An Alternative to Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining in West Virginia
by Greg Haegele, Sierra Club on 07.18.08
Lorelei Scarbro lives in a place most of us would envy - on 10 acres of lush, green southern West Virginia mountain, where deer, turkeys and other wildlife make regular appearances.
Now Scarbro's land is threatened by mountaintop removal coal mining. If you're not familiar with this practice - it's the most destructive kind of coal mining out there. Companies literally blow up the tops of mountains to reach the coal beneath - leaving a barren, rocky landscape. The companies fill nearby valleys and streams with the waste rock - ruining entire watersheds and frequently the water supplies of nearby communities as well. (You can learn more about this type of mining by visiting our coal website.)
In Scarbro's case, Marfork Coal Company, a subsidiary of Massey Energy, has applied for four permits (two have been approved) to mine 6,600 acres of Coal River Mountain, including land bordering Scarbro's. The permits would also allow for the construction of at least 19 valley fills, which means mining waste would be desposited in nearly every headwater stream originating from the mountain.
Scarbro and a coalition of environmental and community organizations aren't taking this news from Massey lying down. Coal River Mountain Watch (CRMW) and these groups have an alternative they say the state coal association claims coal opponents never have: The Coal River Wind Project.
The Coal River Wind Project is a proposed 440-Megawatt wind farm consisting of 220 wind turbines to be constructed on the land slated to be blown away for coal mining, and the coalition has done extensive studies on the area to show just how viable an alternative this wind farm would be. According to the project's study, the wind farm would:
• Create 440 megawatts of power, enough to power more than 150,000 homes in West Virginia.
• Create more than 200 local employment opportunities during the construction phase, and 40-50 permanent operations and maintenance jobs during the life of the wind farm.
• Provide Raleigh County and West Virginia with a source of clean, renewable energy, as well as a sustained tax income that could be used for the construction of new schools for the county.
• Allow for concurrent uses of the mountain that could revitalize the local economy and bring sustainable economic development for the surrounding communities.
Adding that the jobs would be longer lasting than the proposed mining jobs, Scarbro said, "This is the viable alternative."
For Rory McIlmoil, who works for CRMW with Scarbro, if the mountain must be developed to meet the growing energy needs of the state, then why wouldn't you choose the option that's less destructive, much cleaner, and creates a more viable economy in the long run?
"This is definitely a 'much lesser of two evils' in terms of environmental impact," said McIlmoil. "The strip-mines will lead to the clearing of over 6,000 acres of native hardwood forest, whereas our maximum estimate for the clearing that would be related to the wind farm is 200 acres."
McIlmoil can get even more detailed in the numbers for turbine siting, just ask him. He's also tallied the wildlife impact.
"And when you talk about the birds and the bats, the loss of 6,600 acres of natural habitat is likely to have a much greater impact on populations than the wind farm would, especially considering the fact that a 10,000-plus acre mountaintop removal site (Kayford Mountain) sits to the north of Coal River Mountain and another 8,000-plus acre site sit to the southwest (the Twilight Mining Complex). So Coal River Mountain is basically a habitat buffer zone between two existing mountaintop removal sites."
Scarbro and other Coal River Wind Project supporters have met with officials from just about every city, state and private agency and organization you can imagine to garner support for the plan - and many like the idea. They also have nationwide support from a number of organizations (including the Sierra Club national and local groups).
McIlmoil added the wind farm isn't just an idea - they even have developers highly interested in it.
Now McIlmoil, Scarbro and the coalition want to meet with Massey Energy and the company that owns the Coal River Mountain property to see if this wind farm plan can become a reality.
"We're hoping (the meeting) happens soon so we can sit down and try to work out possibilities here," said Scarbro.
The coalition behind this wind project has covered all the bases - even answering the question about whether post mountaintop removal land can be used for wind turbines: Scarbro said studies show that post-mountaintop removal land is too unstable for turbines, and trying to stabilize the land would make the building costs exceptionally higher. And because the mountain would be significantly lower than before, building turbines makes no sense due to the dramatic loss of wind power potential.
McIlmoil and Scarbro need all the support they can get, so we urge you to check out their website and help them build a wind farm instead of watching yet another Appalachian mountain get blown away.
"This is not just about green jobs, even though we desperately need those,"said Scarbro. "It's not just about renewable energy, even though we desperately need that. This is about saving the mountain and keeping it intact. We want to save vegetation, wildlife, and continue the Appalachian way of life - hunting, fishing, gathering herbs, and more. These are things we can't do if Massey comes in and destroys everything in its path."
Walk Score Ranks The Top 10 Most Walkable Cities in the U.S.
|
Shelby SuperCars to Build World's Fastest Electric Car, the Ultimate Aero EV
|
Thank you Sierra Club for writing this article. Getting the wind farm we are proposing on Coal River Mountain will not only save a mountain from the destructive impacts of Mountaintop Removal, it will show people in Southern WV that there is actually hope for something other than just coal, that there can be other jobs that dont destroy the land or contaminate the water or put their lives in danger of flooding, and this region needs to see that. If the nation is truly to transition away from carbon-based electricity, then the transition has to being in West Virginia and the rest of Central Appalachia where alot of that carbon comes from. Thank you for spreading the word.
-- The Coal River Mountain Wind Project --
How much electricity will the coal in that mountain produce versus the amount of electricity the wind turbines will generate during their life? Just curious.
Thanks David, that is kind of a loaded question, but I'll do what I can.
