START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rave

The Culture of Coal

Posted 12 months ago|31 comments|986 views
Written by
It is said here in the US by industry insiders that Coal is king and who among the general populace would dare argue with them. Coal is the number one fuel source not just here in America but in China as well . It is number one because it is cheap to mine and plentiful. Coal is in most cases the primary source of revenue for entire towns and villages. But this does not make it reign supreme.

Coal's staying power is it's ability to supply an inexpensive and consistently reliable energy source to the world. We seem to forget or at least conveniently ignore that the whole consistency and reliability of any electrical energy grid depends on the consistency and reliability of the fuel used for that utility. The consistency and reliability of our electrical grids as well as that of China's, for that matter is primarily the result of using coal to supply each country's energy needs. America and China both rely on this consistency and reliability to advance the economic growth and prosperity of its people, which admittedly is a noble pursuit for any country.

Our dilemma begins to unfold only as we begin to deal with the repercussions of using coal. One of coal's many unfortunate byproducts when it is used as fuel is pollution and lots of it. Pollution as many of us are aware affects deleteriously the quality of life, a quality of life that coal by providing cheap and reliable electricity hopes to improve thus establishing a paradox This paradoxical dilemma unintentionally establishes a paradigm and that is that progress requires sacrifice. In this case the sacrifice is clean air, clean water and unspoiled wild spaces in exchange for the consistency and reliability of coal derived electricity.

But the truth is we don't need coal to produce consistency and reliability in electrical energy production. Coal is simply very readily available with little effort. Keep in mind that it is not the cheapest either, especially if you consider its environmental and health costs. Coal is significant because it operates like a credit card with high interest rates. Buy now and pay later. Thanks to coal we can dream of electrical cars tied to the power grid. Coal allows us to purchase all those portable rechargeable devices that we love to carry around. Coal allows us to control the climate of our primarily indoor, sedentary lives. We need coal to operate the electrically dependent hospital equipment that treat the symptoms and not the disease. In other words we need coal to maintain our technologicaly dependent lives. We have developed a culture of coal and the thought of changing it seems unthinkable.

We need it to keep supplying our culture of coal or risk loosing our identity! America is the land of plenty in part due to coal. The time is getting close where the heavy interests from coal are becoming due and we are still trying to purchase massive amounts of luxuries by extending our credit. We live in the past as we look to China for inspiration , But they are starting on the same erroneous trajectory that we are in, the culture of coal.
UPDATE - 12 months ago
For clarification here is a summary for the simple minded, politically slanted or conspiracy enthused reader.

1. Coal is a superior fuel source because it is inexpensive, plentiful and provides consistent and reliable electricity.

2. Coal is one of the primary contributors to economic growth and development in both the US and China.

3. Coal however is not without its drawbacks. Primarily among those drawback is that it is dirty.

4. Our dependency on this dirty fuel has unintentionally established one or more paradigms that have been used in other industries such as that progress requires environmental sacrifice or that the value of natural resources can be quantified monetarily.

5. Our dependency on coal stems from it's very low cost and plentiful availability. Other reliable fuel sources are available but they are nether as plentiful or as cheap as coal.
6. Coal is erroneously been tied to our American culture as a land of plenty and it has lead us down a trajectory of false expectancy. The US constitution never guarantees that our freedoms would be cheap just that they would be guaranteed!

7. China is emulating our mistakes and thus bound to reap the same consequences. The vast air pollution and desertification of their farm lands are similar in scope and cause to the dust bowl in the American Midwest and the smog pollution of the 1970's here in the US. The only difference is that they are getting hammered all at one time.

8. Coal is tied to a culture that can be turned around !
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Coal will be the driving force that allows us to move on to cleaner, less-polluting energy sources. There is no such thing a non-polluting electric energy source. But I hardly think that China is going to the source of much inspiration. I know I'm not looking there.
12 months ago:
"Coal will be the driving force that allows us to move on to cleaner, less-polluting energy sources."

How do you figure?

"I hardly think that China is going to the source of much inspiration…"

China's feverish pace of industrialization has been compared by major western news outlets to that of our own industrial revolution. It has also been said of China that their economy has become the leading world economy. US officials are even looking to China to lead in greening efforts to which China has repeatedly responded, fat chance! You had your turn. Now let us have ours! So in what way do you think China is not in a position to inspire a leadership role?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: "How do you figure?"

Stop burning coal today. How many solar panels do you think we can make with no electricity? How many research labs are going to be able to figure out the new innovations without electricity to run their computers? Coal, and soon natural gas, is a stop gap, until the technology evolves far enough along that we don't need it anymore.

It may have been said that China's economy is the leading economy but it was wrong.

1) Our GDP is double what China's is.
2) Our GDP per capita is 8x what China's is.


What inspiration do you get from watching a country do something that we already did 100 years ago? Blatant polluting, squandering of resources, and utilizing an overworked underpaid workforce is not something I draw much inspiration from.

