Both candidates tout "Clean Coal" -- but it doesn't exist!

The Greenwash Brigade

Holy crap. Is the onslaught of “clean coal” internet ads driving anyone else nuts? You can’t open a news website without being subjected to greenwash about the benefits of coal. “It’s what powers America.” No duh! Coal is responsible for a majority of carbon emissions. That’s the problem! It’s like touting grain alcohol as a cure to alcoholism.

Talk about lipstick on a pig. “Clean Coal” is apparently an oxymoron that both party’s candidates can support. Saying it’s clean doesn’t make it clean. Come on Barack, come on John. Can one of you show some leadership on this issue and stop parroting the coal industry’s coal-is-great message? Coal mining is an environmental disaster and coal burning is a climate change disaster.

The technology simply doesn’t exist. We’re decades away from Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). The Energy Department just pulled the plug on the $1.8 billion FutureGen project, previously slated to be the first coal-fired plant with CCS.

Architecture 2030’s report, “The 2030 Blueprint, Solving Climate Change Saves Billions,” reveals that our buildings are responsible for three quarters of our electricity use. The report calculates that building energy efficiency can “produce” electricity (by reducing demand) at 1/6th the cost of Coal with CCS (and one fifth the cost of nuclear).

While coal with CCS is at least 20 years out and a single nuclear plant takes 8 to 12 years to get online, energy efficiency measures can be implemented today - at today’s prices with off-the-shelf materials, appliances and equipment.

October 27, 2008 by Jim Nicolow
8 comments

tags: 2030 Blueprint clean coal

Comments (8)

Brian | Respond
October 28, 2008 3:10 PM PT

I think part of the problem is the narrative direction of "Clean Coal" isn't stated as moving toward reductions in carbon dioxide emissions but in working toward reducing pollutants. By all current standards CO2 isn't classified as a pollutant and therefore reducing it won't make coal any "cleaner" in the eyes of most people. Unfortunately they can point to improvements in pollutant reduction because they've gone from deplorable environmental practices in the 70s to merely poor environmental practices now. From the America's Power website: "...today’s coal-based generating fleet is 70% cleaner on the basis of regulated emissions per unit of energy produced." So it is a bit of misdirection, but I don't see it as any worse than claiming solar and wind power will reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

Janne Flisrand | Respond
October 28, 2008 5:40 PM PT

Brian - in April of 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and that the EPA has the authority to regulate it. It appears the Supreme Court agrees with Jim.

While I'm personally excited to link to a Supreme Court opinion, I can't actually comprehend the ruling, so here's a more comprehensible New York Times article about the decision.

Brian | Respond
October 29, 2008 2:23 PM PT

Unfortunately the ruling only applies to motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. And only if the EPA choose to enact tight enough emissions standards for it to matter. The ruling is essentially a Brown v. Board of Education ruling for the environmental movement in that change is enacted but enforcement is left to the Executive branch. As it states in the article you've provided, other rulings in regards to power plants are still pending with a large legal and regulatory gap remaining even if challenges were to make it through.

But honestly, I think a higher emphasis should be placed on the instituting of green practices (energy usage reduction, etc) rather than the development of green technologies and the necessitation of a stronger regulatory environment for the green movement to succeed. It's only a concern if coal is "clean" if we have to bring online 5 to 10 coal plants a year to meet energy demand.

StuWhat | Respond
October 30, 2008 4:50 PM PT

I don't know guys. There have been recent advancements in bioconversion of coal. They use enzymes found only in termites' stomachs to break down the coal into various products, but most notably hydrogen. Are we really that far away from effective hydrogen fuel cell technology, which will be made even more sustainable with advancements in this new bioconversion stuff?

Jim | Respond
October 31, 2008 11:00 AM PT

I recognize that there continue to be exciting new developments that offer hope; however, it seems risky to base long-term policy on that potential. Renewable energy systems are state-of-the-shelf, rapidly deployable, and cost competitive with nuclear or coal with CCS today. And with renewables, you don't have to overcome the pollution problem of coal or nuclear (global warming emissions or radioactive waste).

RadCenter | Respond
October 31, 2008 3:48 PM PT

What makes "clean coal" an oxymoron is that even if successful CCS technology were developed, it wouldn't negate the fact that entire mountaintops need to be removed to extract the coal in the first place. How much CO2 and methane are released when the soil is disturbed in this manner? How much fossil fuel must be burned by the machinery that disturbs it and then later "restores" it?

Last night I attended a rally for the Obama/Biden campaign in Allentown, PA (Joe Biden was there). There was a pile of "Clean Coal" baseball hats by the entrance for those who wanted to take one. I suspect that they were contributed by our local electric utility, PPL. I didn't see a single person wearing or carrying any. And this is a coal state.

I love Barack, but he needs to abandon this false hope that coal will be anything but an environment-killer.

Jim | Respond
December 5, 2008 2:19 PM PT

Great video about the reality of "Clean Coal":
http://www.thisisreality.org

name | Respond
June 18, 2009 10:49 AM PT

Where it is possible to buy them?

Tools

Meet the Greenwash Brigade

Our hand-picked environmental professionals, each part of the Public Insight Network, are on the hunt for "greenwash" as they examine eco-friendly claims by companies, governments and other groups. They ask tough questions about the mainstreaming of green, from the perspectives of people in the trenches who are focused on these issues 24/7.

Jim Nicolow is a nationally recognized expert on sustainable design and leads the sustainability initiative for Lord, Aeck & Sargent, overseeing the incorporation of sustainable design strategies and features into the firm’s design projects. He is a LEED® Accredited Professional with extensive knowledge of the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED rating system.

Janne K. Flisrand has worked as an affordable housing and urban planning research consultant for five years, primarily supporting local non-profits. Her focus is on transit, transit-oriented design, affordable housing, and sustainability. Currently, she’s the program coordinator for Minnesota Green Communities, a program promoting affordable, healthy, sustainably built housing throughout Minnesota.

Dennis Markatos-Soriano recently completed a Master's in Public Affairs at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School. He is now launching Sustainable Energy Transition (SET) to help individuals and institutions move from dependence on oil and gas to an efficient use of renewables. Previously, he co-founded SURGE (Students United for a Responsible Global Environment), which aims to bring young progressives together across issues of environmental and social justice throughout North Carolina and beyond. In the summer of 2006, he helped to start a small green company, Greenway Pedicabs, to provide a greenhouse gas-free transportation option for people in the Triangle of North Carolina.

Heidi Siegelbaum is a principal with Calyx Sustainable Tourism and works primarily on advancing sustainable tourism practices. She also specializes in science translation, cross-border indicators with Canada, cross-disciplinary planning and environmental technical assistance to businesses. Previously, she was in-house legal counsel for EPA for industrial chemicals and biotechnology and the senior performance measure analyst with the Washington State Department of Ecology. She is on the technical advisory committee of the Seattle Culinary Academy and a long standing member of the Chefs Collaborative.

NOTE: The opinions expressed by the Greenwash Brigade bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of American Public Media or its employees. American Public Media is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the Greenwash Brigade bloggers.

Marketplace

The Greenwash Brigade