5 Reasons Not to Invest in “Clean Coal”

Mining for "Clean Coal"
The Clean Coal ads are back, and I’m scratching my head again. Why throw good money (no less than $40 million for the campaign alone) after bad to continue R&D for such a far-fetched idea? Coal is not and will not ever be renewable. Nor is it truly “clean.”
With abundant renewable energy options for us to use instead of fossil fuels, there are at least 5 reasons not to invest in “Clean Coal.”
1. There is not a single operational “clean coal” plant in the United States, and it will be at least ten years before we’ll ever see one (if that day comes). Given the global climate change crisis, wouldn’t you rather see additional wind farms and solar panels constructed over the decade? We know for sure that they’ll be up and running – from 6-18 months from the date of application.
2. Even if the “clean coal” technology is successfully implemented, it is a very expensive proposition to try to bury the CO2 emissions into the ground. Many experts believe that it will raise the cost of coal to exceed even the most expensive renewable energy-generated electricity. No longer will we hear that utilities need to use coal because its the cheapest source of energy.
3. In addition to cost limitations, carbon capture will be incomplete with “clean coal” technology. A February New York Times article examined the proposed use of the technology at an American Electric coal plant:
“Of the 8.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted annually by the Mountaineer plant, only 100,000 to 300,000 will be removed with the new technology. And American Electric and the maker of the technology, Alstrom, are spending $100 million on the initiative — a daunting expense for some producers.”
4. Coal miners regularly die from black lung disease contracted by working in the field. Thousands more have been killed from mine collapses in recent years. Then there’s the mess from the slurry ash spill that occurred last December. Simply stated, as “clean” as we try to make coal, it still has to come out of the ground. And that’s a very dirty proposition.
5. Approximately 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to coal burning. As we wait the 10 years or more for the magic bullet of “clean coal technology,” each and every coal burning plant in the U.S. will continue to spew out 6-12 million tons of CO2 annually. In 2004, the coal-fired plants in the United States combined to emit the highest percentage of greenhouse gases in the world – leading every other country (source: Wikipedia).
Frankly, I’d rather invest in cold fusion than “clean coal.”
Its time to get real and look to the types of energy investments that will really get us out of the mess into which coal has put us. I’m putting my money on solar and wind. At least that way, I’ll see a real return on my investments.
If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to get daily updates!
Related posts:
1 Responses »
Leave a Response


Entries(RSS)
You wrote: “I’d rather invest in cold fusion than ‘clean coal.’”
That would be a wise choice. Cold fusion would probably be far cheaper to develop than clean coal, and also cheaper than plasma fusion or advanced fission. Cold fusion has produced thousands of times more energy per gram of fuel than any chemical reaction, and it can probably generate millions of times more. In some experiments, it has reached temperatures and power density comparable to the core of a conventional fission reactor.
It is not certain that cold fusion can be made practical, but it seems likely that it can, because it has been replicated in hundreds of laboratories, thousands of times, and it has produced nearly as much energy per gram and power density as a conventional uranium fuel rod, in tests several months.
There was an interesting segment on cold fusion on the CBS 60 Minutes program on April 19, 2009.
You can read hundreds of scientific papers, learn more about the CBS broadcast, and see photos of cold fusion experiments, x-ray film and much else here:
http://lenr-canr.org