Is there any reason we should continue to rely on fossil fuels for our energy?

Question

Even ignoring its global warming impact, coal is far from an ideal source of energy, as the recent disaster in Tennessee revealed.

"United States coal plants produce 129 million tons of postcombustion byproducts a year, the second-largest waste stream in the country, after municipal solid waste. That is enough to fill more than a million railroad coal cars, according to the National Research Council.

Another 2007 E.P.A. report said that over about a decade, 67 towns in 26 states had their groundwater contaminated by heavy metals from such dumps."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/us/25s…

Can we all agree that we should no longer rely on coal for the majority of our energy supply?

Additional Details

peter - just to shut you up, 4% of my energy comes from coal.
http://pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemwo…

For the other shortsighted answers, I neither stated nor suggested that we should suddenly and immediately terminate all coal power.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

I don't think that coal should be banned, but the coal industry should pay all of the health and environmental costs associated with coal use. Coal is relatively cheap because all of the costs are not included in the price. If the health and environmental costs were included, the market would allocate resources for new construction to alternative forms of energy and existing coal plants would gradually be placed on standby status and then decommissioned.

The US coal production was 1146635000 tonnes in 2007
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/a…
with total employment 81278
http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_employment_stat…

Coal production could be replaced with biomass, but a significant amount of land would need to be used for energy crops. In Canada the yield from willow ranges from 64 to 96 GJ/acre-yr. Taking the lower number (a worst case estimate because yields in the US are higher due to a longer growing season) and assuming the coal has an average energy value of 20 GJ/tonne, the amount of land needed would be 560000 square miles. For comparison, Alaska is 656000 square miles. It is worth noting that the cultivation and processing of each square mile of energy crops would generate $175000 in revenue and support at least two jobs. Even if all of the mining jobs were lost, there would be a net gain of more than a million jobs. Perhaps this is the horrible economic disruption that some prior respondents referred to?

So, the choice is green, clean and employed or dirty, poisoned with heavy metals and unemployed. Tough choice.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

You and Amy both had excellent answers, but I like how you key upon the point that the price of coal doesn't reflect its true cost. Not by a long shot.

Most of the answers made the bizarre assumption that we would suddenly terminate all coal power. Others (i.e. Jim's) were just terrible.

Answer 2

Yep the poor economy.
Investing in alternative energy will cost the United States alone over 2 Trillion dollars over the next 4 years.

Oh and even though we are disregarding the global warming impact and the only stats you use are byproducts... also... the EPA doctors a lot of stuff... read about the scientist that is currently under fire for fabricating the stats.

ALSO.... Human Beings account for less than 1% of the carbon emissions on this earth and ... AND the net temperature will drop over the next ten years, with no doubt.

Read about all of the scientists who are backing out quietly for fear of their reputation being destroyed over the global warming hoax...

don't get me wrong, I don't think it is a hoax.... I think that too many people jumped the gun and made an incorrect assumption... I can forgive them. but they are wrong...

Answer 3

Because coal fired power is still the cheapest of production, do not look for any major changes anytime soon

Answer 4

I disagree. What are we supposed to do? Shut down all the coal power plants immediately? The impact of that would be worse than the sludge.

Answer 5

technology is not convenient enough to switch...
well there's nothing wrong in looking for alternative fuels what so ever. People will make claims that alternative fuels weren't developed so soon its because of greedy corporations and blah blah blah. The problem is that there was no motivation to develop it before. People complain there is because of global warming and gas shortage and rising gas prices.
In 1970's they believe in global COOLING NOT WARMING. There was a gas shortage in the 1973 but this motivated for more efficient cars though there were some who did try to do alternative fuels but the ideas didn't really fly. Corporations are developing alternative fuel cars whether they are big corp or newly created small ones. Corporations are greedy but its what the motivate them. If they think they can sell a product then they will. Look at chevy and their advertisement on developing on all of the alternative fuels. Long time ago when the time where "there will be blood" took place (late 1890's) and America had lots of oil on American soil They used to throw gasoline away or use it on dirt roads. because they didn't have cars. cars didn't become mass produced till ford did it in the 1913. so its been 95 years since then.
Ethanol causes an increase demand of food therefore an increase price in food and in everything that is made up of the food needed to created. Therefore livestock and soda and such prices increases. there goes biodiesel as well.
Electric cars are costly and the range is lower than most cars. electric cars are not as efficient gas car smaller heavier and more expensive to both buy and produce.
The technology for other alternative is simply not there or difficult to do. It would cost corps ton of money to develop this

too many people are afriad of nuclear power plants... and the initial cost and uncertainty of getting the nuclear power plants to be inspected and granted to start it up and the public relations of getting it built near where people live....

solar panels work only in daylight and when its not cloudy and it takes lots of land not efficient... yet

Answer 6

Probably, after given time and money to build more nuclear power stations. Until then, there's no sensible alternative.

