The (Empty) Promise of Clean Coal
April 19th, 2006Lately, it seems I have been seeing an inordinate amount of publicity regarding clean coal. When I looked into this several years ago, the accepted knowledge was that clean coal is an oxymoron. The truth was, though it was possible to burn cleaner coal, the cleanest coal burning technology was still considerably dirtier than natural gas. Burning natural gas emits slightly less CO2. Burning coal emits 50% more by-product. That’s like boiling water and emitting steam versus burning dinner and ending up with a smoke-filled kitchen.
When I started seeing more ads by fresh-scrubbed young faces urging us to “check it out,” at learnaboutcoal.com, a slow boil emerged in me at the thought of not only their deceitful practice, but the manipulaton of our future and vulnerable generation. ugh!
However, before letting it rip on this non-profit-group-funded-by-industry group (another contradiction in terms), I thought I should at least do some more research just to make sure there were no breakthroughs in clean coal technology of which I was not aware.
The only development in clean coal technology is carbon sequestration, a process of burying CO2 before it gets a chance to be emitted into the air. Considering this is only a stop gap measure- the CO2 does not dissipate or break down into any form of harmless gas– I would hardly call this a significant advance in technology. It’s not much different than storing nuclear waste– whenever it is discharged into the air, it will have the same harmful effect.
Now let me expose learnaboutcoal.com: It is sponsored by a group, Americans for Better Energy Choices (ABEC) which sounds very nice and beinign. At first blush, ABEC touts itself as being non-profit. And with stated goals such a “designed to promote a dialogue with communty leaders across the U.S. on issues involving America’s growing demand for electricity. What could be better?
Well considering ABEC is funded by railroads, coal producers and users, and electric utliities, which includes but is not limited to the utlity conglomerate Southern, one of the largest U.S. energy producers and the American Association of Railroads, a lot.
I wonder if the parents of these scrubbed-face, young, hip-looking children were aware their kids were being used by the very people who were/are willing to forfeit their and their grandkids’ ability to run and breathe comfortabley in the future for immediate profits.
Talk about blood money. Shamen.
April 27th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Tapia: I guess I was a little surprised by the dismissive tone of your post. The insinuation that coal, rail, and utility industris don’t have a shared commitment to protecting the environment obviously represents a personal bias. Using energy and environmental issues to create wedges among the policy participants is not a productive path toward a constructive dialogue, and I hope you can accept the fact that well-meaning people can look at the same exact set of facts and circumstances and still come to differing conclusions. We all want a secure energy future and a cleaner environment. That we might have different opinions on how best to achieve those goals is not a matter of a lack of commitment.
April 29th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
My tone was not dismissive as much it was analysis, based on my accumulated knowledge regarding environmental issues and alternative energy. I would be delighted if you could provide me with evidence of coal, rail and utilities industries’ “shared commitment to protecting the environment.” (They barely show any interest in safeguarding the work environment for their primary workers- coal miners).
The tactic I see in learnaboutcoal.com being sponsored by a “non-profit” funded by major energy industry players with a vested commercial interest in the sale of coal energy technology is hypocritical at best and deceitful at worst. It reminds me of extreme right wingers such as Richard Mellon Scaife, Charles G. Koch and Claude R. Lambe funding think tanks and taking over the media (Rupert Murdoch) during the 80’s, as part of a strategy to softsell conservative issues in a way that makes their proposed policies less carcinogenic to the Middle Class, the very demographic currently under attack.
Isn’t a “secure energy future” what President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice (with a Standard Oil tanker named after her) are advocating? I for one, am not interested in achieving your goals at the costs involved. There are enough other energy technologies such as hybrid,solar, wind, wave, hydrogen fuel-cell, and cogeneration that can support a secure energy future without repackaging burning coal into something it is not.
May 18th, 2006 at 10:58 am
I found Joe’s blog at learnaboutcoal.com and posted two comments last night. I was critical of using the kids for what I (and a lot others) consider less-than-honorable motives. In the second posting, I took issue with his posture that two people can draw different conclusions from the same information. I differentiate between drawing a conclusion and making a leap of faith. I’m curious to see how long it will take for my comments to get “approved.”
November 30th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
[…] debunking the false front “Americans for Balanced Energy Choice” (ABEC), echoing the same conclusions I had reached last […]