• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • News Main Page
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • A&E Main Page
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Opinion Main Page
    • Endorsements
    • Blogs
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
    • Obituaries
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Living Main Page
    • Outdoors
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • Food & Drink Main Page
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Sports
  • Outdoors
    • Outdoors Main Page
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Obits

    Clean Coal, the Oxymoron

    Sequestering Unwanted CO2 Underground: Doable?


    Tuesday, October 7, 2008
    By Barbara Hirsch (Contact)
    Article Tools
    Print friendly
    E-mail story
    Tip Us Off
    iPod friendly
    Comments
    Bookmark This
    del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
    Digg! Digg!
    furl furl
    google google
    newsvine newsvine
    reddit reddit
    technorati technorati
    Facebook Facebook
    Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

    Clean coal, one of those terms we're hearing regarding our energy future, is, sad to say, still an oxymoron. Though a noble goal and, according to an important MIT study, a necessary future, right now it barely exists.

    Coal is a fossil fuel, albeit still plentiful, and still really dirty. Burning it in power plants generates a third of the world's CO2 emissions, plus sulfur and nitrogen oxide (acid rain), and mercury (really bad stuff). Mining for it is, and has been, tremendously destructive to surrounding ecosystems, and it's not so great for the workers either, as recent mine disasters reflect. China builds a new coal plant every few days. They have coal and they need the energy now. To imagine the effects of their future emissions is frightening indeed.

    Clean coal is technology that captures the plant's emissions and sequesters them, pumping them into underground cavities. This process, called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), is not commercially available yet, and when it is, will be very expensive to implement. Nevertheless, the MIT study indicates that the technology is viable, that there is adequate underground capacity for the storage of the millions of tons of CO2 produced daily, and that there is no foreseeable danger in doing so. Whether or not you believe them, this partial solution to the problem of coal will not be happening anytime soon.

    Related Links

    • Minnesota Public Radio story on coal, from September 2008
    • Union of Concerned Scientists paper on coal’s environmental impacts
    • Washington Post column, “Clean Coal? Don’t Try to Shovel That”
    • More EcoFacts columns
    • MIT article, “The Future of Coal”

    Comments

    Discussion Guidelines

    Sorry Ashaw, but there is far more CO2 than the trees and plants can use! THAT is the problem. Take away all of the human built infrastructure in the world, let the plants take over, and maybe eventually, hundreds or thousands of years from now, the earth will recover.
    But yes, not clear cutting more forests would help a bit...

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0

    barbhirsch (anonymous profile)
    October 7, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

    Ironically, systematic deforestation in the Amazon is the direct result of demand for biofuel as farmers clear land to grow the stuff. I've read that biofuel is in fact an incredibly inefficient way to create energy because it takes so much energy to produce the biofuel in the first place. And it too generates CO2. Nuclear, anyone? Wind (hello Solvang)?

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1

    RCMeltzer (anonymous profile)
    October 8, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    I don't care what system is proposed for what climatic disaster. The problem is too many people. If we don't decrease our population, Mother Nature is going to do it for us.

    Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1

    byronsnake (anonymous profile)
    October 8, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

    Post a comment

    Username:
    Password: (Forgotten your password?)

    Comment:

    EVENT CALENDAR

    Previous Month | Next Month

    Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

    Local Weather

    Currently:
    Clear Sky
    Temperature:
    61.0°
    Wind:
    6 SSE

    Surf Report
    • Specials
    • InPrint
    • Top Emails
    • Best Of 2009
    • 2009 Election Coverage
    • Wedding Guide 2009
    • Blue Green Guide 2009
    • SBIFF 2009
    • Tea Fire 2008
    • Local Heroes 2008
    • Calendar of Fundraisers
    • Local Bands
    • Within the Syuxtun Story Circle
    • Camellia Sasanqua
    • Whole New Ballgame
    • Gratuitous Gore on Highway 154
    • Saul Williams Brings Afro-Punk Tour to Velvet Jones
    • Where There’s a Dill, There’s a Way
    1. Travis Armstrong Is Outta There
    2. S.B. Bank & Trust's Rocky Year
    3. UC Campuses Dominate Rankings
    4. What buildings did architect Julia Morgan design in Santa Barbara?
    5. Sexile
    6. Rattlesnake and San Roque Side of Jesusita Trails to Re-Open Friday
    • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
    • LOG.IN
    • CONTENTS
    • CLASSIFIEDS
    • ARCHIVE
    • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
    Google
     
    Independent.com Web
    Copyright ©2009 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
    This is our Privacy Policy.