Answer 7

they are still cost effective


things like ethanol cost so much in fossil fuels to run the equipment in order to grow them, that it costs more fossil fuels to make them then they produce in energy.

Answer 8

I know what you mean.

But some people simply refuse the facts. I don't know what wrong with them.

Answer 9

yes because it is cheap and easy to obtain

Answer 10

people should stick to fossil fuels bio fuels is not the answer i'm afraid

Answer 11

You don't like coal precisely because it is available to us. With leftists, it is more about limiting our economy. You people won't be happy until we are shooting bow and arrows at... Wait, you won't let us do that anymore. You won't be happy unless we are back in the woods picking berries....Wait, that isn't allowed either. We might interfere with the mating habits of the Western Arroyo Toad. Why don't we all agree that you won't be happy period.

No other country would willingly discard its available energy resources but that is precisely what the left wants us to do. It isn't about global warming. It is about leftists political nonsense.

Answer 12

Yes, we must for some time because it will take decades to shift to other forms.

Isn't it ironic that our "environmentalists" are one of the major forces that put us in the position we are faced with. In the 70's and 80's our energy professionals tried to go Nuclear because every study showed it to be the only practical option to fossil fuels. Countries like Japan, France, and others now produce the majority of their power with Nuclear. Their CO2 emissions are good. Our "Environmentalists" (helped by our liberal media) killed our program and forced us to pollute more because nuclear didn't "feel" good to them.

Nuclear still remains the only practical option for supplying the massive amounts of reliable electrical energy we require, at anywhere near a reasonable cost. Wind and Solar are fine for supplementing the grid, but because of their unreliability (Can not produce 24/7) and higher cost they will never replace coal.

We need to listen to our professional electrical energy engineers more, and less to politicians and "Environmentalists". Our media needs to get only the facts and call out "Environmentalists" when they try to spread their lies about solar and wind.

Source(s):

Professional Engineer - 35 years experience in power industry

Answer 13

i would be all for coal with carbon capture, but the pilot projects lined up seem to have stalled due to lack of government investment.

in u.s.; futuregen cancelled after 5 years, gov not willing to stump up 1.8 billion (a bargain compared to the auto bail out imo)
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=clea…

in u.k.; BP pulled out of scheme to use end of life oil well in north sea to store co2 from a scottish coal plant, citing lack of support from u.k. gov.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit…


on second thoughts, with people like rio tinto zinc involved i'm rather glad that one failed...
would it be cheaper to build large geothermal, wind and solar than to pay for carbon capture?

sorry, that doesnt really answer the q.
fly ash can be incorporated into concrete
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19…

or used to make ash building blocks.

the big problem is safe containment of the waste from the scrubbers and filters. they have to go to a properly lined hazardous waste landfill here, and i assume in the u.s. too.
the heavy metal contamination is inexcusable, that is down to poor legislation and enforcement.

Answer 14

I have no problem with closing coal plants and replacing them with nuclear power plants. But alternative energy in its present form is not sufficient and cannot supply us with all of our power needs.

Answer 15

As with most other things the environmentalists and other greens along with the AGW (Al Gore Worshippers) do not understand how the environment works, this is why we are currently in a general environmental crisis. They are the ones who through stupid legislation have compounded a minor problem that was being fixed into a major one that will never be fixed while they interfere with the processes that need to be done to correct things.

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/…
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ColoniesIn…
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/spacep…
http://www.permanent.com/s-index.htm
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/86…

What you and others need to do is stop listening to the alarmists who only want to force you into a panic mentally so they can profit from your panic in some way. Recently we just went through a massive very well planned stock market crash from which these panic player speculators siphoned off more than 1/3rd of the worlds cash into their pockets. Any person who takes the time to basically educate themselves on how the worlds climate really functions knows what these panic spreaders are doing. This is how lazy greedy speculators feed off of the society they exist in without contributing anything to that society except for making it more chaotic than it would naturally be.

Induced panic such as the alarmists constantly spread here and elsewhere is only to enable their political group to gain sufficient power to control the lives and finances of those who work hard to produce for society and provide for their own families. These panic spreading alarmists are like a pack of wolves or sharks attacking so they can feed at leisure by driving off the herd or school defenders and organizers. Study and learn so you can be a defender of society protecting it and its members against the wolves’ that attack it from within. As is often stated in history, beware ye the wolf in sheep’s clothing that attacks from within circumventing the groups defense mechanisms. The oceans and Co2 are climate moderators keeping the planets climate from getting to hot or to cold.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spen…
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/d…
http://landshape.org/enm/greenhouse-ther…
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMG…

Answer 16

We are wasting precious time. Fast /breeder nuclear reactors are the only viable way forward. We can waste more time or we can start the massive restructuring now. Solar and wind will be helpful for peak hours. Coal will have to, unfortunately be still around.. "clean" hopefully.... petroleum should be saved for other applications for the future of humanity.

