Clean Coal Powers Candidacy

by Andrea Millar — May 24, 2008

OK, you're a presidential candidate, so you have to play the game to some extent. I get that. But come on, Hillary. Come on, Obama. Clean coal? The two were both throwing around the term in, where else, the coal belt states. Senator Clinton indicated that clean coal was a definite plan for her economic/energy package. And Senator Obama said, in a very Obama-ish sort of way, that clean "Kentucky coal" is the way to go. If they're not just playing the political animal, this could mean a sure shift away from things like corn-based energy and back towards an energy source that's gotten mixed reviews at best, even though we pretty much have that acid rain thing figured out at this point (thanks, cap-and-trade!).

So, what is clean coal? Well, we're not sure yet exactly how it looks. It's the coal next door, the coal you can take home to mom, because clean coal produces no CO2. Or rather, it appears to produce CO2, but we're going to develop ways of dealing with it in a cost-effective fashion, and thus manifest the first nuggets.

Clean coal may have more relevance that first appears, however. Although currently there are no coal plants that capture their CO2 emissions, it remains one of the standbys of national power, especially if you live in a nuclear-unfriendly state like California. Remember those plug-in vehicles? If you live there, you would probably tap into a local coal-driven energy supply, and all the mining/tapping/environmental issues that go along with it. But who knows, maybe when Hillary or Obama (Hillary and Obama, '08?) says, "show me the clean coal!" somebody finds a way to produce.