Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTime to Bury the 'Clean Coal' Myth
Who came up with the term "clean coal"? It is the most toxic phrase in the greenwash lexicon. George W Bush, by promising to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the pursuit of advanced "clean" coal technologies, certainly popularised it. But I'd love to know where it came from. Any thoughts out there?
It is, of course, oxymoronic. Coal is about acid rain and peasouper smogs, asthma and mercury contamination, radioactive waste emissions and ripping apart mountains, killing trees, lung cancer and, of course, global warming.
Coal emits more carbon dioxide for every unit of energy generated than any other fuel. Sure you can clean it up a bit -- though the toxins you've taken out of the ground have to go somewhere. But clean coal? Just say no.
But the phrase rolls on. Google offers more than a million web pages. We will hear a lot more of it as the UK government wrestles with whether to approve a new billion-pound "cleaner coal" power station -- Britain's first coal plant for three decades -- at Kingsnorth in Kent.
E.ON, the company that wants to build the station, says Kingsnorth will be "ready" to capture carbon dioxide emissions before they go up the stack. Great, except there is no such technology right now.
This phrase "clean coal" has developed a life of its own thanks to remorseless commercial propagandising. This year a coalition of US coal mining companies and electricity utilities called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (and recently renamed the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity) is paying the advertising agency R&R Partners $35m (£22m) to promote "clean coal" through advertising and other promotional activity.
This is up there with the safe cigarette and "atoms for peace". The industry is fighting back against growing scientific calls to outlaw coal burning, and the rejection of dozens of coal power plants proposals by communities across the US, with several states effectively banning them.
You may have noticed the campaign's effect. Both John McCain and Barack Obama support clean coal. It's neat. Who could be against clean coal? It allows them to oppose dirty coal without antagonising anyone. You may not have spotted that Americans for Balanced Energy Choices sponsored two early presidential debates, during which -- guess what -- no questions were asked about global warming.
And here in Britain you can see the impact of the new mantra. In Putney, in southwest London, there is a branch of the International Energy Agency that used to be called the Coal Research Centre. It's changed its name - to the Clean Coal Centre. Thanks to its "industrial sponsors" it is able to "provide unbiased information on the sustainable use of coal worldwide." Right. Like the fact there isn't any?
Is clean coal possible in future? Well, if you mean could we capture carbon dioxide emissions and bury them somewhere out of harm's way --- in old coal seams or oilfields or salt mines -- yes, it is possible. The former British chief scientist Sir David King called it "the only hope for mankind".
But the most authoritative study, The Future of Coal, published last year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), concluded that the first commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant wouldn't come on stream until 2030 at the earliest.
Last year too, the Edison Electric Institute, which represents most US power generators, admitted to a House Select Committee in Washington DC that commercial deployment will require 25 years research costing at least $20bn.
And that was before the US administration last December canned the biggest R&D project on the technology anywhere in the world. It said it was too costly and hinted that, for all their green talk, industry wasn't prepared to back it.
Oh, and if the technology did one day work -- and could demonstrate that it could keep liquefied carbon dioxide buried for the thousands of years necessary -- it would take decades to build the vast infrastructure needed to deploy on a large scale. Infrastructure that could only be paid for by maintaining a vast dirty coal-burning industry for the duration.
But politicians can be very ill-read if it suits them. The mythology of clean coal has penetrated deep into their thinking round the world because it is so convenient. In Australia, the new green-minded prime minister Kevin Rudd is super-keen on "clean coal" because he imagines it allows him to promise both to meet Australia's Kyoto protocol pledges and to assuage the concerns of industry.
Coal provides most of Australia's electricity and is it most valuable export. But you can't meet current emissions targets with a technology 20 years over the horizon.
Similarly German chancellor Angela Merkel, though a chemist by training, has fallen for the hope that she can both build dozens of new coal-fired power stations and meet her promise to cut German CO2 emissions by 40% by 2020. It won't happen.
