As predicted by many, a huge avalanche of proposed new coal burning electrical generation projects is in the works for the U.S. and a few other countries, such as China and India. Well, there is not a lot we can do about China except to not buy their crap, seeing as how the U.S. is in such hock to the mercantilists that run China. So, it's up to us to get our own house in order. And not getting seduced by the "Clean Coal" muzak would be a step towards a better direction. Stepping towards an even more coal based future is like stepping into another nightmare on Elm Street.....
One of the keys to the new push towards coal is the imagery conjured up by the sales line - the phrase "Clean Coal". On its face, this term is a lie, in the "Peace is War" and "Love is Hate" vein of propaganda that Orwell wrote about in his famous book "1984". Whether it's the mining part of the operation, the mining waste/residue, the transport and storage, the actual combustion process, the various "varmit" emissions (SO2, NO2, NO, ash, Hg, Rn) or the main pollutant by mass (CO2), you won't find much that is "clean". Maybe "less dirty" or "cleaner" than the usually practiced methods, but clean...well that's just a classic example Orwellian language manipulation.
Of course, there are some basic reasons why the "Dash for Gas" has bit the (coal) dust, and been replaced by a rush to coal. The fact is, the huge North American reserves of natural gas are no match for the consumptive habits of North Americans (especially in the U.S. and Canada). Natural Gas (Ngas) is now relatively expensive, and is used more and more for the
roduction of peak electricity, if at all for electricity. Presently, Ngas is used for about 20% of U.S. electricity supplies, but not for long. And imports of LNG are unlikely to appease the immense appetite for Ngas. Besides, in much of the U.S. and Canada, it is now less expensive to make electricity from wind turbines than it is with Ngas, especially in stand-alone (no co-generation) mode. With the passing of cheap Ngas (it will likely be available, given the right pricey value), the American Energy Gluttony way of life is in peril...and we can't have that, can we?
So, along comes coal. Among its better aspects - it's not a nuke, it's cheap, and there is a lot of coal located in the U.S., so at least we don't need to import it. But in the 21st century, we all have to keep in mind that CO2 made by burning fossil fuels is air pollution. That puts CO2 in the same reality based category as other air pollution, such as CFC's and asthma causing mirco particulates form coal burners and diesel exhaust. Until CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere stabilize and then return to around the 350 ppm level (right now we are at 382 ppm and climbing), we are going to keep trashing the climate control system of our planet. And if we quit dumping so much fossil fuel derived CO2 into the air, the oceans will eventually "eat it" by dissolving it and depositing it in various ways on the ocean floor. Unfortunately, that will take a while......
And guess what. It turns out that burning coal in a relatively non-polluting new facility is not so cheap...These new plants are turning out to be quite expensive, something like $2 billion or more for a 1000 MW facility, whether it's a gasification or pulverized dust burning one with acid gas scrubbers and mercury absorbers. Due to the increased demand for coal, the raw material is not so cheap anymore, though it is still a lot cheaper than Ngas. A lot of the coal reserves in the U.S. are located on the Great Plains, and train capacity is also a bit constrained...as is investment in new rail lines. So we can rule "supreme cheapness" out of the coal equation. BTW, the Great Plains have a great wind resource...
It is quite possible to remove most of the CO2 form the boiler stack - such techniques have been around for some time. Burying it may also not be such a big deal - lots of highly depleted oil and gas wells provide a place for storage, for starts. But these cost money - about 4 c/kw-hr for CO2 removal from the exhaust gas, and about 2 c/kw-hr for sequestration. Those two add up to 6 c/kw-hr, which is more than this coal derived electricity is generally being sold for these days, at least as made in old and fully depleted boilers. It is quite conceivable than a coal burner with CO2 removal/sequestration would need to have the electricity product sold for 10 c/kw-hr just to break even.
Of course, there is always the Stern Report to consider...see http://en.wikipedia.org/... for example. In it, they tried to calculate the "social cost" of fossil fuel derived CO2 pollution in terms that we can understand...money. The social cost of carbon was estimated to be $85/ton of CO2, which works out to 7.5 c/kw-hr for a no-cogeneration coal burner that converts 40% of 12,000 Btu/lb coal into electricity. Note: See the wind turbine part below.
Well, most people could get by on electricity at this price - odds are, switching to efficient lights, flat screen TVs and computers, better house insulation, a better refrigerator, and bumping up the AC setpoint by a couple of degrees would save you money, even with the higher electricity prices. Most industrial, retail and office operations could also deal with it, as electricity tends to be a minor (though impossible to do without) cost component. And there are less expensive ways to make electricity...especially wind turbines. We have so much capacity in this country... see http://www.stanford.edu/... and http://www.stanford.edu/... for example - several times our current consumption, to say the least, and that is only figuring the wind turbine derived electricity that could be made for less than 8 c/kw-hr.
Anyway, as we stumble into the future, we have to choose which way to proceed in many aspects. Despite the trashing of our future prospects by Bu$h and his Neo-Conmen and Paleo-conmen (and a few conwomen), this country still has a lot of influence on the world. And we can lead best by setting a good example. So if electricity has to be made by coal, do it right, and properly deal with the trash. This will make coal expensive, but if it is worth doing, perhaps it is worth doing well, and not just cheap. But such electricity is going to be priced well in excess of 12 c/kw-hr (well, these owners have to make a profit, don't they?).
Finally, electricity generation produces 40% of U.S. CO2 pollution, delivering only 25% of our used energy. Most of this is made in a few hundred facilities, and so the identification of where these point sources are located is not exactly the same difficult problem and mystery as, for example, finding where Osama Ben Forgotten has stashed itself. And an economically viable set of alternatives (being efficient with electricity, or using wind turbines to make this electricity) to these coal burners presently exists. Stashing this CO2, or not making it in the first place would be a big step towards a better world.
The first order of things would be for the U.S. to grow a pair (at least, in the proverbial sense, as often stated by Samantah Bee of The Daily Show), and quit bitching about "we can't do that, we need lots of coal derived electricity, and we need to do lots of CO2 pollution, 'cause electricity has to be cheap, dirt cheap". And then experience an improving economy, as this massive capital infusion (making and installing wind turbines and improving electrical efficiency and/or installing CO2 scrubbing/sequestration systems)/job growth (see Stern report) takes place. But since CO2 scrubbing and sequestration is the more expensive route...it will be considered as progressively less viable. After all, doesn't money rule?
So, next time that carefully crafted piece of prop called "Clean Coal" is inserted into your brain, divert to your mental circular file, then press "delete". The "CC" proponents don't want to do it properly, and stash the trash. So the "Clean Coal" is anything but clean. From my point of view, the hardcore leaders of the CC jugernaut have consciousness that are a reflection of their current love affair with coal. And that is one nasty, perverted love affair that they are a part of. Really, facts don't matter with this crew, even though they sound so factual....since these infatuated minds are already made up. Odds are, they don't even call it love, just necessity.
As Pete Townshend said ever so eloquently, "You know that the hypnotized never lie..."
What a world. More clean coal, anyone? How about "clean nukes? for desert. Yum!