How Clean Coal Cooks Your Brain

"Clean coal" is not an actual invention, a physical thing – it is an advertising slogan. Like "fat-free donuts" or "interest-free loans."
Several years ago, in Gillette, Wyoming, I fell into a long conversation with the vice-president of a large American coal company about coal's public image problem. Gillette is in the center of the Powder River Basin, the epicenter of the coal boom in America, where 60 foot seams of coal sit just below the surface.
This vice president, who did not want his name to appear in print, was deeply concerned about coal's future and expressed frustration with environmental attacks on coal, suggesting that it was all a problem of perception: "People don't like coal because it's black," he told me.
"If it were white, all our problems would be solved."
Whenever one of those slick ads for "clean coal" pops up on CNN, I think about that conversation in Gillette. The $35 million "clean coal" campaign, spearheaded by a coal industry front group called American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (formerly known as Americans for Balanced Energy Choices),is nothing less than a nationwide effort to paint coal white.
And to the coal industry's credit, they're doing a pretty good job. "Clean coal" is touted by Republicans and Democrats alike as the solution to America's energy troubles.
The logic is simple: America has lots of coal. We are a technologically advanced society. Ergo, we can clean up coal. What's the problem?
Well, here's one: "clean coal" is not an actual invention, a physical thing – it is an advertising slogan. Like "fat-free donuts" or "interest-free loans," "clean coal" is a phrase that embodies the Bush-era faith that there is an easy answer for every hard question in America today. We can have a war in Iraq without sacrifice. We can borrow more than we can afford without worrying about how we'll pay it back. We can end our dependency on oil by powering our SUVs with ethanol made from corn. And we can keep the lights on without superheating the climate through the magic of "clean coal."
Here's another: mining and burning coal remains one of the most destructive things human beings do on this earth. It destroys mountains, poisons water, pollutes the air, and warms the atmosphere. True, if you look at it strictly from the point of view smog-producing chemicals like sulfur dioxide, new coal plants are cleaner than the old coal burners of yore. But going from four bottles of whiskey a week down to three does not make you clean and sober. we breathe
Of course, the "clean coal" campaign is not about reality – it's about perception. It's an exercise in re-branding. Madison Ave. did it for Harley Davidson motorcycles and Converse shoes. Why not Old King Coal?
It's not a difficult trick – just whip out some slick ads with upbeat music and lots of cool 21st century technology like fighter jets and computers. Run the ads long enough, and people will believe.
But the real goal of the campaign is not simply to re-brand coal as a clean and modern fuel – it's to convince energy-illiterate suburbanites that the American way of life depends on coal. The ads remind us (accurately) that half the electricity in America comes from coal, then shows images of little girls getting tucked into bed at night or Little Leaguers playing ball under the lights.
The subtext is not simply that, without the electricity from coal, the lights will go out and your family will be plunged into darkness. It's that, without coal, civilization as we know it will come to an end. As one utility industry executive asked me while I was reporting Big Coal, "Have you ever been in a blackout? Do you remember how scary it was?"
From Big Coal's point of view, this is a brilliant way to frame the question. If the choice is, coal or anarchy, they win. This framing also disarms environmental arguments – yes, it's too bad that mountaintop removal mining has destroyed or polluted 1200 miles of streams in Appalachia and that the Environmental Protection Agency projects a loss of more than 1.4 million acres – an area the size of Delaware – by the end of the decade.
But hey, if it's a choice between losing flattening West Virginia and keeping our lights on, good-bye West Virginia!
That's a false choice, of course.
The coal industry may not want to acknowledge it, but here at the dawn of the 21st century, we have indeed figured out other ways to generate electricity besides burning out 30 million year old rocks. And with each passing year, those alternatives are getting cheaper and smarter.
Wind is already less expensive than coal in many parts of the country, and so is large-scale solar thermal. Google is exploring enhanced geothermal. The creaky old electricity grid will soon morph into a system that looks more like the internet, driving big gains in efficiency and allowing for real-time pricing of a kilowatt of power.
This does not that mean we can shut down coal plants tomorrow. But it does mean that coal is no longer the engine of civilized life as it has been since the industrial revolution.
Big Coal is best understood as a beast of inertia, pushed along by hundreds of billions of dollars worth of heavy metal infrastructure, and kept on track by an army of lobbyists, and our own ignorance of what goes on behind the light switch.
