Unveiling the Oxymoron: Clean Coal (Revision)

Kaiti Sparks
Dr. A. Rouzie
English 308J
9 February 2009

Unveiling the Oxymoron: Clean Coal

An oxymoron is a contradictory statement, a combination of incongruous words that strike a discord. Examples? “Act naturally,” “jumbo shrimp,” “deafening silence,” “clearly misunderstood.” A new phrase might fit this category. Clean coal. It sounds fresh, resourceful, creative, and vaguely possible. That hope of possibility is what has gotten the government, the media, and even some of the public so hooked on this sound-bite. Clean coal. It seems like it can’t be possible, yet there are so many saying it is. Well is it? Or is it just another oxymoron. The thing about oymorons is that they generally have some truth behind them; they are a team of words using contrast and comparison to define something, and it’s that ambiguous concept behind the words that is most important. Is a deafening silence really deafening? Is clean coal really clean? The more important question is: Is this “clean coal” technology really worth all the hype that those who support it make it out to be? This is significant, and an answer should be weighed carefully. It should be formed by reason, by logic, by evidence, and then after those things, clean coal will prove itself worthy of our faith or not.

So what is all the hype about? The world is a continually changing place, it cannot be denied, what with globalization, economic booms and busts, and innovation and invention. But one thing that most humans agree should not be changing so rapidly is the climate. The world can no longer deny the fact that increased greenhouse gas emissions are speeding up a natural process at an unnatural rate, and one of the biggest offenders is carbon dioxide.

Almost half of the United States’ energy needs are met by burning coal, and around a third of global carbon emissions come from those coal-burning power plants (Golomb 2). The U.S. prides itself on this resource, with a quarter of the world’s coal reserves located mainly in Appalachia, out west, and in several interior states (“Coal”). China, the country with the second largest total carbon emissions, has been installing coal power plants at rapid speed. Coal plants that create “about three times the total electricity capacity of Britain” were built just from 2004 to 2007 in China (Yang). While China is also utilizing solar and wind power, coal power supplies about 70 percent of the country’s total energy needs (Yang). Obviously a solution is needed, and some have hyped up clean coal as just that solution.

The idea of “clean coal” is centered on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon, by something called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), making the process of burning coal essentially emissions free (Golomb 1). There are several gasification processes, including pre-combustion capture, which separates the various molecules and allow carbon dioxide (CO2) to be concentrated and captured and the remaining hydrogen molecules to make energy (IEA 3). Then the carbon is transported and sequestered, or injected, either underground into abandoned coal seams, or oil and gas reservoirs, or deep underwater in the oceanic reservoirs (Herzog 3).

This sounds like a great idea in theory, but many questions arise at the thought. Does it really work? How much does it cost? How effective is it? Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facilities are based on this concept, but none are yet to utilize the idea of carbon capture and sequestration. The Polk Power Plant in Tampa, FL, one of General Electric’s showcase sites, uses IGCC technology to capture gases such as nitrous oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) in high percentages, but carbon capture has yet to be implemented (“Cleaner Coal Technology”). One reason is the cost. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the cost of carbon capture alone could raise the cost of energy anywhere from 2.5 cents to 4 cents per kilowatt hour, which, in this time of economic hardship, is a difficult proposition to make (“Carbon Capture Research”). Additional costs would be added for the storage, transportation and sequestration of carbon. The Sierra Club estimates that the cost of coal power would increase between 40 and 90 percent by capturing and storing carbon (Snell). Even if it were possible, companies would have a hard time implementing such technology when there would be no economic gain.

In countries like Norway and Sweden this problem is solved by charging a carbon tax. Many, including, it appears, the Sierra Club, support this idea of a tax on carbon-polluting energy sources (Snell). In 1996 in Norway, the Sleipner Project was started as a commercial example of carbon capture and sequestration technology, and was made economically feasible because of their carbon tax (Herzog 4). So at least one real example exists in actuality, but it isn’t the miracle that it appears. While this commercial application is a breakthrough and should be regarded as such, it has only dealt with about 3% of Norway’s annual carbon emissions (Herzog 4). Reducing carbon emissions is imminently important, and any progress is better than no progress; however, an expensive technology used to “clean” a dirty, fossil fuel-based energy source doesn’t seem worth the hype.

Another vital question that arises relates to this idea of sequestration. How safe is it to sequester consolidated carbon into reservoirs, be they geologic or oceanic? The honest answer is that no one really knows; no one knows the long term effects of such storage. Scientists have a good idea of how to safely inject the carbon, but potential effects from leakage, shifting, or accrual in the earth remain undefined (Golomb 6). It is inevitable that if carbon were to be dissolved in the ocean, the waters’ pH level would decrease, potentially affecting deep sea creatures and plants. According to one study the oceanic pH would only be lowered by .15 units if all of the human-created carbon were injected into the ocean, but even these numbers are just estimations (Golomb 6). Although the effects of such a decrease in the ocean’s pH are also unknown, a lower pH level increases the difficulty of creatures like corals, plankton, and snails to make their shells and skeletons, which they need to live (Eilperin). So while this part of the process is feasible, it raises doubt about whether sequestration is environmentally ethical, or whether it would create further problems in the future.

Another possibility for carbon sequestration, which holds more hope, is the use of biomass. While this technology is new and undergoing research, students and faculty from the Ohio University engineering department are currently working on the use of the photosynthetic process to have algae capture and dissolve carbon dioxide from power plants, producing oxygen and nitrogen (“Possible Fix”). A downside is that the algae needed to capture the carbon emitted by one power plant would “fill a building the size of Walmart,” but it could be used for biodiesel and animal feed, offsetting the associated costs (“Possible Fix”). This ingenuity has promise and deserves some further research to see if it can be actually be demonstrated in a functioning power plant.

