Clean Coal Is a Myth, But Don’t Take It from Me
There are a couple of commenters here who routinely call into question my personal credibility as a reporter on renewable energy and sustainability more generally. It is for them that I write this:
Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, the country’s largest privately held coal-mining company, told E&E News, “Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It is neither practical nor economic; it is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, ‘Look what I did for coal,’ knowing all the time that it doesn’t help coal at all.”
Why listen to lil ol’ Craig Shields when you can take it from one of the most senior people in the coal industry itself?
Craig,
As one of those concerned for your seemingly increased lack of objectivity and use of narrow, selective self serving quotes, I find your response illuminating.
Let’s be candid and honest, you’ve made up your mind against the coal industry becoming close-minded. Nothing could persuade you of the benefits from promoting any technology reducing harmful emissions and pollution created by coal mining and coal fired power generation.
You’ve become a crusading advocate for (primarily) Wind and Solar, believing these forms of energy can replace all fossil fuels, including coal in the immediate future.
That’s an opinion you’re fully entitled to hold.
However, you lack credibility when you try justify your anti-coal prejudice by quoting one out of context comment ( Murray made the comment while waiting for a ride outside DOE headquarters and the the full comment was truncated to give a distorted meaning).
Robert Murray is just one mine owner. Even among mine owners, he’s a fairly controversial figure and a bit of an extremist.
For many years, all over world thousands of scientists and engineers have spent years of dedicated research and investment to producing not one, but a host of sequestration technologies.
For you to dismiss all that work, based on a dubious quote from one individual, displays your lack of objectivity and prejudice.
It’s easy to rant, “there’s no such thing as clean coal”.
In the most literal sense the statement is true. However, any reasonable person assumes the new technologies are about producing “cleaner ” coal.
Since coal remains nearly 40% of global electricity generation, it’s also reasonable to assume genuine environmentalists would welcome “cleaner” coal technologies.
What’s disturbing Craig, is in recent years you seem to have become less open minded, less interested in new technology, and more interested becoming an (unpaid) lobbyist for the RFA.
You show no interest in at least three examples of successful coal sequestration projects, ranging from an Indian Coal facility using CO2 to produce baking powder as a by product, to Kemper CountY’s IGCC Project which uses sequestrated emissions to aid oil production, and the Babcock-Thermo-Energy’s Zero Emission Boiler System (ZEBS) with 100% carbon-capture and virtually no air-emissions.
Both the PRC and the UK are developing a range of new technologies, including a project to gasify coal underground to produce pure hydrogen and carbon dioxide to create an emissions-free alkaline fuel cell to store Solar and Wind power generation on a massive scale re-using obsolete gas infrastructure. (The CO2 is captured and stored naturally).
Other exciting developments include using technology to turn coal waste and CO2, into fertilizer reducing the need for nitrates, and helping replace diminishing super-phosphate production.
Not all these technologies will become commercialized or successful, but those that do will have a profound impact.
In recent years, as you narrow your focus, you to have withdrawn from replying or justifying your assertions, deeming justification beneath you. We are concerned that you’re retreating into a smaller world of fellow travelers and true believers.
You take great personal offense if your heroes are challenged or their opinions scrutinized. As a reporter on “renewable energy and sustainability” your personal credibility must be assessed by your ability to remain objective and open-minded.
Just choosing a side and becoming a close minded activist/advocate/lobbyist disqualifies you as a reporter. Being close minded and partisan also disqualifies any claim to scientific integrity.
Right now the environment needs more open-minded inclusive proponents. Those willing to discuss, debate and learn. We need less insular, fanatics shouting “hooray for my side”.
Thanks for sharing. I think it is quite useful article for everyone.