That may be changing.
Even 7 year-olds know that the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, is warming the planet. Coal is by far the most carbon-intensive of fossil fuels, with roughly twice the carbon content as natural gas.
Right now in the U.S., there is no financial cost to dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. But that’s likely to change during the next administration. Big Coal will fight for loopholes and safety valves to keep CO2 costs low, but however it plays out, in the long run, coal’s future in a world that takes global warming seriously is bleak.
Simply put, if the coal industry cannot figure out how to burn coal without dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it's only a matter of time before Big Coal becomes the social and cultural equivalent of Big Tobacco.
Big Coal, of course, insists they have solution for CO2. It's called carbon capture and storage, and involves removing the CO2 from coal either before or just combustion, then injecting it underground in abandoned oil and gas wells or deep saline aquifers.
Big Coal would like us all to believe that capturing and storing CO2 from coal plants is a slam-dump technology that's just about ready for prime time.
This, too, is bullshit.
No one doubts that capturing and burying CO2 from coal plants is technically possible, and few people would argue that a ton of CO2 safely stored underground trumps a ton of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere. But there are serious questions about how much it will cost, how soon will it happen, and whether or not it can scale up quickly enough to really make a difference.
Meanwhile, the need to reduce CO2 emissions grows more urgent every year. As NASA climatologist James Hansen has repeatedly pointed out, continuing to burn coal the old-fashioned way is a sure-fire way to melt Greenland and turn Miami into an aquarium.
In the end, the "clean coal" campaign is about using the tools of the 21st century to keep us locked in the 19th century. Like other greenwashing campaigns, it's about using the iconography of sexy technology and down-home Americana to maintain the status quo.
These campaigns always pretend to offer inspiration about we can do in America if we set our minds and hearts to it, but in fact the real message is what we can't do: we can't power America without coal, we can't keep our lights on without destroying Appalachia, we can't sell old comic books on eBay without cooking the planet.
This is why the false promise of "clean coal" is dangerous.
The goal is not to solve our problems, but to perpetuate our addiction. In one ad, the narrator even adopts the feel-good language of substance abuse and recovery: cleaning up coal is a "big challenge," he explains, "but we've made a commitment – a commitment to clean."
After decades of stoking the engines of denial and obfuscation on global warming, it's nice that Big Coal wants to be a good citizen. But just because your pusher decides to shower and shave, don't delude yourself into thinking that he cares about your welfare.
Like what you read? Vote for it on Digg.
Check out the new energy site..Coal is Dirty
- FILED UNDER: All Things Green, Environment
- May 28, 2008








Differences between dems and reps on this issue..
Energy prices are going up as world population goes up. The US needs to be energy independent....
Dems want to decrease demand. Which means US citizens decreasing their standard of living....SCREW THAT, I happen to like taking vacations.
Reps want to increase supply by allowing SAFE drilling and using our own reserves. You know why a gallon of gas costs about 25 cents in Venezuela and 60 cents in Saudi Arabia? Because the companies are allowed to drill there....
Cuba is letting China drill off the FL coast, but our oil companies can't. Do you think that if the Chinese have an accident they will feel the need to clean up FL beaches?
We need alternative energy development but in the mean time don't bitch about $4.00 a gallon (and the resulting sagging economy) if you are a follower of the church of Gore.....
The libs don't want coal (which we have an abundance) or nuclear (which we can build)....What the hell can we use until solar and wind become more efficient? France is 80% nuclear, think they know something we don't?
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
- Email this page
By Fight4itMay 28, 2008 - 10:01amYou keep talking about drilling for oil here as the silver
bullet that will magically solve all our problems, specifically in ANWR, but as I and others have said repeatedly, even the most optimistic assessments from the Department of Energy say that at most it would drop the price of gas in America by a penny or so. One of the first rules of business or good government is that you do a cost-benefit analysis of any major project. Any cost-benefit analysis of drilling in ANWR comes up distinctly negative. The fact is that ANWR is simply worth more in its present state than it would be as a producing oilfield.
Clean coal is just what the thread says, a lie. Yes, reducing the amount of sulfur dioxide released by burning coal is terrific for reducing acid rain, but clean coal releases just as much carbon into the air as regular coal burning technology. Sequestering all that carbon sounds great, but no one has come up with a good way of doing so on the massive scale that would be required. And once that carbon is stored, it must treated like nuclear waste, safe from any geological hazard for many thousands of years.
