"One of the problems with taking the carbon out of coal particularly and putting it back in to the earth is that the economics of doing that are really quite dubious...[and] it's many decades off and won't assist us in stabilizing the earth's climate system."

Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers and
Australia's best expert on global warming and what to do about it, on Wisconsin Public Radio.

In The New York Review of Books Flannery wrote: "Plans for cleaner coal . . . by removing . . . fine particles, mercury, and sulphur dioxide . . . will hasten climate change. That is because pollution by particles and sulphur dioxide are key elements of 'global dimming,' which, by blocking sunlight, acts strongly to cool our planet. Removing them will have the effect of eliminating an important 'brake' on climate change." He recommends wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear energies. Right now, he says we need a carbon tax.

And let's not forget conservation.

In a nice article about wind energy in Wisconsin Trails, Erik Ness quotes a farmer: "It's local firms, local contractors, the cement companies, the electricians that get the secondary economic benefits from the construction. The money stays here...."

Sounds much better then doing business with ExxonMobil. Of all companies.

I forgot to mention that more coal strip mining will destroy lots of Montana prairie, not to mention land in Illinois and Appalachia, polluting the water table, streams, air, shaking house foundations, disturbing wildlife, creating traffic and thousands of miles of roads.  

Not to mention the fact that these companies care nothing for worker safety, have no respect for health and safety inspectors, harass neighbors, take most of their earnings out of state, do not pay appropriate taxes, and in fact, according to several articles at time.com, "synfuels" is a multi-billion dollar tax write-off, subsidized as usual by the American people.  Coal companies do little or no "reclamation," which sounds like another scam anyway.  In Kentucky, counties with active coal mining are the poorest.  Check out Erik Reece's books and articles.

I find it very puzzling that environmental groups are supporting "clean coal."  Why?  They must be getting something in return.

I am withdrawing most of my support of NRDC, and instead supporting Earthjustice, which favors renewables and is against coal.

It's true that the CO2 can be stripped out in IGCC plants. And I think, though I'm not sure, that it can be stripped out during the creation of liquid fuels.

But when those fuels are burned, are they any cleaner (CO2-wise) than gas? In other words, is burning coal-derived synfuel an improvement over burning gasoline, in terms of greenhouse gases? I think maybe not. Perhaps I should do some research. Or one of you smart commenters could tell me.

And AE: There are plans in the works to build dozens of new coal-fired power plants in the U.S., and probably hundreds more in India and China. Simply halting all those plans, in favor of scaling up renewables, might be a noble fight, but I'm skeptical about the chances of success. Given that, wouldn't we rather they built using the vastly cleaner IGCC process? The alternative is the old, dirty, pulverized coal process -- each plant emits the equivalent of 2 million cars -- which will lock us into decades of heavy emissions. It's not a pleasant choice, but them's the breaks.

www.grist.org

   Unless it can be shown that the creation of gas from coal is less harmful than the extraction of oil, it's benefits are dubious.   Certainly, it is unlikely to slow down global warming.

   We need to keep our priorities straight.  Are we mostly concerned about "energy independenc" or "global warming".  They are not the same thing, though people often talk about them in the same breath.

   The world is going to use more energy as population increases and people in developing countries (not just India and China, though they are the biggest!) seek an economically better lifestyle.  

   So, the question is how can we produce enough energy without destroying ourselves (environmentally) to do it.  Everything is likely to be part of the mix in the next twenty years or so.  I am hopeful that in the long run, renewables and conservation will prevail.  But in the short run, they are not the main players.  Oil, gas, coal, and nuclear will be used, like them or not.  How can we make sure that each is done in the best, safest, most environmentally friendly way?

Patrick

Europe proved this past year that carbon caps don't work... Tony Blair has already said that the U.K. won't make their Kyoto targets, and they've already trashed their economies to try.  The only way to control carbon is through sequestration or other technologies.  In the meantime, we have an energy crisis out there, folks, and we need to get on with making coal into diesel, natural gas, hydrogen and others.  Sticking our head in the sand or trying to shrink our way to prosperity may sound good but is far from likely.

So Canada and Britian constitute a failed system?  I think if you look closer you'll see more money going to wind and tidal energy in the British Isles, something you won't see here.  Canada could make their targets except they have more incentives (and less population density, i.e. critics and health costs) to extract from the tar sands.  Look at how high fuel prices have affected rail funding, waste/methane production, and more fuel efficient cars in Europe.  A carbon tax (or cutting of subsidies) can go a long way to making life cycle costs of renewables comparable to coal/natural gas.  In Appalachia we don't have sand to stick our heads in, we've just got flat mountaintops and coal slurries.

"It's true that the CO2 can be stripped out in IGCC plants. And I think, though I'm not sure, that it can be stripped out during the creation of liquid fuels."

Who would know if that enrerfy intensive practice is veing followed all the time once the plant is up and running.  Industry itself through sel;f regulation?  

