How Clean Is Clean Coal?

In a single year, less than one in 100,000 Americans contract a rare form of blood cancer. In Pennsylvania coal country, the rate is nearly five times higher. Many suspect "clean" coal is the cause. As the 2008 presidential candidates promote the potential of clean coal as an alternative fuel source, and as Congress prepares to debate energy legislation, ANP takes a look at the controversial practice of coal-ash dumping. An investigation brought to you in conjunction with our partner The Washington Independent.

Permalink

Related:

Health Care and Pharma Fund

Environment and Energy Fund

EPA's Troubled Waters

Greening the Evangelicals

See All

Missing Information From Story

This report leaves out an incredibly important fact: The exact same area where the fly ash is dumped (and generated) was the site of one of the worst toxic waste dumps in the country - a notorious Superfund site that predates the fly ash and power station by a at least 15 years. This is well documented and familiar to everyone in the area. Why this is not mentioned in the report is a terrible oversight.

coal

So you're comparing the use of fly ash in concrete to the use of asbestos in construction? If that's the case, then we're really in trouble because almost all modern freeways and commercial buildings in the US contain fly ash. It wasn't just used in the Hoover damn or older construction as Scribbler "implies." Can you enlighten me and point me to some research showing how fly ash in concrete is as toxic as asbestos? I know this is getting off topic...
In what way did I imply the substance was benign? Let me clarify, I'm not here as an advocate of clean coal. It's obvious that the waste product is really bad news. But to reiterate: what are the alternatives? Should we slap a lot of regulations on it or abandon it entirely? And is it an improvement over letting the toxins go into the air as we do now?
It's easy to agree that renewable energy sources are the right way to go. But the upfront costs are high and it's really hard to convince people to make the jump. Until we can make that work, I'm asking if "clean" coal is worse for the environment than doing the oil or nuclear thing.
I'm not here to attack the reporting, I thought it was fantastic. I'm just wondering what our alternatives are.

"clean" coal

Hate to send people off to do more research, but fly ash isn't quite as benign as kevic implies. Yes, it has been used to make concrete for years, i.e. it's in the Hoover Dam, but there are at least two types of fly ash and each is used in different proportions, for various reasons, look it up. Remember, asbestos was "used," which didn't mean it was good, just used. That's not the issue, of course.
We (Americans, humans?) seem to have a propensity to ignore the consequences of dumping byproducts from energy production. It's all linked, isn't it? Pollute the air, when the government regulates that, dump it and pollute the water until that is regulated, then "bury" it, so it can be forgotten, until it again pollutes the water. In the meantime, try to find use for the byproduct, so that someone can propose building a new tranportation system to get this essential ingredient to manufacturers, since it is "in short supply," which will of course turn garbage into gold for someone.
Nice brief view of what was obviously a huge research project...welcome to the web.

Clean Energy

So what's the solution? Is there a better way to dispose of fly ash that's economical or should be give up on coal altogether? Doesn't 50% of our energy already come from coal already? Is it better to let the stuff into the air or condense it and dump it somewhere?
I know that there is actually a shortage of fly ash in many parts of the US as certain types of the waste is an essential ingredient in concrete. Could we develop an efficient transport system for the material so that we could bury or use it in construction and minimize the environmental impact?