Nuclear is the best way to go, and we need to learn from Europe and Japan how to build and use nuclear power more efficiently and safely. They have standardized designs, rather than the one-off designs we utilized in the past. They have engineers and construction companies that specialize in nuclear power, and so have built up vast experience in how to do the job right, unlike here, where the lowest bidder gets the job, and probably has little or no previous experience in building a nuke plant. And their operators are put under much tighter scrutiny and regulation than nuke operators here. That also needs to change. Finally, they have given far more thought into disposal of nuclear waste, which is already a huge problem at our current plants.
Yes, we can do a far better job of being energy-independent, but as long as we are presented with the false choice of drilling in ANWR, clean coal and nuclear vs. freezing in the dark, it is going to be very hard to make progress in that goal.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyMay 28, 2008 - 2:24pmHate the price of energy? Do something about it..
www.americansolutions.com
Drill Here
Drill NOW
Pay Less
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
- Email this page
By Fight4itMay 28, 2008 - 10:52amI actually agree with the author
There are so many alternatives to that dirty mineral...
Nuclear power?...oh wait...mushroom clouds all over the place...
Solar power?...GREAT...until the sun goes behind a cloud...
Wind power...Nope...kills birds and messes up Ted Kennedy's view (and how could we deny him that on his deathbed?)
Geothermal? Causes earthquakes (although a plant on San Andreas?...hmmm)
Digging for our own oil? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Laughable...We need to save room for the ChiComs, Venezuelans and Cubans off our own coast and in the gulf...and forget about ANWR and the National Mosquito Reserve in the upper plains...sheesh!
Well...we could go back to steam...except we would have to cut down trees for fuel...and don't get me started on the minor problem of boiler explosions!
Build more dams?...salmon grinders!
Oh well, I guess we'll have to go back to living in caves...oh, and mass suicide, since we're carbon generators ourselves!
- Email this page
By voltarMay 28, 2008 - 2:11pmWhat Makes You Two Morons Believe Gas Would Be Cheaper....
... if we drilled for it in Alaska? Or that it would be enough to replace even a small portion of what we import? What happens to the oil we pump out of Alaska now? Hey ReVoltar; why don't you lead the way on your "mass suicide" idea? That second grade education is really paying off for you.
- Email this page
By othelloMay 28, 2008 - 2:26pmWe don't need mass suicide
Just yours alone would be a good start.
Leave it to revoltar to once again prove that he hasn't got a functioning brain cell. How about actually giving a thoughtful post to a thread instead of being a total jackass? Who knows, maybe your opinion on something is actually of merit. We'll never know until you decide to grow up.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyMay 28, 2008 - 2:27pmMore Kool aid, V?
Brazil became energy independent by fermenting sugarcane into ethanol. Imperfect solution, but hey I don't hear anybody claiming that oil and coal are perfect energy resources.
As for solar power- there this thing invented awhile back. It is called a battery. It stores electrical energy, like , oh I don't know, from a SOLAR generator.
Wind power? Minnesota doesn't have a problem with it. And our governor is a slimy Republican.
Did Rush spoonfeed you that bit on geothermal power?
The most vehement opponents of dams are the salmon fishermen of the Pacific Northwest. But they should pack up and find another job, right?
And if we do drill ( not dig, brainiac) for more oil in our territory, where do you think most of it will go? Exxon- Mobile, BP, and the rest are multi- national conglomerates, dumbass. They owe no loyalty to any nation. That oil is going straight to the customers who will provide the highest demand: China and India.
So, in the end you want to gain energy independence on a resource that is finite, pollute some of the last wild places we have left, and not even come close to achieveing enrgy independence because the oil is sold overseas.
Damn, you dumb.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37May 28, 2008 - 2:33pmBy thaelmann37May 28, 2008 - 2:33pm
I'll go with part of that line. What needs to happen is that when you change the laws to allow the big companies to drill for more oil in our borders, you write the law so that the oil MUST be sold on the US market. Oh and we also need some more refineries. NOW if you aren't willing to do that because it isn't the "green" thing to do, don't bitch about $4.00 a gallon gasoline...
This is such a slam-dunk on the libs. You bitch about the price of gas but REFUSE to allow the oil companies to do anything to increase global supply thereby reducing price....
