so-called clean coal

Money for fossil fuel research in the stimulus could still go to coal

Preliminary analysis of the stimulus deal from Congress available yesterday indicated that funding for “clean coal” had been cut from the package altogether. But it appears that funding in the bill could still go to carbon capture and sequestration projects through the package, which the House approved Friday afternoon. The summary of the bill [PDF] […]

The entire 'clean coal' effort could be fruitless

Part 1 noted that the U.S. Geological Survey's stunning December report found

The coal reserves estimate for the Gillette coalfield is 10.1 billion short tons of coal (6 percent of the original resource total).

Although the report didn't get much media attention, it was a shocker because the Gillette field, within Wyoming's Powder River Basin "is the most prolific coalfield in the United States" and in 2006 provided "over 37 percent of the Nation's total yearly production."

Now Clean Energy Action has issued a new report, Coal: Cheap and Abundant ... Or is it? that goes beyond the analysis in the USGS study and concludes:

It appears that rather than having a "200 year supply of coal," the United States has a much shorter planning horizon for moving beyond coalfired power plants. Depending on the resolution of geologic, economic, legal and transportation constraints facing future coal mine expansion, the planning horizon for moving beyond coal could be as short as 20-30 years.

A top priority of Energy Secretary Steven Chu and the Obama administration must be a detailed mine-by-mine analysis to resolve the issue of the U.S. coal resource. The imminent reality of peak oil production should be clear to all by now (see here). If we are running short of coal, the urgency of jumpstarting the transition to a clean energy economy is all the greater -- and the possibility that coal with carbon capture and storage will be a major contributor to greenhouse gas reductions would be greatly diminished.

Clean Energy Action notes:

FCC and FTC need to hold 'clean coal' ads accountable to reality

As viewers of PBS and the major network and cable channels know too well, the onslaught of "clean coal" advertisements over the past year has reached a tipping point. In the face of the actual news headlines, the relentless barrage of television daydreams about coal's zero carbon dioxide emissions and the coal industry's fanciful role in environmental protection and job security seem more like bad reruns from the era of "Father Knows Best" than any hope for a clean energy future.

"Clean" coal? How about a little truth in advertising? Perhaps it's time for the Federal Trade Commission or Federal Communications Commission to hold the coal industry's public relations campaign to acceptable standards.

Don't they watch the news?

In the last month alone, viewers have had to juggle the reality of news reports on toxic coal ash spills in Tennessee and Alabama, coal waste-polluted watersheds in West Virginia and Illinois, mining accidents and coal dust explosions in Kentucky and Wisconsin, mountaintop removal and devastated communities throughout Appalachia, tragic strip mining on Native lands in Arizona, and several state initiatives to halt the construction of carbon dioxide and mercury emission-spewing coal-fired plants. And the state of Montana, like the U.S. Air Force, just shot down proposals for the coal-to-liquid boondoggle.

The news ain't over.

Two more coal plants won't be built, another will switch to biomass

• NV Energy, Inc. announced that it is postponing plans to build a "clean coal" plant in eastern Nevada, citing "environmental and economic uncertainties." This bit is worth noting:

The company will not move forward with construction of the coal plant until the technologies that will capture and store greenhouse gasses are commercially feasible, which is not likely before the end of the next decade.

Meanwhile, they're still building the high-voltage transmission lines that were part of the original plan -- they're just going to use them to carry renewable energy.

• In Ohio, American Electric Power has put plans for an IGCC coal plant on hold, citing the lack of sufficient subsidies "state of the economy." Oh yeah, and the assessment that construction costs will top $2 billion.

Plans for the project have been placed on hold repeatedly, due to cost recovery issues, construction costs and regulatory issues. However, Celona said, AEP has not changed its plans, and still hopes to build here.

I'll hold my breath.

• The University of Wisconsin's Charter Street heating plant, long a target for enviros, has announced that it will no longer be burning coal. It's switching to biomass, mainly wood and agricultural products.

"[It's] taking … heating from the 19th century into the 21st century," [UW Associate Vice Chancellor Alan] Fish said. "It's a more than $200 million investment by the state, and will eliminate the burning of over 100 tons of coal and have the potential to burn 250,000 tons of biomass."

Yes, all the usual criticisms of biomass apply, but at least it's creating electricity and not fueling cars. It's a step.

I could do a post like this every few weeks. Coal is on the ropes in the U.S. Next up: shutting down existing plants!

'Clean coal' non-debate produces fake rift among lefties!

Wow, this is one craptastic piece of journalism. It's about "the clean coal debate," but you can get all the way through it without stumbling across a single fact about the purported subject. Al Gore and environmentalists "portray" "clean coal" as a mirage. Is it? Are there clean coal power plants somewhere? The reader never knows.

Dumber than that is the whole frame of the article, which pits Al Gore against Barack Obama, despite the fact that they recommend identical approaches to "clean coal" -- research it, but don't rely on it, and don't build dirty coal plants while waiting for it.

The fact is, the average citizen trying to find out more about "clean coal" by consuming U.S. media is likely to emerge from that effort knowing and understanding less. Nice job, media.

Memo outlines history and success of 'clean coal' propaganda campaign

Ever wondered about the inner workings of the "clean coal" propaganda campaign? Wondered how the rancid sausage was made?

Lucky for you, the Hawthorn Group -- the PR firm hired by ACCCE to mount and run the campaign -- recently published a memo "to friends and family" merrily laying out the details.

Even in a communication-saturated environment we achieved, even exceeded, our wildest expectations (and we believe those of our client!). Not only did we raise the awareness of the issue, but we got the major candidates on both sides of the aisle talking about the issue in the debates, at campaign rallies and in interviews. We did this by finding creative ways to increase the visibility of the issue and by demonstrating strong voter support. We successfully integrated traditional communication and grassroots tactics with online strategies and tools.

The presidential campaign concluded with both candidates, their running mates and surrogates talking about and supporting clean coal technology. The issue was mentioned in all four general election debates. This was a 180-degree turn from earlier in the campaign when none of the candidates were focused on this issue.

The program also had an impact on the perception of coal among public opinion leaders. In September 2007, on the key measurement question -- Do you support/oppose the use of coal to generate electricity? -- we found 46 percent support and 50 percent oppose. In a 2008 year-end survey that result had shifted to 72 percent support and 22 percent oppose. Not only did we see significantly increased support, opposition was cut by more than half.

Wheee!

'Coal makes no sense in this day and age'

Originally posted at the Wonk Room.

The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get out the message of "clean coal" through front groups like the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, campaign contributions, and an army of lobbyists. But the devastating Dec. 22, 2008, coal ash slurry spill of the Kingston Fossil Plant in rural Tennessee broke through the cacophony of clean coal carolers. The sludge came from "cleaning" coal of toxic metals like arsenic, mercury, and lead so less went into the air. This ThinkProgress Wonk Room video is a stark reminder that in reality, coal isn't clean.

Watch it:

This week the news of progress away from dirty coal has reached a fever pitch: