ccs coal bak

<h1 class="title-news">---</h1><div>capt 818</div><div>see ACCCE Am Coaltion for Clean Coal Electricity</div><h1 class="title-news">this category includes various "clean coal " scams such as Nazi era gassification and spraying kerosense on coal to get tax $.</h1>but also legit sci
Did BO get punked on clever astroturf or know importance in illinois and other swing states?=1119 desmog
Ne<a href="https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/ee/c9ee02709b/unauth#!divAbstract" target="blank" style="font-family: "open sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 153, 204);">w research</a> from Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson questions the climate and health benefits of carbon capture technology against simply switching to renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Carbon capture technology is premised on two possible approaches to reducing climate pollution: removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere anywhere in the world, an approach generally known as direct air capture, or removing it directly from the emissions source, such as the smoke stack of a fossil fuel power plant.<div class="views-field views-field-body" style="font-size: 14px; overflow: inherit; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif;"><div class="field-content">Jacobson's study, published last month in the peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environmental Science, concludes that carbon capture technologies are inefficient at pulling out carbon, from a climate perspective, and often increase local air pollution from the power required to run them, which exacerbates public health issues. Replacing a coal plant with wind turbines, on the other hand, always decreases local air pollution and doesn't come with the associated cost of running a carbon capture system, says Jacobson.</div></div><div class="views-field views-field-disqus-comment-count" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"></div><div class="views-field views-field-view-node" style="text-align: right; text-transform: uppercase; font-family: "open sans", sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/11/21/jacobson-stanford-carbon-capture-fossil-fuels-renewables" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">READ MOR</a>e</div>trump meme beautiful clean coal: utica NY and?<div>
</div><div>8/22 rally</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.alternet.org/parallel-universe-trump-fans-chant-lock-her-west-virginia-rally-two-former-aides-become-felons">https://www.alternet.org/parallel-universe-trump-fans-chant-lock-her-west-virginia-rally-two-former-aides-become-felons</a></div><div>
</div><div><div>Like a Parallel Universe': Trump Fans Chant 'Lock Her Up' at West Virginia Rally As Two Former Aides Become Felons</div><div>
</div><div>"Trump's campaign manager and personal lawyer both became felons today. And Trump supporters still thought it made sense to chant 'Lock Her Up.'"</div><div>By Jake Johnson / Common Dreams August 22, 2018, 5:25 AM GMT</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>President Donald Trump on Tuesday was directly implicated in a criminal conspiracy by his former personal attorney Michael Cohen and—almost simultaneously—a federal jury found his former campaign manager guilty on eight counts of financial crimes, but you wouldn't know it by watching Trump's inane campaign-style rally in West Virginia Tuesday night, where his frenzied supporters belted out chants of "lock her up" and "drain the swamp" while the president bragged about his luxury apartments and deadly new coal rules.</div><div>
</div><div>"It's like a parallel universe," historian Kevin Kruse noted on Twitter as the Charleston rally kicked off late Tuesday.</div><div>
</div><div>While Tuesday's event featured plenty of ranting and raving about the "Russia witch hunt," the president didn't once mention the fact that his former fixer admitted under oath that he was directed by then-candidate Trump to violate campaign finance laws by paying hush money to a former model and an adult film actress.</div><div>
</div><div>The fact that Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort was just found guilty of a slew of crimes—including tax and bank fraud—also didn't come up during the hour-long rally.</div><div>
</div><div>Trump supporters in attendance Tuesday night—wielding signs that ranged from "Trump Digs Coal" to "Keep America Great"—didn't seem to mind these glaring omissions, nor did they seem to appreciate the irony of chanting "lock her up" after the first mention of Hillary Clinton while two men previously very close to the president are likely headed to jail....</div></div>=<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-capture-storage-2534049853.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-capture-storage-2534049853.html</a><div class="headline-container" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="headline h1" style="margin: 10px; padding: 0px; position: relative; line-height: 31px;">Climate Friendly? Congress Passes Carbon Capture and Storage Tax Breaks</h1></div><div id="utm_campaign" style="margin-top: 10px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="body js-expandable clearfix js-listicle-body js-update-url" data-elid="2534049853" data-authors="Climate Nexus" data-headline="Climate Friendly? Congress Passes Carbon Capture and Storage Tax Breaks" style="margin: 10px; line-height: 24px;"><div class="body-description">Nestled inside the U.S. budget lawmakers passed Friday morning were tax breaks for an array of energy sources, including some struggling and controversial projects and technologies.A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including several Democrats from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" style="text-decoration-line: none;">coal</a>-producing states, pushed through extended tax breaks for carbon capture and storage technologies (CCS) in the new bill, expanding a tax credit created in 2008 for 12 years.The CCS extenders have drawn praise from a diverse collection of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" style="text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;">fossil fuel</a> and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/" style="text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;">clean energy</a> camps, but also skepticism from some groups who claim the credits have been used only to subsidize increased oil production. The budget also extended a credit for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/nuclear" style="text-align: center; text-decoration-line: none;">nuclear</a> power plants that will primarily help the struggling Vogtle plant in Georgia.As reported by <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09022018/congress-tax-breaks-carbon-capture-css-geothermal-solar-biodiesel" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">InsideClimate News</a>, a coalition of environmental groups including <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Earthjustice</a>, <a href="https://foe.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Friends of the Earth</a> and <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Greenpeace USA</a> opposed the credits and said they "have not delivered measurable progress toward more climate friendly uses of carbon such as permanent sequestration or utilization, and appear to only have been used to increase oil production."In a <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/elizabeth-noll/congress-may-miss-huge-clean-energy-boost-tax-extenders" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">blog post</a> Wednesday, Elizabeth Noll, legislative director for transportation and energy at the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Natural Resources Defense Council</a>, wrote, "Carbon capture can be a useful tool to reduce emissions of dirty power plants and industrial sources, but we need to strengthen accountability, not weaken it, to ensure taxpayer investments are benefiting them."For a deeper dive:General budget: <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09022018/congress-tax-breaks-carbon-capture-css-geothermal-solar-biodiesel" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">InsideClimate News</a>, <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/budget-deal-has-tax-credit-extensions-for-nuclear-fuel-cells-carbon-capture/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Ars Technica</a>, <a href="https://qz.com/1203803/donald-trump-signed-a-landmark-bill-to-support-carbon-capture-and-nuclear-power/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Quartz</a>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-08/biofuel-producers-nuclear-power-get-boost-in-u-s-budget-deal" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Bloomberg</a>. CCS: <a href="https://www.axios.com/congress-backs-a-bipartisan-climate-policy-really-1518134521-da893f84-9402-4cb1-83d2-89ffd8a69966.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Axios</a>, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-09/tax-break-popular-with-oil-drillers-conservationists-gets-boost" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Bloomberg</a>, <a href="https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Congressional-budget-deal-includes-carbon-capture-12564826.php" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Houston Chronicle</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clean-coal-touted-by-trump-gets-a-bipartisan-boost-in-spending-bill/article/2648646" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Washington Examiner</a>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-carbon-credit/burying-carbon-emissions-gets-boost-in-u-s-budget-deal-idUSKBN1FT2UT" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Reuters</a>. Vogtle: <a href="http://www.myajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/new-budget-deal-extend-tax-credits-for-georgia-power-vogtle/3nZco6umYTzokRBiZ6mjtO/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Atlanta Journal-Constitution</a></div></div>refhttps://insideclimatenews.org/news/09022018/congress-tax-breaks-carbon-capture-css-geothermal-solar-biodiesel

https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/08/08/southern-company-fraud-allegations-kemper-clean-coal-project<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/08/08/southern-company-fraud-allegations-kemper-clean-coal-project">https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/08/08/southern-company-fraud-allegations-kemper-clean-coal-project</a>Southern Co. is accused of fraudulently misrepresenting the prospects for its troubled “clean coal” project in Kemper County, Mississippi in several legal filings this summer.Southern <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/06/28/breaking-southern-co-officially-yanks-plug-kemper-clean-coal-power-plant-warns-it-may-recognize-loss-3-4-billion" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">announced</a> in late July that it was shuttering the troubled “clean coal” part of Kemper after construction ran years behind schedule and the company spent $7.5 billion on the 582 megawatt power plant — over $5 billion more than it first projected.In a lawsuit filed today, Brett Wingo, a former Southern Company engineer, <a href="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/national-business/article166066147.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">alleges</a> he warned the company's top executives that it would not be possible to meet key construction deadlines. Management responded by retaliating against him, the complaint asserts, and Southern continued to assure investors and the public that Kemper's schedule and budget targets would be met, then blamed unpredictable factors like the weather when those goals were missed.Wingo’s claim that Southern misled investors by concealing construction-related problems drew national attention in a front page New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/science/kemper-coal-mississippi.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">investigation</a> last year. In January, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) concluded that Wingo had suffered a “continuing pattern of retaliatory treatment” and ordered Southern to reinstate Wingo, but the company has refused, according to a <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/doyle-llp-whistleblower-in-kemper-project-sues-southern-company-and-ceo-300501496.html?tc=eml_cleartime" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">statement</a> accompanying the lawsuit. (The case is “Brett Wingo v. The Southern Company, et al.,” Case No. 2:17-cv-01328-MHH in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division.)A second less-noticed legal filing with Mississippi state regulators accuses Southern of misrepresenting Kemper's prospects right from the outset, before construction even began. Those claims center on Southern's projections for what it would cost to operate and maintain the plant once it was up and running, which the filing asserts were so low they were “indefensible”.In an email to DeSmog, Wingo seconds those claims, saying that he believes management knew back in 2012 that its “operation and maintenance” (O&M) projections were off — but kept the accurate numbers under wraps for years.“By hiding the true O& M costs for so long, apparently since 2012 and likely longer, Fanning basically ensured shareholders would be forced to absorb $6 billion in losses,” Wingo told DeSmog.“In 2012, sunk costs on Kemper were only around $1 billion and the natural gas part of the plant substantially complete. It would have been a perfect time to stop a runaway train from running off the end of the tracks,” he added. “But history shows, that’s not what Fanning and Southern Company chose to do.”
