In the United States, clean coal is a term for technology that mitigates emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gasses that arise from the burning of coal for electrical power. Typically, the term clean coal is used by coal companies in reference to carbon capture and storage, which pumps and stores CO2 emissions underground, and plants using an Integrated gasification combined cycle. This gasifies coal to reduce CO2 emissions. Historically, the term has been used to refer to technologies for reducing emissions of ash, sulfur, and heavy metals from coal combustion.
Within the United States, Carbon Capture and storage technologies are mainly being developed in response to regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency—most notably the Clean Air Act—and in anticipation of legislation that seeks to mitigate climate change. Currently, the electricity sector of the United States is responsible for about 41% of the nation's CO2 emissions, and half of the sector's production comes from coal-fired power plants.
The United States Department of Energy works with private industry to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Several methods are available under this technology including pre-capture, oxy-fuel combustion, and post-capture CCS. Perhaps the most popular example of a coal-based plant using (oxy-fuel) carbon-capture technology is Vattenfall’s Schwarze Pumpe plant in Germany. However, no one has demonstrated that carbon stored underground will be able to stay there indefinitely. Another technology under development is the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle or IGCC.
A more recent technology being co-developed by Babcock-ThermoEnergy is the Zero Emission Boiler System (ZEBS). This system features near 100% carbon-capture and according to company information virtually no air-emissions.
Other carbon capture and storage technologies include those that dewater low-rank coals. Low-rank coals often contain a higher level of moisture content which contains a lower energy content per tonne. This causes a reduced burning efficiency and an increased emissions output. Reduction of moisture from the coal prior to combustion can reduce emissions by up to 50 percent.
The UK government's Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is working towards a clean energy future and supports clean coal projects across the country. In August 2010, UK-based company B9 Coal announced a clean coal project with 90% carbon capture to be put forward to DECC. This would help the UK raise its profile amongst green leaders across the world. This proposed project, gasifys coal underground and processes it to create pure streams of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen is then used as an emissions-free fuel to run an alkaline fuel cell whilst the carbon dioxide is captured. This UK project could provide a world-leading template for clean coal with CCS globally.
According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the burning of coal, a fossil fuel, is a significant contributor to global warming. (See the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). For 1 ton of coal burned, 2.86 tons of carbon dioxide is created. As 25.5% of the world's electrical generation in 2004 was from coal-fired generation (see World energy resources and consumption), reaching the carbon dioxide reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol will require modifications to how coal is utilized.
Sequestration technology has yet to be tested on a large scale and may not be safe or successful. Sequestered CO2 may eventually leak up through the ground, may lead to unexpected geological instability or may cause contamination of aquifers used for drinking water supplies. There are also concerns that plans to pump some of the sequestered CO2 into certain oil and gas reserves, to help make the fuel easier to pump out of the ground, will lead to increased concentrations of CO2 in potential fuel supplies. This would have to be removed or released during the refining process.
Technologies related to reducing the environmental impact of extracting energy from coal do not address environmental impacts of coal mining. Examples of environmental impacts of coal mining include the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill.
Gasification is a process that avoids burning coal. “Unlike traditional combustion processes which fully oxidize carbonaceous fuels to generate heat, modern coal gasifiers convert coal into syngas via partial oxidation reactions with oxygen or with steam and oxygen under elevated pressures.14,62”(Li et. Al 252). Syngas is made of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. It is then cleaned and burned in place of coal to make electricity.
The byproducts of coal combustion are considerably hazardous to the environment if not properly contained.
While it is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) emissions from the coal-burning process, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and radionuclides  will be more difficult to address.
Coal-fired power plants are the largest aggregate source of mercury: 50 tons per year come from coal power plants out of 150 tons emitted nationally in the USA and 5000 tons globally. In the USA, neither the combustion products of oil, nor their associated solid or liquid waste streams, are considered to be major contributors to mercury pollution.
Potential financial cost of clean coal
Whether carbon capture and storage technology is adopted world wide will “…depend less on science than on economics. Cleaning coal is very expensive.” 
Projected costs for CCS can be found in that article. Credit Suisse Group says $15 billion needs to be invested in CCS over the next 10 years for it to play an important role in climate change. The International Energy Agency says $20 billion is needed. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change says the number is as high as $30 billion. Those figures dwarf the actual investments to date.
In the US, the Bush administration spent about $2.5 billion on clean coal technology — a large amount, but far less than what will be needed. CCS proponents say both the government and the private sector need to step up their investments.
Projects in the United States
FutureGen is a US government project, announced by President George W. Bush in 2003 to build a near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant to produce hydrogen and electricity while using carbon capture and storage. Funding for the plant was withdrawn by the Department of Energy on 29 January 2008.
