As a response to demands to address the acid rain problem in the United States, the Clean Coal Technology Program was begun in 1985. The program, led by the Department of Energy in partnership with government, state, and private agencies began taking several steps to make coal “cleaner”. One of the simplest methods of preparing the coal to be burnt cleaner is to prepare it by cleaning it. The process, also called coal beneficiation, separates unwanted materials and impurities from the coal. An often used technique is called gravity separation. This method involves passing water through a tank of ground-up coal, where the heavier impurities, such as sulfur and coal ash will sink to the bottom, leaving the cleaner washed coal which will then be prepared for burning. This process has been proven to make the burning of coal cleaner; and when combined with scrubbers installed at power plants does reduce harmful emissions. However, what is often neglected to be mentioned is what happens to the waste produced from cleaning the coal?
Two principal methods of dealing with the waste are employed, coal slurry injection and coal impoundments. Coal slurry injection occurs when the waste is pumped directly into old abandoned underground mine sites. The dangerous chemicals contained in the slurry have a high potential of leaching into the groundwater, negatively impacting anyone who lives near these sites and relies on that water. Currently this process has been banned in West Virginia, where more than 100 lawsuits accusing coal companies of poisoning the water supply are pending. However, this isn’t stopping coal companies from searching for new places to dump the waste, and Illinois is now being targeted for potential injection sites.
The second method involves constructing above-ground coal slurry impoundments. The problem with these impoundments is their awful track record and potential for accidents. Residents of Coldwater Creek, Kentucky know all too well the dangers these impoundments pose. Impoundments tend to fall into the NIMBY mindset and are generally constructed in areas of Appalachia where poverty is prevalent and where people do not have the money or resources to oppose their construction. For example, there are roughly 110 impoundments in poverty-stricken West Virginia alone.
When it first began, I believe the effort to seek out more environmentally friendly ways of burning coal was a noble one. However, knowing what we do now about the process and cost of “cleaning coal”, one can see that the whole concept is an oxymoron. I believe that the process of cleaning coal is creating more problems than it is solving. It is time that we help step up and help become a voice for the people whose lives are being ruined by these coal companies’ greed and blatant disregard for human life. Clean coal is not clean, and it certainly isn’t worth the human and environmental costs.
.
This is an interesting and informative blog. There are two more important points to add to arguments against "clean coal." First, cleaning coal before burning it does nothing to mitigate harmful human and environmental impacts associated with coal mining. Mountain top removal is another issue in itself which should be enough to discourage relying on coal as our primary source for electricity. Also, burning coal will always emit a large amount of greenhouse gasses per unit of energy thus contributing to global climate change and the associated human and environmental impacts.
ReplyDeleteIt is also important to note that both Democrats and Republicans have been supportive of "clean coal" in the past. This issue is usually targeted as a solely Republican idea. Really this is a ploy by politicians and power companies to keep the coal industry alive. Even President Obama, among other world leaders, have recognized clean coal as a way to reduce carbon emissions. The U.S. Department of Energy was entire websites dedicated to clean coal and carbon sequestration. However, upon further inspecting these pages no information is found on the storage of dangerous materials. Like you said most byproducts are stored in holding ponds. I would be okay with the technology if better storage options were available. It should be a requirement by the EPA to have liners for all holdings ponds.
ReplyDeleteAlong with liners for all holding ponds, I think it is crucial for there to be strict inspection of these holding ponds. If there were malfunctions in said ponds and there aren't regular inspections than the use of the storage no longer exists.
ReplyDeleteI did some research regarding the inspection requirements for general storage of hazardous waste, for most holding facilities it is required for them to be inspected at least weekly. Now I know that these inspections most likely are time consuming and take energy and work, but I feel that the facilities should be required to run inspections on a daily basis. Some will argue that running inspections daily is not cost efficient and would be too expensive for companies to maintain, but if you look at it as a prevention method, it could save money down the road from preventing possible shut downs.