a historic vote this morning, Mississippi state regulators slammed the brakes on the Kemper coal power plant, saying they will refuse to ask utility customers to pay anything for Kemper's non-functional multi-billion dollar “clean coal” gasification technology and will re-designate the plant as a natural gas facility.In a <a href="http://www.psc.state.ms.us/mpsc/press%20releases/2017/Joint%20Press%20Kemper%20Stipulation%20Docket%206.21.17.pdf" title="joint press release" target="blank">joint press release</a> explaining their unanimous decision, the three Mississippi Public Service commissioners said they seek a solution that “eliminates ratepayer risk for unproven technology and assures no rate increase to Mississippi Power customers,” and that they want Mississippi Power, the Southern Company subsidiary that built Kemper, to consider rolling back existing rates.“I think it's high time we finally turn the corner on this project and also strongly protect our ratepayers, who should only have to pay for what actually delivers electricity,” said PSC chairman Brandon Presley in an interview. Presley was, until recently, the lone opponent of a bloated, runaway project that saw costs jump from $2.3 billion in 2010 when work began to $7.5 billion now. <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/06/21/mississippi-regulators-veto-any-more-money-southern-company-s-kemper-clean-coal-plant-stunning-vote">Read more</a>
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-capture-climeworks-fertilizer-2428036864.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-capture-climeworks-fertilizer-2428036864.html</a>http://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-capture-india-baking-soda-2177070984.htmlgood news?dicaprio...Carbon Clean Solutions is not the first company to attempt to commercialize a process to convert CO2 emissions into commercially marketable products.In 2012, a U.S. startup named Skyonic <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/428348/what-to-do-with-co2-from-coal-how-about-make-baking-soda/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">raised $9 million</a> from investors to build a plant to convert carbon emissions from a <a href="http://www.skyonic.com/projects/capitol-skymine-plant" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">cement plant</a> in San Antonio, Texas. The investors included ConocoPhilips, BP and PVS Chemicals. The <a href="http://www.skyonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/News-Release-Capitol-SkyMine-Grand-Opening-October-20-2014.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">facility opened</a> in October 2014 at the Capitol Aggregates plant and <a href="http://www.expressnews.com/business/business_columnists/david_hendricks/article/Look-in-the-sky-it-s-lower-emissions-6746540.php" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">became operational</a> in January 2016. Outputs include baking soda, bleach and hydrochloric acid. 
<a href="http://www.skyonic.com/technologies/skymine" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Skyonic</a> has said that, at full capacity, the plant will be able to capture 75,000 tons annually of CO2. The company claims that its process uses 30 percent less energy than more common <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-capture-only-realistic-and-affordable-way-to-dramatically-reduc-1882156923.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">carbon capture technologies</a>. The plant was financed with the aid of a $28 million award under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.California-based <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/leonardo-dicaprio-joins-carbon-capture-technology-company-to-bring-abo-1882171898.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Blue Planet</a> produces concrete and other building materials from sequestered CO2. The company says its concrete can be carbon neutral or carbon negative. Climate activist and actor <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/leonardo-dicaprio" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Leonardo DiCaprio</a> is a member of the firms' government affairs advisory board.... The company captures industrial carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and factories and transforms it into concrete materials. Photo credit: Blue PlanetBrent Constantz, Blue Planet’s founder and CEO, said in a statement on the formation of the advisory board: “Bringing these leaders together to advise the company will guide our important initiatives with world governments. We encourage policies that promote carbon mitigation technology on a massive scale. We welcome the expertise, passion and unique platforms that Leo, Daniel and Durwood bring to the company. I look forward to working closely with them.”DiCaprio—who <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/22/dicaprio-divest-fossil-fuels/" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">urges</a> a "transition to a clean energy economy that does not rely on fossil fuels"—is a powerful advocate for environmental action. In September 2015, DiCaprio <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/22/dicaprio-divest-fossil-fuels/" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">pledged</a> to divest from fossil fuels as part of the <a href="http://divestinvest.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Divest Invest Coalition</a>, which encourages business leaders to <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=divest" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">divest</a> from fossil fuels and in businesses that contribute to climate change and to invest in environmentally conscious companies instead.---Oscar-nominee and environmental philanthropist <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=leonardo+dicaprio" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Leonardo DiCaprio</a> has <a href="http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160210006167/en/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">joined</a> the newly-formed government and policy advisory board of <a href="http://www.blueplanet-ltd.com/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Blue Planet</a>, a prominent developer of carbon capture technology based in Los Gatos, California....It's safe to say <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/12/dicaprio-revenant-climate-action/" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">The Revenant star</a> knows a thing or two about carbon capture. According to the announcement, DiCaprio made a personal investment in Blue Planet and produced last year's documentary film <a href="http://leonardodicaprio.org/new-film-biomimicry-explores-natures-technology/" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none; word-wrap: break-word;">Biomimicry</a>, which covered carbon capture technologies, including those developed by the company. Watch here (starts at 7:50):
<div>
<a href="http://www.globalpossibilities.org/the-worse-anti-science-nonsense-of-2016/">http://www.globalpossibilities.org/the-worse-anti-science-nonsense-of-2016/</a>
<h3>GOP platform declares coal is “clean”</h3>Republicans’ devotion to coal was one of the defining environmental issues of the 2016 campaign. Trump promised to revive the struggling industry and put miners back to work by <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan">repealing</a> “all the job-destroying Obama executive actions.” Those commitments were reflected in an early version of the <a href="http://grist.org/election-2016/republican-platform-declares-coal-is-clean/">GOP platform</a>, which listed coal’s many wonderful qualities and said that Republicans would dismantle Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which limits emissions from coal-fired power plants. That didn’t go far enough for GOP activist David Barton, who convinced delegates at the party’s convention to add one additional word to the text. “I would insert the adjective ‘clean,’” said Barton. “So: ‘The Democratic Party does not understand that coal is an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource.’” Barton’s wording change was approved unanimously. As <a href="http://grist.org/election-2016/republican-platform-declares-coal-is-clean/">Grist noted at the time</a>, “For years the coal industry — and at one point, even President Obama — promoted the idea of ‘clean coal,’ that expensive and imperfect carbon-capture-and-storage technology could someday make coal less terrible. But there’s no way it is clean.”</div><div>
</div><div></div>
AN<a href="http://wwwwww.alternet.org/environment/will-big-business-help-fight-trumps-anti-environment-agenda">http://wwwwww.alternet.org/environment/will-big-business-help-fight-trumps-anti-environment-agenda</a>...But environmentalists may yet have a way to fight back. Though their public protests <a href="http://prospect.org/article/it%D5s-really-not-easy-being-green-now" style="text-decoration-line: none;">may fall on deaf ears</a> as long as Trump is in the White House and Republicans control Congress, environmental activists may find more of an audience in corporate boardrooms. At a time when consumers are increasingly eager for green products, services, and energy sources, corporations are seeing the value of resource conservation as a long-term investment strategy, not just good PR or a grudging response to government regulations. And it’s not just Ben & Jerry’s these days that is taking earth stewardship, especially climate change, quite seriously; sustainability is baked into the structure of more and more Fortune 500 businesses. The imperatives of profit have never been so closely intertwined with those of our finite planet.Take Trump’s pledge to <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602853/trumps-empty-promise-to-coal-country/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">bring back coal</a>. In economic terms, that’s a campaign promise that looks destined to fizzle. Simply put, natural gas, a significantly cleaner fuel than coal, has become a more economically viable energy source. David Victor, an energy policy expert at the University of California, San Diego, says that while the price per unit of energy for natural gas and coal are roughly the same right now, natural gas enjoys a decided market advantage, because 21st century grid operators prefer its properties as a fuel source.