Coal issues need balanced debate
October 26, 2009 by Opinions · 5 Comments
Column by Brad Luttrell
Just utter the word “coal,†and emotions flare, hotter and higher than the flames the black rock generates when burned for energy.
The supporters of coal mining fight back against the environmentalists, saying coal provides jobs and useful flat land in the impoverished Eastern Kentucky, while the anti-coal activists say the technology is readily available for a switch to green energy, and we are destroying our environment.”
If only it were that simple.
Kentucky has seen its share of supportive rallies and civil protests, but there are few true discussions of coal mining and its effects on our lives. Whenever there is an opportunity for varied perspectives, it often literally turns into a screaming match. But thanks to the efforts of many at UK, there is finally a chance.
Journalists, environmentalists, big-time coal company executives and government officials will all come together on Nov. 5 to offer dozens of views on coal mining in the state of Kentucky. A true chance for education and change comes with “A Forum on Coal in Kentucky: Varied Perspectives.â€
The events will start at 1 p.m. in the Hilary J. Boone Center on campus, and throughout the day speakers will present on the economics, environmental impact, history, process and future of coal mining in Kentucky. At 7 p.m. in Memorial Hall, a lineup of some of the most significant names in the business will give their thoughts, sans slant.
President of the Kentucky Resource Council, Tom Fitzgerald, Joe Craft, the president and CEO of Alliance Coal, Fred Palmer, a Peabody energy representative will all give presentations.
Jeff Goodell, the author of “Big Coal†has been invited, and will hopefully make the event. This will be a truly balanced presentation.
During the event at Memorial Hall I will give a short presentation of my work and what I learned through a story I wrote last year for the Kentucky Kernel, “The Future of Coal.â€
The story took over four months to complete, and required weeks of research, traveling, interviewing and writing. Even though I was born and raised in Eastern Kentucky, there were many things I learned about coal mining, some supportive of the industry’s claims, others downright stomach twisting.
After a lifetime of experience with the effects of the business, I still don’t know exactly how I feel about coal mining. I know I’m not with the supporters, but I have many reservations about how the environmentalists attack the people of Appalachia who are feeding their families by mining the black gold, rather than the unenforced laws and lazy legislation that allows such a worn area to be taken advantage of year after year.
What I know for certain is that without productive and civilized discussion, we will never make any real efforts to get away from coal as an energy source. The forum is a place for change, but efforts can start right now. 50 percent of our energy is provided by coal, and flipping off a light switch when you’re not in the room, taking a slightly shorter or cooler shower, and using less AC or heat all goes toward creating less demand, and helps in finding a solution.
Come be a part of the resolution on Nov. 5., but until then, do your part.
Brad Luttrell is a UK alumnnus and former editor-in-chief of the Kernel. E-mail opinions@kykernel.com.
Nestled in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains is my hometown of Pike County Kentucky, or otherwise known as “The Nations Energy Capital”. This energy that supports countless businesses, keeps your lights on, and prohibits you from freezing to death in the winter doesn’t come from the wind, Obama’s stimulus package, or even the Sun, as much as people hate to admit it, it comes from coal! The fact of the matter is that coal has kept this country afloat and provided it with energy for the past hundred years, and has the potential to keep doing so for at least 50 more, given the chance, and right opportunities. The sudden uproar from all the “tree huggers” as I like to call them, to make everything as “green” as possible is happening way to fast, and the sudden hatred of coal will cause this great nation to pummel into even more of a crises than it is already being faced with. What people don’t realize is that the coal industry is one of Kentucky’s top employers and is the only thing that many people know, they grew up around coal, and it is apart of their everyday lives, much as it is mine. My Dad has worked in the coal mines for every bit of 25 years, just to try and give his family a better life, and better opportunities to succeed in the future. My point is if you take away coal without another energy source that has been proven to be as affective, which none has, then your going to take away life as many of us know it today, not to mention jobs, homes, and families torn apart.
A friend of coal, Justin Wright
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 “Renewable Energy†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, let’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 – 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 “Renewable Energyâ€. Out of all sustainable energy initiatives available, the drastic reduction of our energy demand, also know as “demand side abatement†is the single most important one. If we continue to increase our energy consumption, even if we use “renewable†sources exclusively, we will necessarily also continue to increase the entropy, waste heat and resulting temperature in our planet’s atmosphere. Before we started burning fossil fuels, our planet was in good balance between the sun’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 “renewable†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.
The environment is more important than your family or your way of life.
Joe:
With that statement, you conceed that the enviroment as also more important than YOUR family and YOUR way of life? That you would immediately sacrifice friends, family, and even yourself for the sake of the environment? If not, why would you make such a statement towards another individual?
Yes, the environment and its state is important because it is a commonality that we share and will share with the generations to come, but to imply that it is more important than an individual and/or group of people is a very mislead thought.
As a whole, yes the Earth and millions of species and 7 billion people are on it are vastly more important than one industry. We can easily live without coal. We can’t live withough the ecosystems that sustain life.