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.
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


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