. However, in the meantime wouldn’t it make sense to place an operating tax of some sort on power plants that would be commensurate to the level of pollution they create? This seems more reasonable than requiring us to give up our clean environment as a subsidy to the utility companies.
Besides, there will never be any incentive for consumers to reduce their energy consumption if the true cost of the power is not reflected in the cost consumer’s actually pay.

Green Options » clean coal

5 Dirty Aspects of “Clean” Coal

1. Clean Coal Requires More Coal

House Finally Releases Plan for Carbon Cap and Trade

Clean Words = Clean Policies? Politicians Seem to Think So

Vice-Presidential Debate: Palin vs. Biden On Global Warming

What Does Pennsylvania Know About Clean Coal That No One Else Does?

Biden: No New Coal Plants in U.S. [video]

Think Clean Coal is Dirty? DARPA Says You’re Wrong!

‘Eco-Terrorism’ Legitimized by British Court

Germany Opens Clean Coal Demonstration Plant

New Study Says Commercial Carbon Capture Unlikely by 2020

Deptartment of Energy to Provide $36 Million for Carbon Capture Projects

Other posts on the DOE and carbon capture/sequestration:

McCain Wants 45 New Nuclear Reactors and Clean Coal

The Best “Clean Coal” Ad Ever

Video: Obama on Climate and Energy

Wyoming Passes Carbon Capture & Sequestration Legislation

Law Helps Smooth Way For “Clean Coal”

Tangled Up in Green: A Tale of Two Energies

The Lindberg Report Podcast: Sarah Lozanova of CleanTechnica

New Plant Strives to Generate Cleaner Coal Electricity

Carbon sequestration will be used in this new coal-fired power plant to reduce the carbon footprint of electricity.

Clean Coal is Like a Porous Condom