What’s Wrong with Coal

We own immense quantities of readily accessible coal we can refine profitably into liquid fuels at less than half the cost of comparable petroleum based products. Yet some environmentalists object on grounds it’s too dirty, and potential investors say it’s too risky. Neither argument is valid. I’ll try to address both complaints.

The most common environmental objections have to do with air pollution and the damage done by strip mining. The latter is a legitimate issue but the contention that coal is necessarily more polluting than petroleum is demonstrably false. Those who make it are either poorly informed or, I suspect, raise it as a red herring because lower fuel prices encourage continued us of the automobile. In technologies currently being proposed coal is cleansed of impurities before it is ever burned. Not so with conventional fuels. Coal based diesel even has positive effects on engine performance, no modifications required. It is reasonable to be cautious in proceeding on the scale that would be required to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign imports. It is irresponsible to dismiss out-of-hand a technology that has the potential both to eliminate that dependence entirely and to have profoundly beneficial effects on our economy.

That brings me to mining. Strip mines are ugly. Keeping the countryside pristine in say Appalachia is an understandable sentiment, if not always a practical one. It may be true that mountains have been flattened and hardwood forests razed in West Virginia but it is also true there is a lot of blight in the region due to its relative poverty. Forests can be replanted and land reclaimed, put to all sorts of good uses including as parks and recreational facilities. If thousands of well paying jobs can be created in parts of the country that need them, an increase in strip mining operations might be well worth the price. Increasing prosperity brings us both the desire and the wherewithal to clean up after ourselves. In any case we aren’t talking about turning the nation into an eyesore. Most of the coal we need can be gotten from existing mines. It will be many years before those resources are exhausted and in that time, if we do this right, new technologies will be available to present even better options than coal. The important thing to remember is that we need the stuff. The world will continue to increase its use of the automobile for the foreseeable future and we have to find fuel somewhere. We should be asking how we get it, not whether. Conservation and improved mileage can only take us so far.

As to economic risks associated with building expensive new coal refineries, the one most often cited is the uncertainty of future legislation regarding CO2 emissions. Congress may enact mandatory caps on carbon dioxide and require the addition of sequestration equipment. But that applies only to conventional coal plants. Coal to liquid technology under discussion includes built in CO2 capture. The projects make economic sense with oil prices far below where they are now, and it’s a safe bet oil can’t meet rising demand at lower prices. I don’t see an unreasonable risk. I wonder if powerful industry interests aren’t trying to protect sunk investments in old infrastructure. I can see why they might. They’ve successfully resisted cleanup efforts for many years now on the grounds increased costs mean fewer jobs. If the public begins to see an economic boom in clean coal, that argument may lose its luster. In any case the more immediate threat to the smokestack industry isn’t clean coal, it’s alternatives like nuclear, wind, and soar.

Economic factors argue for coal, not against it. So do the environmentals. This is too important to let it get bogged down in disinformation. Let’s get a move on.