Electric Vehicles In An Electric-Centric World- Part 2- Clean Coal: Eco20/20

Home: Guest Articles: Electric Vehicles In An Electric-Centric World- Part 2-Clean Coal

Electric Vehicles In An Electric-Centric World- Part 2- Clean Coal

Christopher D. Kuebler, Esq
Birmingham, Michigan

"CLEAN" COAL

First, let us consider coal, or more euphemistically today, "clean coal¹", because this source of energy is our most abundant and cheap. Yet bluntly stated, there is no more dubious moniker than that of "clean" coal. There is no such thing as "clean" coal. A more apt and accurate description is "less dirty" coal. The ameliorative moniker now used is nothing more than a dubious deflection of focus brought to you by the coal lobby and their political allies. There is nothing "clean" about coal extraction. Using coal as the fuel of choice to generate the tremendous increase in electricity that will be needed to power this brave new automotive world will force utility companies to burn additional billions of tons of this carbon-based material each year. Obviously, doing that will produce additional billions of tons of carbon dioxide that wafts up smokestacks and into an atmosphere that is already overburdened with excess tons of carbon dioxide and perched perilously close to the brink of disaster [read "Global Warming" and "Climate Change"]. And this atmospheric decay presently exists in a world that is bereft of pure "plug-in" electric vehicles. Now, imagine what a massive increase in coal usage - "clean" or otherwise - will do for global warming. Even if it is assumed that technological improvements will assure that "carbon sequestration" is marginally successful, the costs incurred to achieve such sequestration will contribute substantially to the cost of the end product. And it is not even known whether carbon sequestration will be environmentally safe [gaseous migration; ground water contamination, etc.] when employed on a massive scale. What if an earthquake strikes and fractures the substrate where the carbon dioxide gas is stored? Will the gas escape its confines and be released into the surrounding area? Then what?

Another word about carbon sequestration [otherwise known as "Internal Gasification Combined Cycle" with carbon capture and sequestration]. The cost incurred to employ this relatively new technology will be a substantial addition to coal's economic equation and viability. Moreover, adopting this process is not too dissimilar to our ancestor's use of horses to provide the primary mode of transportation in the 1800's who then fretted about where to dispose all of the manure. Carbon sequestration is tantamount to addressing an 18th century issue in a world where we should be endorsing and providing 22nd century solutions.

The notion of "sequestering" carbon provides us with the delusional sense of "feel good" security, lending the false perception that something "green" is being done to remedy a bad situation. The concept of carbon sequestration acts only to promote environmental devastation from surface mining, it encourages burning more fossil fuel and it aids and abets a massive increase in the production of carbon dioxide in the first instance because it can be conveniently "swept under the rug". Carbon sequestration promotes the production of the very greenhouse compound that industry seeks to avoid. Inevitably, more pollution is created, and more environmental damage is sustained, not less.

And look at some of the other costs - some hidden, some apparent - that will be borne from a massive increase in the use of coal to generate electricity to power automobiles. Particularly, the environmental damage caused by surface mining. Few industrial scale activities in this world are as comprehensively "dirty" as surface coal mining. The coal industry is already scalping mountain tops in West Virginia to access coal seams, causing an environmental catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude. This practice takes majestic scenery and creates "crew cuts" more suitable for parking lots and airplane tarmacs than viewing. Open-pit strip mines are no less destructive. Add in the imposed costs of reclamation, the ancillary costs attributable to mine "run-off" that damages the fecundity of natural waterways as a consequence of the mining activity, and the lost revenue from foregone nature/outdoors and sporting activities. The damage to environmental aesthetics should alone be sufficient to give us pause. Simply put, and irrespective of the environmental utility that might be gained from carbon "sequestration", there is nothing "clean" about extraction and transportation of coal, and the environmental damage caused by those activities.

Imagine how many mountain tops will have to be removed - how many open pit mines will have to be opened and dredged - to utilize coal in the quantities needed to power millions of all-electric cars. All of this activity will, in an exponential manner, affect the biological viability of watersheds: mineral runoff, acidification of water, siltation and sedimentation of the waterways will all contribute to the destruction of the benthic aquatic life that exists at the beginning of the food chain and is essential to maintaining a diverse ecosystem.

Amelioration efforts are focused on containment. However, the sheer magnitude of the expanded mining activity that will inevitably be necessary to address the expanded use of this source of fuel to power all-electric cars will contribute additional adverse elements to the environment irrespective of our best efforts to achieve containment. Even if carbon sequestration is successful, a viable method must still be created - and a location found - to dispose of the billions of tons of "fly ash" that results from the burning process in an environmentally benign manner. One example: let us assume that 100 ppm of waste is presently produced by burning one billion tons of coal. Now, even if this waste by-product is reduced to 10 ppm by adopting amelioration programs, but ten billion tons of coal must now be burned to meet expanded electrical energy needs, the same net volume of waste is created. Nothing net is accomplished, yet environmental disruption has occurred on a much grander scale by realizing that "accomplishment".

"Sequestration" also presents other potential problems. First, pumping pressurized carbon dioxide deep into the earth's crust may induce seismicity. In other words, on the vast scale that this enterprise suggests will be necessary given the potential enormous utilization of coal to meet future electricity demand, a large volume of carbon dioxide deposited within the earth below may induce earthquakes. This potential problem must be addressed and solved. Second, dissolution of the surrounding substrate where the carbon dioxide is "stored" may occur. If any water is present within the layers of the earth where the carbon dioxide is to be sequestered, that carbon dioxide may mix to form a weak acid solution [carbonic acid]. Such acidification may dissolve the surrounding substrate and cause other problems that have not been studied, let alone being fully understood. Finally - and admittedly a remote concern - if the temperature of the substrate changes within the substrate where the carbon dioxide is stored [i.e., increases because of a change in the quantum/rate of the radioactive decay in the surrounding rock] , the temperature of the stored gas may increase. Gases expand when heated. Such expansion may cause a failure of the storage system with residual consequences that can only be hypothesized.

One final thought on "sequestration" and cleanliness: the carbon produced from combusting fossil fuels to extract the coal from the mines and transport it via railway certainly cannot be "sequestered" underground. It will go into the atmosphere and add its contribution to global climate change.

<-- Part 1

Part 2-->

1When discussing coal as an energy source, it is very important to remember that as with petroleum, it is an exhaustible resource. It is finite. And, although we are sometimes told that America is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, and that we have a 200 year supply of coal, this assertion is frighteningly misleading. While we do have significant deposits of coal, we must remember that the good stuff has already been burned: the bituminous and anthracite varieties with a high Btu content per ton. What remains for present and future use is an ever dwindling supply of hard coal and reserves of less energy dense coal such as sub-bituminous coal and lignite, both of which have a lower Btu content per ton. Therefore, more of this type of coal must be burned to obtain an equivalent amount of thermal energy. Eventually, what will remain of our ground-source energy deposits is peat, the present day precursor of future coal deposits.. Lastly, some forms of this "softer" coal also have a high sulphur content which, when burned, contributes to air pollution, including "acid rain", thereby inhibiting its use for generating electricity.