Coal By Any Other Name

Last January, Massachusetts’s House and Senate passed legislation to promote green energy with minimal costs to consumers. The bill was mostly progressive and earned applause from environmental groups, but there remains one major flaw. In addition to wind, solar, ocean current, geothermic, and hydroelectric power initiatives, Massachusetts is slated to pass incentives for “clean coal” power plants.

One breakthrough provision in Massachusetts’s green energy bill would require a portion of electricity sold in Massachusetts to be derived from “renewable” and “alternative” energy sources. As one such energy source, the bill endorses coal gasification, a new coal combustion technology that in some respects is less environmentally damaging than traditional coal processing methods. At least one gasification plant is underway in Massachusetts, and this legislation could precipitate more. But as we’ll see, given the current state of the technology and the potential consequences of the legislation, coal gasification should not be endorsed as an alternative energy source.

Their proponents predicate the justifications for coal gasification incentives on two underwhelming arguments. First, advocates point out that the technology reduces emissions of certain air pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. Yet this apparent concern for environmental consequences obscures a lesser-known fact: Unless coal is replaced by significant amounts of biomass, gasification plants emit as much CO2 as traditional plants. To combat high emissions, Massachusetts’s Senate bill requires that gasification emissions match those of natural gas. What looks like a step in the right direction remains problematic: Ultimately, incentivizing the burning of any fossil fuel, coal or natural gas, is not environmentally sound. To produce the same kilowatt-hour of power, a natural gas plant still releases approximately twice the net CO2 of a photovoltaic plant, three times more than hydroelectric plants, and 14 times more than wind farms. If Massachusetts wants to prevent climate change, it should not be choosing fuels that release inordinate amounts of carbon dioxide. Symbolically and realistically, coal goes against the very meaning of green energy.

The second argument of coal gasification enthusiasts is that coal plants are a necessary part of the Massachusetts energy landscape, so we ought to simply make them as clean as possible. If we cannot eliminate coal, the argument goes, we should attempt to capture and sequester carbon. In theory, gasification plants could be outfitted to capture carbon before the coal is combusted, removing 80 to 90 percent of emissions while CO2 is liquefied and pipelined away. This technology is promising, but it is not a reason to legislate incentives for coal gasification—either now or in the future.

The problem is that carbon sequestration for coal plants is still 10 to 15 years away, and may not be implemented for many more. None of the world’s gasification plants use Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) because a tested and energy-efficient technology has yet to be developed. Even when the technology does become available, the cost is prohibitive. Gasification plants with CCS would be up to 40 percent more expensive to build, while retrofitting plants would mean major technological modifications. Estimates place the cost of electricity production at 30 to 40 percent higher with CCS than without. In Massachusetts, moreover, there is yet another barrier: CCS requires storage of liquefied CO2 in natural geological reservoirs, which don’t exist in New England. Pipelining liquefied CO2 out-of-state would be an infrastructural and financial challenge. Until technological improvements or a geological miracle significantly lowers the cost of CCS, both private-sector and public opinion will resist its implementation, even in green-minded Massachusetts. And in the meantime, gasification plants will be spewing CO2 into the atmosphere under the aegis of a “renewable energy” bill.

Should legislators choose to incentivize gasification, the state could impose CCS directly or with draconian emissions taxes. It is questionable, however, whether gasification with CCS could ever be called environmentally friendly. Despite its reduced emissions, a gasification-CCS plant would require 25 percent more coal than a traditional plant to generate the same amount of electricity. In the long run, gasification with CCS is likely to become more expensive, not only compared to gasification or traditional coal pulverization, but also compared to truly renewable technologies like wind and solar power. Gasification plants are not only damaging to the planet today; future attempts to decrease their impact are neither environmentally nor financially viable.

In the end, the six conference committee members currently reviewing Massachusetts’s energy bill are faced with three possibilities. Should they maintain incentives for gasification, they can limit emissions to natural gas levels, thereby compromising the meaning of green energy. They could also require unconditional carbon sequestration, a provision hinted at in the Senate bill but unrealistic without much more time, research, and development. But there is a third, cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative, for legislators to remove incentives for coal gasification altogether. Massachusetts’s Senators in Washington have proposed a moratorium on all new coal-fired plants, and the state legislature should act consistently with their example.

Coal is a dirty source of energy. Coal-fired power plants are responsible for one-third of global CO2 emissions. For all its pretensions to being environmentally friendly, gasified coal is still coal, and no modifications or breakthroughs are going to make it cleaner and financially sensible any time soon. Why then, in a progressive, environmentally conscious state like Massachusetts, can’t we say “green energy” and mean it?



Alice J. M. Gissinger ’11, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Weld Hall.