“Modern power plants need to be able to be turned on and off fairly quickly, but a coal plant is the exact opposite of that,” says Victor. “You need to keep a coal plant warm; the ramp-up for a coal plant from a cold start is many hours, if not longer. Gas plants are much more responsive.”And the “clean coal” that Trump likes to reference? It’s an idea that sounds seductive, but that doesn’t do much to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Clean coal refers to the application of carbon capture and storage technologies to coal-fired power plants—a process that involves diverting carbon dioxide from the smokestack and sequestering it underground in natural geologic formations that prevent it from seeping back to the surface. In practice, this technology is outrageously expensive. The only power plant in the world that has made the numbers come even close to working—the <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/turns-out-the-worlds-first-clean-coal-plant-is-a-backdoor-subsidy-to-oil-producers/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Boundary Dam Power Station</a> in Saskatchewan, Canada—has done so by pumping the carbon dioxide into nearby oil fields, where it has value as an aid for fossil fuel extraction—a process known as <a href="http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/enhanced-oil-recovery" style="text-decoration-line: none;">enhanced oil recovery</a>. But that can hardly be called a clean technology. While the process itself apparently is not polluting, it produces no net gain in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions—the entire point of clean coal. Just storing the CO2 in the ground would be a net improvement. But if the only economically feasible use of carbon capture is to extract more oil, <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/rule-four-of-offsets-no-enhanced-oil-recovery-427da3c722aa#.yw2n92ix6" style="text-decoration-line: none;">it’s a zero-sum game</a>. That’s because any oil extracted releases enough emissions when it’s burned to cancel out the potential benefit.Making truly clean coal a financially viable reality would require massive government incentives, whether in the form of tightened-up emission standards or a price on carbon—both approaches that run counter to Trump’s fossil fuel-friendly, roll-back-the-regulations ideology. The technology holds promise in places like China, where the coal industry is booming, and the political appetite exists for a nationwide carbon market. But in the U.S., clean coal is a non sequitur, both fiscally and environmentally, for the foreseeable future.Even many of the <a href="https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-36599665-10278" style="text-decoration-line: none;">coal company executives</a> with whom Trump is trying to ingratiate himself agree that natural gas is America’s new energy king. “The basic economics of the power sector now favor gas, and that has come directly out of the hide of coal,” says Victor.Not that Trump hasn't also promised to pump up domestic production of natural gas, which is by no means the holy grail of clean energy. It has about half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal, but the “fracking” technology used to extract much of the nation’s natural gas supply is fraught with environmental problems of its own, from air and water pollution to increased earthquakes and habitat destruction....geology works
<a href="http://www.globalpossibilities.org/hopes-rise-for-underground-carbon-storage-scheme/">http://www.globalpossibilities.org/hopes-rise-for-underground-carbon-storage-scheme/</a>romney pro clean coal murray peabody?)DCI Group's Andrea SaulHowever, a slap from the Senate did not stop DCI Group from continuing to specialize in anti-climate science messaging. DCI Group continues to hire and train professional climate change deniers. One such DCI Group alumnus, Andrea Saul, became candidate Mitt Romney’s press secretary during the 2012 presidential election, and helped push Romney’s anti-climate science positions. While at DCI, she wrote and distributed pres releases attacking legitimate climate science. Another DCI Group alumnus, Bob Paduchik, is now a Vice President of the coal front group called Americans for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)=

<a href="http://priceofoil.org/2014/09/04/cashing-in-on-carbon-subsidy-spotlight/">http://priceofoil.org/2014/09/04/cashing-in-on-carbon-subsidy-spotlight/</a>

The dirt roads of Penwell, Texas, criss cross overgrown lots littered with the detritus of a bygone oil boom that petered out in the 1940s. But as early as next summer, this ghost town 16 miles southwest of Odessa will become the site of a new coal power plant facility––funded in large part by taxpayers––that could play a major role in not only helping prolong the life of a dying coal industry, but in fueling an oil boom that’s just getting started in the Permian Basin region of West Texas.The <a href="http://www.texascleanenergyproject.com/">Texas Clean Energy Project (known as TCEP)</a> is a proposed coal gasification plant that will generate electricity while attempting to capture 90 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted in the process. That’s according to <a href="http://www.summitpower.com/">Summit Power Group</a>, the Seattle-based company behind the project.TCEP is <a href="https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.html">one of four U.S. power plants in the planning stages</a> that would use Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology, which comes with an <a href="http://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Report-Says-Clean-Coal-Tech-Not-Present-Day-Reality.html">unproven track record</a>and an <a href="http://www.taxpayer.net/user_uploads/file/Energy/Coal/2012/Carbon%20Capture%20and%20Storage%20Factsheet%20Jan%202012.pdf">exorbitant price tag</a> for taxpayers…not to mention the impacts of mining the coal in the first place. A <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/carbon-capture-coal-plant-EPA-mississippi">fifth such plant is already under construction in Mississippi.</a>Rather than diverting CO2 emissions into permanent storage as the technology’s name implies (a risky venture in its own right), four out of the five plants would repurpose the captured gas for use in oil extraction — that is, to help extract more carbon out of the ground. Petroleum companies in Texas are lining up to buy Summit’s CO2 and inject it into declining oil fields where it will act as a lubricant and a source of pressure, forcing more oil to flow into the wells there.The process of using CO2 to coax more oil from old wells is called Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery, or <a href="http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/enhanced-oil-recovery">CO2-EOR</a>. In other words, the Texas Clean Energy Project is a power plant that, once operational, will burn coal and then sell its emissions to allow for the extraction of hard to reach oil, which in turn will be refined and burned.This paradoxical strategy of capturing carbon emissions only to unearth more fossil fuels has made its way to the forefront of the federal government’s plans for tackling climate change, thanks in part to support from a plethora of industries whose pollutive practices would be threatened by a widespread shift to renewable energy.But the biggest financial supporters of CO2-EOR are taxpayers. Since 2008, Congress has allocated <a href="http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Memo-OI-DOE-Oversight-Clean-Coal-2014-2-10.pdf">$6 billion</a> to research and development of Carbon Capture and Sequestration technologies. And yet its taxpayers who are impacted by the continued mining of coal, the effects of burning more oil, and the dangers posed by extreme fossil fuel extraction methods, like fracking, with which CO2-EOR is interconnected.Through grants, tax breaks, and loan guarantees, the public is paying the financial costs––while shouldering the consequences––of re-shaping the carbon cycle to justify the continued use of dirty fuels and dangerous methods under the auspices of mitigating climate change.<h2>Cashing in on carbon</h2>There are several ways that taxpayers foot the bills for a project like the Texas Clean Energy Project, according to a report by Oil Change International, <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2014/07/09/cashing-in-on-all-of-the-above-u-s-fossil-fuel-production-subsidies-under-obama/">Cashing in on All of the Above: U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies Under Obama</a>.In 2011, $587 million in federal funding was allocated to research and development for projects that included enhanced oil recovery, carbon capture and sequestration, and coal fuels. In 2013, companies took advantage of $400 million in tax credits for investment in so-called “clean coal” facilities (of course, the “clean coal” moniker is one that’s been <a href="http://quitcoal.org/clean-coal">debunked </a><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/02/16/203701/james-hansen-coal-greatest-threat-civilization-all-life-on-our-planet/">time</a> and <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/dirt-clean-coal">again</a>). That same year, $60 million went towards CO2-EOR, and oil companies were allowed $7 million in deductions for the costs of “fluids, gases and other chemicals used for enhanced oil recovery.”For its part, Summit has <a href="http://www.texascleanenergyproject.com/category/uncategorized/">received a $450 million grant from the Department of Energy and $600 million in tax breaks</a>, mostly in the name of the still unproven carbon sequestration. But because that proposed sequestration goes hand-in-hand with enhanced oil recovery, some 47 percent of the CO2 injected into the ground by the project will likely be released when the petroleum it helps to extract is burned for fuel, <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/coal/eor">according to the Energy Justice Network</a>.Summit will be among the first to sell industrially produced CO2 for the purpose of enhance oil recovery. The company is poised to meet a high demand; the market for CO2 has ballooned as the result of a recent oil boom spurred by the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2013/03/18/obamas-all-of-the-above-energy-policy/">All of the Above Energy policy</a> and the increased use of hydraulic fracturing technology, or <a href="http://priceofoil.org/campaigns/extreme-fossil-fuels/no-extreme-fossil-fuels-fracking/">fracking</a>.Since 2007, oil production in the region has doubled from roughly 800,000 barrels per day to over 1.6 million. It’s currently the highest producer in the country, just ahead of the Bakken oil field in North Dakota and Eagle Ford in East Texas––both hotbeds of fracking activity.<h2>A pumpjack on every block and a flare every half mile</h2>...


legit?
