It’s Still a Dirty Business: McCain v. Obama on Clean Coal
by Matthew McDermott, Brooklyn, NY on 09.30.08
photo: Vattenfall
Writing this comparison less that a week after former Vice-President Al Gore called for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal power plants which don’t included carbon capture and storage is somehow a little eerie.* Also, considering the extensive posts done on TreeHugger about how there really isn’t such a thing as clean coal, it feels odd to type this up. But as both Barack Obama and John McCain have consistently expressed support for ‘clean coal’, it is useful to examine the differences in their rhetoric. If there’s one issue which irks me more than any other in both their campaigns, it’s this one. So, without any more ado, John McCain and Barack Obama on clean coal:
photo: Tom LeGro/NewsHour
John McCain on Clean Coal
Last week I wrote about John McCain’s enthusiasm for nuclear power, prioritizing it and offshore oil drilling above promoting renewable energy. Well, in his official campaign literature clean coal comes above nuclear power. Considering that in general McCain talks up nuclear above clean coal this may just be an issue of formatting, but here it is:$2 Billion For Clean Coal Technologies
John McCain will commit $2 billion annually to advancing clean coal technologies. Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal - creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy. (McCain Palin 2008)
When the League of Conservation Voters asked McCain whether he would support investment in unconventional fuels, such as liquid coal, which could increase greenhouse gas emissions he responded that under a carbon cap-and-trade system such as he favors the market would determine if liquid coal was financially viable and then added,
Carbon Capture Must Succeed for Coal to Liquids to be Viable
I do believe, however, that carbon capture and pollution control technology will continue to advance, and must succeed if coal to liquid fuels are to be viable. It must be a national mission to develop a catalyst capable of breaking down carbon dioxide into useful chemical building blocks, and render it a new source of revenue and opportunity. Doing so will enable us to take advantage of our most abundant energy sources while meeting our clean air and climate stewardship obligations. (LCV)
The LCV also asked McCain if he would support legislation which would require new power plants to capture and store carbon emissions. This is his response:
New Coal Plants Must be Carbon “Capture-Ready”
I support a national greenhouse gas emission cap and trade regimen that includes responsible emission limits and allows market forces to determine how best to meet them. Such a regimen will provide a decisive economic incentive for power producers to maximize the capture of carbon emissions. Clearly, a utility that builds a new coal plant without factoring in the inevitable curbs on carbon emissions necessary to combat climate change or the market opportunities of limiting such emissions would be doing a disservice both to their customers and stockholders. Accordingly, I believe that new coal plants should be constructed in a manner that is capture-ready, and can accommodate the retrofit of this technology as it advances. (LCV)
Palin Toes the Line on Clean Coal
Other than some passing mention of clean coal in her vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech, Sarah Palin has not expressed the same level of support as she has for offshore oil drilling and drilling in ANWR. At least in this part of McCain-Palin energy policy it doesn’t seem that Palin will add much to the debate other than supporting the official position on clean coal.
The best thing I can say about John McCain and clean coal is that he does recognize that building new coal plants will dramatically increase the United States’ already climbing emissions. Skip to page 3 for why McCain’s faith in new technology doesn’t mean ‘clean coal’ is any more viable, or read on for Barack Obama on clean coal:
I'm not a chemist, to me but the statement " It must be a national mission to develop a catalyst tcapable of breaking down carbon dioxide into useful building blocks." reveals a severe misunderstanding of what is possible. Might almost as well try to turn lead to gold.
"Carbon capture ready" power plants that emit just as much carbon dioxide as always. My guess is that it cannot be done at a cost less than renewables, so it won't be done. DB
I was REALLY hoping that Obama would not say that term of "clean coal" since it is a misnomer and Obama has enough intellegence to know better.