Oil is a global commodity, increase the supply and the global price goes down, doesn't matter where the supply comes from. That said, any oil that comes from US soil should go to US consumers but the people that drill it, refine it and deliver it (and their investors) have a right to make a profit for their labors.
The best part of an Obama Presidency is the Billary will NEVER be President.
- Email this page
By Fight4itMay 28, 2008 - 3:50pmHave you ever heard me bitch about the price of gas?
Not once, I bet.
With the free market ideology in place you cannot guarantee that the oil will end up in the U.S. The laws you propose will get shot down in Congress, because those laws try to regulate what transnational corporations do. Believe me, I would love to see such laws passed. But except for a few old guard democrats, I just don't see the people in the House and Senate going for it.
Now, me and V were " discussing" energy independence, not bringing down the price of gas. And pleeeeeaase don't lecture me on supply and demand. The capitalist utopia never comes about because the people who are on top do everything in their power to stay on top. They create laws to benefit them and destroy competition, to make sure they get the resources and labor at the lowest price- if this means destroying the environment of a nation and killing its people through war, starvation, pollution, or disease, then fuck it, they do that too.
Why do these people deserve a profit " from their labors"? They invest the money ( which they haven't earned), its the workers who actually work in the fields and operate the rigs that actually have the right to profit from their labors.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37May 28, 2008 - 6:13pm"Wind is already less expensive than coal in many parts of the
country, and so is large-scale solar thermal."
So, solar panels and wind turbines are free? Where do I get one?
What will be the tax burden to capitalize these new technologies?
What will be the water-fowl and bird mortality rate from wind turbines?
How many acres of cropland and other green-space will no longer be usable when this land is covered by solar panels?
Wouldn't the author's efforts better serve the people of the globe if he took his argument to China? China is the world's largest offender adding dozens of non-clean coal plants per year.
- Email this page
By its_so_overMay 28, 2008 - 3:35pmYes, it would be great to tell China to get onboard with these
technologies. Of course, it would mean more if we showed we were doing the same. It's kind of hypocritical to tell your neighbor to trade in his Hummer for a Versa when you're driving a Yukon and Expedition and show no signs of changing your own habits.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyMay 28, 2008 - 3:43pmMy Expedition doesn't run on coal.
$4.00 plus per gallon gas has forced me to change my driving habits. This blog's topic was about dirty coal. The US used to burn dirty coal. Now we don't. I'd like China to step up to OUR standards. Does anyone know of a charity or foundation where where I can suggest people give money so that China changes their coal-burning ways?
- Email this page
By its_so_overMay 28, 2008 - 4:07pmBy its_so_overMay 28, 2008 - 4:07pm
A thoughtful question, here is a thoughtful answer that could help the US in it's quest for energy independence:
"Could coal gasification provide a solution to the energy crunch?
Whatever next century, non-carbon based fuels might also be in our future, the prospect of cost effectively getting a non-polluting fuel from coal is also being given serious interest at the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE), and in universities and research and development labs all over the world. The reasons are fairly simple.
The pros of using gasoline from coal:
We have more coal in reserves than we do oil.
These reserves are spread more evenly around the world.
The fuel that could be obtained from turning solid coal to a liquid energy source could be used to power vehicles, heat homes and run factories with very mild modification to existing systems.
Road trials in over-congested European capitals have found that coal-powered vehicles also result in a better air quality, because coal/gas produces less tailpipe emissions. U.S. studies have shown that particulate emissions can actually be reduced up to 75 percent (as opposed to traditional diesel) and nitrogen oxide emissions can be reduced by as much as 60 percent (source: U.S. Department of Energy research).
Coal gasification can be used as a way to reclaim decades of old coal waste piles and secondary sources that are not really profitable for conventional uses.
While the fuel source and the means to create it are still carbon-base and do still produce greenhouse gases and other polluting emissions, we do know how to take them out of the process before they do any damage.
Scientists figured out the technology behind coal gasification as early as World War II. The Nazis actually had a process and had been experimenting with getting gas from coal as early as the 1940s, but cheap oil and gasoline kept the technology from being brought to the commercial market in the post war world. Today, as oil becomes increasingly expensive and seems to be pretty much bottoming at around $3 a gallon in the United States, the idea of getting usable petroleum from a still relatively abundant source – coal – is becoming economically interesting again."
http://environmental-engineering.suite101.com/article.cfm/coal_gasificat...