Many believe that it is this sort of innovation and research that will develop the idea of clean coal and make it possible. Even President Obama supports clean coal technology under his energy plan and through its development and implementation he hopes to create more green jobs (“The Agenda”). This goal is laudable and would certainly create jobs, however, as has been examined, “clean coal” would first have to prove itself worthy of attention. The technology deserves applause and continues to answer more of its own questions as research ensues, but some fundamental facts about the downsides of coal itself remain to be addressed.

While coal may be seemingly abundant in the U.S., it will never have an image of being clean. The black, sooty appearance points to the obvious oxymoron perceived when thinking about clean coal. Coal ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, can be spilled or leaked from its storage, presenting serious problems as Tennessee experienced in 2008 when “enough [ash] to flood more than 3,000 acres one foot deep” spilled into nearby water sources, as reported the New York Times (Dewan). In addition, the mining that retrieves coal from its ancient beds will never be a clean process. While safety has increased in past years, 364 people were either injured or killed from mining in West Virginia alone between 1950 and 2006 (“WV Mine Disasters”). Not to mention the environmental degradation caused by surface mining. Also known as mountain top removal, the tops of mountains in Appalachia are literally removed to get at coal that is close to the surface; this altered the landscape of the area forever.

As mentioned, the U.S. has an abundance of coal. Or does it? One obvious issue remains: coal is a fossil fuel, a nonrenewable resource. Even if clean coal technologies were able to reduce carbon emissions to zero percent, it would not be the solution to the world’s energy problems, because it will eventually run out. Eighty five percent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuel resources, and clean coal technology will simply perpetuate that use (Golomb 1). Unfortunately, this lack of a solution does not eradicate the problem.

In the short term, pending further research proving the technology to be a safe option, clean coal might be a band-aid to help reduce current carbon emissions in heavy CO2 polluting countries such as the US and China, while continuing to develop new renewable, sustainable energy sources that could meet the world’s energy needs. Yet it doesn’t seem worth the millions or even billions of dollars necessary to develop, clean up, and implement a dirty fuel. A better option may be, as in Norway and Sweden, to institute a carbon tax to help alleviate the situation. In theory, by charging corporations a tax for their carbon emissions, companies would try to avert the tax by encouraging innovation and creating cleaner, renewable technology. Also, the money taxed on companies that don’t lower emissions would go into a fund to help develop new energy sources. This idea receives a lot of backlash from citizens, but there are some, including Rex Tillerson, chief executive of Exxon Mobile Corp., who say that a tax would be a “’more direct, a more transparent and a more effective approach’ to curtailing greenhouse gases” (Gold).

Still, while a carbon tax may create the funds necessary to develop and answer to the problem of the carbon dioxide emissions, clean coal is not and will never be the answer. The lack of demonstration of the technology, the need for evidence of its environmentally ethical practicability, and the facts of the dirty nature of coal and it’s nonrenewable state, are reason enough to dismiss the idea that coal could ever be clean. The term is clearly misunderstood and leaves us lacking faith in its hype.

Works Cited

“Carbon Capture Research.” U.S. Department of Energy. 6 Sept. 2007. 30 Jan. 2009 <http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/capture/index.html>.

“Cleaner Coal Technology.” Ecomagination. 2 Feb. 2009 <ge.ecomagination.com>.

“Coal.” U.S. Department of Energy. 19 Oct. 2007. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.energy.gov/energysources/coal.htm>.

Dewan, Shaila. “Tennessee Ash Flood Larger Than Initial Estimate.” The New York Times. 26 Dec. 2008. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html2>.

Eilperin, Juliet. “Growing Acidity of Oceans May Kill Corals.” Washington Post 5 July 2006: A01. 9 Feb. 2009. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400772.html>.

Gold, Russell and Ian Talley. "Exxon CEO Advocates Emissions Tax." Wall Street Journal –Eastern Edition 253.7 (2009): B3.

Golomb, Dan and Howard Herzog. “Carbon Capture and Storage from Fossil Use.” Encyclopedia of Energy. NRGY: 00422. 1 Feb. 2009 <http://web.mit.edu/coal/working_folder/pdfs/encyclopedia_of_energy.pdf>.

Herzog, Howard J. "What Future for Carbon Capture and Sequestration?" Environmental Science and Technology 35.7 (2001): 148-153. 29 Jan. 2009 <http://sequestration.mit.edu/pdf/EST_web_article.pdf>.

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. "Capturing CO2." May 2007. 1 Feb. 2009 <http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/glossies/co2capture.pdf>.

“Possible Fix for Global Warming?: Environmental Engineers Use Algae To Capture Carbon Dioxide.” Science Daily. 1 April 2007. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0407-possible_fix_for_global_warming.htm>.

Snell, Marylin B. “Can Coal Be Clean?” Sierra Club. Jan./Feb. 2007. 28 Jan. 2009 <http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp>.

“The Agenda: Energy and the Environment.” The White House. 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment>.

“WV Mine Disasters 1984 to Present.” 2 Feb. 2009 <http://www.wvminesafety.org/disaster.htm>.

Yang, Ailun. “Breaking China’s Coal Addiction.” New Internationalist no. 415 (2008), p. 26-26.