feel that there are numerous problems addressed by this blog and that the finding that "clean coal" technologies are unsustainable is a correct one. Yet, I feel that there is little time devoted to whether or not this is an option for the near future and how it can be used as a leeway into other more renewable energies, especially with the references to the carbon tax. As many people know the word "tax" and "increase" in the same sentence is considered political suicide, so there is the same potential that a tax could push clean coal out of the picture. While I appreciate the analysis of the different methods of CCS I believe that the blog really could have benefited from an economic comparison to other renewable energies. With such a premium placed on the economic viability of these options on the blog, a comparison showing that clean coal with the tax imposed would maybe end up more expensive than wind or solar would make your conclusion even stronger. Overall I felt the blog was extremely informative about the different processes involved in CCS and how economically viable they are, yet more emphasis on the comparison to other more sustainable options would have made this analysis that much stronger.
Clean coal remains an interesting outlet for climate change enthusiasts as it adapts current energy technology to enforce "green" regulations without creating an entire new and potentially ineffective system for energy production. As a result, clean coal remains an important and governmentally supported initiative. This blog does a wonderful job of outlining the extraction process. This step encapsulates the hidden externalities often ignored when discussing "clean carbon" and indicates an inherent need to reduce our energy consumption to comparatively reduce land waste and negative environmental impacts. The blog also clearly outlines what seems an otherwise technical process for carbon capture and storage and effectively analyzes multiple facets for considering the feasibility for future investment in clean coal technology. I would have appreciated a link to what this technology means for carbon markets, as our extensive reading in Worldwatch has prepared us to consistently consider what seems an inevitable emerging market. It would have been interesting to assess geographic effects and accessibility to this technology as well, especially given the idea of carbon colonialism introduced by Peck. Overall, however, the economic analysis makes clean coal seem a viable option for the near future, though effective analysis indicates long term consequences and suggests a more permanent fix should be found.
By Mary Brickle on April 29, 2010 at 5:09 am
I feel this blog really did a nice job of analyzing the various aspects of clean coal technology (mainly economic and environmental impacts) and successfully proved it an unsustainable future fuel source, all without sounding as if it was written from an overly environmentalist perspective. I do, however, think a case study of the ecological detriment done to local wildlife affected by mountain top removal would have been useful. Also, surely there must be cases of social injustices stemming directly from mountain top removal techniques, such as local water sources affected by the “slurry” problem. Anecdotal stories of such instances would have brought a personal, real life element to the blog which I feel is lacking in the overall feel. I think it is important that the sustainability analysis concluded that economically, clean coal technology is very feasible. However, at one point it is stated that plants would witness an increased cost of 70% when implementing CCS technologies. It is unclear if this increased cost is taken into account in your final analysis. Instead, it seems as though the fact that coal is obtained cheaply is the only factor leading to it being considered economically plausible. I also agree with the first commenter that a more thorough explanation of the future feasibility of clean coal would have been very useful, it is a bit unclear just how long or difficult this process would be to implement and maintain. During the blog presentations in Gottwald, the questions was raised of which technology we would choose to implement. In response to this, I would say that CCS has the potential to become a useful technology in the short term, being a solution we may implement to immediately stop the massive influx of carbon entering out atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. It does, however, facilitate the continuance of a coal dominated society and economy, a fact we must turn away from as soon as possible if we are to create a sustainable future.
By Vin on April 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm
The Clean Coal blog effectively conveys how coal extraction is a detrimental process that can destroy mountaintops and would be perpetuated by the continuation of clean coal technology. In addition, you clearly outline the processes of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and €˜gasification,' as well as their drawbacks and disincentives. Your economic analysis does a thorough job of explaining the Babcock & Wilcox Company's assessment of the efficiency of clean coal as a method of carbon emissions reduction. I believe that your analysis could have been strengthened through the use of a case study. FutureGen is a government project announced by George W. Bush, whose plan involved the construction of a near-zero emissions coal-fired plant that would produce hydrogen and electricity while using carbon capture and storage. FutureGen involved many complicated technology problems that had never been solved before, as well as possible health risks, and in 2008 the Department of Energy pulled its funding to the project. This case study could not only point out the economic costs related to clean coal, but also the fact that the technology is still very new and has not been fully developed yet. The health, technological, and economic risks illustrated in this study may have enhanced your critiques of the clean coal process.
By Sara Johnson on April 30, 2010 at 4:19 pm
This blog did an excellent job overall, with very well researched and clarified information. The discussion of problems with CCS was very thorough and showed how sequestration is not efficient on a widespread scale. I did feel they could have carried this analysis a bit further, looking at carbon emissions captured versus those emitted for sequestration, because they seemed to stress that safely transporting and then storing the carbon were all energy intensive processes, which would negate the "carbon neutrality" sequestration is trying to advertise (Peck). I also found it interesting how they mentioned "tax credits and loan guarantees" were the incentive that made IGCC appealing, and they could have slipped in a note here how the same thing could be done for more positive sustainable solutions like solar or wind receiving those government subsidies. The economic analysis was more in-depth than any other group presented for their topic, but it would have been more complete with a chart factoring in not just the direct and obvious costs of CCS but also its many externalities, including those of continued support for coal's numerous environmental negatives. Following this, the blog in general would have been enhanced if the consequences of sequestration were addressed throughout, such as the safety of putting carbon deep in the ocean considering potential leaks that could alter ecosystems or spur release of natural carbon sinks, instead of saving them for the last €˜sustainability' tab.
