Why Clean Coal Is Years Away

Coal is here to stay, but efforts to cut emissions are ambitious, expensive, and have largely stumbled

March 17, 2009 RSS Feed Print
Coal smoke and steam vapor pour out of the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant over a nearby residential area in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. The 2460 MW coal-fired plant in western Pennsylvania is one of the 12 biggest carbon dioxide polluting power plants in the U.S.

Coal smoke and steam vapor pour out of the Bruce Mansfield Power Plant over a nearby residential area in Shippingport, Pennsylvania.

America runs on coal. It's cheap, plentiful (at least for another 100 years or so), and comfortingly domestic. Two hundred years ago, it powered the industrial revolution. Today, it spits out nearly half of the country's electricity.

Coal's problems, however, are getting to be so big and serious that they are not just overshadowing the industry but threatening to render it obsolete. About 80 percent of the electricity sector's carbon dioxide emissions come from burning coal. A price on CO2 pollution, which Congress might impose as early as this year, is expected to be so costly that the mere prospect of it is already shaking things up. Some states have banned new coal plants, and many companies are canceling their plans in other places.

The industry's greatest hope for survival, as far as CO2 emissions go, is a work-in-progress technological arsenal known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. With all the makings—and risk—of a classic American gamble, it is in some ways the energy equivalent of missile defense. It's ambitious, expensive, intricate, and wildly controversial.

Cue the requisite political theatrics in Washington and, behind them, more serious questions about the promise of "clean coal" versus the reality. Last fall, at a campaign rally, then Sen. Barack Obama said, "Clean coal technology is something that can make America energy independent." The coal industry itself is spending millions of dollars on ads—placed in newspapers, pasted to public buses, and shellacked across subway station entryways—that boast of its commitment to "clean coal technology." Environmentalists have aggressively volleyed back. Clean coal, they say, doesn't exist.

It would be helpful if everyone were using the same definition. The term "clean coal," though alliteratively pleasing, is far from straightforward. Besides CO2, coal plants emit mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides. What doesn't go into the air often ends up in the ground as fly ash, a sludgelike material that became big news last year when a retaining wall at an ash dump in Tennessee suddenly gave way, releasing thousands of pounds of waste into people's front yards. So, it's not just CO2 that's problematic. In fact, in the early 1990s, clean coal referred almost exclusively to efforts aimed at curbing nitrogen and sulfur pollution. Today, clean coal has morphed to mean coal from a plant that doesn't emit CO2. And it doesn't exist yet.

Making it happen, roughly speaking, will require three steps: capturing the carbon dioxide discharge from a plant's smokestack before it escapes; compressing it into a liquid and transporting that through a pipeline; and storing the compressed CO2 underground in a repository for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

To get a sense of where the field stands, take a look at the Mountaineer power plant in New Haven, W.Va., a coal-fired facility that sits on the Ohio border. Built in 1980, it emits about 8.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. But it's undergoing a series of major changes to convert it by the end of the year, if all goes well, into one of the country's most ambitious, active clean coal projects. Battelle, the project's main contractor, is currently drilling several deep underground wells at the site. Special chemicals are being added to the smokestack to separate CO2 from the rest of the emissions. Initially, the goal is to capture and store about 100,000 to 300,000 metric tons of CO2 annually, and then to go up from there, says Neeraj Gupta, Battelle's research leader. "It's happening now. We can do it," says Gupta. "Just like with oil and natural gas, it's a matter of where, under what conditions, and at what cost."

Just getting to this point—100,000 tons of CO2 is, after all, slightly over 1 percent of the plant's annual emissions—has taken years of work and research, many false starts, new leads, exciting breakthroughs, and thousands of hours of laboratory testing and analysis. On the other hand, it wasn't until 1998, a mere decade ago, that the Department of Energy formally carved out a budget for this type of work.

Tags:
energy policy and climate change,
global warming,
pollution,
carbon dioxide,
coal,
air pollution,
environment,
energy

Reader Comments Read all comments (26)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I don't doubt that the technology is attainable. I do have reservations as to whether or not it can be sequestered Safely into the ground. The coal industry already has a very very long history of contaminating ground water. Instead of wasting so much time on a fuel that will be gone in 100 years why not focus on more sustainable energy producers. If you haven't already, look up liquid fluoride thorium reactors. That is if you like a meltdown proof, waste mitigating, anti-prolific, domestic energy source that could fuel us on it's own for thousands of years.

Derrick of WA 12:58AM June 19, 2011

Wind and Sun are nice but they will never account for more than 5-10% of energy needs.

Try flying a multi-ton passenger plane using the sun. Not gonna happen. Trying getting peak electric output using the sun when it is cloudy. Not gonna happen.

We should be encouraging companies like Bixby that take advantage of coal which we have abundantly here in the USA. We import way too much oil. It is too bad that Bixby is forced to go to China to develop and sell its products. The Obama administration sucks when it comes to US energy independence. The Chinese take real action and are serious about clean coal technology.

Bixby got at least 2 new orders from China in July.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=32573053

http://www.ifandp.com/article/003925.html

Go Bixby!

Jim Smith of IL 12:09PM August 02, 2010

everyone hating on clean coal needs to remember back in the past. 100 years ago the thought of flying was for the birds, the internet, who we all depend on, was not even a concept, and the world had no fear of nuclear weapons. You try and say coal is "dirty" but you know nothing of the technology that bixby possesses. Yeah wind and solar sounds good but i live in seattle where it is neither windy or sunny and clean coal not only makes sense it makes dollars too.

kevin of WA 2:07PM June 23, 2010

Subscribe Today

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

advertisement

Do you believe that global warming is happening?

View Results

Washington Whispers

Duggar Mom Mad at Susan G. Komen

Michelle Duggar upset Susan G. Komen Foundation continues to support Planned Parenthood.

advertisement