The International

After a pair of explosions collapsed a coal mine in western Siberia, 66 miners and rescue workers have been declared dead while 24 remain missing and 80 survivors recover in local hospitals. According to a report by the Associated Press, the May 10th blasts have trapped the miners 500 meters (1600 feet) underground and 1.5 kilometers away from the nearest exit.

Russia is familiar with coal mine-related disasters. The deadliest in the nation’s history occurred just a few years ago, when a March 2007 explosion killed 110 in Kemerovo, the same region as where the most recent tragedy occurred, AP local reporter Sergey Ponomarev noted.

Danger seems to follow coal mining across the world, with at least three instances occurring globally in just the past two months. A mine collapse in Kentucky killed two in late April. Weeks earlier, an April 5th explosion in West Virginia killed 29 miners, the highest mine accident related death toll in the U.S. in 40 years, according to the AP. Only nine days before that, a mine in China flooded, leaving 33 miners dead. China has more annual coal mine related deaths than any other country in the world. The China Labor Bulletin reported 3,639 mine accidents and 6,027 deaths in 2004, compared to 28 deaths in the United States.

Accidents are just one danger of coal mining. The use of coal as a source of energy and heat has well documented global environmental repercussions. The Obama administration and organizations like the United Nations and the Environmental Protection Agency view improperly treated, or “dirty,” coal energy to be a growing cause of air and water pollution and a primary source of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

China has been leading the world in terms of coal consumption for more than two decades, according to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. As of 2006, China was using 2.58 billion short tons of coal per year, a number that has increased every year and expected to continue to rise. The United States is second, using 1.198 billion short tons in 2006.

According to The U.S. Department of Energy, coal-fired electric generating plants are the backbone of the central power system in the United States. Currently, coal processing accounts for about half of all the electricity produced in the United States (http://bit.ly/d50RNr).

Coal is popular because it is cheap. Data from the Energy Information Association claims that as of October 2008, electric utilities paid $2.19 per million Btu of coal, compared to $6.94 and $16.68 per million Btu for natural gas and petroleum, respectively. But the coal industry comes with very distinct problems. According to the United Nations, coal is the leading producer of carbon dioxide, a dangerously harmful greenhouse gas. Another byproduct from coal energy production is sulfur dioxide, a compound that creates acid rain and pollutes both the water and air. China created more than 25 million tons of sulfur dioxide in 2005, according to a World Bank survey on the cost of pollution, the majority of which came from coal energy (http://bit.ly/6zE7LN). The country’s emissions were 28 percent higher than the 2000 figures and missed China’s 2005 emissions target by 42 percent. The sulfur dioxide has affected potable water sources, contaminated and killed wildlife in ponds and rivers, and 75 percent of lakes in China display such significant increases in chemical nutrients that the ecosystem is altered. The World Bank calculated that pollution causes 750,000 premature deaths each year, costing China $25 billion a year in health expenditure and lost labor, along with the lost lives.

“Water and energy are inextricably linked," writes the Department of Energy (http://bit.ly/9gMCwD). "It is critically important to protect U.S. water supplies while providing the energy needed to power the nation into the future," the DOE added.

Aside from sulfur dioxide, coal processing also increases the levels of heavy metals such as mercury in water and food supplies. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury air emissions in the United States (http://bit.ly/bMeHLB). Mercury is expelled through flues at power plants and is carried by winds before being deposited on land and in water. Both the EPA and U.S. non-governmental organization The Energy Foundation (http://bit.ly/ds0bpj) have found that high-exposure to mercury can cause serious brain damage and death, and low-level exposure can result in sensory brain damage, especially in children.

The coal miners face the risk of deadly lung disease because of the inhalation of coal dust. Pneumoconiosis, also known as black lung disease, caused more than 9,646 deaths among coal workers in the United States between 1996 and 2005, according to data collected by the Nation Center for Health (http://bit.ly/9m9tlU).

Along with the U.S., China and cities in Northern Asia heavily rely on coal power for economic growth (http://bit.ly/8X9l1Y), as documented by the United Nations’ Development Programme and Division for Sustainable Development. The level of annual carbon dioxide emission in Eastern Asia increased from 3.9 to 6.1 billion metric tons in the five year span between 2000 and 2005, while the level in North America remained static at 0.4 billion metric tons over the same period.

So why are countries and companies still burning coal despite the negative environmental and health-related effects? Can coal energy continue to progress unchecked in these areas, or do new methods of “clean” coal production need to be created and utilized? Or is a move away from coal and into more sustainable and greener energy sources the only solution for the global climate?