My guess is that any working carbon dioxide capture setup for coal fired power plants could include capture of sulfur dioxide, mercury and fly ash for little additional cost. It would have to be required though, not left up to the power plant operators. Again, effective carbon dioxide capture and sequesteration seems less economical non-fossil fuel power. Possible, but expensive. DB
Obama puts an "if" in when referring to "clean coal." "If we can figure out how to sequester carbon and burn clean coal..." Doesn't seem like he's counting on the idea. DB
let's not forget the strain harvesting coal puts on the environment
if you didn't already know
Pic of mountain removal
McCain's stance on it
Albeit, it's easy to say you don't support it- would he really do anything to stop it?
Every time "clean" comes in from of coal it should have quotations. "Clean" Coal is an oxymoron.
There is no such thing as "clean coal". It takes energy to capture the CO2 and other sooty emissions that result from burning the stuff.
Its more instructive to look at both roll-call vote records:
McCain voted the same way as Inhofe on 42 of his 44 votes:
http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/9/mccains-50-votes-against-clean.cfm
(and before Inhofe joined the Senate, McCain voted with Republicans)
Obama voted the same way as Barbara Boxer on his 24 votes since starting in 2005.
http://featured.matternetwork.com/2008/9/obamas-clean-energy-voting-record_3981.cfm
Regardless of McCains talk, he did not support 4 out of the 5 cap and trade bills: Boxer/Sanders, Warner/Lieberman, Bingaman, Kerry/Snowe.
We can't "develop a catalyst capable of breaking down carbon dioxide into useful chemical building blocks." CO2 is a very low energy molecule- a product of combustion- and to turn it into anything else requires a large energy input. Catalysts don't provide energy, they just let reactions happen faster. Where's that energy going to come from, more coal? There's no point unless you've got a clean energy source.
Is McCain referring to liquid coal fuels as a fuel for cars? If so, then talk about clean coal doesn't apply, because you're not realistically going to sequester CO2 from individual vehicles. And if he wants to use liquid coal at power plants, well then that just isn't going to change how much carbon and pollutants need to be captured; that isn't how chemistry works.
"Doing so will enable us to take advantage of our most abundant energy sources." Well, in order of decreasing abundance that means solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, wave and tidal, natural gas, coal, oil, and biomass. Do you think he realizes that?
And why is Obama talking about clean coal at all? He should know better than to think such technology exists today. Even if it does, and even if there IS a 250 year coal supply at 1970's consumption rates, and even if we could increase consumption and hold prices level, if we start replacing-priced foreign oil and highnatural gas with coal, that number'll drop to 50 years in a heartbeat.
The rhetoric that passes for debate in our politics is so disappointing.
We can not develop a chemical catalyst at the moment that is efficient enough or cheap enough but who says we can't engineer an organism that can fix the CO2?
Whats to say clean coal wont work? be practical.
It is reflexive to blame all our problems on the fossil fuel industry, but the real problem is the carbon dioxide going into the air, not utilizing the energy in the coal. find a way to get rid of the co2, and coal becomes a part of the solution, instead of part of the problem, which is only better for us because the world uses a lot of coal.
We need all solutions on the table now. the real reason we should be condemning the fossil fuel industries is the fact that they are greedy to the point that they refuse to cooperate with environmentalists to move humanity forward. If there was enough pressure on them to find a way for them to make their industries cleaner from the beginning, then they would have done so and climate change wouldnt even be an issue anymore.
"Clean Coal "- now that's an oxymoron if I ever heard one!!! Why bother to invest in something that will NEVER be good for us???
There are only three ways to capture carbon currently know. 1. Scrub it out and convert oto a sodium or calcium carbonate. Worthless stuff. 2. Convert it to a liquid and pump it underground. This idea is moronic. CO2 sublimes at minus 30 degrees or there abouts. The earth is 55 degrees and warmer as you go deeper. Any idiot knows it will sublime eventually and find it''s way to the surface right back into environment. 3. Build gigantnic agae farms by the plants and harvest the algae. Algae has value!
Oh I forgot...don't generate the dam stuff to start with!
Obama is a senator representing a coal-producing state (I don't know the current stats, but my grandfather was an Illinois coal miner). He _has_ to support coal, whether he believes in it or not. And there are plenty of voters who work in the coal business, so both candidates have to give them hope for keeping their jobs.
