Clean coal: climate solution or oxymoron?

[wtmusic]

(Another installment in wtmusic's continuing series, "The Republicans own the US House of Corpresentatives So It's Time to Throw Up Our Hands and Say, "What Choice Do We Have But To Cave on Everything Worth Fighting For?". Here Marc Gunther, a contributing editor at Fortune magazine, presents the big business point of view.)

"One reason why the energy business is so fascinating is that smart, thoughtful and well-meaning people can look at the same facts and come to dramatically different conclusions."

He goes on to quote an article in the Atlantic:

"To environmentalists, “clean coal” is an insulting oxymoron. But for now, the only way to meet the world’s energy needs, and to arrest climate change before it produces irreversible cataclysm, is to use coal—dirty, sooty, toxic coal—in more-sustainable ways. The good news is that new technologies are making this possible."

<>

"'Emotionally, we would all like to think that wind, solar, and conservation will solve the problem for us,' David Mohler of Duke Energy told me. 'Nothing will change, our comfort and convenience will be the same, and we can avoid that nasty coal. Unfortunately, the math doesn’t work that way.'”

"The math doesn't work that way." Now I know why Gunther thinks David Mohler is one of those smart people - he "does the math". But somehow the well-meaning part still doesn't add up - considering Duke Energy earns $12B/year while releasing 36 million pounds of toxic chemicals into the air. Maybe I just need to read the whole article. But I can't.


Duke Energy Center in Charlotte, NC.

http://theenergycollective.com/marcgunther/47280/clean-coal-climate-solution-or-oxymoron?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[Drale]

1. Oxymoron

There is no such thing as "clean coal" and saying "clean coal" is like saying smart tea bagger, you just cant use the two words together.

[TheMadMonk]

3. Yes and no. What is spoken of as "clean coal" is perfectly feasible.

However, in a market driven largely by profit, the chances of "unintended consequences" are unfortunately high. And because it is seen more as a dirty industry than a dangerous one, attitudes that have long permeated the industry will continue to stress maximal profit and sub-minimal compliance.


Excuse me, but just how truly pathetic is the environmental movement, when at every turn it measures all potential paths to greenhouse mittigation against the negative outcomes of missmanagement. You always seem assume that standard operating procedure will always be to sacrifice safety in the interests of profit.

There is in fact some truth in this argument, but only if you cede them the regulatory ground. Where regulators are allowed or made to do their jobs, things don't go wrong nearly as often, and when they do are far less likely to precipitate a catastrophic failure cascade.


You want change? Then stop trying to fight proffered "green(ish)" technologies on the grounds of what might go wrong if misshandled or simply unforseeable consequences.

In essence stop trying to tell industry how they will not conduct their business, but work in conjunction with them to tell them how you will allow them to continue to conduct their business. For Big Coal this might mean a move to gassification, or a complete fuel switch to natual gas as an interim measure. One way or another we're going to continue to generate massive (if hopefully reducing) quantities of CO2 for some time to come. We NEED somewhere we can put it that ISN'T the atmosphere. Not sequestering CO2 is not an option. So help figure out the best way to do it.

[wtmusic]

4. CCS will never, ever work.

Too expensive and too easy to circumvent (release CO2 into the atmosphere, pocket the money). Thus coal, which generates more CO2 than any other fuel per kWh, will never be "clean" when it comes to global warming mitigation.

How power companies "will not conduct business" or how they will "be allowed to conduct business" is a completely arbitrary and semantic distinction. A complete switch to natural gas would help, but you'll notice that that's not even part of the discussion. Nor is making sacrifices in our "comfort and convenience", and unfortunately there will have to be some.

Bottom line: power is going to get more expensive if we want to save the planet. Is humankind willing (and able) to make the necessary short-term sacrifices? Not very promising, but I'll remain optimistic as it's the only chance we've got.

[Nihil]

5. And *that* is the point that the "clean"-coal liers are desperate to gloss over ...

> CCS will never, ever work.
> Too expensive and too easy to circumvent (release CO2 into the atmosphere,
> pocket the money). Thus coal, which generates more CO2 than any other fuel
> per kWh, will never be "clean" when it comes to global warming mitigation.

:grr:

[joshcryer]

2. Lie.