Thursday, March 31, 2016

Dirty Coal, Dirty Energy Forever: Does the word "clean" have any place in any conversation about energy generated by fossil fuels, ever? even if we could do CCS and really wanted to? New York Times article on SaskPower's CCS failures: Technology to Make Clean Energy From Coal Is Stumbling in Practice

Updated April 3, 2016.  After signing the university code of conduct on Friday, I was reminded that using the word 'clean' to describe coal-burning research is, in my view, a violation of the code of conduct that we all sign.  

 Figure it out New York Times.  In print you used "cleaner coal." Now your headline uses "clean energy." How about just get "clean" all the way out of the conversation?  

 Coal and energy from coal (or other fossil fuels) will never be clean, CCS or not.  

 All you need to do is go see a toxic coal ash dump out here in Labadie, Missouri.  Or go see the devastation of southern Illinois, thanks to Peabody and others.  Or live near a coal train rail route.  Or a coal mine.  Or anywhere affected by oil and gas activities.  Even if you take the CO2 out – and we can't do that in any viable or scaleable way that matters – it will never be clean.  Not clean energy. Not clean coal. Not clean oil. Not even clean natural gas.  Never.  It's impossible. Against the laws of matter.

And, I'm thinking, if journalists shouldn't be using the word clean, why should scientists?  They say the government uses the phrase 'clean coal'?  Well, does it really matter what the government does? (They call torture 'enhanced interrogation' and dead civilians 'collateral damage'). So that's no argument.  Question is, should scientists describe fossil fuel-related energy research with the word 'clean'? 

 After signing my university's code of conduct last Friday, which says I will not misrepresent research, I was reminded of the seriousness of this once again.  

 I'm pretty sure the use of the label "clean coal" or even "clean utilization of coal" is a breach of our university code of ethical conduct of scientific research.  The keyword is "falsification" or "fabrication".  Take your pick.
Key part: "fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, conducting, or reviewing research or in reporting results".  The 'Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization' here at WUSTL does this on a daily basis.

 And, back to the article that set this whole thing in motion:
Technology to Make Clean Energy From Coal Is Stumbling in Practice

 From the article, one of the slides from class:



And, since the university and Peabody hosted the IEA chief last year, who talked up a storm about what a success clean coal was at SaskPower, and so on and so forth, here are some more thoughts about that, after reading the NYT piece:
Posted by at