Editorial: Coal May Not Be Clean, But We Need It

As we suggested in this column December 22, coal is going to be part of our energy package for many years to come. A rather disingenuous Sierra Club television ad these days denounces clean coal technology and says there is no such thing as clean. Clean coal technology is merely the science (or endeavor) to develop ways to utilize coal more efficiently while producing fewer pollutants. Who ever said coal is clean? Having said that, we might suggest that many, if not most, of the items we utilize in life must be processed in one way or another to make them suitable. Does that make them all bad?

In this day of sagging employment figures, to eliminate the use of coal and clean coal technology would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs related directly to the mining and using of coal as well as many in the transportation field.

It is also disingenuous to conclude that the burning of coal has not been improved. According to America#8217;s Power, a coalition of coal#8211;related industries, #8220;Over the last 35 years, America#8217;s coal#8211;based electricity providers have invested more than $50 billion in technologies to reduce emissions. Due to investments like these, our coal#8211;based generating fleet is more than 77 percent cleaner on the basis of regulated emissions per unit of energy produced.#8221;

The calculations are based on Environmental Protection Agency figures that cover carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter. The EPA#8217;s report reflects the environmental performance per unit of energy produced#8212;that is, the relationship of emissions per billion kilowatt#8211;hours. From 1970 to 2005 the value for that ratio fell from 30,510 short tons per billion kilowatt#8211;hours to just 6,970 short tons per billion kilowatt#8211;hours#8212;a reduction of 77.15 percent.

Unfortunately, coal#8211;fired power plants are the largest aggregate source of mercury#8212;50 tons a year in the U.S. and 5,000 tons globally.

Proponents and opponents disagree, sometimes violently, over conclusions about coal use. Some blame it for climate change and global warming. Others find that hard to believe or deny it outright. Wikipedia reports that while it is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter from the coal burning process, carbon dioxide and radionuclides are more difficult to address. Opponents say scrubbers don#8217;t remove greenhouse gases. We are not prepared to argue that point. But what we do know is that many people, financed by billions of dollars, work hard each year to improve the process and that coal is used much more efficiently today than it once was. The optimum result we could wish for is perfection, which likely is out of reach. But replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources is not just around the corner either. Until these sources are developed and can deliver our energy needs on their own, we cannot ignore coal.

U.S. electrical power in 1999 was produced 23.3 percent by coal, 19.3 percent by natural gas, 12.5 percent by crude oil, 7.7 percent by nuclear plants, 3.5 percent by wood and waste, 3.2 percent by hydroelectric power, 2.5 percent by natural gas plant liquids, and less than 1 percent by geothermal. Wind power generation was not included in this older report, but one report said wind#8211;power generation in 2007 grew by estimates of 35 to 45 percent. Obviously these figures have changed.

Despite the continued need for coal, national opinion apparently does not favor it. A 2007 national poll showed only 3 percent of those polled chose coal as a favored energy source. Coal plant construction figures appear to support that finding. In 2007 some 59 proposed coal plants were refused licenses by states or quietly abandoned. Another 50 are being contested in courts.

Washington University in St. Louis has announced the establishment of a Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization. Three companies involved include Arch Coal, Peabody Energy, and Ameren, which together plan to give $12 million over the next five years to finance clean coal research. The university has committed more than $60 million during the past year to advance education and research related to energy, environment and sustainability.

According to Gregory Boyce, Peabody chairman and chief executive, #8220;Greater use of clean coal is the ultimate solution for re#8211;energizing the world economy, creating tens of thousands of green jobs and building energy security.#8221;

The consortium will operate under the International Center for Advance Renewable Energy and Sustainability (I#8211;CARES) that the university established in June 2007. The university#8217;s commitment includes the creation of six endowed professorships, funding $3 million for seed research, and constructing a new 150,875#8211;square#8211;foot building to house the institution#8217;s Department of Energy, Environmental and Chemical Engineering and I#8211;CARES programs.

Today we face pressure from two sides: one side demanding reduction in the use of coal and the other being energy demand itself. Alternative fuels cannot fill that demand presently and are not likely to for decades. That being the case, we#8217;d better consider coal a blessing rather than a curse.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)