Instead, I think they should be looking at incentives for green tech companies to locate their businesses in coal states and retraining programs for coal miners.
The First problem I have with this is the added regulation on industry versus incentives to explore alternatives. With added regulation comes added bureaucracy and added government jobs, and the growth of public sector employment is unsustainable as it is, 20% and rising.
The Coal industry in this country dates back to colonial times, and it built this country, but it's high time we moved on to a better paradigm.
Dry rock Geothermal has a huge potential, not only can it provide all this country's electric, but with sea water pipelines coming from the coasts it could be the biggest desalinization system the world will ever see. The low pressure waste steam could also heat giant green houses in the northern midwest in the winter.
As far as nuclear power the answer could be small decentralized nuclear batteries that run on stable isotopes. As opposed to the billion dollar mega-reactors that require enriched uranium produces way to much ionizing radioactive waste. Stable isotopes good, fission byproducts bad. :)
For wind the Darius Helical wind turbine is the best solution.
On a final note, let's see the candidates work in a coal mine for a week. Then we will see if they still believe in "Clean Coal" when they punch out on Friday.
Thanks,
Seth
I'm just going to put this out there, but Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzales disagree with the presidential candidates on alternative energy. They support solar power/wind power sources first.
( http://www.votenader.org/issues/environment/new-energy-policy/ )
What's a state worth when the whole world is at stake, pollution heeds no boundaries.
This is one of the numerous reasons why the debates should be opened up to third party candidates, so alternative solutions can be opened up for real issues-not corporate agendas.
The people know better.
To date, McCain has taken three times as much money from the coal industry as Obama--and that's just in Congressional campaign contributions. Bottom line, though, is that they're both in with the fossil fuel industry, and that money is affecting the policies they promote. To learn about other members--how much money they take and how that correlates with their votes on energy and war finance bills--check out Oil Change USA's www.followthecoalmoney.org and www.followtheoilmoney.org. They're interactive tools, and easy to use.
The measure of the man is in the company he keeps. That's what tells me who to vote for.
Clean coal serves a useful purpose. It raises the cost of burning it.
I think we should build these "clean" coal power plants in front of John McCain's 7 homes to find out how "clean" it really is.
Dan Brockman: the technology exists. It's called "photosynthesis". The useful building block it produces include timber, food, and oxygen.
Problem is, it's not very efficient, and it's not very expandable.
"And why is Obama talking about clean coal at all? He should know better than to think such technology exists today. Even if it does, and even if there IS a 250 year coal supply at 1970's consumption rates, and even if we could increase consumption and hold prices level, if we start replacing-priced foreign oil and highnatural gas with coal, that number'll drop to 50 years in a heartbeat."
Going against coal in this country is, as the article said, the kiss of death. It's not just beause of the big corporations that make coal plants (Though they certainly don't help) but because swing states in this country are, by and large, coal producing states--and if a candidate says they will get rid of coal, they are, to those voters, telling them they don't care about their jobs.
Personally, I think Obama should start renewable energy manufacture initiatives in coal-producing states, so that these people have new jobs in a "clean" energy sector. That way, they won't need to support the dirty fuels industry any more.
Wonder what source of power you used to power your computer to type these replys ????
Where does Future Gen in Mattoon, Illinois stand in all this?
Once upon a time there were no such things as wind turbines and solar panels. It would have been a shame if everyone said "Oh, they don't exist, let's not think about them".
However the main reason I wanted to comment was to respond to moe33 who said McCain has accepted 3 times the coal contributions as Obama for Congressional campaigns. These statistics include 6 years that Obama was not a member of Congress. Since Obama has been elected to the senate he has actually accepted approximately 3 times more "coal money" than McCain.
Also @ Paul Eckerson, To say that liquid CO2 will sublimate at all is "moronic" since sublimate specifically means to skip the liquid phase entirely. The word you are looking for is boil. The boiling point also depends on pressure. Under enough pressure CO2 will not boil. Also storage is most likely to be in impermeable formations such as salt domes and depleted oil and natural gas reservoirs. Don't be fooled, carbon capture and storage is already in use today.