We’re all eager to find a viable solution to reduce greenhouse emissions without ruining the economy, but coal probably ain’t it right now.

Clean coal is nothing but “a joke,” according to Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. And the reasons to believe him are compelling, turning ex-coal hopefuls like me against this apparent fraud in the alternative-fuel biz. And despite ample buzz surrounding the idea of clean coal as a pristine energy source, prominent nature defenders such as Greenpeace shun the pursuit of coal as an answer to our climate-change problem. Looking beyond the hype, it’s pretty easy to see why coal’s squeaky-clean image is only a facade.

Here’s the theory behind clean coal: Coal is the dirtiest form of energy that exists, but by limiting emissions you can reduce the pollution. To achieve this, you can “scrub” away noxious impurities like sulfur, which causes acid rain when burned, and then build plants that capture greenhouse gasses as the coal burns in order to prevent them from entering the atmosphere. Another option is to avoid coal combustion altogether in favor of a gasification process that uses oxygen and steam, no burning required.

This all sounds pretty good, right? Unfortunately, environmental experts smell a wolf in sheep’s clothing. First of all, the technology for carbon capture and gasification simply isn’t there, despite billions of dollars worth of research. Brune notes that the capturing process we’re working on is too expensive, uses massive amounts of energy and requires the construction of new plants just to trap the emissions from existing ones—not exactly efficient. Plus, the very act of mining coal is highly destructive, often involving the removal of entire mountaintops. Not cool.

The truth is that coal has powerful lobbyists spending tens of millions of dollars to convince us and Congress that clean coal is the answer, says Greenpeace. Lobbyists run alluring ads on TV during prime viewing times, omitting the fact that coal burning produces mercury contamination in addition to air pollution, literally spewing carcinogens. Coal already produces about half of our electricity, which is the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country.

The good news is that we don’t have to look far for better alternatives. Brune endorses natural gas as a “bridge fuel” until we find a better solution—which could even prove to be coal if we discover safe and effective extraction and burning options. As plentiful as natural gas is in the United States, this option makes sense until technology catches up with our needs.

Smaller-scale renewable options also work well for certain communities. The Natural Resources Defense Council pushes wind energy, solar energy, hydropower, geothermal energy and offshore tidal energy where they’re possible. Farmers can even produce energy using gases from animal waste—I assume they remove the smell.

With all the options out there, clean coal just doesn’t make sense right now. With luck, technology will find a way to make coal sustainable; but until that happens, we’re better off looking elsewhere to solve our energy needs.

image: gynti_46

The post The Dirt on Clean Coal: Looking Beyond the Alternative Fuel Hype appeared first on EcoSalon.

The rich guys fighting clean energy spend a staggering amount of cash making the world a dirtier place.

Like many other big oil companies, ExxonMobil loves to boast about how much money it spends on renewable energy research, but what they don’t tell you is that they’re spending millions fighting clean energy legislation at the same time. A nearly untraceable amount of cash goes into lobbying against renewable energy each year, and fossil fuel giants are hardly alone in doling it out. The list of deep-pocketed companies and organizations actively smearing clean energy is disturbingly long. But what if we could take those millions and put them toward good causes instead?

The organizations that send lobbyists to Washington to campaign for fossil fuels and against clean energy projects are so tangled, it’s hard to figure out who’s who. Many of them are backed by the same powerful businessmen, like the Koch brothers, and many are fronts for the dirty energy industry. A project called Fight Clean Energy Smears, which is run by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), gathers them up and gives us a broad look at who they are and what they’re doing.

Here are just a handful of examples:

