Coal, which generates about half of America's electricity, is typically thought of as dirty, polluting and dangerous to people's health. However, new technologies are coming about, perhaps providing some light to the otherwise dark future of coal – the power source we can't seem to live without. But are these advancements viable, and if so, what will it take for people to embrace them?

It is perhaps the power source with the worst rap, as a list on Grist shows more than a dozen coal plant proposals that were ditched since September, 2006. Some people are trying to change that reputation, and convince others that coal can be a clean and necessary source of power for our future. Advocacy group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (APEC), is delivering stockings with lumps of coal (chocolate coal, that is), to the Nevada offices of the major presidential candidates to promote the idea of clean coal technology. The organization believes coal can provide efficient and clean energy that is safe for the nation, allows us to rely less on foreign oil, and can be healthier to the environment. It states that emissions from coal-based facilities have dropped by two-thirds over the past three decades while demand for coal has doubled, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coal is a more affordable source of energy than say solar or wind power, and can help keep electricity prices low and stable.

APEC is not alone in its advocacy for coal. Supporters of an experimental low-pollution coal power plant to be built in Illinois announced their $1.8 billion plan in Washington, D.C. this week. The plant is expected to produce 275 megawatts of electricity from gasified coal while emitting almost no pollutants and only 10 percent of the carbon dioxide from today's coal-fired plants. The taxpayer-supported FutureGen project uses integrated gasification-combined cycle, or IGCC technology. Unlike conventional power plants that burn coal and emit massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, IGCC plants gasify coal, separate out the polluting gases from hydrogen, which is burned an drives turbines, and generates electricity. The goal is to capture 90 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions and pump them into permanent storage underground. This technology is already in advanced permitting stages in three plants in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.

But how safe and permanent is carbon capture and storage? Critics cite it as an expensive endeavor and fear that carbon dioxide could seep out of its underground storage, while others say the money spent on researching it could go instead to developing renewable energy sources.

It seems that there is no right answer to the energy problem, and research and development into clean coal technology and carbon capture and storage may be a crucial key to the recipe for clean energy that we've yet to figure out. Until other sources of renewable energy are reliable and affordable, we'll continue to rely on coal, so shouldn't we make coal as clean as possible?