• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.

The Hidden Cost of Coal Power

DerMißingno

Gutes deutsches Bier
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
14,940
Reaction score
4
Each year, the US sets off the equivalent of 20-30 atomic bombs worth of explosives, effectively obliterating entire features of its own landscape. Why? To get at the coal that's inconveniently located beneath the mountains of Appalachia.

That jaw-dropping figure came towards the end of a session at last month's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science called "The True Cost of Coal." Most methods of resource extraction and use come with various forms of what are called externalities, or costs that aren't included in the final product, but distributed across society as a whole in the form of things like environmental degradation and damage to health.

Calculating these hidden costs is obviously a challenge, and the researchers involved doing so tend to produce a range of values to reflect the uncertainty. But for coal, most of the estimates suggests that its true cost is about double the price of the energy produced with it, and may be quite a bit more.

Melissa Ahern of Washington State University described some of the environmental impacts that have resulted from the mountaintop removal process in Appalachia: over 500 peaks gone, 2,000 miles of streams eliminated, and over 140 billion gallons of coal slurry currently held in storage ponds. But her research has focused primarily on the health costs of the mining.

This presents a bit of a challenge, given that the Appalachian communities where the mining takes place are extremely poor, and poverty and low education are associated with a lot of health problems. In addition, many of the problems associated with coal mining—particulates from the mining process and water contamination—don't respect the county borders that divide up the health care data.

But even after adjusting for the variations in things like income and education, counties with active coal mines came out far worst in many measures of health. These include the problems you'd expect from mining, such as cardiopulmonary and respiratory issues, black lung, hypertension, and kidney disease. But they also include things like a 25 percent increase in birth defects in mining counties.

Ahern summed up the fate of people located near mines rather grimly: "Their property value goes down to zero, then they get ill, then they die."

Note: This is not the full article. You can read the full article here.

I've seen a lot of commercials and billboards about how clean coal power is. I know a lot of alternative power production technologies are not ready yet, but I believe we are definitely past the point where we need to use coal.
 
But isn't coal another of those fossil fuels that causes global warming the more we consume it? It'll already be too late if these alternative power sources are ready to be used, which is why we'll need to quicken the process before climate changes causes permanent damage to the environment.
 
What would you propose using in the meantime?

Nuclear? Seeing how that is the best way to reliably secure power with no CO2, it's the best option if you ask me, and investing in better nuclear technology is one step until we have better solutions for renewable energy.

That, or basically anything that doesn't kill the environment and kill people... Coal causes a bunch of problems, investing more into coal is like walking willingly into a minefield.
 
US is finally starting to get back in the Nuclear power game. Two new nuclear power plants have been given the go ahead to be built. Hopefully public perception will be positive and we can start moving in that direction. Have to keep using fossil fuels till we can become independent of them, though.
 
Either way, they should stop blowing up mountains in Appalachia since there is enough coal mined in the west that we can not do that.
 
Either way, they should stop blowing up mountains in Appalachia since there is enough coal mined in the west that we can not do that.

It's all about profits. I'm sure if the people mining the Appalachian Mountains had a cheaper place to access, they would because it presents more profits. Not agreeing with the intent, but I see why they do mine there.
 
What would you propose using in the meantime?

Nuclear? Seeing how that is the best way to reliably secure power with no CO2, it's the best option if you ask me, and investing in better nuclear technology is one step until we have better solutions for renewable energy.

That, or basically anything that doesn't kill the environment and kill people... Coal causes a bunch of problems, investing more into coal is like walking willingly into a minefield.

a) Nuclear power is costly to get up and going. If you're going to use it, you'd want in to be a long term thing. Not a gap solution.
b) Fukushima/Chenobyl
 
You'll get no argument from me about meltdowns being a scary prospect, but do you know how many reactors there are in the US? Wikipedia says there were 104 in the year 2008. That we've ever had exactly one major meltdown tells me the probability is very low given proper maintenance and competent workers. Also, unlike in Japan, we have vast stretches of open land. Much of the Nevadan interior is Government-owned desert where atomic testing takes place, and where nuclear power generation could take place away from any sizable population center, not to mention earthquakes are rare in Nevada. This or any similar location could make for nearly risk-free nuclear energy, more than can be said of fossil fuels. Nuclear wast could also be stored in the least desirable areas, where development likely won't happen until the waste has decayed, or at least until we figure out some better way of disposing of it.

According to researchers studying ice cores, the atmosphere tends to take on a lot of carbon dioxide immediately before global warming goes into full swing, same thing happens every cycle, only our use of fossil fuels, as any good chemist can tell you, releases a lot of carbon dioxide, and we're doing it a lot faster than how it normally happens. Now if we take a look at fossil and geological records, all the potential flooding in certain areas like the world's most populous and valuable cities, drought in others like much of the most productive farm land, and overall famine becomes a perfectly logical guess as to what will happen this time, since it's happened before at the high points in the global warming/cooling cycle.

