‘Clean Coal’ for Energy? Not So Fast DOE.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) along with the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) is looking to fund $2 million dollars in coal research as part of the University Coal Research (UCR) Program. The research projects will be an attempt to improve the “fundamental understanding of the chemical and physical processes that govern coal conservation and utilization, by product utilization, and technological development.”
From an Administration that is attempting to reduce America’s dependence on oil through greenhouse gas emissions reductions, this is one of the—excuse me—stupidest ideas our country has had… at least for today. Look people, coal is NOT clean, even though the coal industry wants you to believe it is. As a matter of fact, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, a front group for the coal and utility industries, is currently running a ‘clean coal” campaign in excess of $35 million according to a Washington Post article from last year.
- » See also: Physicians Group Comes Out Strongly Against Coal Power
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
One of the biggest criticisms of electric vehicles (EVs) other than concerns about battery production and recycling, is the fact that a large majority of the EVs that are currently (and in the future) being charged are using electricity created from dirty coal. In many regards, cite pundits of coal use, this negates some of the positive the benefits derived from electric vehicles.
For example, several authors in Plug-in Electric Vehicles, “If Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) are operated on coal electricity through integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) without carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), compact and SUV PHEVs reduce GHG emissions by 4 percent and 19 percent, respectively, relative to their conventional vehicle (CV) counterparts.”
The authors continue, “But these GHG reductions are actually less than those achieved by hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) running on gasoline (23 percent and 34 percent, respectively). Thus, when the marginal plant is such a coal plant, it is better from a GHG perspective to drive either an HEV or (almost equivalently) a PHEV in gasoline-fueled hybrid electric mode rather than a PHEV in grid-supplied all-electric mode. In comparison with CVs running on gasoline, however, PHEVs charging from coal are the better option (though more so in the case of SUVs than compacts).”
But is it really ever a better option to charge our cars using coal? The Sierra Club, as part of its ‘Beyond Coal Campaign,’ writes, “From the mine to the plant, coal is our dirtiest energy source. It causes asthma and other health problems, destroys our mountains, and releases toxic mercury into our communities. Continuing our dependence on coal chains us to dirty energy and prevents us from making the changes we need to bring about a clean, secure energy future.”
How dirty is coal? Richard Heinberg, author of “Blackout, Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis,” writes, “But as bad as all of these mostly longstanding environmental, health, and safety problems are, they pale in comparison to what many regard as the greatest crisis of our time—global climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. While coal produces a little over a quarter of the world’s energy, it is responsible for nearly 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Okay, let’s go back to the US DOE grants for a moment. It focuses on three key areas:
- Computational Energy Sciences: Multiphase Flow Research - in other words, this area focuses on carbon capture and sequestration.
- Material Science Computer - Aided Development of Novel New Materials for Energy Conversion from Coal - basically this is the search for materials that can withstand high temperatures and extreme environments to improve energy system efficiency.
- Sensors and Controls: Nano-derived Materials for the Formation of Multi-Dimensional Sensing Structures for the Selective Detection of Fossil Energy Gases at High Temperatures - or for us less than techie people, the sensors will contribute to efficient near zero emission power generation technologies such as carbon capture technologies.
In terms of coal carbon sequestration technologies (or lack thereof): in the “Future of Coal,” a 2007 analysis from MIT, the authors write, “If 60 percent of the CO2 produced from U.S. coal based power generation were to be captured and compressed to a liquid for geologic sequestration, its volume would about equal the total U.S. oil consumption of 20 million barrels per day.”
In other words, we’d need to inject into the ground more CO2 than the amount of oil that is drilled and extracted for U.S. consumption each year.
Yikes!
Now let me end my diatribe with these last thoughts. More coal power: Stupid. Plugging EVs into a coal centric grid: Stupid, but better than conventional vehicles. Plugging EVs into an alternative energy centric grid such as wind and solar: Smart.
Umm, I come to gas2 to read up on new vehicles and the approach to use of alternative fuels and power. What prompted this very political rant?
Don’t get me wrong I am not for coal however reading this article left me wondering what caused such vitriolic. Is this article appropiate to gas2?