As the price of oil goes up other technology becomes affordable and good for the US...
IF the libs will LET us do it. But they seem to want the US to be lil' Europe...
The best part of an Obama Presidency is the Billary will NEVER be President.
- Email this page
By Fight4itMay 28, 2008 - 4:14pmYou are right about one thing...
Your name. It's SO over. Your Great Conservative Revolution is FUCKED, no matter what the outcome of the election.
No evolution for you! Get back in the tar pits.
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastMay 28, 2008 - 4:49pmHow DARE you speak that way about China!!
They're communists, which means they can do whatever the hell they want (it's international law!) Besides, they need all that power to defend themselves against those traitors in Tibet and the imperialist pig-dogs in Taiwan! They say Goldstein-Chow is still hiding there!
- Email this page
By voltarMay 28, 2008 - 3:47pmDoes your mom know you're off your Ritalin?
Or can you just not afford health care? Being an uninsured loser really blows big liberal dicks, dunnit?
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastMay 28, 2008 - 4:50pmJust further proof that
Just further proof that liberals will not be happy until all of mankind lives in caves again. (Well excluding themselves of course, someone has to fly around in private jets to push their morality onto everyone else.)
You want clean energy? Well get off your lazy asses and innovate! Don't kick back and wait for the government's helping hand. Did Bell wait for the government to invent the phone? Did Ford sit on his ass and wait for the government to make massive assembly line innovations? No, they took fucking action. If you want electric cars, fucking make them already. Quit bitching about what the government is or isn't doing as a way to avoid looking at what YOU are or aren't doing.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggMay 28, 2008 - 8:22pmWhich private company launched Sputnik?
Or put Neil Armstrong on the moon?
Of course if someone does innovate something that directly threatens big business interests, their toadies in Congress do everything to squash it.
An electric car has been on the market for years, you know.
Oh wait, your a conservative. You can't do think of anything unless you get it from your boss.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37May 29, 2008 - 1:28amSo manufacturing an
So manufacturing an affordable and sellable electric car is as complicated as landing on the moon. That's your argument? Seriously? Liberals' willingness to rely upon the government for everything they want truly disgusts me. If you have a light bulb burn out, do you sit around and bitch about it being dark and that the government needs to do something, or do you change the fucking bulb yourself? From your post, I'm guessing that you sit around and bitch about how dark it is.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggMay 30, 2008 - 3:55pmHey Froggy...
That wasn't my argument.
My argument is that the public sector can do anything better than the private sector because the private sector isn't necessarily interested in results, just profit.
Nice try at cognitive thought. Maybe someday you can put together a coherent argument.
Now run along and make love to your blow up Ronald Reagan doll.
- Email this page
By thaelmann37May 31, 2008 - 9:11amThat's gotta be one of the
That's gotta be one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said! There is NOTHING that the government can do better than the private sector. When the private sector does something ineffectively competition forces innovation, competition drives quality up, competition drives prices down, competition forces efficiency. When the government does something ineffectively they just throw more of our money at the problem without fixing anything.
LOL, yeah, the government is all about results! Is that why government cheese tastes so much better than Sargento?? Without quality and results in the private sector, there is no profit to worry about dipshit, but once the government takes over an industry it's the government that doesn't have to worry about competition, then they can do as they please.
Why do you fucking socialist scumbags think that the government can solve any and every problem? Why do you worship the state? It cracks me up, you bitch and moan about how shitty the government is, then you want to turn around and hand complete control over to that very same government. Sit in the dark and keep bitching about that burnt out light bulb, I can manage to change mine on my own. And if you want to eat government cheese, that's fine, but don't get pissy when people don't want you to force government cheese onto them. Now run along and make sweet love to your Fidel Castro blow up doll.
- Email this page
By bannedfroggJune 1, 2008 - 7:01pmAl Gore sings aria?
Inconvenient Truth To Be Opera
Well, I don't know about this. After all, there isn't any PROOF that opera is actually a form of entertainment. Many critics question its existence! In fact, opera is a LIBERAL MYTH being forced on us by Brie-chomping, Merlot-sipping ELITISTS in place of good old American patriotic NASCAR and reality TV! Take your Don Giovanni back to Iran where it belongs, you terrist-loving islamotenors!
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastMay 29, 2008 - 12:20pm