http://www.economist.com/news/business/21600987-cheap-ubiquitous-and-flexible-fuel-just-one-problem-fuel-future
Coal is being recognized as an efficient power source recently: The cheap price and less cost in mining and assimilating is irresistible. However the emission of CO2 from coal burning is very high and also combustion of coal releases SO2 (Sulphur dioxide), which is harmful for the lungs and crumbles structures. Moreover the radioactivity emission from coal is technically higher than that of the nuclear power plants. mining itself also puts the miners in chemical and physical dangers, such as the toxic substances coming from the coal itself and the mines sometimes crash, killing or isolating the miners inside.
However, Japan, which had a recent disaster partially due to failure of nuclear power plants, is thinking of substituting coal as an energy source from nuclear power. On the other hand, USA is trying to cut down coal production but people predict that at least 20% + of the energy will be produced from coal. Yet it is quite clear that coal is not a very safe "fuel" to use. It has lots of risks of mining it (although it costs way less than petrol mining) and the pollution is lethal in a lot of ways as well, thus it's not a very good energy source.
Coal is being recognized as an efficient power source recently: The cheap price and less cost in mining and assimilating is irresistible. However the emission of CO2 from coal burning is very high and also combustion of coal releases SO2 (Sulphur dioxide), which is harmful for the lungs and crumbles structures. Moreover the radioactivity emission from coal is technically higher than that of the nuclear power plants. mining itself also puts the miners in chemical and physical dangers, such as the toxic substances coming from the coal itself and the mines sometimes crash, killing or isolating the miners inside.
However, Japan, which had a recent disaster partially due to failure of nuclear power plants, is thinking of substituting coal as an energy source from nuclear power. On the other hand, USA is trying to cut down coal production but people predict that at least 20% + of the energy will be produced from coal. Yet it is quite clear that coal is not a very safe "fuel" to use. It has lots of risks of mining it (although it costs way less than petrol mining) and the pollution is lethal in a lot of ways as well, thus it's not a very good energy source.
I though i think coal mining is a terrible source of energy and brings harmful chemical to our environment, I think our society will never stop being too depend upon it. Other source of energy cost a lot of money and demand a lot of time and effort. The society is not willing pay the cost to find new source of energy and as a result we will continue to depend on coal.
ReplyDeleteCoal has always been a viable option in terms of relative efficiency, but with the focus on preserving our environment, it seems unlikely that we will ever go back to using coal in any large capacity.
ReplyDeleteWhile coal can be a productive alternative to energy for our economy, it will also have negative consequences in the long term. As of now, it offers cheap prices and the cost of mining is small, which can encourage a lot of investment, which can bring jobs momentarily. However, this will not be long term. The environmental effects of coal mining will encourage pollution, which contributes to the effects of climate change. As climate change gets worse, it will bring worse environmental effects that will disrupt our economy by damaging infrastructure, destroying homes, and costing billions of dollars to repair the damages.
ReplyDeleteI understand the use of coal as a cheap subsitute for a period of time due to Japan's "disaster" but I do not believe they should make this a long term thing. Like you said coal is dangerous to mine and it causes a lot of pollution, this is not a smart long term move. There aren't many other options, but I feel like you should try and stay away from coal as much as possible.
ReplyDelete