In his State of the Union speech on Jan. 27, President Obama outlined parts of his comprehensive energy policy. In particular, he declared that America needs “continued investment in…clean coal technologies.”
Clean coal is a technology well suited to dealing with rising global warming emissions. It refers to the capture of carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, followed by its sequestration into geological formations. However, this description grossly oversimplifies the challenges of deploying clean coal technology on a wide scale. Even though many politicians, including Obama, expound on the benefits of clean coal technology, it is largely incapable of solving the myriad of problems with the production and combustion of coal.
One such problem originates from the processes involved in manufacturing coal. Its extraction involves a filthy truth: mountaintop mining. The method, which utilizes explosives to separate coal from other rocks, is used to retrieve coal from the vast swath of deposits across the Appalachian region.
This process has resulted in grave environmental and social consequences. Residents of West Virginia have watched coal companies blast the mountains adjacent to their properties, destroying the mountains’ ecosystems and the natural beauty of residents’ landscapes, which in turn impacts the economic value of their properties. Even more importantly, the explosions that liberate the coal release toxic heavy metals. Rains wash these dangerous metals, some known to cause cancer or irreparable nervous system damage, into the water supply.
After the coal has been extracted from the earth, it is brought to power plants to be burned. Fly ash, a byproduct of the combustion of coal, contains a plethora of heavy metals and must be collected to prevent its release into the atmosphere. This seemingly benevolent process often results in unexpected consequences.
The fly ash can be stored either wet or dry. Dry storage is environmentally safer, but more expensive. Predictably, the Tennessee Valley Authority decided to store most of its fly ash the cheaper way, placing it within a collection pool in a nearby dam. When the dam broke, the TVA had an enormous problem on its hands: 2.6 million cubic yards of toxic sludge seeped into local water supplies. The TVA could have opted to store its fly ash dry for $200 million (the total cost for all eleven of its plants), but, according to the National Resource Defense Council, the TVA now faces cleanup costs of over $1 billion because they rejected this investment in safety.
In addition to the problems presented by improper disposal, even “proper” disposal of coal ash causes trouble. According to a CBS report, it has been placed beneath golf courses as a supposedly safe “storage solution.” However, residents were misled by the power plant responsible for this waste disposal, which assured them that the coal ash was as “safe as dirt.” Now, that coal ash not only seeps into the water supply, but can also be seen on the putting greens.
Many pollutants from the combustion of coal are captured in the fly ash. However, some heavy metals manage to escape into the atmosphere, along with fine and ultra-fine particulate matter with diameters of 2.5 to less than 0.1 micrometers (the diameter of a human hair is 17-181 micrometers). Tragically enough, the emission of these ultra-fine particles is unregulated, even though these particles are the most dangerous. According to the online journal Sciencemag.org, fine particulate matter has been shown to increase the risk of asthma, chronic bronchitis, heart attacks, strokes, heart rhythm disturbances, and “sudden death.”
Implementing clean coal technology will have minimal, if any, effects on each of these environmental problems. It is these issues, however, that produce the high external costs associated with the lifecycle of coal. A report published last year by economists from Appalachian State University and the University of Wyoming calculating a cost-benefit analysis of coal conservatively estimated the “real” price at $150 per ton, five times higher than its estimated cost today. In addition to the externalities associated with non-carbon dioxide effects of coal, the high cost of developing clean coal technology is another major barrier to its competitiveness with other forms of energy.
The term “clean coal technology” was coined by the coal industry to address the problem of rising carbon dioxide emissions. President Obama has announced in various speeches that he supports increased investments in both renewable energy and clean coal technology, among other energy sources in his comprehensive energy policy. In an ideal world, a diverse energy supply is superior to an over-reliance on a few big sources. Unfortunately, clean coal technology will not help alleviate the severely negative impact coal has on society, and its adoption points to a flaw in the United States’ plan for sustainability.
For these reasons, I am critical of President Obama for including funding for clean coal technology in his energy policy, especially since clean energy technologies like photovoltaic solar and wind have been proven to avoid the problems connected to coal. Investing in clean coal technology would allow pollution to continue for years to come, so if President Obama wants to lead the United States towards a path to sustainability, he must stop pandering to coal-rich states and end our addiction to coal.
Leave a Reply