5 Comments on Click Here for Comments
By jf4qr on April 27, 2010 at 3:45 pm
feel that there are numerous problems addressed by this blog and that the finding that "clean coal" technologies are unsustainable is a correct one. Yet, I feel that there is little time devoted to whether or not this is an option for the near future and how it can be used as a leeway into other more renewable energies, especially with the references to the carbon tax. As many people know the word "tax" and "increase" in the same sentence is considered political suicide, so there is the same potential that a tax could push clean coal out of the picture. While I appreciate the analysis of the different methods of CCS I believe that the blog really could have benefited from an economic comparison to other renewable energies. With such a premium placed on the economic viability of these options on the blog, a comparison showing that clean coal with the tax imposed would maybe end up more expensive than wind or solar would make your conclusion even stronger. Overall I felt the blog was extremely informative about the different processes involved in CCS and how economically viable they are, yet more emphasis on the comparison to other more sustainable options would have made this analysis that much stronger.
By Jen Wuebker on April 28, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Clean coal remains an interesting outlet for climate change enthusiasts as it adapts current energy technology to enforce "green" regulations without creating an entire new and potentially ineffective system for energy production. As a result, clean coal remains an important and governmentally supported initiative. This blog does a wonderful job of outlining the extraction process. This step encapsulates the hidden externalities often ignored when discussing "clean carbon" and indicates an inherent need to reduce our energy consumption to comparatively reduce land waste and negative environmental impacts. The blog also clearly outlines what seems an otherwise technical process for carbon capture and storage and effectively analyzes multiple facets for considering the feasibility for future investment in clean coal technology. I would have appreciated a link to what this technology means for carbon markets, as our extensive reading in Worldwatch has prepared us to consistently consider what seems an inevitable emerging market. It would have been interesting to assess geographic effects and accessibility to this technology as well, especially given the idea of carbon colonialism introduced by Peck. Overall, however, the economic analysis makes clean coal seem a viable option for the near future, though effective analysis indicates long term consequences and suggests a more permanent fix should be found.
By Mary Brickle on April 29, 2010 at 5:09 am
I feel this blog really did a nice job of analyzing the various aspects of clean coal technology (mainly economic and environmental impacts) and successfully proved it an unsustainable future fuel source, all without sounding as if it was written from an overly environmentalist perspective. I do, however, think a case study of the ecological detriment done to local wildlife affected by mountain top removal would have been useful. Also, surely there must be cases of social injustices stemming directly from mountain top removal techniques, such as local water sources affected by the “slurry” problem. Anecdotal stories of such instances would have brought a personal, real life element to the blog which I feel is lacking in the overall feel. I think it is important that the sustainability analysis concluded that economically, clean coal technology is very feasible. However, at one point it is stated that plants would witness an increased cost of 70% when implementing CCS technologies. It is unclear if this increased cost is taken into account in your final analysis. Instead, it seems as though the fact that coal is obtained cheaply is the only factor leading to it being considered economically plausible. I also agree with the first commenter that a more thorough explanation of the future feasibility of clean coal would have been very useful, it is a bit unclear just how long or difficult this process would be to implement and maintain. During the blog presentations in Gottwald, the questions was raised of which technology we would choose to implement. In response to this, I would say that CCS has the potential to become a useful technology in the short term, being a solution we may implement to immediately stop the massive influx of carbon entering out atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. It does, however, facilitate the continuance of a coal dominated society and economy, a fact we must turn away from as soon as possible if we are to create a sustainable future.
By Vin on April 30, 2010 at 3:32 pm
The Clean Coal blog effectively conveys how coal extraction is a detrimental process that can destroy mountaintops and would be perpetuated by the continuation of clean coal technology. In addition, you clearly outline the processes of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and €˜gasification,' as well as their drawbacks and disincentives. Your economic analysis does a thorough job of explaining the Babcock & Wilcox Company's assessment of the efficiency of clean coal as a method of carbon emissions reduction. I believe that your analysis could have been strengthened through the use of a case study. FutureGen is a government project announced by George W. Bush, whose plan involved the construction of a near-zero emissions coal-fired plant that would produce hydrogen and electricity while using carbon capture and storage. FutureGen involved many complicated technology problems that had never been solved before, as well as possible health risks, and in 2008 the Department of Energy pulled its funding to the project. This case study could not only point out the economic costs related to clean coal, but also the fact that the technology is still very new and has not been fully developed yet. The health, technological, and economic risks illustrated in this study may have enhanced your critiques of the clean coal process.
By Sara Johnson on April 30, 2010 at 4:19 pm
This blog did an excellent job overall, with very well researched and clarified information. The discussion of problems with CCS was very thorough and showed how sequestration is not efficient on a widespread scale. I did feel they could have carried this analysis a bit further, looking at carbon emissions captured versus those emitted for sequestration, because they seemed to stress that safely transporting and then storing the carbon were all energy intensive processes, which would negate the "carbon neutrality" sequestration is trying to advertise (Peck). I also found it interesting how they mentioned "tax credits and loan guarantees" were the incentive that made IGCC appealing, and they could have slipped in a note here how the same thing could be done for more positive sustainable solutions like solar or wind receiving those government subsidies. The economic analysis was more in-depth than any other group presented for their topic, but it would have been more complete with a chart factoring in not just the direct and obvious costs of CCS but also its many externalities, including those of continued support for coal's numerous environmental negatives. Following this, the blog in general would have been enhanced if the consequences of sequestration were addressed throughout, such as the safety of putting carbon deep in the ocean considering potential leaks that could alter ecosystems or spur release of natural carbon sinks, instead of saving them for the last €˜sustainability' tab.
Write a Comment on Click Here for Comments
Comments on Click Here for Comments are now closed.