The first large scale U.S. “clean coal” facility was declared operational Tuesday — by the large energy firm NRG Energy and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corp.Their Petra Nova project, not far outside of Houston, captured carbon dioxide from the process of coal combustion for the first time in September, and has now piped 100,000 tons of it from the plant to the West Ranch oil field 80 miles away, where the carbon dioxide is used to force additional oil from the ground. The companies say that the plant can capture over 90 percent of the carbon dioxide released from the equivalent of a 240 megawatt, or million watt, coal unit, which translates into 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide per day or over 1 million tons per year. They’re calling it “the world’s largest post-combustion carbon capture system.”
There is no such thing as CLEAN COAL. Do some research for yourself to see why that’s true. You could start with this GOOD article from 2009
Why “Clean Coal” Isn’t
What’s inarguable is how well they’ve plugged the phrase into the public consciousness. More than any other energy or environmental question that lands in my inbox or pops up in an IM or conversation is some variation on: “So…is ‘clean coal’ for real?” To understand how it’s not, in fact, for real, one has to first pin down the obscure, elusive definition being offered. Over at Grist last month, Dave Roberts boiled down the scam: “They leave the definition of ‘clean coal’ deliberately ambiguous. As ACCCE spokesman Joe Lucas said on NPR the other day, ‘clean coal’ is an evolutionary term.” By “evolutionary,” of course, he means, “whatever we need it to mean at the moment.” If one meaning is attacked, they subtly shift to another meaning.Though ACCCE doesn’t provide any single, stable definition, “clean coal” is usually claimed to be either “climate clean,” as a result of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) processes, or “air clean,” which Roberts describes as “the notion that coal plants have reduced their emissions of traditional air pollutants like particulates and mercury (as opposed to greenhouse gases).”It becomes a game of rhetorical bait-and-switch.