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/22/carbon-capture-investment-needed/">http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/22/carbon-capture-investment-needed/</a>

http://www.alternet.org/print/environment/why-big-coal-pretending-be-savior-developing-world 9/14 Environmental Protection Agency for the first time on Tuesday <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/28813e70cc4c222a85257d47006ff568" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">issued permits</a> to allow a coal-fired power plant to capture its carbon dioxide emissions and inject them deep underground, a process that many hope could help control climate change if it is ultimately successful.FutureGen Industrial Alliance Inc. received four identical permits to use the process, called carbon capture and storage (CCS), at its long-planned FutureGen 2.0 coal plant in Meredosia, Illinois. The company’s goal is to capture and inject 1.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year for the next 20 years, the yearly equivalent of 232,000 cars, according to EPA.<div id="aol-mobile-ad" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; line-height: 22.44px; vertical-align: baseline;">“The issuance of the permit is a major milestone that will allow FutureGen 2.0 to stay on track to develop the first ever commercial-scale, near-zero emissions coal-fueled power plant with integrated carbon capture and storage,” FutureGen Alliance CEO Ken Humphreys said in a statement.The permits mean the FutureGen project is one step closer to beginning its long-awaited process of refitting the existing coal-fired power plant in Meredosia, and drilling four, 4,000-foot deep underground wells to inject liquefied carbon dioxide and store it long-term. Drilling those wells could start as soon as October, the EPA said.The concept of using CCS to achieve a low-emission “clean” coal plant has been talked about for years now, but not without skepticism. On the one hand, U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/07/2913671/obama-carbon-capture-earthquakes/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">has purported</a> that CCS can help control climate change by allowing the country “to use our abundant fossil fuel resources as cleanly as possible.” According to the DOE, CCS is a “next-generation” clean coal technology, an “all-of-the-above approach to develop clean and affordable sources of American energy.”On the other hand, as ClimateProgress’ Joe Romm <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/26/376257/carbon-capture-and-storage-permanence-feasibility-and-safety-issues/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">has argued</a>, there is no way to know yet whether CCS will be successful as a strategy to mitigate climate change. He warns against looking at the process as a be-all and end-all to fix the climate problem. The technology requires a “staggering” amount of CO2 injection to make a difference as a climate solution, Romm has said, citing a <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-06-18/the-dirty-truth-about-clean-coal" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Businessweek report</a> claiming the emissions from just one coal-fired plant would require an underground storage space the size of a major oil field.“Pretty much every major CCS project relevant to large-scale deployment at coal plants has been scaled back, delayed, or cancelled entirely,” Romm has written, noting that the NextGen project itself has faced <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/business/energy-environment/coal-project-hits-snag-as-a-partner-backs-off.html?r=3&" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">numerous setbacks</a> since it was first announced by President George W. Bush more than a decade ago. The original plan from President Bush — the FutureGen 1.0 project — was scrapped because of massive cost increases, according to <a href="http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2014/08/18/futuregen-officials-say-sierra-club-complaint-jeopardizes-project/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Midwest Energy News</a>.Some have raised issues with the safety of the process. A <a href="http://nicholas.duke.edu/news/leaks-from-co2-stored-deep-underground-could-contaminate-drinking-water" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">Duke University study</a> found that if injected CO2 were to begin leaking from the underground wells, it could “bubble up into drinking water aquifers near the surface, driving up levels of contaminants in the water tenfold or more in some places.” In addition, a <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/13/1202473109.abstract" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">2009 Stanford University report</a> warned that the process could “trigger small earthquakes that might breach the storage system, allowing the gas back into the atmosphere.”Romm notes that none of this is to say we shouldn’t try using CCS. It’s just that as of now, he says, there are too many uncertainties regarding how well it would work and how safe it would be to deem it a “major climate solution.”Still, CCS could become extremely important in the wake of the EPA’s proposed regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing coal plants. If the technology is successful, it could become a way for coal plants to keep operating with strict limits on how much carbon they can emit into the atmosphere.Until a coal plant in the U.S. is actually CCS-functioning, though, there is no way of knowing if the technology could work. To see all the hurdles FutureGen 2.0 still faces, Bloomberg BNA has a good rundown <a href="http://www.bna.com/construction-begins-futuregen-b17179894307/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">here.</a> <div class="tags" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.5em 0px 1em; border: 0px; line-height: 22.44px; vertical-align: baseline;"><h4 style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0.5em 0px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: italic; font-variant: inherit; line-height: 1.15em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline;">Tags:</h4>   <ul style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.5em 0px 0px; padding: 1em 0px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style: none; display: inline;"><li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/carbon/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">carbon</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/carbon-capture-and-sequestration/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Carbon Capture and Sequestration</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/carbon-emissions/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Carbon Emissions</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/climate-change/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Climate Change</a></li> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.33em; padding: 5px 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: 1.6em; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline-block;"><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/tag/coal/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0.5em; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; border-radius: 6px; background: rgb(221, 221, 221);">Coal</a></li></ul></div>grist<section class="article-body" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.5em;">The Obama administration will soon require new coal-fired power plants to <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/epa-chief-tells-grist-what-coal-will-have-to-do-to-survive-in-a-carbon-constrained-future/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">capture the carbon dioxide they produce</a> and <a href="http://grist.org/news/centuries-worth-of-co2-emissions-could-be-stored-underground-but-at-what-cost/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">store it underground</a>. Coal companies that had long touted “clean coal” turned on the idea, arguing that carbon sequestration <a href="http://grist.org/news/one-failed-project-another-over-budget-hint-at-carbon-capture-challenges-under-epa-rules/" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">isn’t commercially viable</a>.But don’t you worry about the poor coal industry. The fossil fuel guys have a trick up their sleeve. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/to-clean-up-coal-obama-pushes-more-oil-production/2013/12/22/1d532598-6b13-11e3-a5d0-6f31cd74f760_story.html" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">Here is the AP</a>, reporting on an approach adopted at a new coal power plant in Mississippi: <blockquote style="border-width: 0px 0px 0px 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 1.4em 42px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; width: auto !important;">At first, the idea behind “carbon-capture” technology was to make coal plants cleaner by burying the carbon dioxide deep underground that they typically pump out of smokestacks.But that green vision proved too expensive and complicated, so the administration accepted a trade-off.To help the environment, the government allows power companies to sell the carbon dioxide to oil companies, which pump it into old oil fields to force more crude to the surface. A side benefit is that the carbon gets permanently stuck underground.The program shows the ingenuity of the oil industry, which is using government green-energy money to subsidize oil production. But it also showcases the environmental trade-offs Obama is willing to make, but rarely talks about, in his fight against global warming. …Four power plants in the U.S. and Canada … intend to sell their carbon waste for oil recovery.</blockquote>So say goodbye to carbon dioxide, and hello to oil that will be burned to produce more carbon dioxide.As if it weren’t bad enough that this approach undermines the whole intent of carbon capture, scientists <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/04/earthquake-co2-texas-idUSL2N0IP1XR20131104" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; max-width: 100%;">recently linked the practice</a> of injecting carbon dioxide into oil fields to a major flurry of earthquakes in Texas in 2009 and 2010.</section><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;" /><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"></a><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"> </a><div class="grist-sources" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 21.5938px;"><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;" /><div class="span-8 textright" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 2px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; float: left; width: 150px; text-align: right;"><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"></a><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;" /><h3 style="border: 0px; margin: 6px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"></a><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;">Source</a></h3></div><div class="span-2 no-gutter" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; float: left; width: 30px;"><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;" /><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;" /><div class="span-14 grist-source-list" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 6px 0px 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; float: left; width: 270px;"><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"></a><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;" /><ul class="list-style-type-none" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"></a><li style="list-style: none;"><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;"></a><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;">
</a></li><li style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; list-style-image: none; list-style-type: none;"><a id="grist-end-of-article" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%;" /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/to-clean-up-coal-obama-pushes-more-oil-production/2013/12/22/1d532598-6b13-11e3-a5d0-6f31cd74f760_story.html" target="blank" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">To clean up coal, Obama pushes more oil production</a>, The Associated Press</li></ul></div></div>
