The
idea of “clean coal” has been most recently introduced to the American
public through the use of advertisements in various forms: newspaper
ads, billboards, and even television commercials like the ones at left.
In fact, these
commercials have been aired very widely on major
networks. They
were aired by CNN during the YouTube Republican debate and during the
democratic debate that was held in Nevada.[21]
However, these
commercials hold an obvious bias, evidenced by their sponsor, Americans
for Balanced Energy Choices, or ABEC. The majority of funding for ABEC
comes from coal-based energy providers.[1]
According the
Washington
Post, during the presidential primaries, ABEC spent $1.3 million on
billboard, newspaper, television, and radio ads in Iowa, Nevada, and
South Carolina alone.[22] The coal
mining industry increased
ABEC’s
budget to four times its previous amount this year, as well as
increasing the budget of its main lobbying group, the National Mining
Association by 20% in response to the public’s resistance to coal due
to its carbon-producing qualities.[22]
Very recently, ABEC
has
become
even larger, merging with the Center for Energy and Economic
Development (CEED) to create the American Coalition for
Clean Coal
Electricity (ACCCE), whose goal, according to
the group, is
“to advance
the development and deployment of advance clean coal technologies that
will produce electricity with near-zero emissions.”[23]
ABEC’s
commercials like this one advertise a future with lower emissions
from coal plants,
including the capture and storage of carbon. However, the technology
for carbon capture and storage is not yet readily available and may not
be for another ten to fifteen years.[24]
Not only is the
technology for carbon sequestration not yet widely available, but
gasification is not the only option being considered for new coal power
plants, meaning that older types of coal plants that emit much more
pollutants could still be built. Companies building new power plants
must evaluate the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) in order to
find the most effective pollution controls, but on December 13, 2005,
the EPA ruled that the Clean Air Act does not require IGCC to be
considered as a part of BACT.[3]
Environmental groups then
sued
to
the EPA and the EPA declared that their ruling, which was presented in
the form of a memo, is neither binding nor a final agency policy, but
they did not change their decision.[3]
The
Cost of Clean Coal
The cost of these new clean coal
technologies has
thus-far proven to be one of the biggest obstacles in moving forward in
implementing these technologies in existing plants or building newer,
cleaner, ones. However, the advertisements, put out by ABEC
direct
viewers to go to a website (http://www.americaspower.org)
in order to learn more about clean coal, and the website paints a
slightly different picture on the issue of cost. In the website’s
section “The
Facts,”
a map of the United States appears. Clicking on a state brings up
statistics about coal usage in that state, including the percentage of
electricity coal provides in comparison to other energy sources, the
average retail price, and the state’s rank in comparison to other
states in average retail price. The site emphasizes the that coal can
provide lower energy costs by describing states like Nebraska, which is
ranked as the 5th cheapest, as, “powered by coal, the cornhusker state
enjoys low electricity prices,” or Montana, the 14th cheapest, as,
“more than half its power from coal keeps electricity prices low.” In
contrast, states like Idaho who rely on hydropower are simply described
as “unusual,” when their prices are ranked as the cheapest among all
fifty states. This language creates a bias against alternative, and in
Idaho’s case, renewable, energy sources. Furthermore, while the website
tries to make it seem like high usage of coal correlates directly with
low electricity prices, this is not necessarily the case. Colorado, a
state that, according to the website, “uses coal for an overwhelming
majority [70%] of its power,” has the 26th highest average retail
price, and New Mexico, who gets, “nearly all [80.1%] of its power from
coal,” ranks as the state with the 28th highest average prices.
America’s Power also promotes the benefits of coal use in general,
citing that coal meets the country’s need for “base-load power,” or the
energy needed to meet the constant demand and to maintain the
electricity grid. Thirty-eight states in the US have large coal
deposits, making it a domestic resource.[1]
The website lauds
the
fact that the nation’s coal reserves would last for two hundred years,
but this also brings to light the fact that coal is not a renewable
resource.
Advertisements like the one at
right imply that
using
clean coal technologies will keep energy prices affordable. However,
low energy costs are not likely to result from the use of clean coal
technologies. Not only
does the site the advertisements direct viewers towards use
language that tries to persuade people like use of coal reduces the
price of electricity, but it also does not even attempt to create a
picture of what prices of electricity would be like if the “clean coal”
technology that ABEC’s commercials promote, like IGCC and CCS were to
be implemented. Because the technology required for the processes of
both IGCC and CCS technology are very expensive to build, it is likely
that the costs of the electricity produces from these plants would also
be higher.[18] According to some
calculations, if CCS were to
be
implemented, it could increase the coal of energy from coal by 40-90%.
Additionally, not all power plants can utilize CCS, and ones that could
someday be adapted to be able to use carbon capture, like IGCC plants,
also cost 10-20% more to build.[8]
While IGCC plants can
employ
carbon sequestration technology, not many of these types of plants
exist today. Four are currently in operation today: the PSI Wabash
River plant in Terre Haute, Indiana, and the Tampa Electric Polk One
plant in Mulberry, FL, a plant in Buggenum, Netherlands, and one in
Puertollano, Spain.[7] Therefore,
in order for the cleanest
coal
technology to be implemented, more plants with the ability to employ
these technologies would have to be built, increasing costs.
