Survey: Is there a Role for Coal?

I think that coal is pretty much the devil. It is dirty to use and devestating to mine. On the other hand, though, what do we do with all of the people who mine coal for a living? What are the other sources of employment in the coal regions? I'm not going to be too quick to sh@t on the laborer who brings us coal. We need to find some alternatives for those guys. Any real ideas out there?

I don't like coal, but I would much rather have all sides of the information spectrum than put my fingers in my ears and sing "la, la, la, I don't want to hear you!!" Besides, there is always the chance that someone will come up with a way to use it.

If we are to have a chance in getting these issues worked out, we need to stop demonizing the faceless "them". Coal advocates are not evil - they are trying to solve a problem. I don't agree with their perspective or solution, but I don't think they are wantonly trying to destroy the earth.

When it comes down to it, our CO2 problem is essentially transportation and coal plants. We can mostly fix the transportation problem by moving to Biodiesel and/or ethanol (cellulosic or switchgrass preferably). Even jet engines will run on Biodiesel. And plug-in bio-diesel hybrid cars are coming sooner or later.

As for replacing coal, the options are either nuclear or alternative. Nuclear can be much better utilized, as most of the so-called waste can actually be reused many times in the right reactor, hugely mitigating the actual waste issue.

As for alternatives, I personally believe that massive wind and solar combined with pumped storage hydro could provide both effective base load and variable power. Wind turbines have already become very efficient and breakthroughs in solar are just around the corner, including grand ideas like Austrailia's solar tower.

In the end, coal workers will surely find employment, whether it be on a farm or office or factory, all of it being vastly more healthy and safer than currently.

e) None of the above.

It's useful to hear the arguments for coal so we can sharpen our thoughts. Some of the responses to the original post were brilliant. I was happy to read them. No one who reads TH was fooled by the article.

Coal is not the answer in my book as there are better alternative energy solutions, but perhaps one day they will figure out how we can mine it and burn it in a more environmentally friendly way (other than sequestration).

If the only problem was how to make it safe to burn, I would love to hear about new technology and would welcome the use of coal.

But the mountaintop-removal mining to get the coal is disastrous, and no new technology will allow us to stop using the technique. Even if they come up with automated equipment that could follow a vane of coal and get it out without removing the mountain or putting people at risk, the mountains would still collapse on themselves because so much material has been removed. So the mountain gets destroyed either way.

Same for tar sands processing. So much energy is used to convert the tar to coal, its just a waste of time and energy.

I logged on to comment, but the smart TH readers said it all. I like to get information, and read the article, but am extremely, perhaps faltally dubious that coal extraction and usage could ever be even close to sustainable.

Option 4 in the survey:
d) Factual news is important, and posts explaining clean coal are informative. But having them written by a lobby group for industry is not responsible reporting. Independent analysis of news releases is responsible reporting.

Yes reports have been recently posted by Sierra Club. The site is called "Tree Hugger". It has a bend towards environmentally responsible practices. The site is not called "Green Washing", or "How to help multi-billion dollar industries get their self-interest messaging propaganda framed exactly the way they want and then presented it to the public." (That would be verbose).

Delving deeper into the problem with this post, unless someone knew what the Business Roundtable was, they would have no way of knowing that the post was coming from an industry lobby group. The post should have been preceded by an explanation of who the author was and their interests. Are all posts preceded by this info? No, but not all posts are so blatantly self serving.

Yes most treehugger readers would have recognized what this post was. But some may not have, and we shouldn't be expected to guess at the motives of the poster. We have enough mainstream media that we must view with increasing skepticism. Treehugger didn't need to join that list of questionable sources.

I'm very disturbed by the post, so much so that I seriously considered not viewing the site today, or in the future. I have never posted a comment to treehugger before, and rarely if ever post to any site or forum.

To treehugger editors and publishers:
Do not underestimate the value of your credibility, or how quickly you can lose it.

Once in a while I see an article on carbon sequestration. You know what? The best way to sequester millions of tons of carbon is to leave it as coal. Period.

