“Clean” Coal – Debunking Recent Propaganda

As America looks forward to the upcoming Obama Presidency, one of the critical issues we all face is energy policy.  Thankfully, Obama displayed a pattern of looking forward on this issue instead of looking backward like George Bush, John McCain and many other Cons-ervatives.  All we heard from the Republicans was drilling and mining would easily take care of every need America has for as long as we want.  Clearly, most Americans understand that that’s just not true.  Americans expect and deserve to have renewable energy infrastructure developed to replace dirty fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas.

Not to be outmanuevered, the energy dead-enders continue to cheerlead for their outdated approaches.  Among those approaches is “clean” coal.  Those quotes are placed there to draw attention to the fact that there is no such thing as clean coal.  Coal by definition is a dirty fuel source – mining, processing and burning it involves the use of heavy industry.  That industrial work releases toxins and pollutants into our environments and climate system.  The cheearleading has turned increasingly toward greenwashing discussion of energy policies to come.

Brad Jones, the West Region Communications Director of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, had an opinion piece for the Denver Post recently.  In it, he argues for the continued (and expanded) use of coal as an energy source, not least because “clean” coal is just around the corner.  He glosses over the fact that “clean” coal has been in energy policy-makers venacular for over 30 years already.  It has been just around the corner for over a generation.  He quickly mentions some technologies being developed, including “enhanced scrubbing and filtering processes, greater efficiency measures, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and carbon capture and sequestration.”

Sen. Salazar’s Language About Energy All Wrong

CO Sen. Ken Salazar held a press conference yesterday where he tried to talk up President-elect Obama’s energy plan.  Citing the need for a “comprehensive energy strategy” (sort of like his wishes for “bipartisanship”), Salazar made sure to mention the continued use of conventional fuels (fossil fuels) and “clean coal”.  To be quite frank, Obama’s and Salazar’s use of this kind of language completely undermines any message of a new eneryg policy.  They’re using words that the fossil fuel industry prefers.

As I’ll lay out in a number of upcoming posts, our greenhouse gas emissions must decrease in the very near future if we want to avoid sending our climate system into an equilibrium state that does not include ice at the poles and sea level many meters higher than it is today.  The continued use of fossil fuels does not and can not help us change our path from that future.  “Clean coal” is no more realistic than hydrogen fueled vehicles.  Both technologies are decades away from commercail viability, at the earliest.  Using the term “clean coal” allows the coal industry to continue ripping up the earth and emitting Gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, which would force the climate system for hundreds of years to come.

Salazar also brought up oil shale as a potential player in our energy portfolio.  I know Salazar is aware that multiple gallons of water and excessive amounts of fossil-fuel powered energy would be required to pump one gallon of oil from shale.  It makes no sense to burn fossil fuels in order to dig up and burn more fossil fuels.  It makes no sense to waste what little water Colorado and other Western states are likely to receive under a changed climate system to push more fossil fuel out of the ground in order to burn it and force the climate system even further from where it was.  It makes no sense for Salazar to push this untested technology while saying things like:

“The time for talk on energy is over and we need to move forward to get to energy independence,” Salazar said.

Sen. Salazar, talking about “conventional fossil fuel”, “clean coal” and oil shale is not moving us forward toward a new energy policy.  It is more of the same – it prevents a new energy policy from being formed, let alone enacted.  Using the fossil fuel industry’s talking points puts Sen. Salazar, and President-elect Obama, closer to the climate change denier/delayer camp.

An additional non-related example can be found below.