College Media Network

University dedicates $12 million to campus clean coal initiative

Jeremy Rogoff

Staff Reporter

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Updated: Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Chancellor Mark Wrighton announced Tuesday that Washington University will be establishing a Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization, bringing University researchers together with industry leaders and government officials to make St. Louis a hub for clean coal research.

The $12 million initiative is part of the University’s $60 million effort to “advance education and research related to energy, environment and sustainability,” according to a press release from the Chancellor’s office.

Wrighton foresees both environmental and economic benefits to the University’s plan.
“Despite these difficult financial times, the University and these lead corporate sponsors realize that investment in such research will benefit the region and the world in the long run,” Wrighton said in the press release. “The knowledge and technology we will be able to create together will over time mean lower costs to customers and global environmental improvement.”

Through the initiative, the University hopes to conduct several studies, including those that explore the use of oxy-coal combustion, a new technology that replaces air with pure oxygen and potentially allows for a more cost-effective capture of carbon dioxide from the exhaust stream.

Richard Axelbaum, professor of energy, environmental and chemical engineering at the University, will head the initiative. Though coal does release carbon dioxide, the University’s use of coal technology, Axelbaum said, addresses global climate change without adding to greenhouse gas emissions, which has been blamed for global warming.

“There are various techniques that can be implemented to actually capture carbon dioxide and store it underground,” Axelbaum said. “There are large cavernous regions under the earth that can store large quantities of carbon dioxide.”

Some students, however, see problems with the project. Senior Lee Cordova, former president of Green Action, feels that the world’s power plants need to be cleaned up to allow for a positive environmental impact.

“I don’t know how much people realize how much coal is used around the world and in Missouri, that something needs to be done to research how to clean those up,” he said.
Cordova added that it will not necessarily be the University’s responsibility to maintain a clean coal standard but rather that the focus on energy and environmental consequence should be on Ameren, the Missouri and Illinois utility company.

“Basically the University has to buy what Ameren provides,” he noted. “I think it’s more of a question of [whether] Ameren is going to adopt this.”

Despite the controversy about the benefits and costs of clean coal technology, Matt Malten, the vice chancellor for sustainability, said that the initiative fulfills a short-term need and indicates a long-term commitment to clean energy.

“We believe that we are going to have to rely on a diversity of fuel sources,” Malten said. “[The initiative] would lower the carbon footprint for the campus. It says we’re dedicated to it and also dedicated to really addressing some tough global issues.”

Malten said that the initiative, which is now focused on research, could lead to the University’s use of clean coal as its main power source.

“One of the key components of it is we’re spending a great amount of time seeing if it’s feasible to put this facility on campus,” he said. “For practical application, we see it as a zero carbon energy source if we can accomplish it.”

In total, 24 research universities worldwide have signed on to the initiative.

Internationally, other countries have begun to rapidly develop coal technologies, including China, which is involved in the initiative.

“China is growing very rapidly, and they are building new coal power plants at the rate of one per week,” Axelbaum said. “China has expertise in this area as well, so by collaborating, we benefit from this interaction as well.”

Pointing to the abundance of coal—more than 150 years of reserves—in the United States, Axelbaum added that research should be dedicated to exploiting this natural resource effectively.

“The supplies of coal are really very large, so it’s not an extreme limitation like there would be on gas or oil,” Axelbaum said. “I’m all for as much alternative energy use as we can. It’s just that there are limits to what we can accomplish.”

But he added that the consortium will encourage efforts to produce clean energy through educational institutions.

“What happens is that we tend to hope there’s a very simple solution to the problem, and it is very complicated,” Axelbaum said. The consortium will make us a little more educated about what the challenges are that we face and chart the appropriate course to address the problem.”

With additional reporting by Ben Sales and Perry Stein

Comments

12 comments
ashleycory
Thu Feb 12 2009 06:45
Now coal has become the major source for many things. Thats why government is focusing on the clean coal factors.
Here is an information that might be useful: lincenergy.us
Bonnie Butler
Sun Dec 28 2008 14:38
What about the Toxins emitted from a high performance, gas wasting Porche sports car that one's overinflated EGO must drive to make himself feel more youthful and able to drive over the speed limit to satisfy his childish "Speed Racer" personna? How environmentally responsible is that? I say one must practice what they preach rather than accusing others as greenwash-y posturing. When you are the one with an unacceptable larger carbon imprint, you keep that fact hidden and make excuses for your excess. Sad.
kennedy
Mon Dec 15 2008 00:55
There is a large development in the Clean Coal Technology.The rapid growth in the Clean Coal Technology in China and other countries.
“There are various techniques that can be implemented to actually capture carbon dioxide and store it underground,” Axelbaum said.
Follow the link:lincenergy.us
Your name
Fri Dec 5 2008 02:19
Why didn't this article mention the coal companies that are footing the bill?
Kate
Wed Dec 3 2008 22:02
google Peabody Energy.
Your name
Wed Dec 3 2008 21:24
In addition to that, how about dedicating no money and turning off the lights in the library at night?
Sanford L
Wed Dec 3 2008 17:56
It would seem that the technological advancements that are transforming our understanding of renewable energy sources have not made it to WashU. If WashU is investigating an energy technology that burns, we are not looking towards the future. Clean coal will always be an oxymoron.
Joe O
Wed Dec 3 2008 17:32
Why not take those millions and help support undergraduates who, in this time of a worsening economy, need the financial aid. Get back to basics
Georgia Palmer
Wed Dec 3 2008 14:59
Who is putting up the money for this research, and how might that skew the results?
Sanford L
Wed Dec 3 2008 11:29
It would seem that the technological advancements that are transforming our understanding of renewable energy sources have not made it to WashU. If WashU is investigating an energy technology that burns, we are not looking towards the future. Clean coal will always be an oxymoron.
Rob Rambaud
Wed Dec 3 2008 11:22
Humans already know how to burn coal. Coal gasification ought to be ubiquitous by now (ref: our energy "policies" and "regulations” for oh, this entire century...). As most of us know, we’ve already developed technologies to address much of the point-source air pollution from coal and - worse yet - oil fired power plants, but there’s just been no profit in it and it’s cheaper to talk green than to act green.

Axelbaum, perhaps we ought to try working out all those pesky remaining "sequestration" details before we crow about our theoretical ability to utilize sequestration as a mitigator? Hopefully, this work will be part of the $12M plan and we simply haven’t seen the details yet.

Or, if WUSTL really wants to be environmentally sensitive perhaps they should help try to work out a way to extract coal without leaving those toxin-leaching, stream-killing gigantic SCARS that open mining makes in the earth. "Clean" coal will always be an oxymoron until we can mine it without the true environmental devastation that is caused by mountaintop removal.

And Malten - "zero carbon"? What, are you lobbying for a job with Ameren? Ever ride on a D9 Cat? What about a coal truck? What is all of that black smoke that is emanating from the exhaust and wafting away on the mountain breeze? How does all of that coal get from a ruined Appalachian valley to the pristine confines of a gasification plant?

Regardless of how this post sounds, I’m supportive of any and all WUSTL initiatives that will help to make a positive environmental difference. This one -or, at least, this announcement - just seems to include some greenwash-y posturing. I hope I’m wrong.

Cheryl Hammond
Wed Dec 3 2008 11:15
Even if carbon dioxide can be sequestered commercially, which is still an open question, it's not all about the burning of coal. It's also about the digging of coal. If we have removed the tops of mountains in Appalachia, and dammed streams with those same mountain tops, we don't have a green energy source. Washington University should not participate in any consortium where the industry members engage in mountain top removal mining, and Arch Coal, a member of this consortium, operates these disgraceful mine.