In The Blogs

Gore: Clean Coal Doesn't Exist. But Should It?

| Thu Dec. 4, 2008 10:06 AM PST

During his campaign, Obama called for clean coal technology. His website promises to "enter into public private partnerships to develop five 'first-of-a-kind' commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology." But on Thursday, Al Gore tossed a bucket of cold water on so-called "clean coal."

He launched a new coalition called the Reality Campaign, a multimillion dollar ad campaign that seeks to convince the public that clean coal—at least for now—is a myth.

Gore's goal is to counter claims that coal companies and the US Department of Energy have made about "a new generation of energy processes that sharply reduce air emissions...from coal-burning power plants," as the DoE puts it. Here's a recent ad from America's Power, a company that makes electricity from coal, that maintains clean coal technology can produce lower emissions than regular coal-burning power plants do now (which the coalition says are greater than emissions from all the cars and trucks in America):

The problem is, according to the Reality Coalition, there's no such thing yet as "clean" coal. The coalition doesn't exactly say there could never be a clean way of burning coal in the future. But they do say that the myth that clean coal already exists today allows companies like Clean Coal Technologies Inc. to misrepresent their plants' impact on the environment and make a buck while doing so.

Ultimately, there might not be a major disagreement between Gore and Obama on clean coal. Obama is only for it if it can be developed, and he acknowledges it's not here yet. The Gore campaign seems to be more concerned with now rather than later and trying to make sure that people know what Obama knows. The technology to burn coal cleanly has yet to be developed and implemented. Might Gore support clean coal technology if it ever does get off the shelf? Maybe he'll tell us that in the next ad.

Advertisement

Taylor Wiles is a senior editorial fellow at Mother Jones. For more of her stories, click here.

Comments

Submitted by davidlewis (not verified) on Sat Dec. 6, 2008 12:45 AM PST.

Gore must be aware that the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage states that what the technology industry calls "clean coal" which the IPCC calls carbon capture and storage not only exists, but the next step to full implementation is political, not scientific. I.e. they say it is ready to go and is being used commercially now in Norway where there is a tax on carbon emissions high enough to cause one big emitter out in the North sea to use it. Transport and storage of CO2 is routine in North America where it is economical to inject CO2 into old oil fields to force out a bit more oil.

Gore is way off base here. His headline message is there's no such thing as "clean coal", when what it seems he must be wanting to counteract is Big Coal's very hard to take PR campaign of touting "clean coal" as they continue to refuse to build so much as one single full scale plant anywhere in the world using the technology. They don't build because they don't want to pay, not because the technology isn't ready to go.

You can see by your summation of what Gore has to say how misleading what he is doing is. You've concluded the technology has yet to be developed, whereas if you read the IPCC report, or even ask Gore about that report, you'll see that the problem with this technology is there are no government regulations forcing industry to implement it, no price on carbon that would force them to put it in, because so far there isn't political agreement that we should pay the 2 - 3 cents a kw/hr more for baseload electricity that implementing it would cost.

I think Gore is pandering to a group of activists who are so upset with Big Coal's PR campaign they want to kill the entire industry now. It doesn't make a lot of sense, as the world is using coal, the US has the biggest reserves in the world, Obama is saying its time for America to show some leadership to the world on some front other than pointless war, so what is wrong with the US showing the world how to use coal now that we know we have a carbon dioxide problem?

I guess it is easier to dump on Big Coal than it is to call for the politically very difficult step of putting a price on carbon emissions that would be high enough to cause the changes that are necessary. Activists don't have to be that concerned about what power source is developed in an innovative free market economy like the US. if we put a price on carbon, used the revenue to offset income tax, as Gore's often touted "tax what we burn, not what we earn" plan says, we could let the market decide if it wants to go to the trouble of capturing carbon from coal exhaust, paving over deserts with mirrors, filling rural areas with wind turbines, or whatever. Conservation could go a long long way in the US, as we have been acting as if energy were almost free.

Submitted by Clean Coal technology (not verified) on Thu Jan. 22, 2009 1:49 AM PST.

As the technology has become a more cost effective and viable option, the coal industry has promised a version of "clean coal" that may not actually be a reality for another 20-30 years according to some sources

Submitted by Clean Coal Companies (not verified) on Thu Jan. 22, 2009 9:22 PM PST.

Coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. When burned, it produces emissions that contribute to global warming, create acid rain and pollute water. With all of the hoopla surrounding nuclear energy, hydropower and biofuels, you might be forgiven for thinking that grimy coal is finally on its way out.

Submitted by Lucy Lu (not verified) on Fri Jan. 23, 2009 2:14 PM PST.

meat eaters are responsible for much more green house gases than coal was ever accused of. Why pick on King Coal. Go to Texas and stop the green house gas production. Hay, you can do it now. Stop putting that big Mac into your mouth. 75% of Americans are overweight and fart producing creatures. Do you part, go vegetarian.

Submitted by Misanthropic Scott (not verified) on Sun Jan. 25, 2009 11:10 AM PST.

Clean coal ignores a number of key factors, most notably, that there is no such thing.

1) Technology to bury the CO2 underground is completely and utterly unproven, unlike wind and solar.

2) Coal still requires coal mining. This is a very dirty process in the west and is much much worse in the Appalachians where whole mountains are removed.

3) Coal still produces a lot more than "just" CO2. Even with SO2 regulations, it still does produce some sulfur and lots of mercury. And such things travel far and wide, especially mercury. This is why there is so much mercury (and PCBs that are unrelated to coal) in the breast milk of Inuit* women in the arctic that their milk can literally be classified as toxic waste.

In short, coal is bad. We must get off this worst of all fossil fuels as our highest priority, even above getting off oil for national security. That said, retrofitting existing coal plants with carbon sequestration is better than leaving them unretrofitted. However, it does not mean that we should build any new plants.

* The Inuit are also known as Eskimos though the term is considered derogatory.

For Lucy Lu, here's a bit of Purina Troll Chow.

Lucy Lu,

I have not posted here in many months. During that time, the broken record in what passes for your brain has not changed at all. Your most recent comment is exactly the same as all of your comments have always been. blah blah fat farting Americans blah blah blah.

There are a lot of issues in the world. You may want to acquire some new information. If you have more than three neurons in your head, please read something new. Right or wrong, your one issue becomes incredibly boring over time, and doesn't even take that much time.

Submitted by King Coal Forever (not verified) on Sun Jan. 25, 2009 6:33 PM PST.

"1) Technology to bury the CO2 underground is completely and utterly unproven, unlike wind and solar." ANSWER: We can have a "Manhattan Project" to solve this problem since America has such large reserves of coal.

2."Coal requires mining". Nothing is free. ANSWER: Windmills kill birds and obstruct Senator Kennedy's view. There are arguments against anything. So what.

3. Sulfur and mercury. SOLUTION: Advanced, but expense, scubbers can solve this problem. For example, According to the EIP report, mercury removal at coal-fired plants is possible with current technologies. Activated carbon injection, a sort of mercury-hungry sponge placed in the smokestack, can reduce mercury pollution by ninety percent in some instances. Combined with other technologiessulfur dioxide scrubbers, selective catalytic reduction, fabric filtersthe mercury output can be even further reduced.

It is only the Arabs and nuclear power industry that does not want us to use coal.

Submitted by Misanthropic Scott (not verified) on Mon Jan. 26, 2009 5:04 AM PST.

King Coal Forever,

1) We can have a "Manhattan Project" to solve the problem, and perhaps even should have one since we have so many existing coal plants. But, we have enough solar energy alone to get rid of all of them. So, for the short term, perhaps. But, let's not spend as much as the "Manhattan Project" on something destined to be replaced.

2) Wind kills both birds and bats. People are looking into slight modifications to the turbines that will help with the problem. Ted Kennedy really pissed me off with his NIMBY attitude. That said, coal causes dramatically more damage than solar or wind. I think you are assuming that because everything has a cost, the cost of coal is OK. It's not. It's extremely destructive to the planet.

3. Advance & expensive. So, why bother? Why not replace with solar, which is getting cheaper over time, instead of coal which is getting more expensive with every fix we attempt.

Oil rich nations and nuclear power companies aren't the only ones against coal.

Anyone with an Appalachian mountain in their back yard is against it. Anyone who cares about soil runoff is against it. Anyone who has seen what coal mining really does is against it, unless of course they're the ones making enormous profits from it.

Also against coal are (or should be) anyone who lives below a few meters above sea level, anyone who believes moral considerability includes other species, anyone who cares about the $30 trillion in services that a healthy biosphere provides to us humans for free every year, anyone who has children (I don't), and anyone who thinks we need to care about more than the next few years.

Should I go on?