Peak Oil News

 

 
Menu
 News
 Search
 Topics
 Stories Archive
 Submit News
 Discussions
 Code of Conduct
 Forums
 Last 24 Hours
 PO 24hrs
 Peak Blog
 Ask Jane
 Resources
 About Us
 Downloads
 Web Links
 PeakWiki
 PeakPortal
 Focus Search
 Peak TV
 Peak Oil Boston
 Follow on Twitter
 Members
 User Panel
 Members List
 PO Team
 JOIN!
 Private Messages
 
PeakSpeak
NICKNAME

Download TeamSpeak
What is PeakSpeak?
Peak Oil on IRC
 
Member Quotes
I think it's a status symbol to be aware of peak oil.

Revi

Suggest Quote

 
Photo Album
Submit Photo
Peakoil.com is You!


member photos
 
Links

Beason Law Firm
Net App Training
Aaron
 
Why Clean Coal Is Years Away
Production; Extraction; Exploration

Coal is here to stay, but efforts to cut emissions are ambitious, expensive, and have largely stumbled

America runs on coal. It's cheap, plentiful (at least for another 100 years or so), and comfortingly domestic. Two hundred years ago, it powered the industrial revolution. Today, it spits out nearly half of the country's electricity.

Coal's problems, however, are getting to be so big and serious that they are not just overshadowing the industry but threatening to render it obsolete. About 80 percent of the electricity sector's carbon dioxide emissions come from burning coal. A price on CO2 pollution, which Congress might impose as early as this year, is expected to be so costly that the mere prospect of it is already shaking things up. Some states have banned new coal plants, and many companies are canceling their plans in other places.

The industry's greatest hope for survival, as far as CO2 emissions go, is a work-in-progress technological arsenal known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. With all the makings—and risk—of a classic American gamble, it is in some ways the energy equivalent of missile defense. It's ambitious, expensive, intricate, and wildly controversial.

Cue the requisite political theatrics in Washington and, behind them, more serious questions about the promise of "clean coal" versus the reality. Last fall, at a campaign rally, then Sen. Barack Obama said, "Clean coal technology is something that can make America energy independent." The coal industry itself is spending millions of dollars on ads—placed in newspapers, pasted to public buses, and shellacked across subway station entryways—that boast of its commitment to "clean coal technology." Environmentalists have aggressively volleyed back. Clean coal, they say, doesn't exist.

It would be helpful if everyone were using the same definition. The term "clean coal," though alliteratively pleasing, is far from straightforward. Besides CO2, coal plants emit mercury, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides. What doesn't go into the air often ends up in the ground as fly ash, a sludgelike material that became big news last year when a retaining wall at an ash dump in Tennessee suddenly gave way, releasing thousands of pounds of waste into people's front yards. So, it's not just CO2 that's problematic. In fact, in the early 1990s, clean coal referred almost exclusively to efforts aimed at curbing nitrogen and sulfur pollution. Today, clean coal has morphed to mean coal from a plant that doesn't emit CO2. And it doesn't exist yet.

US News & World Report

Posted on Wednesday, March 18 @ 19:04:27 PDT by coyote
 
Related Links
· More about Production; Extraction; Exploration
· News by coyote


Most read story about Production; Extraction; Exploration:
Does Thermal Depolymerization Solve the Problem of Peak Oil?

 
Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad

 
Options

 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly