Clean Coal? Myth or Reality.

The term "clean coal" is misleading because it minimizes the severe environmental damage caused by coal. Although some argue that technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) can make coal cleaner, coal remains a highly harmful energy source. Politicians and coal industry groups often use the term "clean coal" to suggest that coal can be part of the solution to climate change, but this idea doesn’t hold up when we examine the facts.

Coal burning is one of the most significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), coal-fired power plants contribute nearly 40% of the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions (EPA, 2020). The burning of coal produces massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Coal mining is also highly harmful to the environment. Methods like mountaintop removal mining destroys mountains, pollute rivers, and harm local ecosystems (Plumer, 2017). This environmental damage is not easily fixed, and it adds to the overall harm caused by coal as an energy source.

"clean coal" supporters often point to carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the solution to coal’s harmful emissions. CCS is a technology designed to capture CO2 from power plant emissions and store it underground, preventing it from entering the atmosphere. While CCS shows some potential, it is far from a perfect solution. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has pointed out that CCS has not been widely implemented at a large scale and faces many challenges. The technology is still expensive and has not been proven to work effectively in the long term (IEA, 2020). Plumer (2017) also notes that CCS is still in the early stages of development and remains costly and inefficient. Even if it becomes more common, CCS will not fix other pollutants created by coal, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates, that contribute to air pollution and acid rain (Plumer, 2017).

Another concern with CCS is the environmental risk of storing CO2 underground. There are worries about the long-term safety of these storage sites, as CO2 could leak into the atmosphere over time. The risk of leaks would negate any climate benefits CCS may offer. Additionally, mining, transporting, and burning coal remains environmentally destructive, no matter how much CO2 is captured. These processes cause environmental damage that cannot be fixed by CCS alone. Plumer (2017) emphasizes that while CCS might reduce some emissions, it doesn’t address the more significant environmental costs associated with coal extraction, transportation, and burning.

As renewable energy technologies like wind and solar power continue to advance, the need for "clean coal" becomes increasingly irrelevant. Over the past decade, the cost of solar and wind energy has dropped dramatically, making them more affordable and accessible than ever before. In many cases, renewable energy is now more cost-effective than coal. This makes "clean coal" less competitive, as it remains expensive and inefficient compared to modern renewable energy technologies. Plumer (2017) highlights that renewable energy sources are growing rapidly and are now seen as more reliable and sustainable alternatives to coal. As renewable energy sources become more widespread, coal’s role in the global energy mix is shrinking.

The global shift toward renewable energy sources has already made coal less competitive. Countries worldwide are investing more in solar, wind, and other clean energy sources while moving away from coal. The rapid growth of renewable energy is helping reduce the need for coal, making the idea of "clean coal" even more irrelevant. Plumer (2017) explains that renewable energy is a better option for the environment and a more economically viable option as the technology continues to improve and costs decrease.

The idea of "clean coal" is fundamentally flawed, while carbon capture and storage (CCS) could reduce some emissions, it remains an expensive and inefficient technology that fails to address the broader environmental issues linked to coal. The burning and extraction of coal cause irreversible environmental damage, and CCS cannot solve these problems alone. The future of energy should not focus on making coal cleaner but on shifting to renewable energy sources that are sustainable, cost-effective, and far less damaging to the planet (Plumer, 2017). Clean energy technologies like wind and solar power offer a far better solution to the world’s growing energy needs without the environmental consequences of coal.

References

Plumer, B. (2017, August 23). What ‘clean coal’ is—and isn’t. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/what-clean-coal-is-and-isnt.html

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2020). Coal-fired power plants and greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.epa.gov

AI usage 

Grammarly, www.grammarly.com/grammar-check.