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, innovation and invention, and migration. 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 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). 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 increase the cost of energy anywhere from 2.5 cents to 4 cents/kWh, which, in this time of economic hardship, is a difficult proposition to make (Carbon Capture Research). And the cost of capturing carbon is only three fourths the total additional costs including capture, storage, transportation and sequestration. The Sierra Club estimates that the cost of coal power would be raised 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 not 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). The statement that any progress is better than no progress might be true; however, an expensive technology used to “clean” a dirty, fossil fuel-based energy source doesn’t seem worth the hype. Not, at least, at this point.
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, 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). So while this part of the process is feasible, it raises doubt about whether it is environmentally ethical, or whether it would create further problems in the future.
President Obama supports clean coal technology under his energy plan and through its development and implementation he hopes to create 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 continues, but some fundamental facts are not addressed, including the downsides of coal itself.
While coal may be 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, 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 surface mining, also known as mountain top removal, where the tops of mountains in Appalachia are literally removed to get at coal that is close to the surface, has altered the landscape of the area forever.
Still an 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. Eight five percent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuel resources, and clean coal technology will simply perpetuate that use. If clean coal technology were to be invested in on a short term scale, and developed implemented as a temporary solution to cut back on carbon emissions, while continuing to develop new renewable, sustainable energy sources that could meet the world’s energy needs—that would be a hopeful proposition. But to implement the technology good deal of research is still necessary, placing the realization of such “clean coal” years off into the future. Right now, clean coal doesn’t exist, and it probably never will. 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.
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.
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.
Kaiti,
ReplyDeleteGood draft, well-researched. Is carbon sequestration the only game going in clean coal? If yes this is surprising.
You deftly muster arguments and data against faith in this tech and your rhetoric and tone is pretty balanced.
The problem goes beyond the US--China is building a coal fired power plant every week! This means that although clean coal tech may be a red herring, current use of coal demands something--some way to reduce emissions and perhaps a coal tax. Maybe you could work that angle a bit more.
Dr R
"migration" ?