When George W. Bush first ran for president he promised to invest $2 billion over a ten year period in clean-burning coal technology. Our National Energy Policy and his budget requests to Congress show that, in this instance at least, he is true to his word. Bush’s Clean Coal Power Initiative has partnered with industry to work on the development of new clean-burn technologies that, if successful, could supply the United States with affordable electricity for generations. Coal is the most abundant of fossil fuels, and supplies more than 50% of US electricity demands. It is also the dirtiest fuel.
Critics argue that coal will never be clean enough to supply the bulk of the nation’s energy needs without causing serious environmental damage.
The recent investment in clean-burn technology follows earlier research in the 1980s and 1990s that focused on acid rain. More recent concerns over coal are focused on particulates, mercury, and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Particulates from the combustion of fossil fuels are associated with the nation’s upswing in respiratory ailments. Mercury is toxic and accumulates in the cells of living animals, and greenhouse gases are what most scientists say is the cause of global climate change.
Clean-burn technologies include coal washing, which removes unwanted minerals before burning, wet scrubbing, which removes sulfur from the flue gas, and gasification where steam, oxygen and coal are combined in a process that breaks carbon molecules apart. The gas is used to power a gas turbine and then burned to power a steam turbine, producing more energy per ton of coal.
An important component of clean coal technology is carbon sequestration, the capture and storage of carbon to mitigate its effect on the atmosphere. Technologies are being developed to remove carbon dioxide from flue gas and using it for commercial purposes. The Great Plains Synfuels plant sends 5000 per day to Canada where it is used in oil extraction. Other technologies are being developed to capture carbon before combustion. Carbon that is not used commercially is stored underground in depleted oil fields or in oceanic deep-water saline aquifers. Carbon stored in this way is absorbed by coal seams that have been deemed to be nonviable for mining.
Environmentalists argue that efforts should be focused on other alternatives that do not increase the production of greenhouse gases and do not require the high costs of sequestration. The World Coal Institute agrees that the sequestration of carbon from coal combustion is not economically viable without government subsidies.
Others argue that tax breaks and subsidies given to energy companies to develop clean coal technology hurts taxpayers, and that energy companies who have been seeing record profits should pay for the research themselves.
Supporters of alternative energy research and development generally fall into two categories—those who are most concerned with the environment and those who are most concerned with national security being threatened by dependence on foreign sources of energy. Frequently, these two camps are closely aligned. In this case they are not. Those of us who align themselves closely with both camps are experiencing a bit of cognizant dissonance on this issue. But let’s examine a few more facts.
Coal is the most abundant source of energy in the United States. The International Energy Agency says that there was an increase in coal consumption of 43% from 2000 to 2002, and that consumption continues to increase.
Energy costs are skyrocketing and are affecting the well being of working families. Energy from coal is our least expensive (partly because of exemptions from clean air standards for old coal burning plants won by the coal industry).
The idea that the US is somehow going to reduce coal emissions by using less coal is obviously a pipe dream. It is clear that the US and the rest of the world will be using more coal. It is also clear that coal combustion has choked the environment, and there is no guarantee that clean-burn technology will reverse that. However, it is also clear that without clean-burn technology any increase in coal consumption will have detrimental effects on the environment.
In regards to fossil fuels the United States has two primary concerns—supply and the effects of emissions. Supply affects our economy and our national security. Emissions affect the future of the planet. None of these can be ignored. The US needs to proceed with development of clean burn technology, but in no way should clean burn coal technology be considered a long-term solution to our energy needs. At best it is an interim solution on the road to alternative technologies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels altogether.
Contact Michael directly at mmelon15@hotmail.com. The views of the commentary writer do not necessarily reflect the views of management or the publisher.
No comments:
Post a Comment