The Expensive Myth of Clean Coal
As a fuel source, coal is as filthy as they come – emitting about 67% more CO2 per unit of energy than natural gas.
The process of coal mining itself also releases large amounts of trapped methane gas into the atmosphere. The US Geological Survey estimates that there is an incredible 700 trillion cubic feet of methane trapped in domestic coal deposits.
Methane is twenty-one times as powerful as greenhouse gas as CO2, and according to the IPCC accounts for 9% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
There is so much trapped methane in coal deposits that it is more profitable in many areas to extract “coal bed methane” by surface drilling and leave the coal in the ground.
The much more common method of conventional coal mining simply allows this dangerous gas to escape into our atmospheric fishbowl.
But climate change is big news and coal is big business. As a result there is a vigorous PR campaign to try and rehabilitate the public image of the coal.
Enter a $1.8 billion project in Illinois to build a “clean coal” research facility to showcase emission-free coal power. They plan to capture the CO2 from the coal combustion and inject it deep into underlying rock formations. So what’s that catch?
Even if this project was a success when it is finally slated to go online 2012, it remains only one single plant and a small one at that. There are now about 600 conventional coal plants in the US burning on average about 1.4 million tons of coal each every year.
There are also over 150 fully polluting coal plants on the drawing board in the US.
About 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US come from coal. Throwing over $1 billion of taxpayer’s dollars towards a single token “clean coal” plant sounds like a very expensive Potemkin village for benefit of the coal lobby.
It is also telling that the US government was unsuccessful in getting their industry partners to pick up more of the tab for this boondoggle. Spending that kind of money on a plant that would only supply energy to 150,000 homes is an excellent example of dubious economics to this unproven technology.
At only 245 MW generating capacity and a cost of $1.8 billion, this so called clean coal plant would be about twice as expensive as building equivalent wind generating facilities and slightly more than solar – both of which are guaranteed to produce zero emissions forever.
Lastly, even if carbon capture technology would work, it does nothing to mitigate methane emissions from coal mining.
Coal is dirty. Don’t buy the whitewash. -Mitchell Anderson
Green Collar Jobs to Fuel Future Economy
In a recent report, researchers from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts propose a $100 billion stimulus package that they say would create four times more jobs than would a similar investment in the oil industry.
"Our proposal is a Green Recovery program," said lead author Robert Pollin. "It is designed to precisely counteract the forces pushing the economy into a recession."
Besides reducing carbon emissions, the investment — which would combine tax credits and loan guarantees for envirotech companies — would reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.
Moreover, it would create so-called "green collar" jobs that would benefit both traditional blue and white collar workers.
"Green investments will create jobs across the spectrum — from truck drivers, roofers, welders, secretaries, CEOs and research scientists," Pollin told LiveScience.
Wearing green
As many as one out of four workers in the United States will be working in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries by 2030, according to a separate recent report from the American Solar Energy Society.
Who makes up the green collar work force?
"There's no real hard and fast definition," said Olivia Anderson of Acre Resources Ltd., an environmental job recruiter in the United Kingdom. "But green collar is any role implementing sustainability in business."
This can include retrofitting buildings, designing new solar cells, organizing recycling programs, carbon trading, or being part of a company's corporate responsibility team.
Perhaps this breadth explains why Anderson's company continues to place workers.
"We haven't seen a slowdown in our business," Anderson said. "There's a little bit of caution but people are still hiring."
She thinks part of this stability stems from the fact that governments and companies have both made public pledges to reduce their carbon footprint.
"They have to stick to it," she said.
The color of money
Worldwide, $148 billion was spent on clean energy technologies and projects in 2007, according to U.K.-based New Energy Finance, which provides investor information in alternative energy. This was an increase of more than 60 percent in investments from the year before.
Some foresee continued growth in the future, but it will likely depend on what government policies are enacted.
The Green Jobs Act of 2007 provides $125 million per year to fund green job training programs, but Congress has yet to appropriate the funds.
In the race for the White House, Sen. Barack Obama has proposed spending $150 billion over 10 years to help create 5 million new jobs in clean energy. Sen. John McCain has a plan to fund low-carbon technologies with proceeds from a cap and trade system.
"These programs are moving in the right direction," Pollin said. But "we need more dramatic action. This will benefit the environment and have a much greater positive impact on job availability."
By Michael Schirber
