Mountaintop removal sp 09

Mountaintop Removal Mining

Technology Used

(Andrei's part-reminder to myself)

Alternatives to Mountaintop Removal

Alternative mining methods to mountaintop removal mining.

While mountaintop removal mining is a one of the most profitable methods of extracting coal, there are less environmentally damaging methods of mining. The four less environmentally damaging methods of coal mining are shaft mines, slope mines, drift mines and open-pit mining. Additionally, there are numerous other forms of energy that can be substituted for coal as an energy source.

Coal Mining

(Andrei's part - reminder to myself to complete)

Other Energy Alternatives

Corn-based Ethanol

While corn-based ethanol appears to be a good energy source because countries can grow it in their own “backyard,” it is not as beneficial as many people believe according to a report by Hill et. al.. Even if all US corn and soybean production went towards making biofuels, the two of them combined would only provide 12% of gasoline and 6% of diesel demanded annually. In addition, the net energy balance for corn grain ethanol is small providing only 25% more energy than required for its production. Also, according to the report by Hill et. al., as of 2005 corn-based ethanol was not competitive with petroleum-based fuels without subsidies and as a result, is not an economically efficient alternative for most consumers.

Relative to the fossil fuels corn-based ethanol would displace, using corn-based ethanol as an energy source would reduce green house gas emissions by 12%. On the other hand, corn production has negative environmental impacts such as an increased amount of nitrogen and phosphorous in the surrounding ecosystems. One of the most widely reported and negative effects of nitrogen is that in large quantities nitrogen can cause “dead zones” such as the one in the Gulf of Mexico [1].

Nuclear Power

Nuclear Power Plant

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), nuclear power is the lowest cost producer of base load energy. Nuclear power is not subject to unreliable weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations or dependence on foreign suppliers. Furthermore, NEI states that nuclear plants produce nearly 20 percent of the United State’s electricity and has the ability to provide a larger share of the US energy market. While nuclear power is appealing to the NEI, environmentalist group Greenpeace is staunchly opposed to nuclear energy. In their own words, “Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity.” In addition, Greenpeace has three main concerns about nuclear energy – the safety of nuclear power, the radioactive spent fuel rods and their storage, and weapons proliferation.[2].

Oil

According to the US Department of Energy (USDOE), “oil is the lifeblood of America’s economy.” Currently, it supplies the United States of America with 40% of its total energy demands and 99% of the fuel used in automobiles. Oil is considered to be plentiful and relatively affordable when compared to other energy sources available today.

On the other hand, one must also see the negative effects of oil. For example, offshore oil exploration (one of the many different types of oil exploration) can cause a variety of environmental issues [3]. Some are listed below:

• Discharge of toxic drilling fluids used on machinery
• Oil spills
• Operational noise that can disturb fauna
• Degradation of beaches
• Loss of habitat for floraand fauna

San Francisco Bay November 2007

According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), drilling for oil from the ground creates large volumes of water of “undesirable quality known as produced water.” Furthermore, the traditional form of drilling for oil on land masses (vs. offshore drilling) also has negative impacts on ecosystems: [4]

• Discharge of drilling muds and solids, specifically viscosifiers, thinners and deflocculants,polymers and lubricants
• Accidental discharge of unrefined petroleum
• Negative effects on the surrounding flora and fauna

Solar Power

(Andrei's part-reminder to myself)

Wind

Wind Turbines

The report, The Long-Term Economic Benefits of Wind Versus Mountaintop Removal Coal on Coal River Mountain, West Virginia, examined the economic benefits that wind power would have in West Virginia. It calculated the local economic benefits based on number of jobs, earnings and economic output. In addition, the study examined costs due to increased death and illnesses from mountaintop removal mining and the cost of local environmental problems in the future. In addition, it discusses that wind power is not without environmental impact and that the wind turbines will directly affect birds and bats and possibly affect the local wildlife. The report concluded that wind power is preferable to mountaintop removal in Raleigh County. The study claims that the economic benefits of mountaintop removal would end 17 years after mining operations ceased, while the environmental and social costs of mountaintop removal would continue to last. In economic terms, mountaintop removal mining provides $36,000 per year in coal severances paid to Raleigh County, whereas a wind farm would generate $1.74 million in local property taxes annually.

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), wind power “can be harnessed to be a non-polluting, never-ending source of energy” to meet the world’s energy needs. Furthermore, the AWEA states that in good wind areas over 25 years, a large wind turbine project may offer cheaper energy than any other new power plant. In addition, concerns about the reliability of wind power are not supported with current evidence. In Demark, where over 20% of its energy comes from wind, there has been no loss of reliability of the electrical grid and there has been no need for expensive equipment or energy storage.

References

• American Energy Wind Association (2007), "Wind Power Today" http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WindPowerToday_2007.pdf

• Downstream Strategies (2008), "The Long-Term Economic Benefits of Wind Versus Mountaintop Removal Coal on Coal River Mountain, West Virginia" http://www.coalriverwind.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/coalvswindoncoalrivermtn-final.pdf

• Engelhardt, F. Rainer. "Environmental Effects of Petroleum Exploration: A Practical Perspective" http://www.crownminerals.govt.nz/cms/pdf-library/petroleum-conferences-1/1989-petroleum-conference-proceedings/engelhardt-669-kb-pdf

• Greenpeace, "End the Nuclear Age" http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

• Hill, Nelson, Tilman, Polasky, & Tiffany (2006), "Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels" http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11206.full.pdf+html

• Nuclear Energy Institute (2009), "Reliable and Affordable Energy" http://www.nei.org/keyissues/reliableandaffordableenergy/

• United States Department of Energy, "Oil" http://www.energy.gov/energysources/oil.htm

• United States Geological Survey (2007), "Oil Wells Produce More Than Just Oil - Environmental Impact of Produced Water" http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/ph20.html

Images:

• Alternative mining methods to mountaintop removal mining. http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/zencmed/targets/illus/ilt/T629100A.gif

• Nuclear Power image courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/lungstruck/2303642958/

• San Francisco oil spill image courtesy of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/taylar/2039092275/

• Wind Turbines image courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/

Authors

Applestein, Cara; Morgan, Arleigh; Rogers, Kelly; Vernon, Andrei