Mountaintop removal sp 09

Mountaintop Removal Mining

Process

Valley Fill

1. Trees are clear cut.
2. Explosives are used to loosen the rocks and topsoil.
3. Huge shovels dig into the topsoil and trucks haul the topsoil away.
4. A dragline digs into the mountain to expose the coal.
5. The dragline and large trucks dump the topsoil and rocks into "valley fills."
6. Land is reclaimed. [1]

Political Climate & Laws

Kelly's Part

Health Effects

Kellys Part

Alternatives to Mountaintop Removal

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

There are five main types of mining operations used to extract coal from the earth – shaft mines, slope mines, drift mines, open-pit mining and mountain top removal mining. The first three types are used to extract coal from areas more than 100 feet underground [2]. Instead of mountain top mining, coal companies could extract coal using these three methods.

Shaft Mines

Alternative mining methods

Shaft mining utilizes two vertical shafts to reach coal deep in the ground [3]. It is the deepest form of underground mining and the most common type of mining shown in films.[4]

Slope Mines

Slope mining, usually not as deep as the other forms of mining[5], utilizes angled shafts to reach coal that has either been tilted or folded in the Earth’s crust.[6]

Drift Mines

Drift mines have “horizontal entries into the coal seam from the hillside.”[7]

Open-cast Mines

Open-cast mining, also called “open-pit mining,” involves the removal of the surface layers of mountains from top to bottom.[8]

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 [9].

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.[10].

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 [11]. Some are listed below:

1. Discharge of toxic drilling fluids used on machinery
2. Oil spills
3. Operational noise that can disturb fauna
4. Degradation of beaches
5. 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: [12]

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

Solar Power

One of the great things about solar power is that its energy source – the Sun – is free and accessible to everyone. In 2007, solar power supplied approximately 1% of the US energy supply[13]. One of the biggest problems with solar power is that, currently, it does not provide enough energy in large cities where there are more people living in a square mile than suburban or rural areas. In addition, high installation costs and long payback time may deter some potential buyers from investing in solar power.

While solar power has been traditionally seen as more expensive than traditional energy sources, a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratorysuggests that on a large scale (4,000 MW), concentrated solar power (CSP) plants “would be a beneficial addition to California’s energy supply." The report, "Economic, Energy and Environmental Benefits of Concentrating Solar Power in California", also states that a CSP plant in California would offset at least 300 tons of NOx emissions, 180 tons of CO emissions and 7.6 million tons of CO2 annually.

A CSP plant also provides permanent jobs, unlike the petroleum and natural gas industries. Furthermore, CSP plants “are a fixed-cost generation resource [that] offer a physical hedge against the fluctuating cost of electricity produced with natural gas” [14]. According to the report, for each dollar spent on CSP plants, there is a total impact of approximately $1.40 to gross state output for each dollar invested. On the contrary, there is a total impact of only $0.90 for each dollar invested in natural gas fueled generation [15].

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

• Coalwood West Virginia, “Types of Coal Mines” http://www.coalwoodwestvirginia.com/coal_mining.htm

• 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

• Energy Information Administration (2007), "Renewable Energy Trends in Consumption and Electricity" http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/rentrends.html

• 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

• National Renewable Energy Labratory (2006), "Economic, Energy, and Environmental Benefitsof Concentrating Solar Power in California" http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39291.pdf

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

• Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, “New York Times illustration of mountaintop removal process” http://www.ohvec.org/issues/mountaintop_removal/articles/2004_08_09.html

• ThinkQuest, “Shaft Mining” http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00461/shaft.htm

• United Mine Workers of America, “Types of Underground Coal Mines” http://www.umwa.org/index.php?q=content/types-underground-coal-mines

• 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/

• Valley Fill image courtesy of: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nrdc_media/2965230246/

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

Authors

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