Environmental impact

Coal is a fossil fuel, an aptly named natural resource formed through millions of years of pressure on anaerobically decomposed organisms. Made of compressed petrified plant material, coal is easily combustible and can be burned without secondary treatment. Coal plants commonly generate energy through the burning of coal in a furnace, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The heat boils water and creates steam, which then spin turbines and turn generators, creating electricity.

According to the DOE, coal is the largest contributor to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. CO2 is the most harmful and abundant of the greenhouses gases, which are the contributing cause of global warming, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory (http://bit.ly/aH46K9). The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals report in 2008 noted “carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels accounts for more than half of the global greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change."

In 2006, coal accounted for 42 percent of all CO2 emissions, with 12 billion of 28 billion metric tons of CO2 coming from coal. That number is expected to rise annually and reach 18 billion metric tons and 45 percent of all emissions by 2030, the Department of Energy calculates.

In the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals, Target C of Goal 7 addresses the issue of drinkable water. By 2015, the UN seeks to halve the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water. Coal power is a threat to this goal. Aside from leaking contaminants, the creation of coal mines can physically dry out water sources. Reporting from China for Newsweek before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Professor Orville Schell, the Arthus Ross Director for the Asia Society’s Center on US China Relations in New York City, wrote:

"One can drive a hundred miles in any direction from Beijing and never cross a healthy river. Heading north to Shanxi province, China’s major producer of coal, one passes river after river that has dried up. And in 80 percent of those Shanxi rivers that are still flowing, water quality has been rated Grade V by Chinese officials, ‘unfit for human contact’ or for agricultural or industrial use."

Clean coal

The term “clean coal” refers to technological developments in coal energy production that make the process safer for the environment. While coal is still being converted into power, the goal is to reduce or eliminate harmful byproducts such as CO2 emissions and other pollutants. Clean coal techniques are also employed to increase the efficiency of energy production.

Energy industry trade group The World Nuclear Association asserts that a practice called “coal washing” has been used in developed nations for decades (http://bit.ly/boi1vZ). Washing is a process in which raw coal is either chemically treated or ground down and sifted. Coal washing separates extraneous minerals and materials from the raw coal. Because the unnecessary and potentially harmful minerals don’t burn with the coal, fewer greenhouses gases are released into the atmosphere and the coal burns more efficiently, the Department of Energy and World Nuclear Association both note (http://bit.ly/boi1vZ and http://bit.ly/d50RNr).

Similarly, a process called “wet scrubbing” sprays gases inside factory flues (the industry term for the exhaust and steam pipes in coal burning plants) with a mix of limestone and water. The mixture creates synthetic gypsum, which can then be removed, countering the effects of releasing sulfur dioxide into the air. Synthetic gypsum can be recycled and is useful in building drywall.

The other primary methods of clean coal techniques are carbon sequestering and capture. The Department of Energy’s Innovations for Existing Plants Program recommends a process called "carbon capture and storage." Instead of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, CCS extracts and separates the carbon waste and stores it in underground facilities. Carbon can also be liquefied under pressure and injected into layers of rock under ground, as endorsed by the Imperial College Centre for Carbon Capture and Storage. According to the IC4S, carbon capture and storage can decrease the atmospheric CO2 emissions of a typical coal-burning power plant by up to 90 percent (http://bit.ly/d50RNr).

There are economic benefits to coal capture as well. The DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy claims that captured CO2 can be used in synthetic ammonia production as well as hydrogen production that could eventually be used in vehicular fuel cells and limestone calcination. Additionally, storing CO2 underground can force substances like oil and natural gas to the surface, making it a potentially lucrative commodity. However, any leak or breach in the actual carbon storage area could have environmental effects analogous to regular CO2 emissions, according to Greenpeace (http://bit.ly/dCutBQ).
Yet despite the offsets in cost, clean coal technology would still increase power plant expenses by 50 percent, according to a McKinsey study (http://bit.ly/cwSxei). The consulting firm concluded that carbon capture and storage adds four new costs to plant operations: equipment and installation, fuel during the capture process, CO2 transport and CO2 storage. Moving and storing carbon underground would require 10 to 40 percent of the electricity produced by a power plant and could increase the price of electricity as much as 90 percent. Additionally, Greenpeace insists that the coal industry won’t be ready for carbon capture and storage until 2030, which would be too late to reverse the worst affects of global warming (http://bit.ly/dCutBQ).

Environmental help through tax reform

Is there a way to make converting to clean coal more economically viable? A handful of countries have levied a carbon tax, by which the government can charge a tax on power companies in relation to the amount of CO2 they release. For example, Norway introduced carbon taxes in the early 1990s, and a tax program that charges the equivalent of $14 per ton of CO2 is being used successfully in Denmark, where carbon emissions fell by 5 percent between 1990 and 2006, according to the World Bank (http://bit.ly/33CZSJ). Ireland added a carbon tax of 15 euros per ton to its 2010 budget (http://bit.ly/cIXOgP).
France drafted a proposal in 2009 that would charge 17 euros per ton of carbon, but the bill was rejected only months later by the French Constitutional Council (http://nyti.ms/509MYp). Currently, Australia is considering a cap-and-trade solution, which sets a cap on the amount of CO2 allowed to be expelled. Emission permits are distributed to companies in units like credit. Unused credits can be traded or sold back to the government or to other companies in exchange for monetary compensation.

Neither the United States, Russia or China currently have such a tax in place, allowing at least one coal chief to outright say that his industry enjoys the luxury of not worrying about greenhouse gas emissions. NRG Energy CEO David Crane told the Washington Post in October 2007:

“The company I run, NRG Energy, emits more than 64 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year — more than the total man-made greenhouse gas emissions of Norway…We do so because CO2 emissions are free… removing CO2 before or after the combustion process is vastly more expensive and problematic than just venting it into the atmosphere… we need to move as quickly as possible toward implementing the low-emissions ways of combusting coal that are under development or in the case of ‘coal gasification’ technology, are ready for commercial deployment. Effective incentives for these new technologies could easily and readily be included in a cap-and-trade regimen.”

Already the threat of a tax program was enough to get one power company to change its ways. Gregory Kunkel, a vice president at Texas power company Tenaska, said at a 2008 congressional hearing that his company was only starting a new clean coal program because it anticipated new climate change regulation in the near future.

“Without climate legislation, it appears that revenues from enhanced oil recovery CO2 sales will be insufficient to cover all carbon capture costs. With proposed climate legislation, projected compliance cost savings and other effects of climate change legislation, combined with EOR revenues, would provide the needed economic incentives,” Mr. Kunkel said.

Alternatives to coal

Regardless of progressive change in coal burning plants, some critics don’t think that clean coal can ever exist. Through a 2008 advertising campaign, a collection of environmental groups united as The Reality Coalition. They spread their message that “in reality, there is no such thing as clean coal” (http://bit.ly/QZuR). The group is run by former Vice President Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection and intends to curb the construction of dirty coal plants and halt the effects of global warming.

And while trade groups like the World Nuclear Alliance and the International Energy Agency claim that clean coal practices are building stream in the U.S., FactChecker.org proved that not one of the 616 coal burning power plants in the country are “clean.” That is, none of them are nearly free of carbon emissions.

The solution then would rely on newer, green energy sources. The federal government and the state of Massachusetts have approved a new wind farm off the shore of Cape Cod. When completed, the Cape Wind project will provide renewable, emission-free energy to the surrounding area. Energy Management Incorporated, the company behind the initiative, has pledged that the wind energy will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 734,000 tons per year. Developers have devoted themselves to making Cape Wind friendly to seabirds, fish and boats, and the project has been applauded by organizations such as Greenpeace.

Yet the project has received harsh and constant criticism since it was proposed in 2001. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound is a nonprofit environmental protection agency that protests Cape Wind, loudly proclaiming that the farm will harm local wildlife, increasing boating dangers, and destroy the natural beauty of Nantucket Sound. And there are other practical problems with wind energy as well. The ideal land-based spots for wind plants in the United States tend to be far from cities and the required travel would reduce the final amount of deliverable energy and increase costs, according to Time Magazine (http://bit.ly/dfOZR0). There is also an economic balancing act that comes with wind power; new wind farms create jobs for Americans but also cost more than coal because of needed continual upkeep and the cost of technology (http://bit.ly/IDiZY).

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs notes that new and renewable energy sources such as solar, hydroelectric power and wind power, "help reduce poverty through improved energy access in underserved areas" because they disrupt the typical cycle of production consumption and make energy more reliable (http://bit.ly/dtahRR). In the Millennium Development Goals report for Goal 7, which addresses environmental sustainability, the UN recommends severing energy use and creation that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. To reach the goal, the UN has created regional economic commissions to develop renewable energy sources in Africa and Southern Asia, with the hopes of promoting clean energy and finding new financing structures (http://bit.ly/aMCn3M).

Whether it is mine collapses in Russia or mercury poising in West Virginia, the way coal is processed today poses serious dangers. The negative impact of coal power needs to be controlled, and the UN insists that the international community pursue and invest in new energy products. While it may be costly in the short-term—like the $1 billion price tag on the Cape Wind project—the long-term cost paid in pollution and lost lives needs to be combated.
"It is important to act now," the UN declares in the Goal 7 report. "The investments made today will determine the pattern of greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come."