Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Our Suicide Mission with Coal

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted March 25, 2008.


Coal produces more carbon emissions than other energy sources, yet we burn more of it each year.
Advertisement

As the global energy/climate crisis deepens, coal has become the starkest symbol and most telling measure of our predicament. Coal produces more carbon emissions than other energy sources -- more than twice that of natural gas per unit of energy output. Consequently, coal-fired power plants are responsible for about one-third of US emissions of carbon dioxide. Despite this, we are mining and burning more coal than ever.

On March 18, the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) released an analysis of EPA data showing that carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power industry increased by 2.9 percent in 2007 and have risen 5.9 percent since 2002. Coal is the culprit.

According to an Associated Press report, the cause of last year's increase was a combination of three factors: increased electricity demand; a shortage of hydroelectric power, leading to greater reliance on coal, and the reduced efficiency of aging coal-burning power plants.

While utilities around the nation have plans to construct more than 100 new coal-fired power plants, public concern over global warming and toxic pollution has put the brakes on many of them. Last year in Texas, public interest groups prevented TXU Energy from going ahead on eight new coal-fired plants that would have increased the state's emissions by 24 percent, according to the EIP report.

But as demand for electricity rises and cleaner fuels like natural gas get scarcer and more expensive, the relentless pressure to burn coal fuels delusions such as "clean coal."

"Clean coal" is a combination of two technologies, one of which is expensive and the other completely unproven. The expensive one is coal gasification, and it is a genuinely cleaner way of burning coal. It involves baking coal to drive off gasses that aren't much dirtier than natural gas, and the gasses then are burned for power production. This technology costs a minimum of 20 percent more than a conventional pulverized coal plant, which is why only two such plants exist in the United States.

The other part of the "clean coal" scheme involves carbon capture and storage. This technology is not proven and the potential costs are enormous. A US Department of Energy pilot project called FutureGen was recently canceled with the DOE citing soaring cost projections among its reasons for ending the project.

But even if the "clean coal" idea were workable, the realities of the coal fuel cycle ensure that coal can never be truly clean.

At the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference in Eugene, Oregon, in early March, a panel of citizen activists talked about the front and back ends of coal use: mining and waste disposal. Teri Blanton, of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth spoke about the heartbreak of mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia. The mining technique is dynamiting hundreds of thousand of acres of biologically diverse forest ecosystems to get at the coal underneath, and dumping the waste into streams. Blanton told the story of one of her neighbors who lost his land to a mining company. "When I say he lost his land," she said, "I mean he literally lost his land. One day he found that his land was just gone, blasted away to nothing."

According to the group Appalachian Voices, more than 800 square miles of mountains have already been destroyed by mountaintop removal and if the blasting continues unabated it will devastate an area the size of Delaware by 2010.

Coal mining also uses great quantities of water and pollutes streams in the process. Slurries of waste laden with toxic heavy metals are leaching into streams and river systems. Earthen impoundments that hold back the sludge are unstable and threaten communities. A sludge dam breach in 2000 in Martin County, Kentucky, dumped more than 300 million gallons of toxic sludge, killing virtually all aquatic life for 70 miles downstream of the spill.

Brad Bartlett of the Energy Minerals Law Center talked about the post-combustion end of coal. Air pollution controls at existing coal plants capture 125 million tons of pollutants, amounting to "the largest solid waste stream in the US," according to Bartlett. He said that it is not formally regulated as hazardous waste despite the presence of heavy metals and other toxins. Some of it is used to make building materials and roads, but the rest is just landfilled.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: coal, appalachia, mountaintop removal coal , coal mining, global warming, climate change

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thank you, Kelpie Wilson, for a truthful, but understated article.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 25, 2008 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's start with a list of the heavy and light elements in coal.
They are: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY,
Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine,
Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium,
Magnesium, Thorium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine,
Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much
of these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually
valuable ores. We should be able to get all the uranium and
thorium we need to fuel nuclear power plants for centuries by
using cinders and smoke as ore. Remember that, to get a given
amount of energy, you need on the order of 100 MILLION
TIMES as much coal as uranium. That means the coal mine has
to be 100 million times larger than the uranium mine, not counting
the recycling of nuclear fuel. We can keep our mountains and
forests and our health by switching from coal to nuclear power.

Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by
peasants for cooking. The result is that the whole family
dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese industrial grade
coal contains large amounts of arsenic.

I have zero financial interest in nuclear power, and I never have
had a financial interest in nuclear power. My sole motivation in
writing this is to avoid death by H2S gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"SUICIDE" is the correct word indeed.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 25, 2008 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I ahve no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anthropic Global Warming has already happened.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 25, 2008 5:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming Has Already Happened. In the mid 19th
century, the Mississippi river froze over in the winter so you could
drive on it at St. Louis. That's how St Louis became known as
the gateway to the west. Now the Mississippi river is ice-free at
Davenport, Iowa. If you want to drive on the river, you have to
go at least as far North as Minnesota. Cattaraugus County New
York [Olean, Little Valley] got 450 inches [37.5 feet] of snow per
year in the 1950s and 1960s. Now it gets only 96 inches of snow
per year. Hurricane season starts in spring now. Hurricane
season used to start in the fall. The hurricanes are bigger now
than ever before.
We humans have caused 1.3 degrees Farenheit of global warming
since we started burning coal. COAL is still the biggest
contributor to CO2 production. If we do not stop producing 70
Million tons per day of CO2 [carbon dioxide], we so-called
"humans" will go extinct.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not just Leaching
Posted by: nahikurain@mac.com on Mar 26, 2008 12:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The poison sludge is not just leaching into our water table, they are pumping it into the abandoned mines without liners or anything. The abandoned coal mines are being used as Underground Injection Sites, but they aren't classified as such, so there are no rules as how to use them correctly, if at all. The coal that has been removed was the semipermeable layer, the coal was acting as a water table water filter, and now they take the filter out, and put poison in its place.

