HOME | DD

poasterchild In reply to ninjawerr [2013-10-09 19:05:20 +0000 UTC]

No they don't.  Before you go any further, understand that you're talking to someone with a Ph.D.in energy policy who has studied these issues carefully over a period of years, at a university where the coal boys have substantial influence, someone who was hired by a major coal company to assess whether or not they could/should get into the biofuels business.

If you're thinking of carbon sequestration, it is unproven and untested, not to mention expensive.

If you're thinking of scrubbers at the stack, they are effective, but they are so expensive as to make the price of electricity generated too expensive to be competitive.  That's why the industry is fighting tooth and claw against the new regulations on new coal-fired power plants.

The only coal that's environmentally safe is the coal that's left in the ground.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ninjawerr In reply to poasterchild [2013-10-09 19:24:32 +0000 UTC]

nothing not even solar power is 100% safe and i know some of the folks that used to be in the coal industry up untill recently. so i know the facts, and folks up in ohio get jobs from coal or did...

 and the scrubers are now easy to mass produce, and cheep you made this poster how long ago? you will be pleased to know times have changed, and with that the effectiveness of coal baced power.

it is true that coationaly the scrubers miss a spec of sulfer or 2 but the gov regulations are the only thing that is expencive about coal, it is the safeist to produce, for wokers if nothing elce (not counting the mining prosess wich mineing is dangerous regardless of how its done or what your looking for) but the mining prosess has changed, the sludge problems gone, the loss of farmland is no longer of concern, the only hazard is the risk of collapse, and that is miner (LOL).

It is true that regardless of what is done coal will never be trully inviromentaly safe but nither is us breathing, and we do it anyway. why not give coal a chance?   

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

poasterchild In reply to ninjawerr [2013-10-09 21:45:50 +0000 UTC]

I'm not going to debate this with you.  I don't care what your opinion is -- it's just that, an opinion.  Unfortunately, it's an ignorant opinion.  Don't reply -- a ban will result.  Instead, Google "coal toxic emissions" and read the first 10 links.

Here's some facts from the Union of Concerned Scientists www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/co… :

Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary cause of global warming. In 2011, utility coal plants in the United States emitted a total of 1.7 billion tons of CO2¹.  A typical coal plant generates 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year².

Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. Some emissions can be significantly reduced with readily available pollution controls, but most U.S. coal plants have not installed these technologies.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution, which takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx): NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.

Particulate matter: Particulate matter (also referred to as soot or fly ash) can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plan emits 500 tons of small airborne particles each year. Baghouses installed inside coal plant smokestacks can capture as much as 99 percent of the particulates. 

Mercury: Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year. Activated carbon injection technology can reduce mercury emissions by up to 90 percent when combined with baghouses. ACI technology is currently found on just 8 percent of the U.S. coal fleet.

Other harmful pollutants emitted annually from a typical, uncontrolled coal plant include approximately:

114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium. Baghouses can reduce heavy metal emissions by up to 90 percent³. 

720 tons of carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.

220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

1 EIA Data

2 Typical plant assumptions: Capacity=600 MW; Capacity Factor=69%; Heat Rate=10,415; CO2 Emissions Rate=206 pounds of CO2/Million Btu

3 Nescaum. “Control Technologies to Reduce Conventional and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power Plants.” March 31, 2011. 

And by the way, the 50 most dirty coal fired electric generating stations in the U.S. are responsible for 30 percent of the energy industry’s CO2 emissions, and a full two percent of all emissions worldwide — these 50 plants were responsible for more climate change than all but six countries in the world. See: billmoyers.com/2013/09/18/are-…

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

poasterchild In reply to emperorkirkwall [2013-01-26 14:28:43 +0000 UTC]

I live in Appalachian Virginia, and so, I am not unsympathetic to the miners and to the deep mining section of the industry. I am extremely opposed to the technique called mountaintop removal mining. There is a huge difference between the two. Take a look at this video on Youtube: [link] . I have never seen a deep coal mining operation that produced destruction such as this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

emperorkirkwall In reply to poasterchild [2013-01-26 14:52:19 +0000 UTC]

I can agree with the mountaintop thing, but the states in Appalachia survive off the coal industry, even if it does mean blowing a crater in the ground.My family has a history of being coal miners so this strikes me at the heart.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

poasterchild In reply to emperorkirkwall [2013-01-26 15:11:39 +0000 UTC]

From what I understand from people here in the coal industry, most of the contraction is sales is not due to environmental regulations, but because of the competition caused by cheap natural gas that is coming on-line due to fracking. It is my hope that the deep mining of coal will always be a part of our economy, but I think it is going to be much more specialized. For example, the anthracite coal that you have in Pennsylvania that we do not have here in Virginia will always be in demand because of its use in the manufacture of steel, etc. What will happen over time is that less and less bituminous coal will be burned to generate electric power. So long as natural gas remains relatively cheap compared to coal, there is no way to stop that from happening in a free market system.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0