I like how this blog is very selective with their approval of DOE funds (that was sarcasm right there). So hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars is okay for EVs, hybrids, and hydrogen cars, but a measly $2 million to reduce the carbon emissions of coal plants is just ridiculous? If any of these ideas are worth their salt then why can’t they get loans or find investors to front this money?
Coal is dirty from cradle to grave. If you clean up the CO2 that is just one aspect of the way coal kills. What about Mountaintop Removal mining, toxic waste ash, and now even water pollution from the scrubbers that “clean” coal air pollution?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html
Coal is carbon already sequestered. We should leave it in the ground. Running your electric car on coal is a horrible idea.
Why the political ranting? They’re running low on Auto stories and are having to pinch ‘Green’ stories from their sister blog CleanTechnica
Hey if you ever imagined how things would be in Haiti if there was a meaningful opportunity to help the country grow, we’ll there’s a campaign called “Love ‘N Haiti” that is seeking to win a grant from World Challenge. World Challenge is a competition that is organized by BBC World News Limited and is aimed at finding projects or small businesses from around the world that have shown enterprise and innovation at a grass roots level. Port-au-Prince was selected as a city and your vote could help the people of Haiti to see a better life.
Please vote for Love ‘N Haiti here:
http://www.theworldchallenge.co.uk/index.php
Watch President Bill Clinton talk about the program:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyNWb-ibfSY
BTW ANYONE pushing the coal powered car argument is 100% ignorant of the basic facts.
1)ICEs are the automotive equivalent of an incandescent light bulb, they are only 15% energy efficient at the wheels …. ANY discussion comparing Evs to ICE must be based on this fact!
2) Only 50% of the grid is coal powered but even the worst coal plan is more than TWICE the energy efficiency of an ICE!
So you already have only 50% of generated power coming from coal and even that is over twice as energy efficient as a car engine, that should be the end of the discussion right there.
There is a very logical reason why EV energy costs are a small fraction of the cost of an ICE per mile…… the energy they use is a small fraction of that used by an ICE to do the same work!
Bend the emmission figure as you want but, unless you factor in ICE efficiency… the entire discussion is misleading! Beware the $200 Million currently being poured into lobbying campaign propaganda that produce these kinds of biased studies.. We all know Clean Coal is BS.. but there is no convenient immediate solution
One acronym: IGCC. Learn it. I see nothing wrong with funding to further coal gasification technology, which NETL focuses itself toward.
There is no reason for such a harsh article. Coal is bad, really bad, but it is here. There’s no way to get away from coal from one moment to the other. I agree with the benefits of the financing as long as the amount is equivalent with the importance of the solution.
Just one more thing. Coal is bad because of the way it’s used today. Nothing is bad by nature. In the future there might be options to gather the energy from coal without any serious side effects. Of course this doesn’t solve the problem of extracting coal.
To be clear, I think that a 100% free and green energy is the goal that we should aim at. But until then, we need to work with what we have.
Coal sucks, and I disagree with those who say that the harshness of this article is unwarranted. Heck, coal even releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nuclear power plant:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99402.HTM
@Paul: Your quote for the efficiency of ICEs is incredibly disingenuous. In the context of a car like the chevy volt, an ICE can achieve much higher efficiency (twice what you quote) and a diesel engine could do even better. Why? because in the Volt, the engine can run at peak efficiency all the time (your number is average efficiency, and even then, it’s a low-ball estimate).
With a smaller battery, the Volt could be a very energy efficient and cost-effective solution. Combine a volt-like design with a smaller battery and biofuels (from non-food sources), and I think we’d have a real winner in terms of cost and environmental impact. (the reason I think it needs to rely more on fuel and less on battery is that the battery is frickin’ huge — it displaces too much space in the passenger cabin and is way too expensive. A cheaper, less obtrusive battery would make this car much more realistic while still benefiting from the doubling in efficiency of the engine plus getting some juice from the grid — maybe a 10 mile battery instead of a 40 mile battery)
You will never get rid of coal as a power source. It is too abundant and useful. So, we must find better ways to use it. You apparently are still in the dream world that wind and solar are the only magic answers. Dream on!!