Since the wind would produce electricity forever (as long as the turbines were replaced every 20-25 years), then the wind farm would eventually produce more energy than the coal in the mountain, and would reach that point in year 86 of operation of the wind farm. As a per-year comparison, over the 14 year expected life of the strip-mining (after which, no more coal, no more energy, no more jobs), the coal would generate an average of 8.9 billion kWh each year, whereas the wind farm would generate 1.2 billion kWh per year, so about 13.5% of the electricity that would come from the coal.
Of course, 20% of the coal would be exported to other countries, and the wind electricity couldnt be exported, so in terms of actual US electricity generation, the wind farm would, annually, generate about 17% of the electricity that the strip-mined coal would.
Now, our proposal includes the underground mining, which by my estimates could produce 50% of the coal that the strip-mining would. So then, take half of the coal plus the wind, and those two together would produce about 67% of all the electricity that the strip-mining would. And the thing to remember is that that is just annually. The mining will last for only 14 years. After which, no more wind potential due to the loss of hundreds of feet of altitude.
The wind, however, will last forever. Hope this helps! Keep the questions coming.
-- Coal River Mountain Wind Project --
American ingenuity at it's finest! Just curious though - what would prevent someone from logging after you've done all this hard work? Will there be a permanent easement?
Thanks David, that is kind of a loaded question, but I'll do what I can.
Since the wind would produce electricity forever (as long as the turbines were replaced every 20-25 years), then the wind farm would eventually produce more energy than the coal in the mountain, and would reach that point in year 86 of operation of the wind farm. As a per-year comparison, over the 14 year expected life of the strip-mining (after which, no more coal, no more energy, no more jobs), the coal would generate an average of 8.9 billion kWh each year, whereas the wind farm would generate 1.2 billion kWh per year, so about 13.5% of the electricity that would come from the coal.
Of course, 20% of the coal would be exported to other countries, and the wind electricity couldnt be exported, so in terms of actual US electricity generation, the wind farm would, annually, generate about 17% of the electricity that the strip-mined coal would.
Now, our proposal includes the underground mining, which by my estimates could produce 50% of the coal that the strip-mining would. So then, take half of the coal plus the wind, and those two together would produce about 67% of all the electricity that the strip-mining would. And the thing to remember is that that is just annually. The mining will last for only 14 years. After which, no more wind potential due to the loss of hundreds of feet of altitude.
The wind, however, will last forever. Hope this helps! Keep the questions coming.
-- Coal River Mountain Wind Project --
As a West Virginia, I'm so very pleased that somebody in the Coal Country actually thinks of massive scale Green Energy production.
Coal is King here, unfortunately. It's been King way to long, and it's time something else moved into the area. This limited resource will end just as oil will end... AND it's use continues to just add more and more GHG to the air. (To illustrate this point: 8 years ago WVa's Electoral Votes went Republican for the first time in a very long time. Living here I can tell you that it's simply because a large population of WVians felt that Gore's Green outlook would hurt the Coal of WVa.)
A question: How can you consider this a truely 'Green' project if the inclusion of mining the Coal is still in the proposal? That whole fact makes it seem just a shallow NIMBY issue thats been 'green washed' to gain public support. (I will yield that it could be a 'meet you half way step'.)
The saying is 'Think Globally, Act Locally'. To adhere to it, you'd actually realize the useage of the coal would only add more GHG to the air. I'm sorry... Even though I pass a huge billboard everyday to work that proudly states 'CLEAN COAL!', it's a myth if not a straight out lie.
Keep the land clean and stop the Strip Mine.. Please plese please please put up the Wind Towers, and more like it. Leave the black rock alone! WVa has a small population. Would it really take many more such Windfarms to power the whole state's residental needs? Think of the boost to the state's image if they could say: The First State to Power it's homes by 100% Renewable Resources.
... How I wish... But not in my life time.
Hey John,
This proposal is actually not intended to be a completely Green project, and with good reason. Many of us would definitely like to see all of the coal be left in the ground, but that proposal is not a feasible one for our campaign. The reason for this is because of the reality that folks living in the Coal River Valley do depend on the existing underground mines for their livelihood. Also, the major landholders will not go for a no-coal proposal, they make too much money off of leasing the minerals, way more than they would with just a wind farm. So the basic premise for the project is one of transition, that is what the Appalachian coalfields need, what the people need in order to be able to survive, and that is the only way to proceed, otherwise we would have alot more opposition than we do.
The true power and greatest roadblock, I've found, lies in the fact that the leases between landowner and Massey Energy have already been signed, and they are binding. Massey is allowed to disturb the surface as they please in order to maximize coal production from the mountain. If the lease were to be broken, the landholder can be sued for billions of dollars, and they dont want that to happen. So, we have to take other avenues in our campaign, and we are in the process of doing that. We can all say No More Coal, but for the purposes of our campaign, that is not an option.
If you're interested in more details relating to our project, check out the website, www.coalriverwind.org. There is a fact sheet under the resources tab that I think you'll find interesting. And then sign the petiton ;-)
Take care,
Rory
And Brian,
The logging issue remains. Even if we save the mountain for wind power, we then do have to figure out a way to either preserve the forest for tourism and otherwise, or for sustainable timbering. We are in the process of studying the economic benefits of sustainable timbering for the landowner. Currently, they log areas in a sort of rotational order, and they cut when the trees reach 18-22 inches in diameter. Hope this answers the logging question for ya.
Thanks for the comments,
Rory
Awesome write up. Thanks a bunch!