‘Clean coal' is fiction, for now

The coal industry is trying to restore a reputation tarnished by concerns over global warming and the environmental impacts of burning coal for power, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, with a campaign touting the benefits of "clean coal."

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity blanketed the streets of Denver with mint boxes and pamphlets during the Democratic National Convention last month and has been running nationwide television commercials for months.

But the premise for "clean coal" is based on technology that doesn't yet exist: the ability to capture carbon emissions from plants and store them underground, which the coal industry says will take at least 10 to 15 years and $17 billion in research to implement. Environmental groups say the campaign is dishonest.

"They're selling it on TV as current clean coal, as if it's now. The coal industry is selling us a myth at this point," said Kert Davies, research director at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of Greenpeace, which is battling the industry over the claims.

The industry's $38 million campaign seems to be working. Both presidential candidates have endorsed research into "clean coal" technology, which looks to figure prominently into any federal legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"The industry has made tremendous strides in improving coal's image, really over the past year, believe it or not," said Brad Jones, spokesman in Denver for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

The group, funded by about 50 mining, power and railroad companies, formed in April out of two other industry organizations. It sponsored a primary election debate on CNN and had a large presence at both political conventions, spending $1.7 million in Denver and St. Paul.

The campaign has three main points: Coal is more abundant than other energy sources, cheaper than other sources and it burns more cleanly than in the past.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, sulphur dioxide emissions from power plants dropped from 11.4 million tons in 1995 to 9.4 in 2006, because of tighter restrictions on emissions, and they are projected to hit 3.7 million tons by 2030. Nitrogen oxide emissions dropped from 7.2 million tons to 3.4 million in the same period, with 2.2 million tons projected by 2030. The former causes acid rain, the latter leads to smog and both are harmful for humans to breathe.

But emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the main gasses thought to cause global warming, are expected to increase 16 percent by 2030.

Exactly how carbon dioxide would be captured, transported and stored, and how such a large volume could be kept underground indefinitely, are unknown. Coal-burning produces two tons of carbon dioxide for every ton of coal. That's 5.3 million tons of carbon dioxide a year out of Colorado Springs Utilities' two coalfired power plants.

The industry hopes the federal government will pay 80 percent of the research costs and 50 percent of the implementation of carbon-capture technology.

"There should be no coal plants built until they are fully carbon-capturing and have a safe place to store the carbon, period," said Davies of Greenpeace.

Jones, with the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said other industries have cleaned up emissions, such as the automobile industry, and coal can, too.

He said there are dozens of research projects around the country on carbon capture, including one at Colorado Springs' Drake Power Plant. Physicist David Neumann is testing a device that removes 99.7 percent of sulfur dioxide and 80 percent of nitrogen oxide from the plant's exhaust, at a tenth the size and a third of the cost of competing technologies.

Neumann is testing its efficiency at removing carbon dioxide from emissions.