As for the stream beds, they have completely buried them with toxic fill, solid and "sludge" semi-liquid. They hold over 9 BILLION gallons of this toxic waste behind dirt banks that were pushed like a child's damn. And our government allows this. They haven't gotten to classifying this sludge, they haven't classified the abandoned mines, they can't protect our water table or our streams even though what is happening is a clear violation of the Clean Water protection Act and the Stream Buffer Act.
The Friends of Coal own the Senate and the Governor; the WV DEP is appointed! The money trail is long and broad. You talk about suicide, but it's also rape, and mass murder, and that's just at the taking of the coal, before it starts to burn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pat
Posted by: gpdunk on Mar 27, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If climate change is so unusual, why did the Vikings farm Greenland about 1,000 years ago? If man-centered activity is so important to climate change, how did the ice ages melt without the help of coal and SUVs, including the most recent "little ice age"? Why is carbon considered so dangerous when it is necessary to support life on earth? Recall basic science, plants breathe in carbon dioxide, and exhale oxygen. The plants are getting healthier. How is it that some of the warmest years in the United States occured in the 1930s during the "dust bowl" when we emitted lower amounts of carbon? Why do extreme environmentalists hold to this theory? Because it makes them rich and gain power over other peoples lives, and they win Nobel prizes. Why is it seldom mentioned that carbon dioxide concentration increases in response to warming? I believe the fluctuation in temperatures is caused by solar cycles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: gpdunk
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 27, 2008 11:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
gpdunk: If climate change is so unusual, why did the Vikings
farm Greenland about 1,000 years ago?
Asteroid Miner: Who said the climate never changed before?
Not me. What we DID say was that climate change causes
extinctions and falls of civilizations. The Vikings eventually
starved to death because of a climate change. I would rather not
die of starvation.

gpdunk: If man-centered activity is so important to climate
change, how did the ice ages melt without the help of coal and
SUVs, including the most recent "little ice age"?
Asteroid Miner: Have you ever heard of the Milankovitch
Cycles? THIS climate change is important because WE are
causing it AND WE WOULD RATHER NOT DIE. Climate
change is always accompanied by extinctions. After the
extinction event, new species evolve, but the extinct species stay
extinct. I happen to be prejudiced in favor of one particular
species called Homo Sapiens. If you wish to die, that is your
problem, but keep it to yourself.

gpdunk: Why is carbon considered so dangerous when it is
necessary to support life on earth? Recall basic science, plants
breathe in carbon dioxide, and exhale oxygen. The plants are
getting healthier.
Asteroid Miner: I'm worried about MY health. I am not a plant.
Besides, plants can't breathe hydrogen sulfide and live either.
READ my post on that subject. Read the referenced articles.
Carbon dioxide is a GREENHOUSE GAS. It was proven in the
laboratory in the 19th Century that CO2 [carbon dioxide] absorbs
infrared [heat] radiation/light. CO2 is dangerous because, as
stated in previous comments, it causes climate change. Severe
climate change includes H2S bubbling out of the oceans in large
quantities. H2S [hydrogen sulfide] is a poison gas. H2S reacts
with moisture in your lungs to produce H2SO4, sulfuric [battery]
acid. If you breathe H2S, your lungs dissolve. That would be a
painful way to die.

gpdunk: How is it that some of the warmest years in the United
States occurred in the 1930s during the "dust bowl" when we
emitted lower amounts of carbon?
Asteroid Miner: Have you ever heard of El Nino? WEATHER
varies all the time. We humans don't control the weather and we
don't control all of the climate. But we are forcing a global
warming that will make the dust bowl look like a very nice time.


gpdunk: Why do extreme environmentalists hold to this theory?
Because it makes them rich and gain power over other peoples
lives, and they win Nobel prizes.
Asteroid Miner: http://initforthegold.blogspot.com
/2007/03/bambi-vs-godzilla.html
Only In It For The Gold
Probably the weakest reason for mistrusting us climate scientists
is the idea that we are in it for the money. When I was a starving
grad student, I told a dignified lady from rural Mississippi that I
was doing climate modeling. She was briefly taken aback. After a
beat, she gathered her wits and politely replied "Oh, that must be...
lucrative".

gpdunk: Why is it seldom mentioned that carbon dioxide
concentration increases in response to warming?
Asteroid Miner: We DO mention it. That is the positive
feedback that we are trying to prevent. If it happens, we are too
late and we are doomed. See the chart on page 274 of "Six
Degrees" by Mark Lynas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: gpdunk continued
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Mar 27, 2008 11:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
gpdunk: I believe the fluctuation in temperatures is caused by
solar cycles.
Asteroid Miner: You are wrong, but nobody cares what you
believe as long as you kill yourself soon. Just go ahead and
believe whatever you want since you aren't interested in the
evidence. The sun doesn't vary by enough in the short term to
cause climate variations. The sun gets hotter over billions of
years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]