Coal is currently the world’s most utilized fossil fuel to generate electricity. The United States consumed an average of 1,011,734.6 thousand short tons of coal per year between 2008 and 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Because coal is abundant and has extensive reserves in parts of the U.S., it remains the number one energy source. Out of the 4,093 billion kilo-watt hours of electricity produced in 2014, 39% was solely produced by coal. However, this doesn’t occur without consequences. Burning coal for energy has undoubtedly contributed to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels presently observed. Along with carbon dioxide, coal burning produces a number of other air pollutants that are concerning enough to be monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency. The idea of clean coal technologies (CCT) was created as a response to clean and mitigate air pollutants released from coal power plants. Some may argue that it is just an ad campaign to trick the average U.S. citizens into believing coal energy generation can become better for the environment, while others see a feasible technology that would be less detrimental to the environment and sustain one of the largest energy industries in the U.S. This paper will introduce the idea of clean coal technologies and analyze whether they could become a reality, or remain as a concept.
Coal has a complex chemical structure created from carbon, hydrogen and other elements. When it is combusted in coal fired power plants, elements such as mercury, nitrogen and sulfur are altered into their chemical forms with an ability to pollute air and water (Franco and Diaz, 2009). The most controversial, however, is coal’s primary element: carbon. During the combustion process elemental carbon combines with an oxygen molecule to create carbon dioxide (CO2) and CO2 has been identified as a major influence on global warming (Franco and Diaz, 2009). The sulfur contained in coal, once combusted, becomes sulfur dioxide or SO2 (Franco and Diaz, 2009). The EPA states that the largest point source of SO2 emissions comes from coal fired power plants (Causes, n.d.). The EPA has linked the SO2 emissions from these plants with the environmentally harmful effects of acid rain (Causes, n.d.).
Due to the potential of adverse effects from coal burning emissions, the concept of clean coal was created. Essentially, clean coal is the idea that alternative processes and approaches for combusting coal can mitigate CO2 and other harmful gases through clean coal technologies. The Clean Coal Research Program was created by the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy in partnership with the private U.S. coal sector (Klara, 2011). The program’s main focus is on maximizing efficiency and environmental performance in coal fired plants, while minimizing the costs of new technologies (Klara, 2011). In operation today include seven different clean coal technologies, some of which include: carbon capture and storage (CCS),integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Recently, the Clean Coal Research Program has emphasized its focus on CCS (Klara, 2011).
Carbon capture and storage is an enticing solution for one of coal’s largest shortcomings. This method aims at mitigating the contributions of CO2 in the atmosphere by capturing it either pre-combustion or post-combustion. After CO2 is captured, it would then be transported to a storage site and either pumped into partially depleted oil and natural gas fields to help recover harder to obtain oil and gas or deep within the ocean (Clean, 200; Kunzig, 2014). The DOE estimates that the U.S. has the potential to store 1,800 to 20,000 billion metric tons of CO2 below the earth’s surface (Klara, 2011). By removing access CO2 that would have reached the atmosphere, and storing it where it wouldn’t be able to reach the atmosphere and contribute to global warming would effectively deem this as an environmentally friendlier alternative to the current widespread processes underway today.
Another reason why clean coal is supported is because of its affordability. According to the American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity the 29 states where at least half of their electricity is generated comes from coal power plants, paid 11% less than the national average while low coal using states paid rates up to 26% higher than the national average (Who, n.d.). The affordability factor is partially influenced by the high abundance of coal. The EIA, on January 1, 2014, estimated there to be 256 billion short tons of recoverable coal within the U.S. (International, n.d.). Based from these values, the EIA suggests this could power the U.S. for roughly 260 years. Not only will electricity rates remain relatively low, but the U.S. could be more self-reliant for its sources of energy far into the future.
The concept of clean coal may decrease the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere and maintain an affordable source of energy, but it is far from eliminating the environmental impacts from mining the coal used in power plants. There are two methods of coal mining, each with devastating environmental impacts: surface or opencast mining and underground or deep mining. Surface mining drastically alters the landscape. When the large pits spanning up kilometers in area remove all the existing vegetation, destroys soil and water quality, displaces or eliminates wildlife and habitat, alters land uses, and to an extent can permanently alter the mined area’s topography (Mining, 2009). Underground mining poses risks by redirecting groundwater and streams out from mine channels, subsidence (sinking land) from mine collapse, and by excavating large quantities of waste earth and rock that could potentially react with air or water and become toxic (Mining, 2009). All of the environmental impacts from mining would continue to remain under the clean coal concept and may even spread to a greater extent if more reserves are mined to maintain energy demands.
For the most part, clean coal technologies are still under the research and development stages and will require more time and money to implement on a large scale than environmentally friendlier energy options. Daniel Kesser, a spokesman for Greenpeace, says that the money spent on CCS could be better invested in renewable energy because CCS technology won’t be ready soon enough to address the urgent climate change crisis (Sutter, 2009). In Kemper County, Mississippi, Southern Company is in the process of building the world’s first coal power plant designed for CCS with the ability to capture 65% of its CO2 emissions (Kunzig, 2014). So far, it hasn’t been a simple task. Conceptual design plans started in 2008 and construction began in 2010 (Patel, 2014). Its start-up date has been delayed a multiple times: first from 2014 to May 2015 and then from May 2015 to April 2016 (Patel, 2014). Along with delays, the estimated costs have increased from 2.4 billion dollars to 6.1 billion dollars in 2014. The amount of delays and the multiple cost increases of the Kemper project doesn’t support the feasibility and urgency that clean coal needs to have a large enough positive environmental impact.
In conclusion, the concept of clean coal does take into consideration some of environmental impacts associated with burning coal for energy generation; however, it fails to address them in a feasible and timely manner. It also neglects the greatest environmental impact from mining coal. The land degradation resulting from coal mining is the largest determining factor of why clean coal is not a sustainable option for energy production.