WSRL.ORG / Rural Colorado Energy Issues - July. 2005 - Revised January 2012 - Page 1 In terms of fossil fuels, the U.S. has more coal available domestically than any other fuel type. Of late, however, coal has gotten a very bad reputation. Putting the search terms "coal" and "global warming" into Google results in approximately 1,680,000 hits. Most comments resulting from this search do not favor the use of coal for generating electrical power. Throughout the U.S., proposals to build conventional coal fired power plants have been denied. Most of the opposition is currently being powered by concern for global warming but mercury and other heavy metal contamination have also been major factors. What's even more interesting is the fact that the burning of coal exposes the public to considerably more nuclear radiation than a nuclear power plant does.
The EPA & Coal -
It appears the other shoe has finally fallen. There will still be deniers, of course, but science has pretty well proven that burning coal kills may thousands of people yearly. The technology to clean up coal to a point that it is environmentally acceptable has proven to be expensive in deed. The US needs an energy source that can scale to very large quanties and be highly reliable, non-polluting and cost effective as well. Renewables (ie. solar & wind) consume large quantities of raw materials (steel - aluminum - concrete) relative to what you get back and produce energy only about 25% of the time. I am still very much convinced that new technology nuclear is the best option to get us out of our current energy mess. Again, I invite everyone to review the advantages of new technology nuclear power.
Coal And Nuclear -
An interesting fact about coal is that it contains trace amounts of heavy metals including Thorium. Because Thorium is such a great feed stock for advanced Gen. IV nuclear reactors, some one figured out that on average, naturally occurring Thorium in coal could produce 13 times the energy output compared to simply burning the coal in a boiler. The energy produced could then be used to convert coal to petroleum products. So coal IS a major potential energy source for the U.S. if it is used wisely and in concert with nuclear power. For more on Thorium based reactors visit my "case-for" nuclear page.
Coal Use Options -
MIT recently released a fairly exhaustive report (6.2 megs) on the future options available to using coal. As has been mentioned before, however, neither private industry nor our government have shown interest in developing badly needed clean coal technologies until recently. It seems our government chooses to do little until something becomes a national emergency. Also worthy of mention here is the Basin Electric Dakota Gas operation in North Dakota. Basin's products operation shows how a properly designed and sited plant can make money from coal. Upgraded and improved versions of this plant provide real options to energy needs. A recent development in this area is the conversion of coal to liquids using a much more environmentally friendly process. Of note to me is the military angle as well as the use of nuclar power as an energy input option for the process.
Mercury Contamination -
An uglier side to burning coal is the resultant wide spread contamination of land & water. In the Colorado region, it is now advisable to be careful about consuming fish from mountain lakes. A significant percentage of the pollution in this region comes from Asia sources. With China building more than one new coal fired power plant per week, the problem will likely only get worse.
Summary
In light of the Fukushima disaster, many proposed nuclear projects are either being canceled or delayed. Add the many coal fired thermal plants that have been canceled due to environmental concerns and I'm not sure where adequate power in the U.S. is going to originate from. Additionally, in the western mountain region, there is real concern about the adequacy of high voltage transmission lines as well.
Copyright WSRL.ORG © 2005 thru 2012
|
Coal Links
Updated Jan 2012 
|
