DCL
Human's have been using coal as a fuel for centuries but growing concerns over climate change, finite supplies, and air pollution have raised questions about coal's viability as a global energy source. Still, thanks to its entrenched infrastructure and current low cost, coal remains the cornerstone of many nations' power grids. The global reliance on coal is, according to many environmentalists and some residents of mining regions, a dangerous dependency that can only be cured by further development of alternative energy sources. However, for some politicians and coal-focused entrepreneurs, there is another alternative: clean coal.
The leading clean coal project, FutureGen, is a public-private partnership working to build a "coal-fueled, near-zero emissions power plant." The plant, which will cost an estimated $1.5 billion to build, will implement several technologies to achieve it's "near-zero emissions" goal. Instead of burning coal dust, which is the common practice in many coal power plants, FutureGen will use a coal gasification process that, in theory, allows for easier carbon capture after the fuel has been burned.
Capturing these carbon emissions is the next part of FutureGen's process. Scrubbers will be used to capture atmoshpere-harming emissions. Once the gas is captured, something must be done with it. FutureGen believes that it can store, or sequester, the CO2 in rock formations thousands of feet underground.
If the technology works as planned it could provide energy with low, or "near-zero" emissions at a consistent level throughout the day and year. Getting the technology to work, however, may be a bigger challenge than it seems on paper. Much of the process FutureGen is built on remains untested and, some argue, may not even be possible on a large scale.
Even the term "clean coal" is contentious. Many environmentalists, including TreeHugger's Jeff Siegel who has commented that:
Clean coal is a myth. There's no such thing. Even with carbon sequestration, you still have mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. You still have to transport coal, which requires diesel. Hardwood forests are destroyed, thousands of miles of waterways are poisoned and tops of mountains are completely erased. Talk about a massive loss of natural capital!
Then there is the cost, both in terms of energy and dollars. Carbon capture and sequestering uses a significant amount of energy and would increase a coal plant's fuel needs by as much as 40 percent. Operating costs are expected to increase between 30 and 60 percent. Still, FutureGen, and the technology it hopes to test, has the support of the Obama administration and has been backed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Advocates of clean coal argue that more investment money is needed to refine the technology. Environmentalists argue that clean coal is a distraction from the real mission of weaning the world off fossil fuels. Whichever side of the debate you fall, one thing is certain: An alternative to conventional coal is necessary if we are going to halt climate change and forge a cleaner energy future.
Find out more about the balance between taking action and eco-terrorism on Focus Earth: July 11, 2009: Mountain Minefield and Coal's Hard Truth.
Watch this and other great video clips from Focus Earth in our video player.