The British government is as deep into clean-coal cuckoo land as any of them. John Hutton, until recently business secretary, claimed that a third of British electricity could be generated using CCS by 2030 -- clearly pie in the sky. He should fire the adviser who wrote that for him. The mirage of clean coal is designed to coax the world into maintaining its addiction to the most dangerous (and profuse) fossil fuel of all. My bet is that if Kingsnorth is approved, it will never deliver so much as a tonne of carbon dioxide to anywhere other than the atmosphere.
How many more green scams, cons and generous slices of wishful thinking are out there? Please send your examples of greenwash to greenwash@guardian.co.uk
17 Comments so far
Show AllOkay, I am in grad school for natural resource and vehemently opposed to the concept of clean coal. I also work closely with Appalachian groups who have been tormented by MTR pratices. Yes, it's a complete greenwash. I blog against it often and voted against Obama in the primaries mostly because of the liquid coal issue. HOWEVER, I do have to say something about this in regards to the presidential election. If you live in an all-out blue state or red state, by all means, vote your principles (in fact, I probably will vote for Nader). But, you know, working with these MTR groups, their worst fear right now is a McCain presidency. The people in these groups (or at least the people I have spoken to) find Obama open to discussion and making the right decision, but think "it's finished" for them with a McCain presidency. And though I also think Sierra Club has sold out, I do have to say as you all sit around ripping the environmental NGO sector a new one, you should remember that the reason Obama recanted his coal-to-liquid bill was because environmental groups went into an uproar (including Sierra) and wouldn't release the pressure until Obama let go of the idea. This to me signifies Obama is indebted to progressive and environmental constituencies and willing to change his stance when pressed. McCain has no such indebtedness to those kind of groups.
I think most environmental groups are aware of some of Obama's flip-flops on issues like offshore drilling and such and are wary of this. But in an election season, I think they are hedging their bets and going with the person willing to do the 80% cuts in GHG-emissions by 2050. Having worked in the environmental non-profit sector a few years back (not SC), and still having some connections, I think they plan on waiting until after the election to start pressuring Obama on these questionable stances.
I am not an Obama-worshipper, and I take issues with many of his platforms; but I also take issue with the slippery slope argument that one is the same as the other. People said that about Gore and Bush, and where are we now with global warming? How many Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers are dead? From everything I read, and my experiences working w/both offices on environmental/social issues, much more people stand to suffer in a McCain presidency than an Obama one. And that inclues people in Appalachia.
Isn't coal that stuff that burns thick black noxious smoke and causes all sorts of terrible respiratory conditions? The stuff coming out of those old trains back in Murder on the Orient Express days, yeah?
Whew.
Obama better screw his head on straight and take a whiff of the burning fumes of America's future. Lots of luck on those flying cars.
- Insurgent
Notice how Obama supporters don't seem to be commenting on this article?
Vote third party, cut to the chase, vote the change you want to see.
Yea, I have. What can they say?
I'm still so mad about the bailout now and how the money is being used that I'm shocked it didn't drive home the point to the DPAs just how worthless Obama and most of the other dems are. But the bailout of the rich is just the tip of the iceberg... there's the environmental degradation and lost of flora and fauna at breakneck speed...
It's funny how the Sierra Club continues to push for supporting Obama and urges us to vote for him. I just got an email from them last time and and then suddenly decided I had to unsubscribe from their mailing list. In the very same page, they claim they're against clean coal and for us to support Obama. Wow, is all I thought. Oh the hypocrisy of it as Obama has stated his support for "clean" coal. Now why doesn't the Sierra Club call him out on that? or call him out on anything? what about his intention to push for nuclear energy and for drilling now? nothing...at least be honest about where he stands.
In Denver in August, it was obvious.
Big Coal had bought up billboards around town touting Clean Coal. And during his speech in front of the adoring crowd at the football stadium, Saint Obama made a point of breifly mentioning alternative energy and then in the same breath promised big new subsidies to Big Coal for this "clean coal" myth. That was the same breath where Saint Obama also promised big new subsidies for nuclear power.
The Sierra Club sold out years ago. And like all Democrats, they talk out of both sides of their mouth at once. But, you watch the actions to see where they really stand, and as they take actions to support the candidate who wants to give money to the coal and nuclear industries, you know where they really stand.