In other words.."just trust us, why would we damage the credibility of our company by releasing CO2 we promised to separate and then sequester by pumping it underground?"

Why?  Because separating and pumping CO 2 underground would eat up 20% of the power produced killing your bottomline?  

And who will check and make sure the CO 2 is not leaking from some other spot?  Once again, self regulation is problematic.

"when those fuels are burned, are they any cleaner (CO2-wise) than gas? In other words, is burning coal-derived synfuel an improvement over burning gasoline, in terms of greenhouse gases?"

No they are not any cleaner in terms of CO 2.  Combustion is what needs to be reduced to bring greenhouse gases back into a climate neutral concentration.  And all that biomass carbon sink destroyed by strip mining and ground water polluted will add to greenhouse gases by inhibiting natural carbon sequestration.

And biofuel from agribizz farming does this same thing, destroys groundwater and biomass carbon sequestration.

" ...halting all those plans, in favor of scaling up renewables, might be a noble fight, but I'm skeptical about the chances of success."

I'm skeptical of any reduction in greenhouse gases given this defeatist attitude so prevalent in the movement that even NRDC is embracing it.  

If we don't fight for renewable electric  transportation energy policy, it surely will not happen.  Accepting these kinds of excuses is not getting us anywhere but in worse shape global climate wise than we are now.

Is "clean" coal what convinced RFK jr that opposing Cape wind with no plan to encourage wind capacity to replace it was allright from an ethical and environmental point of view?  He's not talking so who knows?  But his colleagues at NRDC seem to have swallowed the clean coal bait hook, line, and sinker.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Above I forgot to mention that Dr. Flannery gives us 10 years to get a handle on greenhouse emissions.  Even if carbon sequestration worked, it won't be ready in time, not to mention the "dubious" economics -- I'm not going to quote him because I don't understand it at all.

Yes, I think humans should drop all thoughts of coal and shift to renewables, conservation, smart growth, mass transit, and new and improved lifestyles.  

For starters, reading the Omnivore article on grist.org, we could radically change our eating habits to buying mainly local foods, in season foods, and whole foods.  What huge savings in energy happen right away!

Just a few points - IGCC plants can be built within the ten years stated - they use a lot of existing technology and integrate it.

The syngas produced when using carbon capture is mainly hydrogen - when you burn hydrogen in a gas turbine, the combustion products are hydrogen + oxygen - i.e. water vapour.

Regarding the 'bad' effect of removing mercury etc. from the emissions, surely replacing existing coal and future clean coal plant with renewables would exacerbate that supposed problem? Can't see the logic!

As the person up top quoted
"Plans for cleaner coal . . . by removing . . . fine particles, mercury, and sulphur dioxide . . . will hasten climate change. That is because pollution by particles and sulphur dioxide are key elements of 'global dimming,' which, by blocking sunlight, acts strongly to cool our planet. Removing them will have the effect of eliminating an important 'brake' on climate change."

We should not remove SO2 from the air because it brakes global warming...  Hmmm... This man is an idiot.  A complete and total fool.

What imbecile thinks that the marginal effect on sunlight is in any way comparable to the acid rain SO2 causes?

Let's focus on the danger per gram of substances.  CO2 is like water, only dangerous in absurd amounts.  NOX, SO2, and mercury are dangerous in almost any amounts.  VOC's are dangerous in moderate amounts.  Gram per gram benefit mandates that we focus on the real polutants, those that cause smog, acid rain, and hacking coughs when inhaled.  That is what environmentalism used to be about.  When we were done, we could see and smell the difference.  The Houston ship channel used to look like acid, and I would now be willing to swim in it if I had to.  I look on that and smile, as there is still work to do, but so much has been done.

I want the old days back.

My focus is not just on what is the technically or economically best, but also the most politically feasible way to quickly bring down carbon emissions.

I think the environmental movement could home in on new proposed coal plants, demanding that utilities use available zero carbon emission options.

If coal gasification/carbon sequestration really is a technically possible, but more expensive option -- as it appears -- then this demand gives an automatic incentive to develop non-carbon alternatives instead.  

Renewables & efficiency will generally be more cost competitive versus the cleaner coal.  So, to me, in taking this path, there really is no contradiction between advocating for both development of cleaner coal and alternatives. We focus on the emissions, not the method used to get rid of them.

We can profess to be agnostic about which option is chosen, confident that it gives incentive to pick one or the other that prevents carbon emission altogether.

And if a utility for whatever reason, chooses to go forward w/ the "clean coal" option rather than renewables or nuclear, then there is no need for the govt to subsidize that option to make it competitive.  All utilities would be on equal footing, under the same mandate to do zero carbon.

Of course, then the battleground shifts to halting emissions of existing power plants. However, two things about a "new plant" mandate: the feasibility of halting carbon emissions will have been demonstrated, & that will add to the pressure to do something w/ old "grandfathered" plants; plus the cost impact of phasing in new cleaner technology (of whatever type) will be reduced by averaging in the costs of the new technology w/ the older, cheaper fossil plants.