'Clean' coal? Yeah, right
According to the Environmental Defense Action Fund, “clean coal” energy isn’t really clean at all - at least not in the sense that we’d normally understand the definition of the word, that is, without impurities. It’s energy that has been produced in ways that have less impact on the environment than the traditional production of coal energy. But clean-coal energy production is not impact-free by any stretch of the imagination. So a more accurate adjective might be “cleaner.”
In their discussions about energy and the environment, both Barack Obama and John McCain talk about "clean coal" energy and America's need to invest in the development of technology that will make it more prevalent.
But what, exactly, is "clean coal"? The term itself sounds like something that the late, great George Carlin would deride as being as oxymoronic as "jumbo shrimp" or "military intelligence."
God, I miss that man.
Anyway, according to the Environmental Defense Action Fund, "clean coal" energy isn't really clean at all - at least not in the sense that we'd normally understand the definition of the word, that is, without impurities. It's energy that has been produced in ways that have less impact on the environment than the traditional production of coal energy. But clean-coal energy production is not impact-free by any stretch of the imagination. So a more accurate adjective might be "cleaner."
But even this begs the question, how much cleaner? For a good explanation about coal and its production, clean and otherwise, check out this report from the Sierra Club. I know people will say it's slanted – c'mon, it's the Sierra Club! – but it's still an enlightening green-read.