Sequestering CO2 ends up sequestering twice as much oxygen as it does carbon.

Coal does have a role, but not as fuel. Coal is a necessary part of making iron and steel, for which almost nothing else can substitute, but other than that, as fuel, coal can be replaced. The question isn't whether it can be replaced, but whether we have the will to break our addiction to cheap energy, which isn't really cheap at all if you count all the costs, including pollution and climate change.

Red, thank you very much for your comments. I am glad that you took the time to write it. I was thinking of writing something very similar, but now I do not have to. Your words conveyed my feelings better than what I would have managed, considering my agitation over this issue. The ending was particularly poignant. I hope you post more in future.

I'd also like to thank bovis, Anonymous, Jon K, Joyce, Doug, Kirsten, and Berkana for their comments.

with so many valid alternatives to coal there is no reason to continue its use.

1: coal is less expensive so we need to use it until other technologies are more economically viable.
-if power plants had to pay the price for the cleanup costs of the environmental damage they did we would see the real cost of coal.

2: technologies for other methods of creating power is are still being developed so we should wait until they are more efficient.
-no technology is ever finished developing, new coal technologies are also being developed.

3: coal workers would be put out of a job.
-if coal was no longer acceptable for creating energy companies would have to scramble to research new technologies, install new equipment, and update old plants. this would create new jobs that would not involve 10 hour days of inhaling coal dust.

change costs money but whenever companies have to spend money it is recycled back to the people. lets stop holding up change because companies want to minimize cost.

with so many valid alternatives to coal there is no reason to continue its use.

1: coal is less expensive so we need to use it until other technologies are more economically viable.
-if power plants had to pay the price for the cleanup costs of the environmental damage they did we would see the real cost of coal.

2: technologies for other methods of creating power is are still being developed so we should wait until they are more efficient.
-no technology is ever finished developing, new coal technologies are also being developed.

3: coal workers would be put out of a job.
-if coal was no longer acceptable for creating energy companies would have to scramble to research new technologies, install new equipment, and update old plants. this would create new jobs that would not involve 10 hour days of inhaling coal dust.

change costs money but whenever companies have to spend money it is recycled back to the people. lets stop holding up change because companies want to minimize cost.

Coal is not a great energy solution - we all already know this. But it is what it is - one of our main sources. Too bad society isn't willing to reduce their consumption because we simply cannot move to alternatives quickly enough to reduce our total emissions, no matter how many people tout the benefits of solar, wind, etc. it just can't happen fast enough - we have to reduce consumption.

I wonder if consumption will be down even say 10% overall this year. I know mine is down considerably but I've taken several steps.

Even the "green minded" people I know aren't making many changes in their day to day. They just point to the big consumers and say "What about them? Why should I make all the sacrifices?"

Cyncial? maybe. But definitely truthful.

With simple relatively inexpensive things like CFL and LED lighting working into the mainstream, I could see some big reductions in consumption take place.

10% reduction? I don't know, but it would be a good start!

The conversation is shifting every day. Now we are hearing that in order to prevent runaway climate chaos, we must cut emissions by 100%. That means no more coal.

I think it's relevant to post articles about coal if it is having an effect on the environment. Whether that effect is positive or negative is based upon the actions of the industry and it's not your fault that it's usually negative.

As for jobs, economies change. We survived getting rid of our child labor force, adding labor laws, and deleting many many jobs that are bad for us and the environment. We need to accept that our structure for fulfilling our bloated energy needs must change.

Coal is huge in China, and cannot be ignored.

From a recent article about coal and China

"Worldwide demand for coal dipped at the end of the 20th century, but is now back up and projected to rise 60 percent by 2030 to 6.9 billion tons a year, according to the International Energy Agency."

Today, most coal goes to electrical power plants. In developing nations such as India, China and Africa, coal is the staple — and affordable — source of fuel with which families run their first washing machines and televisions. Worldwide electricity consumption is expected to double by 2030, the World Energy Council says.

