The “Economist” looks at the difficult future of carbon capture and storage technology. The folks at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a PR front group for the coal industry, are working hard to get us to believe that coal can be clean. Their funders want us to believe it so badly that they have supplied tens of millions of dollars to run commercials on network television during the news hours, the Super Bowl, and presidential debates; ACCCE has launch an aggressive online advertising campaign on news websites, Gmail sidebars and through Google Adworks that all lead you to their website AmericasPower.org. The website’s latest tag lines borrow from the Obama campaign saying (I’m paraphrasing) “‘Yes We Can’ capture carbon from coal plants”.

I used to not understand what they meant by ‘clean coal’. It certainly doesn’t exist so what do they even mean? I thought their whole goal was just to put the words ‘clean’ and ‘coal’ together in the media so many times that people just associated the two automatically. I still think this is a large part of their strategy however, more and more, I’ve noticed that the noxious phrase that I loathe to repeat is being tied specifically to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

While there are many reasons to believe CCS at best 15 or so years away and at worst a complete false solution, a lot of the criticism of the experimental technology originally came from environmental groups but now is coming from economists and the economy itself. In the March 5th, 2009 edition of the Economist takes a good look at the issue saying:

Politicians are pinning their hopes for delivery from global warming on a technology that is not quite airtight.

Unfortunately for the coal industry’s PR front group all they really have to push is alliteration, unfortunately for us they have tens of millions to do it. Fortunately for us, we have reality on our side, whereas they live in a fantasy world as their VP Joe Lucas pointed out so delicately. The Economist article “Trouble In Store” delves into facts about the finances of carbon capture (emphasis mine):

The problem with CCS is the cost. The chemical steps in the capture consume energy, as do the compression and transport of the carbon dioxide. That will use up a quarter or more of the output of a power station fitted with CCS, according to most estimates…Estimates of the total cost vary widely. America’s government, which had vowed to build a prototype plant called FutureGen in partnership with several big resources firms, scrapped the project last year after the projected cost rose to $1.8 billion…Analysts assume that the price of emissions will rise, as governments impose tighter restrictions, and that the price of CCS will fall, as engineers learn how to do it more cheaply…But these estimates entail some generous assumptions.

Not only would carbon capture be expensive, it also has some inherent risks that need to be ironed out. Carbon Dioxide may leak from certain geological structures, eventually releasing all the carbon dioxide right into the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide forms an acid when it dissolves in water. This acid can react with minerals to form carbonates, locking away the carbon in a relatively inert state. But it can also eat through the man-made seals or geological strata intended to keep it in place.

Spills would also be a health risk, since carbon dioxide is heavier than air, and so can build up in low-lying or poorly ventilated spots.

Fortunately, again for us, our side of the issue has gotten a hold of some money to push commercials like the ones by the Cohen brothers. While they mention nothing of the extraction side of the coal industry, hopefully they start to put doubt in the minds of Americans and maybe even some politicians who have taken the word of the coal industry at face value due to lack of exposure or education on the issue. Certainly with articles like this coming out from the Economist the debate (if you can even call it a debate) is reaching far and wide and the facts seem to be permeating in the media.

Reality: 1, Joe Lucas’ fantasy world: 0
Well, at least this round…

Let it be duly noted that even if CCS technology becomes available, and carbon is taken out of the picture, coal cannot ever be considered clean. The extractive process alone denies it so. In order to burn coal for electricity mountains are literally being leveled. Billions of gallons of toxic sludge (a byproduct of the processing of coal) are being put behind earthen dams near schools and communities. This toxic sludge is even being injected into the ground causing water tables which communities depend on for bathing and drinking to turn black or orange with contamination. The ash after the coal is burned is poisonous and has been known to spill into rivers or contaminate local water tables here in Virginia even if ‘properly contained’ in a golf course in Hampton Roads. Its a myth through and through, carbon capture or no carbon capture.

If there is a way to capture carbon, lets do it. Global warming is no joke and we need to act. However, lets NOT pretend we can capture carbon and build more coal plants anyway. Cart before the horse, counting eggs before they are hatched, whatever your analogy is building more coal plants now is completely crazy and a slap in the face to our friends in Appalachian coal country. With coal its not ‘cradle to grave’, its diapers to depends.