Answer 17

In the short term there is no alternative unless you want the lights to go out across America. Alternatives will take time and money to develop. Personally I would favour a combination of progressively stringent regulation on things like safe disposal of waste and carbon trading to give incentives to low carbon emission forms of power generation. The cost of things that have not been done before (like energy storage for fluctuating renewable sources) is notoriously difficult to determine and the best thing is to start development on a number of fronts and not try to be too prescriptive of what are the best options before industrial scale experience is gained. Support R & D but ultimately let the market sort it out. It may turn out that coal remains a very valuable source of energy provided the carbon is captured and sequestered and solid waste is disposed of properly.

Answer 18

All the Japanese companies are building compact portable reactors that could easily be incorporated into existing steam generating plants greatly reducing the infrastructure cost. the real problem here is the USA is the only nation in the world other than China that most of its power from coal. even india is ahead of the US in the use of nuclear power all because of our retarded AGW environmentalist green religious cult freaks that want to send us back to the dark ages.

Answer 19

Nuclear is the answer for now to replace coal as the primary source. Then we can get the ball rolling on the long term solution of space based solar power.

Answer 20

It seems that of the answers thus far, only d/dx ... has tried to really answer the question without sidestepping the intent. In general we have conducted business as usual and allowed a few corporations and individuals to accrue profits while communities and entire ecosystems suffer physically and financially from the impacts associated with our reliance on fossil fuels.

We need to move up the energy ladder and get smart about our energy choices. Obviously change is not going to happen overnight. But a reliance on fossil fuels -- coal in particular -- is short sighted and costly. We -- America, & the leading nations of the world -- should aggessively step up efforts to wean ourselves from coal and fossil fuels for the majority of our energy supply. The current administration displayed a reckless disregard for the nations health in downplaying environmental concerns while lining the pockets of cronies and donors. At the same time, we sacrified our competitive edge, our leadership role, by marching in place while opportunities to forge ahead with smart, alternative energy sources lanquished.

Obama has pledged to do better -- his administration would be hard pressed to do worse -- and I believe that soon it won't be so difficult to imagine America and the world stepping away from coal and fossil fuels with an energy palette that is healthier, more environmentally friendly and more in step with the demands of the 21st century.

P.S. I did not scrutinize all of the information in the site below, but included them to demonstrate how easy it was to pull up thousands of links that document reasons why we need to rethink our archaic reliance on fossil fuels.

Source(s):

http://www.energyjustice.net/naturalgas/
http://www.midiowanews.com/site/tab5.cfm…
http://info.med.yale.edu/intmed/occmed/s…
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/alliedc…
http://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/document…
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/med…
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_SDE…
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1979…
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/2…

Answer 21

It's an outstanding source of energy and it works.

Just to shut you up, I think the electric utilities in this country should go on a coal strike for a month and let the price of electricity shock the daylights out of you.

Being from California, you probably don't understand that energy that you use, comes from coal. Your electric car won't work without it.

Answer 22

no other choice

Answer 23

Of course we should rely on coal, oil, nuclear. To say anything else would be ignorant.

If we stopped using these sources of energy, what would happen? Well, imagine no power. People would freeze to death, the economy would shut down, no hospitals, NOTHING. We rely on coal and oil because they are the cheapest and most efficient ways to generate power. We need power to sustain our way of life. Unless you plan on living like the 1800's, no other source of energy comes close.

I agree we should diversify our energy sources when possible and cost effective. In places where there is lots of wind, windmills (assuming they are in areas which can be easily integrated in to the power grid). Solar has some benefits as well. But neither of these sources can work by themselves. Both are to unreliable to make a large dent in our energy needs. Nuclear is an excellent source, if only the environmentalist would shut the hell up. France gets 70% of their power form nuclear (we have more power plants though). Of the remaining sources (water, geothermal, etc), they to are excellent sources in areas where they are cost effective.

What would really increase our ability to use wind, solar, etc, wuold be a super battery. Currently, we can not store the excess energy form these sources. If we could develop a super battery, we could then store the peak supplies for later. But until that time, these will remain more hype than energy.

I would suggest the book, "A Gusher of Lies" for those who really want to learn about our energy needs.

Answer 24

The amount of energy needed to fill all needs is incredibly large and can not be replaced by any one source. Coal is still out of control irregardless of negative impacts and is often used in sites that are overdue for shutdown or improvements.