In America, about 150 new coal-fired electrical plants are proposed over the next decade. In China, there are plans for a coal-fired power plant to go on line nearly every week. Emissions from these plants alone could nullify the cuts made by Europe, Japan and other rich nations under the Kyoto Protocol treaty."

There is a old Mexican song that say the devil gave us oil. I guest we can include coal to that. I firmly believe that we can recycle and use biomass for raw material even at the industrial level, and others alternative clean energies

Jose Chavez

Trying to restrain yourself in a world of abundance.....will we ever be able to manage it?

i use anthracite coal to heat my house
i am grateful that i live near the anthracite region
i can't afford to heat with oil or electricity

i didn't think you would have the balls to post my comment

LA: I do have the balls, I just didn't have the time to look at it as I was out of town. it is up now.

Coal power is a scam.

US anthracite production peaked in the 20s.

High grade coal prices have more than doubled in the past year.

Thermal solar is cheaper than coal after just a few years because there is no fuel to buy.

Wind is already cheaper than building the coal plant, before you even buy the coal.

The reason utility companies want to build coal plants so bad is because they get 'cost plus' contracts and guaranteed profit margins just like Haliburton. So the more money they waste, the more money they make. They also know that with solar and wind they will never be able to come back and claim the price of sunlight went up and get a rate increase. They also can't hook their buddies up with waste disposal contracts. Check the power industry out, it's all about feeding at the public trough.

Hey I do think that there are alternatives, but my husband is a coal miner and everyday he is mining the coal that is powering your computer and feeding our 3 and 1 year old. He has also provided a great living for our family which is sometimes hard to come by in the state of West Virginia. And yes de does have a college degree!!!!! Offices and Farms do not pay a comparable wage to the mines. My husband and I come from a long history of coal!!! We are however doing what we can to reduce our carbon footprint. We are looking into ways to conserve energy with energy star products and solor power!!! I do believe that if a coal family can do things that help the enviroment and reduce the need for coal then everyone could do the same.

Looking at our options is one thing.
Having Treehugger endorse using coal is quite another.

Wind is cheaper than coal.

We shouldn't even entertain the idea of continuing to use coal. even so called clean coal technology just puts the problem somewhere else. Even nuclear power is a better option once it is properly managed, the waste can also be reused in a different kind of reactor as opposed to disposing of it.
The ultimate solution is a decentralised approach to electricity generation; each building on a grid with more solar pannels or wind turbines etc. than it needs, all interconnected would be able to cover all the users on that grid even with the differences in demand from user to user.

I would disagree, Omar. We should consider coal, if it can be "cleaned". But that is a tremendous if.

Frankly, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in heck that "clean" coal can compete. Coal (with all its subsidies) is only moderately cheaper than wind, if at all. If ~30% of the energy in the coal had to be used to capture the carbon, as is estimated, that alone would push coal over wind in price. Add in the additional capital for the equipment and coal is hosed. Even worse, "clean coal" is far behind on the learning curve as well. Why even bother to research something that will never work economically?

The same holds for coal-to-oil and shale-oil schemes. Half the energy is wasted in order to extract the other half, and another 30% to bury the CO2? There is no way either of these technologies would be cost effective without there free-garbage-dump subsidy.

I my judgement, there is NO role for coal for power generation. I will take nuclear power over coal for a reason that has not been brought up. Did anyone see the Morgan Spurlock show 30 days where he lives with a coal mining family? The reason all of them (and it is not a very diverse group of people) do coal mining is because "I got 3 mouths to feed and another on the way". All of the miners had large families - why do they feel the need to have 7-8 kids?. They also had several cars and trucks so they mine to "pay for all the toys". Why encourage and enable this wasteful and environmetally disaster of a lifestyle? If people did not have so many kids, they could probably "afford" to take a job that paid less but was safer and not as much of an environmental disaster. For some reason this seems to be unique to WV. So glad I live in PA, where I can say 1/3 of our electric power is from nuclear sources.