a week without electricity
Your point is well-taken, Commander. There's no question that we need the energy that coal provides and that our society would come to a cold and dark halt in a hurry without it.
But imo we also have to be realistic about coal's costs, many of which are 'hidden'. We can quantify pretty well the health-care costs for, say, the greater incidence of lung diseases among people who live downwind from coal-fired power plants. Less quantifiable, but still real, are quality-of-life issues like the value of cleaner air.
My rule of thumb is that a coal-fired power plant discharges into the air more or less the entire periodic table, including heavy metals, naturally-occuring radioactive elements, and other first-rank nasties. Studies have shown that living near coal-fired power plants results in higher radiation exposure - from the uranium and thorium discharged - than does living an equivalent distance from a nuclear power plant. In my view, 'clean coal' is an oxymoron, at least using current technologies. (And this is leaving aside both the mining-safety and global-warming debates!)
Which is why the DOE's decision to pull its funding of FutureGen is simply incomprehensible. IMO we should be going full-bore on ways to make clean (or, at least, much clean-er) coal as available and as practicable as possible, as soon as possible ... and then export the technology to other parts of the world where there are little or no clean-air standards in the first place.
So as I type this on a computer running on electricity powered by my local coal-fired power plant, I am also very much aware that dependence on coal for our energy needs is a low-grade Faustian bargain, at least using current coal technologies. I'd far rather see electric utilities develop new nuclear facilities than new coal-fired plants until FuturGen-like technologies come to fruition.
nrg |
