Clean
Coal
Clean
coal is the name attributed to coal chemically washed
of minerals and impurities, sometimes gasified, burned
and the resulting flue gases treated with steam, with
the purpose of almost completely eradicating sulphur
dioxide, and reburned so as to make the carbon dioxide
in the flue gas economically recoverable. The coal
industry uses the term clean coal to describe 'technologies
designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental
acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and
use' , with no specific quantitative limits on any
emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.
The
burning of coal, fossil fuel, is believed to be one
of the principal causes of anthropogenic climate change
and global warming. The concept of clean coal as a
solution to climate change and global warming is claimed
to be "greenwash" by some environmental
organisations such as Greenpeace. Emissions and wastes
are not avoided, merely transferred from one waste
stream to another. The Australian of The Year, renowned
scientist and author Tim Flannery has been reported
as saying "Coal can't be clean".
There
are no coal fired power stations in commercial production
which capture all the carbon dioxide emissions and
the process is theoretical and experimental or subject
of feasibility or pilot studies. It is has been estimated
that it will be 2020 to 2025 before any commercial
scale clean coal power stations (coal burning power
stations with Carbon capture and sequestration) commercially
viable and widely adopted. This time frame is of concern
because there is an urgent need to mitigate greenhouse
gas emissions and climate change to protect the world
economy according to the Stern report. Even when CO2
emissions can be caught, there is considerable debate
over Carbon capture and storage.
Byproducts
The byproducts of clean coal are very hazardous to
the environment if not properly contained. This is
seen to be the technology's largest challenge, both
from the practical and public relations perspectives.
While
it is possible to remove most of the sulphur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate (PM)
emissions from the coal burning process, carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions and radionuclides will be more difficult
to address. Technology does exist to capture and store
CO2 but they have not been made available on a large-scale
commercial basis due to high economic costs.
Potential uses of clean coal
The primary example of clean coal is the proposed
US FutureGen plant planned to be a near zero-emissions
coal-fired power plant, but which is years away from
commercial operation (expected 2012) and whose commercial
viability is unknown.
It
is also believed that some process similar to the
natural gas fuel cell or microbial fuel cell (charged
from biomass or sewage) may be practical using coal
as fuel. These technologies are used mostly for stationary
fuel cells as charging is slow. A large power plant
in a coal mine might be the most energy efficient
approach and require the least transport of coal to
the users and the return of the coal chute and the
use in homes may be possible in some places. Especially
if home sewage or natural gas lines can be tapped
as well by an improved fuel reformer technology such
as that used already to convert methanol or gasoline
to the natural gas form.
Support and opposition
Clean Coal has been mentioned by United States President
George W. Bush on several occasions, including his
latest State of the Union Address. Bush's position
is that clean coal technologies should be encouraged
as one means to reduce the country's dependence on
foreign oil. Senator Hillary Clinton has also recently
said that "we should strive to have new electricity
generation come from other sources, such as clean
coal and renewables.".
In
Australia, clean coal is often referred to by Opposition
Leader Kevin Rudd as a possible way to reduce greenhouse
gas emmissions. Current Prime Minister John Howard,
however, believes that nuclear power is a better alternative,
as clean coal technology may prove to be economically
unfavourable.
Despite
the supportive comments from U.S. President Bush about
clean coal, the White House has only granted $18 million
(USD) to develop zero-emission coal-fired power plants
over the next decade out of a $388 billion omnibus
spending bill.
In
addition, some prominent environmentalists (such as
Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming
and Energy Program) believe that the term clean coal
is misleading: "There is no such thing as 'clean
coal' and there never will be. It's an oxymoron".
Complaints focus on the environmental impacts of coal
extraction, the prohibitively high costs to sequester
carbon, and uncertainty of how to manage end result
pollutants and radionuclides. (Credit:
Wikipedia).
Profiles
Environmentalists
and the Environment
Mining
Carbon
Trading
Clean
Energy
Tim
Flannery
|