 <h1 class="title-news">=</h1><div>Southern Company has built and begun operating the world’s largest carbon capture demonstration facility for a pulverized coal-fired generating plant. The facility receives flue gas from a 25-MW equivalent slipstream ducted from Plant Barry, near Mobile, Alabama. To date, the demonstration facility has passed the major milestone of successfully capturing 100,000 tons of CO2. In August 2012, a separate demonstration project, operated by DOE’s Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB), began to inject and store the captured CO2 in a deep saline geologic formation some 12 miles from the carbon capture demonstration site. epri </div><div></div><h1 class="title-news">Ernest Moniz, Considered Fracking Shill By Some Environmentalists, Sparks Concern Amid Energy Department Nomination</h1><div class="comments_datetime_new border_none relative v05" data-beacon="{">Posted: 03/04/2013 10:35 am EST  |  Updated: 03/04/2013 10:45 am EST </div><div class="float_left">In a Monday morning announcement that was long anticipated but not widely welcomed by environmentalists, President Barack Obama tapped <a href="http://esd.mit.edu/Faculty_Pages/moniz/moniz.htm" target="hplink">Ernest Moniz</a>, director of the Energy Initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), as the nominee for the next secretary of energy.“Ernie knows that we can produce more energy and grow our economy while still taking care of our air, our water and our climate," Obama said during a press conference on Monday morning announcing Moniz's nomination, along with his other picks, including <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/ernest-moniz-gina-mccarthy_n_2805057.html?utm_hp_ref=green" target="hplink">Gina McCarthy to lead the Environmental Protection Agency</a>.While some environmental groups cheered the pending nomination, others have expressed deep concern over Moniz due to his outspoken support of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, better known as fracking. Some critics have gone as far as to call him a <a href="http://www.workers.org/2013/03/01/obamas-energy-choice-shill-for-shale-gas-industry/" target="hplink">"shill" for the shale gas industry</a>.A 2011 MIT study led by Moniz hailed natural gas as the "bridge to a low-carbon future." The research, as The Huffington Post reported last week, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/fracking-conflicts-of-interest-regulators_n_2776498.html" target="hplink">received financial support from oil and gas companies</a>.Anthony Ingraffea, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Cornell University, said that the controversial report was just one example of what he calls "frackademia" -- pro-fracking studies coming out of institutions like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/nyregion/suny-buffalo-will-end-controversial-fracking-institute.html?r=0" target="hplink">SUNY Buffalo</a> and the <a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/12/07/why-the-ut-fracking-study-controversy-matters/" target="hplink">University of Texas at Austin</a> that are later found to have been supported by industry. But MIT, being "the best tech institute in the country and the wellspring of many fantastic people," he said, seems to "get a pass."Ingraffea's own fracking research comes to a starkly different conclusion -- that natural gas could be a bigger climate-changer than coal. It was largely funded by a foundation that has supported anti-fracking groups."No one is alleging that Moniz has personally financially gained directly from moneys from the oil and gas industry for fracking studies," said Ingraffea. However, he added, the study does raise concerns over whether or not any actions were taken that "benefited the people paying, despite knowing those actions were not in the best interest of the public, students, his university or the country.""It's difficult," he added. "How do you determine that?"Bill Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity shared similar disapproval with the possibility of a a Moniz-led Energy Department in a <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2013/nominations-02-22-2013.html" target="hplink">February statement</a>."We're concerned that, as energy secretary, Ernest Moniz may take a politically expedient view of harmful fracking and divert resources from solar, geothermal and other renewable energy sources vital to avoiding climate disaster," said Snape. "We're also concerned that Moniz would be in a position to delay research into the dangers fracking poses to our air, water and climate.""His appointment to the DOE could set renewable energy development back years," said a statement released by Food and Water Watch, which also <a href="http://foodandwaterwatch.org/pressreleases/americans-against-fracking-opposes-dr-ernest-moniz-for-secretary-of-energy/" target="hplink">circulated a petition opposing Moniz's nomination</a>.In addition to fracking, Moniz is also an ardent proponent of nuclear power -- another sticking point among some environmentalists.Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) plans to question Moniz on the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/hanford-nuclear-reservation_n_2744974.html" target="hplink">polluted Hanford nuclear site</a> in Washington State, where waste tanks may be leaking 1,000 gallons of waste per year, reported The Hill. Moniz wrote in November 2011 that <a href="http://mitei.mit.edu/news/mitei-news/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power" target="hplink">"it would be a mistake"</a> to let "Fukushima cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits.""Nuclear power's track record of providing clean and reliable electricity compares favorably with other energy sources," Moniz wrote.Still, many environmental experts and advocates have also highlighted Moniz's track record of concern for climate change and emphasis on renewable energy and innovation, and some were hopeful that the nominee's experience and track record would help him accomplish more in the secretary of energy position.As Obama said on Monday, Moniz "already knows his way around the Department of Energy."The physicist, well-known for his over-the-ears hairstyle, served as an undersecretary of energy during the Clinton administration. For the past four years, he has served on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)."Ernie is really a big-picture guy," Rosina Bierbaum, a fellow PCAST member and an environmental-policy expert at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, recently told Nature. "He can talk the details of science far better than most of us, but he <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/physicist-tipped-for-us-energy-post-1.12500" target="hplink">never ever gets lost in the weeds</a>."The Natural Resource Defense Council also welcomed the nomination to replace Steven Chu, who plans to return to Stanford, as "good news.""Professor Moniz has the hands-on experience and the expertise needed to help further the climate and energy goals our country urgently needs," Frances Beinecke, president of the group, said in a statement on Monday.Moniz's hands may very well be full, and the pressure on him high, as the U.S. faces a series of important decisions that could affect the country's -- and the world's -- future economic, environmental and energy landscapes."I have a set of adjectives and nouns to describe the energy business -- it's a highly capitalized, multi-trillion dollar per year commodity business in the sense that when we flick the switch on, we don't see whether it came from a coal plant or solar panel," Moniz told the Switch Energy Project last year. "It serves every activity in society. It therefore does, and always will, <a href="http://vimeo.com/album/1877285/page:2/sort:preset/format:thumbnail" target="hplink">invite extensive regulation and very complex politics</a>." = <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal</a> <div id="mw-content-text" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en">This article provides an overview of both the political and the marketing dimensions of clean coal, and the technologies for using coal that have variously been touted as "clean." Each topic is explored in greater depth in separate articles, as are several related topics:<ul><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal_Technology" title="Clean Coal Technology">Clean Coal Technology</a> - This article assesses progress to date in creating technologies that aimed at eliminating various environmental and health impacts of coal.</li></ul><ul><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal_Marketing_Campaign" title="Clean Coal Marketing Campaign">Clean Coal Marketing Campaign</a> - This article describes the public relations efforts of the coal industry to promote the concept that future coal usage will be safe to the environment and harmless to human health.</li></ul><ul><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal_Subsidies" title="Clean Coal Subsidies">Clean Coal Subsidies</a> describes federal research and development programs aimed at advancing new coal technologies, as well as subsidies provided to commercial coal operations that meet certain official "clean" criteria even though they may continue to generate major pollution streams.</li></ul><ul><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/America%27s_Power" title="America's Power">America's Power</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity" title="American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Families_Organized_to_Represent_the_Coal_Economy" title="Families Organized to Represent the Coal Economy">Families Organized to Represent the Coal Economy</a>, and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kansans_for_Affordable_Energy" title="Kansans for Affordable Energy">Kansans for Affordable Energy</a>describe coal industry front groups that have advanced in the marketing of "clean coal." The article <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bob_Henrie" title="Bob Henrie">Bob Henrie</a> describes one of the leading public relations strategists behind the coal industry's "clean coal" campaign.</li></ul><ul><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fly_ash" title="Fly ash">Fly Ash</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal_waste" title="Coal waste">Coal Waste</a>, and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bottom_ash" title="Bottom ash">Bottom Ash</a> - These articles describe the kinds of secondary waste streams produced by attempts to create "clean coal."</li></ul><table id="toc" class="toc"><tbody><tr><td><div id="toctitle"><h2>Contents</h2> [<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>] </div><ul><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Introduction">1 Introduction</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Shifting_terminology">2 Shifting terminology</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Early_20th_century:.22clean_coal.22_meant.22smokeless_coal.22">2.1 Early 20th century: "clean coal" meant "smokeless coal"</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Late_20th_century:.22clean_coal.22_meant.22coal_with_lower_regulated_emissions.22">2.2 Late 20th century: "clean coal" meant "coal with lower regulated emissions"</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#After_2000:.22clean_coal.22_starts_to_mean.22zero-emissions_coal.22">2.3 After 2000: "clean coal" starts to mean "zero-emissions coal"</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Gap_between_old_plants.2C_new_plants.2C_and_next-generation_plants">3 Gap between old plants, new plants, and next-generation plants</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Older_coal_plants:highly_polluting">3.1 Older coal plants: highly polluting</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#New_plants:cleaner_but_no_carbon_controls">3.2 New plants: cleaner but no carbon controls</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Next-generation_plants:debating_claims_of.22near-zero-emissions.22_or.22zero-emissions_coal.22">3.3 Next-generation plants: debating claims of "near-zero-emissions" or "zero-emissions coal"</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-10"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Increased_mountaintop_removal">4 Increased mountaintop removal</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Carbon_capture_and_storage_makes_coal_more_expensive_than_wind_and_solar">4.1 Carbon capture and storage makes coal more expensive than wind and solar</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-12"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Support_for_development_of_CCS">5 Support for development of CCS</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-13"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Problems_with_CCS">6 Problems with CCS</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-14"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Opposition_to.22clean_coal.22">7 Opposition to "clean coal"</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-15"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Front_group_launches.22Clean_Coal_Information_Campaign.22">8 Front group launches "Clean Coal Information Campaign"</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-16"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Clean_coal_in_Australian_Politics">9 Clean coal in Australian Politics</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-17"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#WWF_Australia_on_clean_coal">9.1 WWF Australia on clean coal</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-18"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#HRL_Limited_challenged_over.22clean_coal.22_claims">9.2 HRL Limited challenged over "clean coal" claims</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-19"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Clean_coal_project_in_China">10 Clean coal project in China</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-20"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Peabody_and_Chinese_companies_to_pursue_clean_coal_project">10.1 Peabody and Chinese companies to pursue clean coal project</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-21"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Articles_and_resources">11 Articles and resources</a><ul><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-22"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#Related_SourceWatch_articles">11.1 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-23"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#References">11.2 References</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-24"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#External_resources">11.3 External resources</a></li></ul></li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table><h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=1" title="Edit section: Introduction">edit</a>] Introduction</h2>The term "clean coal" is both controversial and complex. Controversy arises out of the coal industry's use of the term in its high-profile <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal_Marketing_Campaign" title="Clean Coal Marketing Campaign">marketing campaign</a> aimed at convincing the public and politicians that the goal of using coal without damaging the environment and public health is either a current or a foreseeable reality. Coal opponents assert that such usage is not factually based and that its main purpose is to provide public support and political cover for continued expansion of coal use.Three factors combine to cause additional complexity in the debate:<ul><li>A history of shifting terminology: Over time, the meaning of the term "clean coal" has repeatedly changed, leading to frequent confusion. A hundred years ago the term appeared in newspapers as a synonym for "smokeless" anthracite coal. Today it is frequently used as a shorthand for processes that could allow coal to be used with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. In the interim it has referred to measures that would reduce various pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and particulates.