Letter to Editor by Campbell Fritschner
There has always been a debate raging in Kentucky about coal. It provides about 90% of the electricity to our state, but the negatives are quite well-known.
Mountaintop removal reclamation usually only includes the stabilization of rock formations, with resultant decreases in biodiversity in nearby streams as well as polluting and diverting streams; burning coal releases mercury and sulfates (which cause acid rain) into the atmosphere; burning coal produces 130 million tons of coal ash (waste) per year … the list goes on much further.
It seems as though “free marketeers” would have a tough time with this problem. But digging a bit deeper (pun intended) into this problem seems to show that a market with less restrictions could solve the situation.
Mountaintop removal was implemented to mine low sulfur coal as well as provide a safer alternative to underground mining. Let me say that again. Mountaintop removal was created to increase safety and decrease pollution. Government agencies such as the EPA made it easier for coal companies to fill in valleys and hollers by allowing for permits to be obtained to create gently rolling surface topography.
According to the environmental Law Resource, “A permit is required under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in order to discharge dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States. The permit is issued by the USACE using the guidelines developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”
If the government is the one allowing for coal companies to pollute our streams and rivers and watersheds, why should we think that giving them more authority to make rules and govern would create a solution?
An Austrian view would be to eliminate the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and allow for citizens and property owners to file civil suits against big coal for any infringements. Having a smaller government would mean that coal companies would have a tougher time flexing their large budgets to scare away these suits and influence politicians.
On a final note, coal companies have invested more than $50 billion in clean coal technologies, and the first truly clean coal plant went online in Germany with facilities to clean the emitted gasses and convert the produced carbon dioxide into liquid form to be stored.
Campbell Fritschner
materials science and engineering senior
The problem lies with what you define as “waters of the United States.” That is where the real debate is…
Mountain top removal has provided much needed, usable land in Eastern Kentucky. Many of the industrial development in the region has been on restored mine lands. If the land is not used for building hospitals, schools, airports, housing developments, or recreation facilities, it is being used by farmers and wildlife habitat.
Does it impact to the environment? Yes. But after the mining operation is over, the land can be and is restored. Before you say you are against mountain top removal, visit a truly reclaimed mine site (5 years after the mining activities are completed) and look around. You will see elk, deer, turkey, “bob white†quail, squirrels, coyotes, etc. Look at the whole picture! Mountain top mining can be done responsibly!!
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.
Who gives the coal companies rights to pollute our land, water, and air? The government does. The reason the coal companies can smash civil suits brought against them is that they can bribe government officials and judges to rule in their favor. The answer is not to increase either the power or number of bureaucrats, nor to increase the number or power of legislation, because these can be bought and manipulated by these massive corporations, but the answer is to decrease these and give the power back to the people…
Read more by clicking on my name and check out my views as well as others.