I cancelled any connection I had with the Sierra Club ages ago.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
Yes, it's good that I never officially became a member yet and was only thinking about it because a good friend of mine does lots of work for them in her local branch. I think she realizes that the Sierra Club should not be heavily supporting Obama, but she's been involved and active for quite some time now and feels it her duty to change the world in some way responsibly. She does honest volunteer work and travels for them, never stridently voicing her approval for Obama these days or anything. I don't have to follow suit of course. I stopped going to the meetings where most of the folks seem to be card-carrying Obama supporters, where they'd bring some meat/dairy dish to indulge in, all the while calling themselves "environmentalists." etc.
I also noticed that there's a paucity of youth involvement. Most of the active members were middle to old aged and set in their ways. I'll never forget the reaction I got from some of the members earlier this year during and after my factory farming presentation. Talk about a slap in the face.
Clean Coal proponents always ignore the MINING of that coal and the enviromental damage it causes.
Even if they are able to sequester 100 percent of the CO2 and other contaminants that are released when coal is burned for energy, One look at Mountaintop removal in the Appalachians should convince anyone that coal is NOT clean.
What ever happened to Blue Coal? Maybe Peabody can stick hydrogen atoms on coal (methane) then the 'clean' coal power plant can strip the hydrogen off, burn it and return the coal to Peapody for burial. And this whole Rube Goldberg machine can be solar powered. Yeah, that should be neat and clean and terribly profitable (expensive) for the corporations.
Perhapa I'll just get a solar roof and a battery.
I posted a version of this a couple of months ago, but I thought I would share it again. It is my idea to counter those obnoxious ads for "clean coal".
Scene: Suburban kitchen will all American housewife (maybe Tina Fey) looking out the window with the sounds of happy children playing in the background.
Housewife: Our sandbox used to be filled will sand. But then I found out that sand is just another form of DIRT. Would you want your children playing in the dirt? That is why we dumped the sand and filled our sandbox with good American Clean Coal. Now I can rest assured that my children can remain healthy. And America has enough Clean Coal reserves to keep our sandbox filled for more than 300 years. [pause] Children! It is time to come in for lunch.
Scene: Door opens and several coughing children, covered head to toe with black coal dust, pour into the kitchen.
First child: Mom, do we need to wash up?
Housewife: No need to wash. That is not dirt. It is just healthly American Clean Coal.
Announcer: Clean Coal. America’s future. Etc.
Sioux Rose
BYSTANDER: Works for me! Reminds me of a little parody on Western values and advertising that circulated briefly in the late 60's: Groove Tube... example, "Brown 25. It's from Uranus..."
&YYY&
It will take thousands of years to prove that clean coal really works.
It only takes a few years in power to prove politicians are jerks.
The clean coal companies make sure the politicians get their perks.
As with even more carbon dioxide and toxins, the atmosphere murks.
The plagues of thirsty, hungry fiendish humans roam the earth,
Burning oil, gas and coal, and killing to defend their turf,
Fighting over possessions and power, while nature declines to death,
Frightened to admit that time and life are short, and there is not much left.
O'Bama's "clean coal" will require a 10% to 40% increase in mining and combustion of coal to power the "cleaning" processes according to greenpeace. The heavy metals, sulfur and other minerals "cleaned" from the coal will have to be stored somewhere, maybe a portion reused in industry, but mostly dangerous. Trying to store the CO2 emissions from electric power generation as a gas or liquid is absurd. It's another one of those hyper-industrial pursuits driven by a desire to conquer nature instead of live in harmony and respect for nature. Too bad O'Bama is talking about such a dubious energy source. We should be reducing our energy consumption and switching over to renewables, at low cost. Everyone knows this. It comes down to who you vote for in the elections. Vote third party for local zero-carbon energy production and conservation policies.
Obama is a "clean coal" candidate; yet another reason not to vote for him.
"Clean coal" is destructive. Period.
Lower your carbon footprint and the demand for energy.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424120953.htm
As a parent of one of the 1 in 150 autistic children (and rising) born each year, I urge us to re-think of coal as anything but clean.
Agreed! Let us also bury the "clean coal" candidate: http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2008/03/08/news/casper/doc47d2397a06235615103300.txt