</li></ul><ul><li>Gap between old plants, new plants, and next-generation plants: By any measure, the bulk of existing coal plants remain highly polluting. Recently built plants include equipment that reduces most of the sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions, but they continue to emit large amounts mercury and other toxins, and they do not capture any carbon dioxide. The timeframe for commercial implementation of carbon capture and storage is hotly debated, with estimates ranging from 10 to 30 years in the future.</li></ul><ul><li>The "whack-a-mole" problem: While the term "clean coal" focuses attention on efforts to reduce to coal's atmospheric impacts, measures to tap down the air impacts of coal often cause other <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_impacts_of_coal" title="Environmental impacts of coal">environmental impacts of coal</a> to actually worsen. One example of this perverse phenomenon is the large quantity of toxin-laden sludge produced by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sulfur_dioxide_and_coal" title="Sulfur dioxide and coal">sulfur scrubbers.</a> Another is the fact that <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Carbon_Capture_and_Storage%28CCS%29" title="Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)" class="mw-redirect">carbon capture and storage,</a> if implemented, will increase <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mountaintop_removal" title="Mountaintop removal">mountaintop removal</a> and other surface mining techniques due to the fact that the energy required by such processes will consume approximately 20-25% of a plant's output.</li></ul><h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=2" title="Edit section: Shifting terminology">edit</a>] Shifting terminology</h2>Click <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://quitcoal.org/full-coal-ads-archive">here</a> for an archive of clean coal industry advertisements (1921-2012).<h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=3" title="Edit section: Early 20th century: " clean="" coal="coal" meant="" smokeless="">edit</a>] Early 20th century: "clean coal" meant "smokeless coal"</h3>Prior to World War II, "clean coal" or "smokeless coal" was a marketing term used to describe anthracite and high-grade bituminous coal used for cooking and home heating.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-0">[1]</a><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=4" title="Edit section: Late 20th century: " clean="" coal="" meant="" with="" lower="" regulated="" emissions="emissions">edit</a>] Late 20th century: "clean coal" meant "coal with lower regulated emissions"</h3>With the arrival of the environmental movement in the late 1960s, the coal industry came under increasing pressure to clean up the myriad of pollutants produced by its mines and plants. Visibility (particulates and nitrous oxides) and acid rain (sulfur dioxide) dominated in the formation of policy established via the 1970 Clean Air Act and subsequent Clean Air Act Amendments in 1977 and 1990, while global warming gases remained unregulated. In response to the new legislation, the coal industry responded with a wide spectrum of technology fixes aimed at lowering "criteria emissions." These included replacement of high-sulfur coal with low-sulfur coal, scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, coal cleaning techniques, and development of higher efficiency combustion techniques that allowed more electricity to be generated per ton of emissions. By the 1980s, these technologies came to be referred to under the rubric of "clean coal technology," and the term received official recognition in the Department of Energy's Clean Coal Technology Program (1986-1993).<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-1">[2]</a><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=5" title="Edit section: After 2000: " clean="" coal="coal" starts="" to="" mean="" zero-emissions="">edit</a>] After 2000: "clean coal" starts to mean "zero-emissions coal"</h3>With the arrival of the new millenium and the heightened attention to global warming, the previous usage of "clean coal" to refer to coal with lower regulated emissions was joined by a futuristic new vision, that of "zero-emissions" or "near-zero-emissions coal use. In 2007, President George W. Bush explained the vision as follows:<dl><dd><dl><dd>"One promising solution is advanced clean coal technology. The future of this technology will allow us to trap and store carbon emissions and air pollutants produced by burning coal. Since 2001 the United States has invested more than $2.5 billion to research and develop clean coal. And in partnership with other nations and the private sector we're moving closer to a historic achievement -- producing energy from the world's first zero-emissions coal-fired plant."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-2">[3]</a></dd></dl></dd></dl><h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=6" title="Edit section: Gap between old plants, new plants, and next-generation plants">edit</a>] Gap between old plants, new plants, and next-generation plants</h2><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=7" title="Edit section: Older coal plants: highly polluting">edit</a>] Older coal plants: highly polluting</h3><ul><li>Fine particles: The fleet of existing coal plants produces large quanitities of fine particles, also known as PM2.5, formed from soot, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and metals. These fine particles are estimated to result in 24,000 premature deaths in the United States, averaging 14 lost life-years per person.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-3">[4]</a></li><li>Sulfur dioxide: Because most existing coal plants pre-date current air pollution laws, current plants emit about 13 million tons per year of sulfur dioxide, approximately a 40% reduction from 1990 levels.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-4">[5]</a></li><li>Mercury: Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury in the United States, accounting for about 41 percent (48 tons in 1999) of industrial releases.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-5">[6]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-nes-6">[7]</a>According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, eight percent of American women of childbearing age had unsafe levels of mercury in their blood, putting approximately 322,000 newborns at risk of neurological deficits.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-nes-6">[7]</a> Mercury exposure also can lead to increase cardiovascular risk in adults.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-nes-6">[7]</a></li></ul><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=8" title="Edit section: New plants: cleaner but no carbon controls">edit</a>] New plants: cleaner but no carbon controls</h3>As the gas most heavily implicated in global warming, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal plants are a particular concern. Coal is a much more intensive emitter of CO2 than other fossil fuels. Although coal produces about half of U.S. electricity, it produces about 80 percent of CO2 emissions in the electricity sector and about of overall U.S. CO2 emissions, about the same amount as all transportation sources -- cars, SUVs, trucks, buses, planes, ships, and trains -- combined.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-7">[8]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-8">[9]</a> A 1000 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power plant produces approximately the same amount of global warming as 1.2 million cars.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-9">[10]</a> Although new power plants, when equipped with state-of-the-art pollution controls, have significantly less of the type of pollutants that cause acid rain, fine particulate pollution, and mercury toxicity, no currently proposed plants include any equipment to capture emissions of carbon dioxide. Coal-to-liquids technology will have particularly intensive climate effects. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, using liquefied coal as a fuel source would produce 119 percent greater greenhouse gas emissions than using petroleum-based fuel.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-10">[11]</a><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=9" title="Edit section: Next-generation plants: debating claims of " near-zero-emissions="near-zero-emissions" or="" zero-emissions="" coal="coal">edit</a>] Next-generation plants: debating claims of "near-zero-emissions" or "zero-emissions coal"</h3>
Climate scientists and environmentalists have criticized <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Carbon_Capture_and_Storage" title="Carbon Capture and Storage">carbon capture and storage</a> (CCS), the main enabling technology for zero-emissions coal, as a "pipe dream" that distracted attention and resources from already existing solutions. Dan Becker, director of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sierra_Club" title="Sierra Club">Sierra Club</a>'s Global Warming and Energy Program, argues that the term clean coal is misleading: "There is no such thing as 'clean coal' and there never will be. It's an oxymoron".<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-11">[12]</a> The most comprehensive set of arguments in opposition to CCS was advanced by the study <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/false-hope-why-carbon-capture">"False Hopes: Why Carbon Capture and Storage Won't Save the Climate</a>, published by Greenpeace in May, 2008. "False Hopes" argued as follows:<dl><dd><dl><dd>CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change. The earliest possibility for deployment of CCS at utility scale is not expected before 2030. To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, global greehouse gas emissions have to start falling after 2015, just seven years away.</dd><dd>CCS wastes energy. The technology uses between 10 and 40% of the energy produced by a power station. Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumpton by one third.</dd><dd>Storing carbon undedrground is risky. Safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed. Even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation efforts.</dd><dd>CCS is expensive. It could lead to a doubling of plant costs, and an electricity price increase of 21-91%. Money spent on CCS will divert investments away from sustainable solutions to climate change.</dd><dd>CCS carries significant liability risks. It poses a threat to health, ecosystems and the climate. It is unclear how severe these risks will be.</dd></dl></dd></dl>Other objections to the notion of "zero-emissions" or "near-zero emissions" coal include the following:<ul><li>Slow penetration. Because CCS cannot be economically retrofitted onto existing power plants, the technology will only be adopted as new power plants are built and old power plants retired. Since coal plants typically last for about 50 years, only about 2% of the fleet is ready for retirement in a given year. Even if CCS did become commercially available between 2020 (Electric Power Research Institute estimate) and 2030 (Greenpeace estimate), it would take several more decades--after 2050--for even half the coal fleet to capture its carbon. But James Hansen and other scientists have said that a phase-out of coal plants that do not sequester their carbon needs to take place by 2030, a full generation earlier.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-12">[13]</a></li><li>Geographic limitations. The actual degree of penetration of the technology will be further restricted by geographic limitations, since not all power station locations are close enough to geologically suitable storage locations. For example, power producing regions of New South Wales and South Australia that produce about 39% of Australia's CO2 emissions are over 500 km from identified storage locations.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-13">[14]</a></li><li>CCS fails a life-cycle analysis. Because of their high energy requirements, CCS requires large amounts of additional coal to be mined, and the mining, transport, and usage of the additional coal increases emissions of global warming gases, thereby undermine the benefit of CCS. One study estimated a CCS system that removed 85% to 98% of carbon emissions would actually only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 67% to 78% due to these additional emissions.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-14">[15]</a></li><li>Fig leaf. By providing an illusion of safe use, CCS creates an excuse for allowing continued expansion of coal.</li><li>Diversion of resources. By diverting scare R&D resources, CCS holds up development of cleaner energy sources.</li></ul><h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=10" title="Edit section: Increased mountaintop removal">edit</a>] Increased mountaintop removal</h2>The concept of "clean coal" focuses on reducing air pollution. But the increased energy requirements of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) mean more <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mountaintop_removal" title="Mountaintop removal">mining</a> to provide the 10% to 40% energy penalty created by the carbon capture and sequestration process.<h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=11" title="Edit section: Carbon capture and storage makes coal more expensive than wind and solar">edit</a>] Carbon capture and storage makes coal more expensive than wind and solar</h3>Adding carbon and capture technology to new coal plants makes electricity from coal more expensive than energy from solar thermal and wind power, even when "firming costs" are included for alternatives (see table).Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy, significantly raising the running costs of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Carbon_Capture_and_Storage" title="Carbon Capture and Storage">CCS</a>-equipped power plants. In addition there are added investment or capital costs. The process would increase the energy needs of a plant with CCS by about 10 to 40 percent. The costs of storage and other system costs are estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30 to 60 percent, depending on the specific circumstances.The following table shows cost comparisons published by the California Energy Commission in 2008 for various power-generation technologies, including integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) with CCS.Costs of electricity with and without carbon capture and storage (US cents per kWh - 2008)<table class="wikitable"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ECECEC"><td> </td><td>Pulverized coal</td><td>Integrated gasification combined cycle</td><td>Nuclear</td><td>Solar thermal</td><td>Wind</td></tr><tr><td>Without capture</td><td>10.6</td><td>11.5</td><td>15.3</td><td>12.7</td><td>8.9</td></tr><tr><td>With capture and storage</td><td>N/A</td><td>17.3</td><td>15.3</td><td>12.7</td><td>8.9</td></tr><tr><td class="tNote" colspan="7">Figures prepared for California Energy Commission by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-15">[16]</a> These estimates include firming resource costs. Further information can be found at <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Comparative_electrical_generation_costs" title="Comparative electrical generation costs">Comparative electrical generation costs</a>.</td></tr></tbody></table>The cost of CCS depends on the cost of capture and storage which vary according to the method used. Geological storage in saline formations or depleted oil or gas fields typically cost US$0.50–8.00 per tonne of CO2 injected, plus an additional US$0.10–0.30 for monitoring costs. When storage is combined with enhanced oil recovery to extract extra oil from an oil field, the storage could yield net benefits of US$10–16 per tonne of CO2 injected (based on 2003 oil prices). However, as the table above shows, the benefits do not outweigh the extra costs of capture.<h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=12" title="Edit section: Support for development of CCS">edit</a>] Support for development of CCS</h2>The main argument in favor of CCS is the "critical path" argument. Ceding that CCS is not currently able to achieve the "zero-emissions" objective, some environmentalists argue that the emitting plants should be built if they provide partial steps toward enabling CCS technology to move toward commercial maturity. A prominent exponent of this position is John Thompson, director of the Coal Transition Program for the Clean Air Task Force, which has intervened in favor of at least one power plant even though that plant would only capture and store only a fraction of its carbon dioxide emissions. Thompson said,<dl><dd><dl><dd>"Look, we need to move forward and get the infrastructure for carbon capture and sequestration in place now. And we can't look at this from a U.S. perspective only. The largest coal company in the world isn't Peabody Coal any longer; by the end of next year [China's] Shenhua will probably be the world's largest coal producer. We have to get CCS working in this country so that we have a technology that we can provide to China and India. If environmentalists at the grassroots simply want to fight and stop every single coal plant, then IGCC technology will never develop to a workable level."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-16">[17]</a></dd></dl></dd></dl>Clean Coal has been mentioned by <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_W.Bush" title="George W. Bush" class="mw-redirect">George W. Bush</a> on several occasions, including his 2007 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Union_Address" class="extiw" title="w:State of the Union Address">State of the Union Address</a>. Bush's position is that clean coal technologies should be encouraged as one means to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil. Senator <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton" title="Hillary Rodham Clinton">Hillary Clinton</a> has also recently said that "we should strive to have new electricity generation come from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-17">[18]</a>In Australia, clean coal is often referred to by Prime Minister <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kevin_Rudd" title="Kevin Rudd">Kevin Rudd</a> as a possible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-18">[19]</a> However, in 2009 a government adviser anonymously told a journalist that "Clean coal has become an invitation for ridicule."<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-19">[20]</a> The previous Prime Minister, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_Howard" title="John Howard">John Howard</a>, stated that <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nuclear_power" title="Nuclear power" class="mw-redirect">nuclear power</a> is a better alternative, as clean coal technology may not prove to be economically favorable.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-20">[21]</a>This usage was featured in the literature for such projects as the now defunct FutureGen in the U.S. and the ongoing GreenGen project in China. Zero-emission technology most typically involved the vision of coal gasification, in which pollutants would be separated out of the emissions stream prior to combustion, together with carbon capture and sequestration, in which carbon dioxide would be liquified and stored permanently underground. Although the coal industry employed advertising that focused on this new of clean coal in support of current-generation plants, the Department of Energy's timeline for its Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap indicated that even under optimistic assumptions, carbon sequestration would remain primarily in the demonstration stage for at least the coming decade.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-21">[22]</a><h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=13" title="Edit section: Problems with CCS">edit</a>] Problems with CCS</h2>According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal of Society of Petroleum Engineers, titled "Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in a Close Underground Volume" the authors argue that past calculations of CCS were widely off, rendering the technology impractical. Writing for Casper, Wyoming's Star-Tribune, report author Prof. Michael Economides explains,<dl><dd><dl><dd>Earlier published reports on the potential for sequestration fail to address the necessity of storing CO2 in a closed system. Our calculations suggest that the volume of liquid or supercritical CO2 to be disposed cannot exceed more than about 1 percent of pore space. This will require from 5 to 20 times more underground reservoir volume than has been envisioned by many, including federal government laboratories, and it renders geologic sequestration of CO2 a profoundly non-feasible option for the management of CO2 emissions.</dd></dl></dd></dl><dl><dd><dl><dd>Injection rates, based on displacement mechanisms from enhanced oil recovery experiences, assuming open aquifer conditions, are totally erroneous because they fail to reconcile the fundamental difference between steady state, where the injection rate is constant, and pseudo-steady state, where the injection rate will undergo exponential decline if the injection pressure exceeds an allowable value.</dd></dl></dd></dl><dl><dd><dl><dd>The implications of our work are profound. They show that models that assume a constant pressure outer boundary for reservoirs intended for CO2 sequestration are missing the critical point that the reservoir pressure will build up under injection at constant rate. Instead of the 1-4 percent of bulk volume storability factor indicated prominently in the literature, which is based on erroneous steady-state modeling, our finding is that CO2 can occupy no more than 1 percent of the pore volume and likely as much as 100 times less.</dd></dl></dd></dl><dl><dd><dl><dd>We related the volume of the reservoir that would be adequate to store CO2 with the need to sustain injectivity. The two are intimately connected. The United States has installed over 800 gigawatts (GW) of CO2 emitting coal and natural gas power plants. In applying this to a commercial power plant of just 500 MW, which by the way produces about 3 million tons per year relentlessly, the findings suggest that for a small number of wells the areal extent of the reservoir would be enormous, the size of a small U.S. state. Conversely, for more moderate size reservoirs, still the size of the U.S.'s largest, Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay reservoir, and with moderate permeability there would be a need for hundreds of wells. Neither of these bode well for geological CO2 sequestration and the work clearly suggests that it is not a practical means to provide any substantive reduction in CO2 emissions.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-22">[23]</a></dd></dl></dd></dl><h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=14" title="Edit section: Opposition to " clean="" coal="coal">edit</a>] Opposition to "clean coal"</h2>Complaints focus on the environmental impacts of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mountaintop_removal" title="Mountaintop removal">mountaintop removal mining</a>, the projected high costs of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Carbon_Capture_and_Storage" title="Carbon Capture and Storage">carbon capture and storage</a>, the human health dangers of large, rapid releases of carbon dioxide, the global warming risk posed by small levels leakage over long periods, increases in coal mining needed to run scrubbers as well as <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Carbon_Capture_and_Storage" title="Carbon Capture and Storage">carbon capture and storage</a> systems.Critics of "clean coal" contend that there is no such thing as "clean coal," since even technology projected by 2020 will still release large amounts of pollutants compared to renewable energy sources such as wind, concentrated solar power, photovoltaic power, hydropower, and geothermal power. They also point out that there can be a large amount of energy required and pollution emitted in transporting the coal to the power plants. Opponents note that <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Carbon_Capture_and_Storage" title="Carbon Capture and Storage">carbon capture and storage</a> technology has yet to be used or proven on such a large scale and that it may not be successful. There are also concerns that pumping sequestered CO2 into oil and gas wells to help make the fuels easier to pump out of the ground will lead to further consumption of fossil fuels, and CO2 emissions, thus adding to global warming.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-23">[24]</a><h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=15" title="Edit section: Front group launches " clean="" coal="" information="" campaign="campaign">edit</a>] Front group launches "Clean Coal Information Campaign"</h2>In 2010, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Front_group" title="Front group" class="mw-redirect">front group</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/America%27s_Power_Army" title="America's Power Army">America's Power Army</a> launched a <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.cleancoaltechnologyworks.org/">Clean Coal Technology. It Works.</a> campaign aimed at "educating people" at state fairs, festivals, baseball and football games, college campuses, diner and town squares about "clean coal." In September 2010, as part of the campaign, the group announced that mobile classrooms will be added as well. Called “classrooms on wheels,” the goal is to "help educate the public about clean coal technology and its role in providing affordable, reliable electricity, well-paying jobs and a cleaner environment. In the each classroom, visitors will see interactive displays explaining the history and future of clean coal technology. They will learn how clean coal technology has reduced emissions of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sulfur_dioxide" title="Sulfur dioxide" class="mw-redirect">sulfur dioxide</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nitrogen_oxide" title="Nitrogen oxide">nitrogen oxide</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Particulate_matter" title="Particulate matter" class="mw-redirect">particulate matter</a>, how utility <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mercury" title="Mercury">mercury</a> emissions will be cut, and how <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Carbon_capture_and_storage" title="Carbon capture and storage" class="mw-redirect">carbon capture and storage</a> will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide."<h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=16" title="Edit section: Clean coal in Australian Politics">edit</a>] Clean coal in Australian Politics</h2><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=17" title="Edit section: WWF Australia on clean coal">edit</a>] WWF Australia on clean coal</h3><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Greens&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Australian Greens (page does not exist)">Australian Greens</a> Senator <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christine_Milne&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Christine Milne (page does not exist)">Christine Milne</a> accused the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Institute_Australia" title="Climate Institute Australia" class="mw-redirect">Climate Institute Australia</a> and WWF Australia of abandoning "any remaining pretence of being part of the mainstream environment movement", by supporting "clean coal" in an alliance with mining companies and unions.