The mine disaster in West Virginia draws a bit of attention to a dirty little American secret—coal mining and the use of coal in America. Most people don’t even think about coal anymore and how widespread its use is. When most people think about non-renewable energy sources, they think about oil and maybe natural gas, the two forms that have a blatant impact on their daily lives.
However, coal is used in the creation of electricity, as well as in the steel, paper and concrete industries. Over half the electric plants in the United States are coal powered. Even though improvements have been made in reducing the air pollution created by coal burning, pollution is still being released in huge quantities. Some pollutants, like mercury, cannot be removed, because the technology does not yet exist to remove it from coal smoke. Coal mining releases large amounts of waste containing toxic heavy metals like iron, zinc, chromium and lead, and acid mine drainage contains various carcinogens. These elements and compounds end up in the water supply, both surface and groundwater. The burning of coal is a major source of greenhouse gasses.
Seepage and drainage of toxic materials does not occur from just mines in current use. Abandoned mines continue to leach these elements and chemicals into the environment for decades after their profitable economic life is over. Though the coal industry has spent money to clean up some of these sites, they have not even come close to cleaning them all or negating the negative impact acidic mine runoff from these sites have had.
Coal takes millions of years to form and is not renewable—once it is gone, it is gone. Though the industry says that there is enough coal in the United States to fuel its energy needs for 250 years, that figure is based on current consumption rates and does not take into account the amount of coal used by other nations. We presently export 9 percent of our coal to countries like India, China and Japan, who do not have the same natural reserves that we have, and that amount will continue to increase as their population and energy needs do. The fact remains–we will run out of coal. While coal is a possible short-term solution in our attempt to wean ourselves off even more scarce non-renewable fuel sources such as oil and natural gas, it is undeniable that the clock is ticking on the amount of time coal can buy for us.
The bottom line is we have to start investing heavily in reducing, reusing, recycling and insist on the development of renewable energy sources NOW. This demands efforts from all sectors: private citizens, private industry and government. The writing is on the wall and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer. New technology takes time to develop and we have to begin that process in earnest NOW or risk it coming too late. If we have to spend money to do it, then so be it, whether it is in the form of higher costs for products or increased taxes. We cannot afford not to and the environment and future generations cannot afford to pay the cost for us.
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal_mining.htm
http://iahs.info/redbooks/a230/iahs_230_0055.pdf
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=coal_home-basics
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
“If we have to spend money to do it, then so be it, whether it is in the form of higher costs for products or increased taxes.”
And let me just remind you kids that it is THE POOR who suffer under heating oil taxes and increased electrical bills in the winter. When we start hearing about people freezing to death this winter will the tune of the piper change?
Laura,
How exactly was I not being nice? Since you are a “good Christian” woman you should know better; “Judge not lest ye be judged.”
Reading things that are not there again… tsk tsk…
“Since other people don’t know how to be nice….Welcome, Andrew.”
Gee, ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black.
Since other people don’t know how to be nice….Welcome, Andrew.
Or switch to methane and just farm pig $&*! or cow dung. Oh wait cows are supposed to add to global warming right? I’m not supposed to eat red meat according to Al Gore. Who’s mansion is the largest consumer of power in his area.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7564682/Cows-absolved-of-causing-global-warming-with-nitrous-oxide.html
Grow Hemp and you have your renewable resource.
Sure they can levy fines, but they also have the power to shut down operations based on EPA assessments. Why was enforcement only in the form of fines? Ask yourself why ANY of these sites weren’t closed before they became an issue. Sure a few companies can trick an EPA inspection but I find it improbable that they all could. It’s easy to say (as usual) that it’s businesses fault and they bear the responsibility. But where was the reasonable oversight that is supposed to take place at the EPA? Especially in this case where there were repeat offences and multiple fines. It’s easy to fine and tax an industry to death, but close a mine for safety concerns and you are affecting peoples jobs. Not exactly a politically expedient thing to do.
And Laura,
“You can’t legislate a conscience, but you can’t sit and do nothing either…” It’s amazing to hear this from you since I’ve pointed out time and again your willingness to do just that.
The true solution is for industry to take responsibility for its messes, but that isn’t going to happen–there’s no money in it. Doing the right thing should just be a cost of doing business, but many times it is cheaper to evade and pay the fines when they are caught than it is to actually do what they should be doing.
You can’t legislate a conscience, but you can’t sit and do nothing either…And the American people are only willing to give the EPA but so much of a budget to clean those 1,200 plus sites, with new ones being made every day.
The Oklahoma legislature, after a tornado tore through the Picher/Cardin area a couple of years ago, approved $5,000,000 for buyouts of the families with the most severely ill children.
The EPA, when the big clean-up started, decided that lawn remediation was going to be the way to go – completely ignoring the huge mountains of chat (mine tailings/waste byproduct) scattered around the countryside. When the wind blows, the dust off these mountains of waste filters into homes, cars, lungs, food, etc. The lawn remediation was as follows – we’ll scrape off the top 12″ of soil, take it away, bring in soil and sod from a near-by town and replace it. That should take care of the problem. I don’t believe any money to speak of (other than what the state of OK has put up) has been spent on this site in the last 15-20 yrs.
There are still over 1,200 Superfund sites that are waiting clean-up. While there are certainly some wild success stories, there are a far greater number of dismal failures.
Current hybrid vehicles are a start, but you make a valid point about the batteries. These cars were built and pushed in record numbers with no serious thought given to how the spent batteries would be disposed of. Proposed all electric “plug-in” vehicles are being promoted as even greener, without anythought given to how the electricity to run them is produced and the role of coal in that process.
You are right that there has been money spent, but given the progress we have made in other areas of technology but not in this one, it is not enough. There are many lobbying groups with a lot of money that do not want to see a strong push for renewable energy and people are not willing to make or pay for the changes that renewable energy and sustainability would require. Both of these are due to short term goals and thinking, rather than what needs to be done for the long-term health of this nation and this planet. When will it begin to sink in that 5-10-20 years is NOT long-term planning when it comes to issues of this magnitude?
I wish Tar Creek stood alone, but it doesn’t. The Black River area in Arkansas, with its red water from iron filled runoff is another one. There is a local “waterfall” there that swimmers and fisherman gather around that is not a natural waterfall, but mine runoff… Speaking of Tar Creek and Superfund, who is paying for the clean up of that site after the mine was closed and the profit was divvied up? You, me and the rest of the taxpayers in this country. Many of these “companies” are formed solely for the capitalization of and investment in a single mine, so when the mine is tapped out, is no longer profitable or is closed for other reasons, the “company” is disbanded and the money dispersed to investors, leaving no entity to recover cleanup money from. That makes clean up our expense.
Unless I’m mistaken, there has been research into new technology and renewable energy sources for many years. The hybrid vehicles on the road today are direct results of that research.
That being said, the environmental impact from mining the necessary materials (primarily nickel) to manufacture the NiMH (Nickle-Metal Hydride) batteries is extremely hard on the enviroment and ecology surrounding the mines. Though mining techniques and technology have changed considerably over the years, one needs to look no further than the Tar Creek Superfund Site in Oklahoma to see the environmental impact of mining heavy metals – and this mine closed in the 1970′s.
You are correct that the research necessary to get us to the next level of power generation will have to be a joint effort.
Overall, this is a very good article. Factual, concise and well-written.
For photos of Tar Creek – http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=photos+of+tar+creek+superfund+site&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=BCW-S6mdBJfKM-vegIMK&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQsAQwAA