According to the American Lung Association, “24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.” Coal is the energy source used to produce most of the electricity in this country. When power-generating plants burn coal, their smoke stacks release particulates and gases into the atmosphere. These emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury, by-products of combustion that contribute to acid rain, that damages forests, lakes, buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into the lungs. Also, smog causes asthma and other respiratory diseases because air and the water are polluted. With all of those present the greenhouse has a major effect as well. The environmental impact of widespread Western coal use for hundreds of years means that more coal use poses an especially serious problem to the global ecosystem. “The United Nations Environment Programmed (UNEP) has suggested strong limitations on coal use, but such limits reduce the capacity of many nations to purchase the power needed for industry.” Clean coal technology is a new generation of energy generating processes that seeks to reduce coal's negative environmental impact. It comprises multiple strategies to clean coal prior to combustion and reduce hazardous emissions. With America being dependent on coal, there should be an alternative way to handle the effects of coal.
An alternative way to handle the effects of coal plants is by converting coal into synthetic gas that can be used as fuel in a combined cycle power plant to obtain electricity. This form of obtaining energy is called IGCC, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. According to the MEIC organization, by using this method it captures 90 to 95% of the carbon dioxide produced by regular coal plants. The IGCC power plant emits less carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and removes mercury, they also produce less solid waste. The solid waste produced is slag; a black, glassy, sand like material that can be a marketable byproduct. The IGCC is also much cheaper and less water consumption than the traditional coal plants. It cost less to have mercury removed with fewer complications, it is more effective, and water consumption is reduced by 40 to70%. Although other clean coal companies have emerged to produce electricity, like the Supercritical Pulverized Coal (SCPC) cost less than the IGCC plant but in the future generation the price for an IGCC plant will be reduced by 10%. The price range was from about 1,200 to 1,460 $/kW (kilowatt) to construct a plant of 600 MWE (megawatt electrical) in size compared to the IGCC plant that cost 20 to 25% more, in the information provided by GE Energy and Bechtel. Also this new electricity plant would not run in peak conditions like the other clean coal companies but for base load power (24/7).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, we should not restrict the coal industry because it would be bad for our economy. According to Terri Cullen, an award-winning financial journalist for the Wall Street Journal Online, the United States has a significant amount of coal, which produces the majority of our power, than it has of any other source of energy. Getting rid of coal in America is bound to result in power shortages all over the country. There are other nations around the world where coal is considered as a valuable item. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, America’s coal supply has more energy than that of any oil that from Earth that we can use. Cullen also claims that our Gross Domestic Product will benefit from the coal industry. She states that America had sent $4,100,000,000 worth of coal into the international market in 2008, thus reducing America’s deficit. Cullen also states that, as of April 7, 2010, there were 134,000 jobs in the coal business, and that it will need to hire 50,000 coal workers in the next decade. Mass firings are the last thing the country needs. If people can’t find a job, they will have to rely on others for help. The more industries that are operational, the less people are unemployed. If we got rid of the coal industry, countless people would either lose their jobs, or have a harder time finding one. Additionally, America is a free country, and freedom includes free enterprise, so America should use whatever sources they want to use. If we start restricting our industries, then our economy will suffer. Of course, if the coal industry begins to fail, or if the American people truly believe they are ready to stop using it, then the market will find alternate forms of energy to take coal’s place. However, even though many Americans supposedly want to give up coal, the coal industry is anything but dead. If we got rid of the coal industry, America’s technological advancement would be heavily impeded thanks to power shortages. If America wishes to remain a technologically advanced country, it should keep using coal for the time being. America needs to keep its coal industry for electric power, jobs, and money.
ReplyDeleteAside from, the opposing side that seems to think that coal is good for the world because it has helped with the deficit, but the truth is it doesn’t matter. Coal is still bad for the environment and the people. If it can’t do anything good for either one of us besides help with money problems, then it needs to go. Face it the coal industry screwed up big time. If you look at what happened with BP, you would be saying the same thing. Instead of helping with money problems BP is adding to the problem. The government is trying to help BP by coming up with funds of $20 billion. According to Betsy Fast, editor in chief for dosomething.org, the initial oil rig explosion killed 11 people and injured 17 others, and because the oil is still washing up on shores it could do long-term damages to the humans affected by this. It’s starting to seem as if oil really isn’t all that its supposedly crapped up to be by the opposer. Think about it how many of your friends and family have to die from things like this or the black lung diseases, a chronic occupational lung disease contracted by the prolonged breathing of coal mine dust. Be honest with yourself, and know that the best thing for us to do is get rid of the entire coal industry. This way we can all live a happier life knowing that we don’t have to worry about oil explosions, or black lung disease.
ReplyDeletereally interesting. i tend to side with the opposing view point on this one though. we're already in bad shape as far as the economy goes. we should find a way to walk before we cut off our legs.
ReplyDeleteObviously the coal companies don't give a rip about doing the right thing if we've got 24,000 people dying each year from pollution from coal-fired power plants. Industries that can't operate in an ethical manner deserve to be regulated. If the companies don't want regulators in their face, then start acting responsibly on your own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the post above mine. I think that companies dealing with these kinds of elements should be regulated by the government.
ReplyDelete