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-24">[25]</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-25">[26]</a><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=18" title="Edit section: HRL Limited challenged over " clean="" coal="coal" claims="claims">edit</a>] HRL Limited challenged over "clean coal" claims</h3>In July, 2007, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Climate_Justice_Program&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Australian Climate Justice Program (page does not exist)">Australian Climate Justice Program</a>, with the support of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Greenpeace" title="Greenpeace">Greenpeace</a>, lodged a complaint with the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Competition_and_Consumer_Commission&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (page does not exist)">Australian Competition and Consumer Commission</a>(ACCC) over <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=HRL_Limited&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="HRL Limited (page does not exist)">HRL Limited</a>’s use of the term "clean coal" in relation to its proposed new brown coal-fired power plant in Victoria.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-26">[27]</a><h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=19" title="Edit section: Clean coal project in China">edit</a>] Clean coal project in China</h2><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=20" title="Edit section: Peabody and Chinese companies to pursue clean coal project">edit</a>] Peabody and Chinese companies to pursue clean coal project</h3>In January 2011 it was announced the U.S. based <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peabody_Coal" title="Peabody Coal" class="mw-redirect">Peabody Coal</a>, China Huaneng Group and Calera Corporation agreed to pursue the development of a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_coal" title="Clean coal" class="mw-redirect">clean coal</a> project in the Xilinguole Region of Mongolia. The energy project would include a 1200 MW coal-fired power plant. The proposed plant would seek to capture a portion of carbon dioxide (CO2) and convert it into green building materials, advancing carbon capture technology. The plant would be fueled by a 12 million tonne per year surface mine operated by Peabody Coal.It was stated that China Huaneng would serve as the power plant operator. Calera would use its technology to convert CO2 into solids that can be used as cement building materials. As of 2011, engineering plans were underway, with more announcements to come later in the year.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_note-27">[28]</a><h2>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=21" title="Edit section: Articles and resources">edit</a>] Articles and resources</h2><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=22" title="Edit section: Related SourceWatch articles">edit</a>] Related SourceWatch articles</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Coal" title="Coal">Coal</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_coal-quotable_quotes" title="Clean coal - quotable quotes">Clean coal - quotable quotes</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity" title="American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/America%27s_Power" title="America's Power">America's Power</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Families_Organized_to_Represent_the_Coal_Economy" title="Families Organized to Represent the Coal Economy">Families Organized to Represent the Coal Economy</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kansans_for_Affordable_Energy" title="Kansans for Affordable Energy">Kansans for Affordable Energy</a></li></ul><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=23" title="Edit section: References">edit</a>] References</h3><div class="references-small" style="column-count: 2;"><ol class="references"><li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-0">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.wva-usa.com/history/mthope/smokeless.php">"Smokeless Coal,"</a> WVa-USA.com, accessed May 2008.</li><li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-1">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/86-93program.html">The 1986-93 Clean Coal Technology Program,</a> Department of Energy website, accessed May 2008</li><li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-2">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092800676.html">"Bush Addresses Energy Policy, Climate Change,"</a> Washington Post, 9/28/07</li><li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-3">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Dirty_Air_Dirty_Power.pdf">Dirty Air, Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants,</a> Conrad G. Schneider, Abt Associates, June 2004, sponsored by Clean Air Task Force; <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.catf.us/publications/view/24">Synopsis</a></li><li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-4">↑</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sulfur_dioxide_and_coal" title="Sulfur dioxide and coal">Sulfur dioxide and coal</a></li><li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-5">↑</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mercury_and_coal" title="Mercury and coal">Mercury and coal</a></li><li id="cite_note-nes-6">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-nes_6-0">7.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-nes_6-1">7.1</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-nes_6-2">7.2</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.nescaum.org/documents/rpt031104mercury.pdf/">“Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants: The Case for Regulatory Action,”</a> Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, October 2003. (PDF File)</li><li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-7">↑</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_impacts_of_coal_plants" title="Climate impacts of coal plants">Climate impacts of coal plants</a></li><li id="cite_note-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-8">↑</a> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://tinyurl.com/grd8o">“Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004,”</a> April 2006.</li><li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-9">↑</a> Barbara Freese and Steve Clemmer, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/gambling_with_coal_final_report_sept_06.pdf">"Gambling with Coal: How New Climate Laws Will Make Future Coal Plants More Expensive,"</a> Union of Concerned Scientists, September 2006, page 2.</li><li id="cite_note-10"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-10">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/09/romm_testimony.html">Testimony of Joseph Romm before Congress</a>, September 5, 2007.</li><li id="cite_note-11"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-11">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/12/03/little-coal/">Grist.org</a> - Coal Position</li><li id="cite_note-12"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-12">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10657">"Clock running out on irreversible climate change - Part I,"</a> James Hansen, Yale Global, April 16, 2008.</li><li id="cite_note-13"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-13">↑</a> Sadler, H, et al., "Geosequestration: What is it and how much can it contribute to a sustainable energy policy for Australia?" The Australia Institute, Anu, 2004, quoted in <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/reports4/false-hope-why-carbon-capture">False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won't save the climate</a>, Emily Rochon, Greenpeace, May 2008</li><li id="cite_note-14"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-14">↑</a> Peter Viebahn et al, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/Viebahn_etal.pdf">"Comparison of carbon capture and storage with renewable energy technologies regarding structural, economic, and ecological aspects in Germany,"</a> International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2007</li><li id="cite_note-15"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-15">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ethree.com/clientlist.html">E3 Selected Client List</a> accessed 6/08</li><li id="cite_note-16"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-16">↑</a> Ted Nace, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/506">"Stopping Coal In Its Tracks,"</a> Orion Magazine, Jan/Feb 2008</li><li id="cite_note-17"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-17">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=247652&&">Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Cleantech Venture Forum VIII</a></li><li id="cite_note-18"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-18">↑</a> Sue Dunlevy, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,,21284871-5006009,00.html">"Rudd's clean coal pledge"</a>, The Daily Telegraph, February 26, 2007.</li><li id="cite_note-19"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-19">↑</a> Adam Morton, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.theage.com.au/environment/coming-clean-20091103-hvax.html">"Coming clean"</a>, The Age, November 4, 2009.</li><li id="cite_note-20"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-20">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_2124.asp">NineMSN.com.au</a> - Interview: John Howard February 11, 2007.</li><li id="cite_note-21"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-21">↑</a> David Sasoon, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080201/doe-timelines-show-clean-coal-will-be-long-time-comin">"DOE Timelines Show "Clean" Coal Will Be a Long Time Comin',"</a> Solve Climate, 2/1/08</li><li id="cite_note-22"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-22">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://trib.com/news/opinion/forums/article_29d8a707-af26-5b8e-a09a-7757c951faa4.html">"CO2 sequestration isn't practical"</a> Michael Economides, Casper Star-Tribune, February 20, 2010.</li><li id="cite_note-23"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-23">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://ohvec.org/links/news/archive/2005/fair_use/10_16.html">‘Clean coal’ push concerns environmental activists</a></li><li id="cite_note-24"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-24">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://greensblog.org/2008/04/15/abandoning-the-polluter-pays-principle/">Abandoning the polluter pays principle</a>, Christine Milne, Greensblog, Tuesday 15 April, 2008</li><li id="cite_note-25"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-25">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://wwf.org.au/news/wwf-joins-worlds-leading-environment-proponents-in-ccs-call/">WWF joins world's leading environment proponents in CCS call</a>, WWF Australia press release, Tuesday, 15 April 2008</li><li id="cite_note-26"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-26">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.climatelaw.org/media/2007July20">"HRL Challenged Over 'Clean Coal' Claims,"</a> Climate Justice, July 20, 2007.</li><li id="cite_note-27"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Clean_Coal#cite_ref-27">↑</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.bulk-solids-handling.com/management/projects_contracts/articles/300222/">"China Huaneng, Peabody and Calera to Pursue Clean Coal Project"</a> Marcel Dröttboom Bulk Solids Handling, January 24, 2011.</li></ol></div><h3>[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_Coal&action=edit&section=24" title="Edit section: External resources">edit</a>] External resources</h3><ul><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ep.tc/problems/41/01.html">"COMICS WITH PROBLEMS #41: Strip Mining and Surface Mining is Awesome for the Earth"</a> 1960s comic on greenwashing of coal</li><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://dirtybusinessthefilm.com/">Dirty Business</a> (film about carbon capture and storage)</li><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.precaution.org/lib/last_chance_for_coal.081008.pdf">"A last chance for coal: Making carbon capture and storage work,"</a> Green Alliance (supported by BP), August 10, 2008.</li><li>Daniel J. Weiss, Nick Kong, Sam Schiller, Alexandra Kougentakis, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/clean_coal.html">The Clean Coal Smoke Screen</a>," <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_America_Progress&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Center for America Progress (page does not exist)">Center for America Progress</a>, December 22, 2008.</li><li>David Roberts, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/22/151612/34">The essential 'clean coal' scam: Politico lets shill get away with the basic dodge at the center of the 'clean coal' campaign</a>," Gristmill blog, December 23, 2008.</li><li>Viveca Novak, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/181143/page/1">"A Clean Coal Confrontation,"</a> Factcheck.org, 1/23/09</li><li>Joshua Frank, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://counterpunch.org/frank02132009.html">The Myth of Clean Coal: Foes of Mountaintop Removal Have No Ally in the White House</a>", Counterpunch, February 13 - 15, 2009.</li><li>Tara Lohan, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/125783/don%27t_get_duped_like_obama%3A_here%27re_the_top_5_myths_about_coal?page=1">Don't Get Duped Like Obama: Here're the Top 5 Myths About Coal</a>," AlterNet, February 14, 2009.</li><li>Kent Garber, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/03/17/why-clean-coal-is-years-away.html">"Why Clean Coal Is Years Away,"</a> US News and World Report, 3/17/09</li></ul><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Wikipedia" title="Wikipedia">Wikipedia</a> also has an article on <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Coal">Clean Coal</a>. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL">GFDL</a>.</div><div id="catlinks" class="catlinks"><div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>:<ul><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Coal_Issues" title="Category:Coal Issues">Coal Issues</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Energy" title="Category:Energy">Energy</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Carbon_Capture_and_Storage" title="Category:Carbon Capture and Storage">Carbon Capture and Storage</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Coal_lobby" title="Category:Coal lobby">Coal lobby</a></li><li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Coal_terms" title="Category:Coal terms">Coal terms</a></li></ul></div></div>   </div></div></div></div>