Both considered, nuclear isn't perfect, but it's a lot less imperfect than fossil fuels in my opinion.

EDIT:Here is the Government chart the number 104 comes from.
 
Last edited:
Until you can guarantee that there will be absolutely no meltdowns under any circumstances, it's not worth the potential cost, which is the exact thing you're complaining about with coal.

I'm pretty sure whatever damages nuclear power has done pales in comparison to whatever health and environmental damage coal power has caused. Compared to the few accidents in nuclear power, it's a foolish argument to say that coal power is safer than nuclear when it's clear what causes the most short term and long term damage. It's certainly worth the potential cost, if you build it safe to begin with.
 
Nuclear Powerplants are actually much safer than Coal Powerplants. Not only do they produce less Carbon Dioxide but they also are extremely efficient if they're put in the right location. In stable regions not prone to earthquakes like Australia or as someone said, Nevada, they are actually the best option.

Accidents like Fukushima/Chenobyl paint Nuclear Power in a worse light than it is because the deaths/casualties all occur in a similar timeframe. Coal Powerplants and mining has been killing people for centuries, however it rarely happens all at once. Often these Nuclear accidents are caused by inefficient handling anyway. Fukushima was supposed to be out of operation a few years before the disaster.

The problem with Nuclear Energy really is that it's quite costly. However in the long run it's a much better option.
 
Until you can guarantee that there will be absolutely no meltdowns under any circumstances, it's not worth the potential cost, which is the exact thing you're complaining about with coal.

I'm pretty sure whatever damages nuclear power has done pales in comparison to whatever health and environmental damage coal power has caused. Compared to the few accidents in nuclear power, it's a foolish argument to say that coal power is safer than nuclear when it's clear what causes the most short term and long term damage. It's certainly worth the potential cost, if you build it safe to begin with.

You're missing the point here.

We're looking for a temporary solution for coal (which apparently is so bad that we cannot possibly use it for a second longer, lest we all die) until renewable sources can provide the same amount of power for a relatively similar monetary cost.

Nuclear is not a good temporary solution. It is a long, long term investment due to the amount of money it requires to get started. If there is a meltdown within this proposed gap period of time, the cost to people would be greater than sticking with coal for a bit longer.

Nuclear Powerplants are actually much safer than Coal Powerplants. Not only do they produce less Carbon Dioxide but they also are extremely efficient if they're put in the right location. In stable regions not prone to earthquakes like Australia or as someone said, Nevada, they are actually the best option.

Accidents like Fukushima/Chenobyl paint Nuclear Power in a worse light than it is because the deaths/casualties all occur in a similar timeframe. Coal Powerplants and mining has been killing people for centuries, however it rarely happens all at once. Often these Nuclear accidents are caused by inefficient handling anyway. Fukushima was supposed to be out of operation a few years before the disaster.

The problem with Nuclear Energy really is that it's quite costly. However in the long run it's a much better option.

Better than renewable?

Yes, I know accidents are rare. But not rare enough for my liking.
 
Yes, I know accidents are rare. But not rare enough for my liking.

I don't get your logic here. You say that accidents are rare, but not rare enough. However, coal power causes much more environmental and health damage than whatever damage nuclear have done (and quite frankly have realistically possibility to do). Sticking to coal a bit longer is a lazy excuse to not take the costs that comes regardless. It's either now, or later when we have to add on even more costs due to environmental damage. Coal is in this regard very short-sighted.

I'm not very fascinated by the aspect of a potential nuclear meltdown, but when compared to the damages that coal causes regardless, I'd say it's a risk worth taking. Nuclear isn't better than renewable, but I'm not that optimistic that I believe we can switch to renewable sources faster than we can get a bigger portion over to nuclear.
 
You're missing the point here.

We're looking for a temporary solution for coal (which apparently is so bad that we cannot possibly use it for a second longer, lest we all die) until renewable sources can provide the same amount of power for a relatively similar monetary cost.

Nuclear is not a good temporary solution. It is a long, long term investment due to the amount of money it requires to get started. If there is a meltdown within this proposed gap period of time, the cost to people would be greater than sticking with coal for a bit longer.

I think you're actually missing the point of the entire article. The issue it deals with is blowing up mountains and destroying streams and lakes. The fact is that coal can continue to be used without mountains being blown up. In my commentary on the article, I said "I believe we are definitely past the point where we need to use coal." I stand by that assertion, but I'm not, and I'm sure no one else is, stupid enough to think that we can replace the entire coal infrastructure overnight. If it had been phased out slowly over the past fifty years or so then yes, I think all power currently generated by coal could be nuclear.

Better than renewable?

Yes, I know accidents are rare. But not rare enough for my liking.

Since I guess we're talking about nuclear power now, I'll respond to this.