• ExxonMobil recently put $600 million aside for algae biofuel research, but the company’s total expenditures on clean energy are less than 1% of its total earnings, and it also spends millions on lobbying for fossil fuels. Exxon is also among the financial supporters of the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), an organization that produces inaccurate analyses of climate change legislation that have affected US Chamber of Commerce ‘forums’ on climate. This allows Exxon and other companies to engage in dirty tactics to protect their billions in government subsidies without stamping their name right on them.
• The Chamber of Commerce has also joined conservative, climate-change-denying groups like American Crossroads in spending $70 million on anti-clean energy ads. These groups also spent a collective $242 million on lobbying on behalf of polluters.
• The organizations behind the Clean Coal marketing campaign have spent at least $35 million on ‘educational’ and lobbying efforts trying to convince the government and the public that coal power can be an environmentally friendly enterprise.
• Peabody Energy Company, the world’s largest private-sector coal producer, spent $14.2 million in direct federal lobbying in 2008 and 2009, and Arch Coal, America’s second-largest coal company, spent $3 million.
• The organizations funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, who also fund the bulk of many Republican political campaigns, outspends ExxonMobil on clean energy disinformation. Greenpeace has learned that Koch Industries has spent $48.5 million since 1997 on climate change denial and anti-clean energy efforts.

What a mess, right? From this, we can assume that these companies and organizations have spent at least $412 million on anti-clean energy efforts in the last few years, and that’s undoubtedly an incredibly low estimate, even assuming that some of these figures may overlap a bit. The real number likely reaches into the billions.

Just for fun, let’s take a look at some of the hugely important humanitarian and environmental issues that could be tackled with that amount of money:

1. Clean water for over 4.12 million people in developing countries like Kenya and India. According to The Water Project, a single well serving 3,000 people costs about $30,000.
2. Switch 27,466 U.S. households from grid power to solar power. The average cost for a single household to set up a solar energy system, after government tax breaks, is $15,000.
3. Plant 8.24 million trees. Oxfam America Unwrapped will plant a forest of 1,000 trees for $500.
4. Stock cereal banks in 1.648 million villages. $250 will fill a storehouse with corn, millet and other grains to feed the hungry and ensure food stocks in case of emergency.
5. Plant 10.3 million fields of organic cotton. It costs just $40 to start a single field. Switching from conventional to organic cotton farming could eliminate a large quantity of toxic pesticides like cyanide from the environment.
6. Start 824 mobile health clinics and fund each of them for an entire year. Mobile health clinics can respond to disasters like the earthquakes in Haiti and Japan, and serve thousands of migrant farm workers and their families in the United States.
7. Feed 22.89 million African AIDS orphans lunch each day for one year, which costs just $18 each.
8. Build 686,666 houses in Haiti, where living conditions that were already poor before the 2010 earthquake have deteriorated rapidly. With four people per house, this amount of new construction could shelter nearly a third of the nation’s population.

Of course, none of this is to say that these companies and organizations can – or should – spend that money on these particular things. But it does provoke thought on how money is thrown around by the few who hold the most of it – and why.

Photo: VictoriaPeckham

The post 8 Things We Could Buy with Anti-Clean Energy Funding appeared first on EcoSalon.

First there was “clean coal”, now there’s “green coal” – though neither would gain the approval of the Lorax. But that hasn’t stopped a Massachusetts coal startup from calling themselves “LoraxAg“, after the beloved Dr. Seuss character.

The coal-gasification company plans to make farm fertilizer from high-sulfur coal, which currently has little use, and claims that it can do so without pollution. It also runs a chemical production facility. Mike Farina, President of LoraxAg, defends the company’s use of the name.

“The Lorax is the protector of the truffula trees,” he told Mass High Tech. “We think this is the greenest use of coal.”

As the Wonk Room notes, “the “˜greenest use of coal’ is keeping it in the ground – not blowing the tops off of mountains to burn it”.  It seems the Lorax would agree.

The character, who famously spoke for the Truffula Trees when a businessman chopped them down to make Thneeds, is not a fan of smogulous smoke or machinery that makes Gluppity-Glupp and Schloppity-Schlopp.

But the question of whether coal can ever be green is the least of LoraxAg’s problems. According to Karl Zobell,  a lawyer for Dr. Seuss Enterprises, the company is using the name unlawfully.

“We did not give permission for them to use the Lorax, which Dr. Seuss created,” Zobell told the Wonk Room.

LoraxAg, which was co-founded by the son of former New Hampshire governor and White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, is currently seeking investors. Since the Lorax isn’t here to speak for himself, we can only imagine what he would say.

“Sir! You are crazy with greed. There is no one on earth who would buy that fool Thneed!”

The post ‘Green Coal’ Company LoraxAg Names Itself After Seuss Character appeared first on EcoSalon.