Clean Coal": A Solution to Climate Change?

Carbon dioxide pollution of the Earth's atmosphere is the leading cause of global warming and climate change.  Despite all the news coverage and political debates about SUVs, gasoline, and emission standards, the biggest source of carbon dioxide pollution comes from the coal-burning power plants that generate the world's electricity. 

For example, a large power plant than generates 1,600 Megawatts of electricity also generates 36,000 tons of carbon dioxide pollution every day.  Burning coal accounts for 40% of all carbon dioxide pollution, and 20% of all greenhouse gas pollution.

Banning power plants that burn fossil fuels like coal is not a realistic option.  Currently almost half of all the electricity in the United States is generated by fossil fuels.  It is estimated that global coal consumption will grow 65% by the year 2030, mostly in developing nations like India and China.

If we can't prevent the burning of fossil fuel, however, perhaps we can prevent it from being hazardous to the atmosphere.  After all, if burning fossil fuels didn't produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses as a byproduct, it wouldn't be a problem, would it?  It is this line of thinking that has led to the development of "clean coal" technology, known as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

Although there are several different technologies for capturing carbon dioxide, they all revolve around same basic idea.  The exhaust from burning fossil fuel is intercepted and the carbon dioxide is separated and removed from it.  The carbon dioxide is than compressed, liquefied, and is pumped through pipelines or stored in tanks until it can be transported to a permanent storage facility.  Generally, the waste carbon would be stored deep underground in locations such as empty oil and gas fields, unminable coal veins, and saline formations.

If "clean coal" is a such a great way to keep coal-burning power plants in production, what are we waiting for?  Well, there are roadblocks and potential problems to the widespread use of carbon capture and storage technology.

The first, and perhaps biggest hurdle, is cost.  Obviously, it is cheaper to release fossil fuel exhaust through a smokestack than to capture the exhaust, remove the carbon dioxide, and ship it off.  Including CCS technology in coal burning power plants is estimated to increase the cost of generating electricity by at least 21%, and possibly as much as 91%.  Energy producers will, of course, pass this cost on to energy consumers. 

Another potential problem revolves around storage.  Capturing carbon dioxide and storing it underground sounds good, but what if the carbon dioxide leaks to the surface?  In 1986, a natural deposit of carbon dioxide leaked to the surface in the middle of the night through Lake Nyos, a deep volcanic lake in Cameroon.  The resulting cloud of carbon dioxide caused 1,700 people in the vicinity to asphyxiate to death in their sleep.  Critics of CCS point to this incident as an example of the potentially disastrous consequences of a carbon storage leak.

Carbon capture and storage is not futuristic technology.  It exists and is available today.  It is being tested in power plants throughout the world.  As soon as the kinks can be worked out and a way is found to decrease the cost, carbon capture and storage could well become a powerful weapon in the anti-global warming arsenal.