If you know anything about Chernobyl at all, you'll know that it could never ever have happened to a western reactor which has massive safety precautions. The Three Mile Island indecent, which a lot of people seem to like to use as another argument against nuclear power, is a testament to this fact. A reactor melted down, and not only were there zero casualties and no significant dosage of radiation leaked, but the plant was brought back into operation and is generating power for Central Pennsylvania as we speak.

Fukushima, well, it went through one of the most powerful earthquakes in modern history, and still the radiation was mostly contained to the power plant and immediate area. Yes, some of it did escape, but not nearly the levels of Chernobyl. Another testament to the safety of modern plants if you ask me.
 
Whilst I am optimistic that renewable energy sources will take over one day, I don't think they aren't advanced enough right now for us to make the immediate jump and leave fossil fuels behind. Therefore, given the relative safety of nuclear power compared to fossil fuels and the more eco-friendly outlook, I think it would be a good idea to switch to nuclear until renewable can take over.
 
Merged post

Yes, I know accidents are rare. But not rare enough for my liking.

I don't get your logic here. You say that accidents are rare, but not rare enough. However, coal power causes much more environmental and health damage than whatever damage nuclear have done (and quite frankly have realistically possibility to do). Sticking to coal a bit longer is a lazy excuse to not take the costs that comes regardless. It's either now, or later when we have to add on even more costs due to environmental damage. Coal is in this regard very short-sighted.

I'm not very fascinated by the aspect of a potential nuclear meltdown, but when compared to the damages that coal causes regardless, I'd say it's a risk worth taking. Nuclear isn't better than renewable, but I'm not that optimistic that I believe we can switch to renewable sources faster than we can get a bigger portion over to nuclear.

I don't find the supposed damage of a few extra years of coal worth the cost of changing to nuclear for a short period of time. Money better spent elsewhere.

Keep in mind that I am approaching this from an Australian standpoint. The effects of coal power on our population are lower than in the US. We don't have any nuclear stations, and we aren't likely to get any.

Therefore, I see the cost of nuclear power (monetarily and potentially health and environmentally [meltdown and waste]) as being too great considering they will only be used for a limited time.

If you believe that an increase in the US of nuclear power to entirely take over from coal power, then go right ahead. I don't see how it would be viable.

And, of course, how could I forget about Three Mile Island.

I think you're actually missing the point of the entire article. The issue it deals with is blowing up mountains and destroying streams and lakes. The fact is that coal can continue to be used without mountains being blown up. In my commentary on the article, I said "I believe we are definitely past the point where we need to use coal." I stand by that assertion, but I'm not, and I'm sure no one else is, stupid enough to think that we can replace the entire coal infrastructure overnight. If it had been phased out slowly over the past fifty years or so then yes, I think all power currently generated by coal could be nuclear.

But it hasn't been phased out, and it won't be any time soon.

Do you want some of our coal? We, being a flat country, don't need to blow up mountains to get our coal.

:-D

So what are you looking for, given we aren't dealing with a situation where coal has been phased out? I ask again, what is the solution now to replace coal until renewables are capable of doing so?

Since I guess we're talking about nuclear power now, I'll respond to this.

If you know anything about Chernobyl at all, you'll know that it could never ever have happened to a western reactor which has massive safety precautions. The Three Mile Island indecent, which a lot of people seem to like to use as another argument against nuclear power, is a testament to this fact. A reactor melted down, and not only were there zero casualties and no significant dosage of radiation leaked, but the plant was brought back into operation and is generating power for Central Pennsylvania as we speak.

Fukushima, well, it went through one of the most powerful earthquakes in modern history, and still the radiation was mostly contained to the power plant and immediate area. Yes, some of it did escape, but not nearly the levels of Chernobyl. Another testament to the safety of modern plants if you ask me.

I don't find any radiation escaping a plant to be acceptable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But it hasn't been phased out, and it won't be any time soon.

I know... That's what I just said.

Do you want some of our coal? We, being a flat country, don't need to blow up mountains to get our coal.

Neither do we... It says so in the article. The problem is we do it anyway, so there's the proof that you've missed the point.

So what are you looking for, given we aren't dealing with a situation where coal has been phased out? I ask again, what is the solution now to replace coal until renewables are capable of doing so?

The solution is to import coal from the west or other places in order to stop blowing up mountains, ruining waterways and destroying communities while coal itself is slowly phased out.

I don't find any radiation escaping a plant to be acceptable.

Considering radiation is produced by many processes (See: the sun) and the amount of radiation leaked at TMI caused no harm whatsoever, I find your conclusion to be irrational.
 
The solution is to import coal from the west or other places in order to stop blowing up mountains, ruining waterways and destroying communities while coal itself is slowly phased out.

Just to be clear you are suggesting with bring in coal from other places in the country correct? Not import from outside the country because that would be rather silly seeing how we are practically the Saudi Arabia of coal.
 
Please note: The thread is from 12 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom