“Clean Coal” (Oxymoron)

With all due respect to President Obama and his Energy Program, we have to most strongly object to the attention given to a ten year program to “clean coal” when our reliance on that fuel could be cut in half by hydropower and other renewable sources and the other half eliminated by natural gas – which everyone will admit burns much, much more cleanly than even “clean” coal!

One of the main reasons that so much emphasis is put on the use of coal is that there is so much of it. And in this country it’s owned, for the most part by our favorite oil interests. We’re back to the Politics of Energy and the Energy of Politics (see blog Jan 27)

Add to the ownership of those producing dirty coal, with its requisite mining and processing, their financiers: Bank of America, Citi and Royal Bank of Canada that provide billions of dollars each year for the “DEP” (Dirty Energy Projects)

So what are the facts and how do we get Washington to listen (D.C. not George-he would have listened)
Of all coal consumed to generate electricity only one third actually results in power under current operations. The rest is released carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides as well as dangerous levels of arsenic, cadmium, strontium and mercury as detected in bullfrog tadpoles in the Savannah River. Another product, not as well known, is naturally occurring radioactive materials, mostly uranium and thorium.

And even before burning the mined coal the act of extracting it from the ground is immensely destructive to the environment and particularly dangerous to those mining it.

So how clean can coal be made? The best minds put the final product as questionably “clean” at costs that could run into trillions to prove it. And all the various methods proposed to “store” or “bury” the wicked by-products are only new causes of concern for the environment.

For example, sending carbon dioxide down to aquifers only threatens to pollute that portion of the underground water supply that may well be needed for more important human requirements.

And the cost of cleaning coal? Prohibitive – unless you are one of the oil/coal barons and look forward to the government subsidizing what we must call “this oxymoronic dream.” $200 billion would provide and deliver a lot of clean renewable hydropower.

Next, let’s look at the ‘Carbon Principles” developed by the financial community and perhaps we can get to the backers of the coal industry and get them to think clearly (cleanly).

And then question if nuclear is really any cleaner.