Comments on: Coal remains important to Kentucky, nation

By: INL In the News

INL In the News — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:00:10 +0000

Coal remains important to Kentucky, nation…

Posted by Opinions on October 25, 2009 Column by Steven Gardner Kentucky has deep roots in mining and…

By: RickJames

RickJames — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:22:38 +0000

Pimentel is convinced, based on his research that when all fourteen types of energy inputs are included in the production of biofuels — especially ethanol from corn — that there is a net energy loss, not a gain, however modest, as others contend. He sees ethanol production as “relatively energy intensive.”
Pimentel is just a pessimistic about wood waste and switch grass, neither of which he contends are positive energy producers when compared to oil and gas.
The term â€œRenewable Energyâ€ is commonly used these days and everybody seems to have a pretty good idea what it means or stands for. Instant associations of this term include solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity and perhaps biomass and biofuels. Renewable Energy is heralded as the saviour of our planet for a power hungry civilization who is currently burning fossil fuels to meet an ever increasing power demand. But is it true that we could go about business as usual, continue on the same road of ever increasing energy demand, if only we switched to 100% Renewable Energy? To answer this question, letâ€™s go back to the basics of physics: consider, energy cannot be produced, generated, recycled or renewed. It can only be converted (from one state into another). However, every time we perform a conversion, it comes at a cost called entropy, which is a loss of useful or available energy. In thermodynamics, energy is made up of two components: entropy and enthalpy. Entropy is diffuse heat energy, many times associated with waste heat from mechanical or chemical processes and represents – to the largest extent â€“ the useless component of energy that is unavailable to carry out work. Entropy is also associated with the level of disorder in a system. Enthalpy on the other side is the useful (non-diffuse) energy component that we can readily use to carry out work. Thermodynamics teach us that every time we use enthalpic energy (eg change it from a state of stored chemical energy into mechanical work) the total entropy of the system in which it occurs (our planet) increases. The larger the energy potentia, the larger is the amount of useful work we get from it. And here we are at the core of the problem: the entropy of a system (heat and disorder) increases over time as enthalpic energy is spent. This process is irreversible and forever reduces the usability of useful energy that remains. For this reason, fundamentally and despite popular believe, there is no such thing as â€œRenewable Energyâ€. Out of all sustainable energy initiatives available, the drastic reduction of our energy demand, also know as â€œdemand side abatementâ€ is the single most important one. If we continue to increase our energy consumption, even if we use â€œrenewableâ€ sources exclusively, we will necessarily also continue to increase the entropy, waste heat and resulting temperature in our planetâ€™s atmosphere. Before we started burning fossil fuels, our planet was in good balance between the sunâ€™s radiation absorbed and the heat earth re-radiated into space. This balance depends on many factors, including the gas composition of the atmosphere and cloud cover, however their individual roles and interdependencies in context with radiation absorbed and re-radiated are complex and still poorly understood. As we are running out of time to fix the problems associated with climate change, we cannot afford to take new chances and make assumptions about the safe and abundant use of â€œrenewableâ€ energies. Instead, we should take the more conservative view that we live on a planet with limited, finite resources, the use of which produces an ever increasing entropy. Since this process is irreversible, the best strategy for us is to reduce our energy consumption and thereby extend our lease.

Cornell professor Dr. David Pimentel’s address to the Sustainable Energy Forum’s 2006 Peak Oil and Environment conference.

By: Ken Dannager

Ken Dannager — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:59:00 +0000

We need more deep mining? Has everyone forgotten the Crandal Canyon, Darby Creek, Sago, and other such disasters? Why would you want to put even more miners in those situations? So you can keep using electicity while you bash its source?

By: Darrell

Darrell — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:58:08 +0000

Does the Univesity of Kentucky want to go down the road of naming every building after some Industry who wants to throw money at it? Does the University stand for anything anymore, or has UK gone downhill as far as politics, just gorged with the money? We could raise money and rename the following:
1- Makers Mark- Commonwealth Stadium—we do have a bourbon heritage in Kentucky.
2- Keeneland Track-Rupp Arena—obviously we have a horse heritage in Kentucky.

Sure money is important, but not being a sale out teaches kids much more about life. You must stand for something of fall for anything. Coal should use the 7 million dollars to mine coal the old fashioned way, with workers, not machines. This way, more miners would have work, not fewer miners. There is a reason that unemployment is much much higher in Eastern Kentucky than the rest of the state. Blame it on the coal companies who use machines not men.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:44:02 +0000

I read with great interest Steven Gardner’s articule. It sounds like a poem, not common sense. If the Coal Industry was really concerned about jobs and the future of the Commonwealth, they would practice deep mining of coal, like was done for generations. This way more miners would have jobs and the land and water would not be disturbed for future generations. But unfortunately, the out of state coal companies do not care about either of the miners, the land or the people, only profit for wall street. The fact is that there are 75 percent fewer coal miners in Martin County, KY today than there was in 1980 and more Coal is taken from the Martin County today than in 1980. If coal was so wonderful and such an great commody to bring so much wealth, why is Appalachia, where it is dug, some of the poorest counties and poor school systems in the nation? Oh yea, I forgot about the out of state companies! As for the need for flat land, only 2.8 percent of flattened mountains have any buidings at all on them. As for Mr. Gardner’s assertion that egosytems are restored. That is just grossly wrong. I assume Mr. Gardner would be OK with his 4 year old daughter drinking water with ascenic in it and having her bathe in it also, like a young woman I met from Floyd County. Would never happen in Louisville or Lexington would it. Everyone in the state knows that is true. Why is it allowed here.
Somethings are not worth having if you have to be dirty to get them. I hope that UK will be a leader, not a follower. I hope they will surprise me, but I am not going to hold my breathe.

By: htomfields

htomfields — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:57:11 +0000

You can learn more about Idaho National Laboratory’s research projects at http://www.facebook.com/idahonationallaboratory

By: Jo

Jo — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:38:25 +0000

So if this is great and charitable think with altruistic purposes; then why build something that is less visible to the greater public but more useful in enhancing our community? Such as a new Student Medical Center or a better Counseling and testing building. For that part, the Mathskeller is both underground and could use an overhaul.

I tend to be more moderate in this debate, I see both sides. (Although I do favor the anti-coal folks as a general rule.) I wouldn’t want the building being call the Kentuckians For the Commonwealth Lounge either.

It’s a blatantly political move and it belongs somewhere else.

Thanks for respectively presenting the other side.