The United States Department of Energy has also funded projects through the National Energy Technology Laboratory Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). There have been three rounds of CCPI funding and the following projects were selected during each round:
- Round 1 CCPI Projects
- Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant
- Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex
- Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project
- Increasing Power Plant Efficiency: Lignite Fuel Enhancement
- TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers
- Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project
- Commercial Demonstration of the Airborne Process
- Integration of Advanced Emission Controls to Produce Next-Generation Circulating Fluid Bed Coal Generating Unit
- Round 2 CCPI Projects
- Airborne ProcessTM Commercial Scale Demonstration Program
- Demonstration of a Coal-Based Transport Gasifier
- Mercury Specie and Multi-Pollutant Control Project
- Mesaba Energy Project
- Round 3 CCPI Projects
In the United States, clean coal was mentioned by former President George W. Bush on several occasions, including his 2007 State of the Union Address. Bush's position was that carbon capture and storage technologies should be encouraged as one means to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.
During the 2008 US Presidential campaign, both candidates John McCain and Barack Obama expressed interest in the development of CCS technologies as part of an overall comprehensive energy plan. The development of clean coal technologies could also create export business for the United States or any other country working on it.
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, signed in 2009 by President Obama, allocated $3.4 billion for advanced carbon capture and storage technologies, including CCS demonstration projects.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that "we should strive to have new electricity generation come from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables,” and current Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu has said that “It is absolutely worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage," noting that even if the U.S. and Europe turned their backs on coal, developing nations like India and China would not.
In Australia, carbon capture and storage was often referred to by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as a possible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (The previous Prime Minister John Howard has stated that nuclear power is a better alternative, as CCS technology may not prove to be economically favorable.)
Environmentalists such as Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program, believes that the term clean coal is misleading: "There is no such thing as clean coal and there never will be. It's an oxymoron." The Sierra Club's Coal Campaign has launched a site refuting the clean coal statements and advertising of the coal industry.
Critics also believe that the continuing construction of coal-powered plants (whether or not they use carbon sequestration techniques) encourages unsustainable mining practices for coal, which can strip away mountains, hillsides, and natural areas. 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.
The Reality Coalition, a nonprofit organization composed of Alliance for Climate Protection, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters, ran a series of television commercials in 2008 and 2009. The commercials were highly critical of clean coal, stating that without capturing CO2 emissions and storing it safely that it cannot be called clean coal.
Greenpeace is a major opponent of the concept because they view emissions and wastes as not being avoided but instead transferred from one waste stream to another. According to Greenpeace USA Executive Director Phil Radford, "even the industry figures it will take 10 or 20 years to arrive, and we need solutions sooner than that. We need to scale up renewable energy; “clean coal” is a distraction from that."
Clean coal was an umbrella term for any methods that have been developed to reduce the environmental impact of coal-based electricity, which accounts for nearly half of the United States’ electricity supply. These efforts include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification (see also IGCC), treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, carbon capture and storage technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas and coal de-watering technologies to improve the energy quality and thus the efficiency of burning coal for energy. These methods and the technology used are referred to as clean coal technologies. Figures from the Environmental Protection Agency show that these technologies have made today’s coal-based generating fleet 77 percent cleaner on the basis of regulated emissions per unit of energy produced.
While the term clean coal is today commonly used for carbon capture technologies, the earliest use of the term can be traced back to U.S. Senate Bill 911 in April, 1987:
"The term clean coal technology means any technology...deployed at a new or existing facility which will achieve significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation of electricity."
The term also appeared in a speech to mine workers in 1918, when clean coal referred meant coal that was "free of dirt and impurities".
It was in the late 1980s and early 1990s that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a joint program with the industry and State agencies to demonstrate these technologies large enough for commercial use. The program, called the Clean Coal Technology & Clean Coal Power Initiative, has had a number of successes that have reduced emissions and waste from coal-based electricity generation. Moreover, the Program has met regulatory challenges by incorporating nitrogen oxide (NOx) control technologies “into a portfolio of cost-effective regulatory compliance options for the full range of boiler types.” This portfolio has positioned the U.S. as a top exporter of clean coal technologies such as those used for NOx. The DOE continues its programs and initiatives through regional sequestration partnerships, a carbon sequestration leadership forum and the Carbon Sequestration Core Program, a CCS research and development program.
According to a report by the assistant secretary for fossil energy at the U.S. Department of Energy, clean coal technology has paid measurable dividends. Technological innovation introduced through the CCT Program now provides consumers cost-effective, clean, coal-based energy.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) control technologies emerging from clean coal technology have moved into the utility and industrial marketplace and now provide cost-effective regulatory compliance. A new generation of advanced coal-based power systems has been placed in commercial service that represents a quantum leap forward in terms of efficiency and environmental performance. These advanced power systems projects will provide a springboard for widespread, global deployment. This in turn will contribute greatly to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
The government and industry officials continue to use the term "clean coal" to describe technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation, and use. However, today, the term "clean coal technology" is usually used in reference to carbon capture and storage, an advanced process that eliminates carbon dioxide emissions from coal-based plants and permanently sequesters them.
- Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate
- Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Carbon sink
- Coal in the United States
- Coal phase out
- Energy development
- Energy Policy Act of 2005
- Fluidized bed combustion
- James E. Hansen
- JEA Northside Generating Station (Jacksonville)
- Low carbon power generation
- Mitigation of global warming
- Mountaintop removal mining
- Pleasant Prairie Power Plant
- Refined coal
- Waste management
- World Coal Institute
Notes and references
- "Countries betting tech can clean up coal - IB89005: Global Climate Change". CNN International. July 13, 2009. Retrieved 2009-07-20.[dead link]
- "Daily Wrap Up for July 16 – Energy". International Business Times. July 16, 2009. Retrieved 2009-07-17.
- Morton, Adam (July 9, 2009). "Divided views over 'clean coal' pilot project". Melbourne: The Age. Retrieved 2009-07-17.
- "Make-or-break summit as G8 gamble on climate and economy". The Australian. July 6, 2009. Retrieved 2009-07-17.
- "The 1986-93 Clean Coal Technology Program". US Department of Energy. 21 April 2011. Retrieved 2011-04-21.
- "Annual Energy Outlook 2011 with Projections to 2035".
- "Vattenfall's Project on CSS". Vattenfall.
- "Rocks Found That Could Store Greenhouse Gas".
- "Picking a Winner in Clean-Coal Technology".
- Energy Technologies: Zero Emissions Boiler System - Combustion of Carbonaceous Fuels with Recovery of all By-Products and no CO2 or other Air Emissions
- "Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal, Energy Information Administration, Quarterly Coal Report, January-April 1994".
- "CRS Issue Brief for Congress - IB89005: Global Climate Change". National Council for Science and the Environment. August 13, 2001. Retrieved 2008-09-13.
- "AWWA warns Congress about CO2 injection concerns". American Water Works Association. July 29, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-27.
- "‘Clean coal’ push concerns environmental activists". Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. October 16, 2005. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
- Li, Fanxing, and Liang-Shih Fan. "Clean Coal Conversion Processes %u2013 Progress and Challenges." Energy & Environmental Science 1.2 (2008): 248. Print.
- Alex Gabbard. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger?". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
- "Mercury Emissions - A Global Problem". US Gov, EPA News. 2004. Retrieved 2008-09-24.
- "Mercury in Crude Oil". American Chemical Society. 10 October 2007. Retrieved 2008-09-24.
- "Mercury in petroleum and natural gas". US Gov, EPA News. 1 September 2001. Retrieved 2008-09-24.
- "BP dumps mercury in lake". Chicago Tribune. 27 July 2007. Archived from the original on June 25, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-24.
- Wall Street Journal, Cool hard facts: cleaning it won’t be dirt cheap
- US News, Why clean coal is years away
- Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy FutureGen page.
- "Major Demonstrations: Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)". NETL. Retrieved 1 May 2012.
- Galbraith, Kate (February 17, 2009). "Obama Signs Stimulus Packed With Clean Energy Provisions". Green Inc. Blog, The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-04-30.
- Hughes, Siobhan (April 7, 2009). "Energy Secretary Backs Clean-Coal Investments". The Wall Street Journal.
- Dunlevy, Sue (February 26, 2007). "Rudd's clean coal pledge". The Daily Telegraph, Australia. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
- "Interview: John Howard". NineMSN. February 11, 2007. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
- "Transcript And Audio: First Obama-Romney Debate". NPR (Federal News Service). 2012-10-03. Retrieved 2013-05-24.
- "Coal Position". Grist - Environmental News and Commentary. December 3, 2004. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
- Coal is Not the Answer
- "Coal can't be clean". Herald Sun, Melbourne Australia. February 14, 2007. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
- "Coal Can't Be Clean - Flannery", Melbourne Herald Sun, February 14, 2007.
- This Is Reality.org
- "Clean Coal Myths and Facts (archived version from the Internet Archive)". GreenPeace.org. Retrieved 2012-03-20.
- "Radford: New Greenpeace Boss on Climate Change, Coal, and Nuclear Power". [Wall Street Journal]. Retrieved 2012-03-20.
- "Air Trends". Environmental Protection Agency.
- The definition of clean coal
- "Clean coal" history lesson
- "Clean Coal Technology & The Clean Coal Power Initiative". U.S. Department of Energy.
- Clean Coal Technology & The Clean Coal Power Initiative
- "Carbon Sequestration". U.S. Department of Energy.
- "Clean Coal Technology: The Investment Pays Off". U.S. Department of Energy.
- "Clean Coal Technologies - Overview". Australian Coal Association. Archived from the original on July 19, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-09.
- "Smokeless Coal," WVa-USA.com, accessed May 2008.
||This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (March 2013)|
- BBC News - Clean coal technology: How it works
- International Energy Agency - Clean Coal Centre
- World Coal Institute - Coal: Facts & Figures
- US Department of Energy's clean coal technology web page
- National Energy Technology Laboratory compendium homepage
- The Future of Coal An Interdisciplinary MIT Study
- Institute for Clean & Secure Energy