We owe China 1.1 trillion dollars. I say we should make that our next bailout. Put all the big contracts on hold until we pay China back. Then we won't have to listen to all the drivel being spewed, by the ones trying to appease China, about what a great country it is. Compared to the US, China is a hellhole of repression, corruption, and pollution.
12 months ago: Re: Coal, Wind & Solar

The use of coal to produce electricity does not necessarily lead to innovations in solar or wind technology. On the contrary the use of coal solidifies coals importance in our economy and drives the nails in the coffins of wind and solar. I just don't see how you think coal is somehow relevant to wind and solar. I could understand it if you said that the use of coal in light of alternative forms of energy such as wind and solar will lead to the refining of coal into a cleaner fuel source because that may actually happen but it will in no way lead to its replacement. Coal is just way to valuable.

Re: China
Inspiration means the stimulation to do creative work. Currently the two primary Chinese dialects are becoming the second and third most requested languages to learn in the western world. That is definitively creativity at work. Wouldn't you say? China currently is turning its production power from a western focus to an internal focus to meet it's own increasing demands. This has left an increasing gap in the supply chain leading many American and former soviet block entrepreneurs to fill it. Again, doesn't that fill the description of necessary creativity? Perhaps you don't find inspiration in Chinese drive but I'm sure that you do not speak for everyone else. Then again, that wasn't my original point to begin with so I have to wonder why you would take it in that direction?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: I understand that your main thesis was a veiled diatribe touting AGW and naming coal as the culprit. If you have any currently feasible alternatives to coal powered electricity, you should let the rest of the world know.

I never said that coal leads to innovations, howsoever esoterically it does and has. If the teat had never been engorged by burning coal for electricity, then we would never have become so spoiled as to want that luxury to continue for eternity. Likewise, had it not been for the polluting factors, there would have been no need to look for cleaner sources of power. So yes, coal has lead to innovations in the green power movement.
It also powers the effort to seek out new sources of power.

China:

I think you are playing word games now.
12 months ago: Whose playing word games? I think you are!

First you say: "Coal will be the driving force that allows us to move on to cleaner, less-polluting energy sources"

Then you say: "Coal, and soon natural gas, is a stop gap, until the technology evolves far enough along that we don't need it anymore."

Afterwards you add: " I never said that coal leads to innovations, howsoever esoterically it does and has."

Of course you think it does silly, that is your whole point!

As for AGW, I had to look it up! Thank you Wikipedia and Google for the help. It stands for, "Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming" for those like me who didn't know. However if I am "touting" AGW as you say how could I then charge culpability? To tout is to praise, to charge is to hold liable. Aren't those to words diametric to each other in this context?

No silly, this is not bitter criticism that blames coal while praising AGW. What this is, is an acknowledgement on my part of my dependency on coal, since I am in fact part of a larger society that is at least 40 percent dependent on the stuff for its daily doings. It also serves to hopefully bridge the culpability that divides our to nations (China and the US) since we both depend heavily on coal. Hopefully wee can come to work together to find solutions to our common problems.

For clarification here is a summary for the simple minded, politically slanted or conspiracy enthused reader.

1. Coal is a superior fuel source because it is inexpensive, plentiful and provides consistent and reliable electricity.

2. Coal is one of the primary contributors to economic growth and development in both the US and China.

3. Coal however is not without its drawbacks. Primarily among those drawback is that it is dirty.

4. Our dependency on this dirty fuel has unintentionally established one or more paradigms that have been used in other industries such as that progress requires environmental sacrifice or that the value of natural resources can be quantified monetarily.

5. Our dependency on coal stems from it's very low cost and plentiful availability. Other reliable fuel sources are available but they are nether as plentiful or as cheap as coal.
6. Coal is erroneously been tied to our American culture as a land of plenty and it has lead us down a trajectory of false expectancy. The US constitution never guarantees that our freedoms would be cheap just that they would be guaranteed!

7. China is emulating our mistakes and thus bound to reap the same consequences. The vast air pollution and desertification of their farm lands are similar in scope and cause to the dust bowl in the American Midwest and the smog pollution of the 1970's here in the US. The only difference is that they are getting hammered all at one time.

8. Coal is tied to a culture that can be turned around !
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: No, you aren't discerning between the two concepts. Coal will be the power that allows innovation by supplying cheap electricity. A by product of using coal will be the desire to find cleaner, safer energy sources. It's not the same thing.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Tout: To solicit support, business, publicity, etc, importunately.

Now I guess you need the meaning of the word "importunately".

Adv. 1. importunately - in a beseeching manner; "`You must help me,' she said imploringly"
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: How's this for simple? We'll use the cheap, easy to get coal until we don't need it any more. Until then, it will play its role in powering our economy as cheaply as possible.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: "But the truth is we don't need coal to produce consistency and reliability in electrical energy production. Coal is simply very readily available with little effort."

"In other words we need coal to maintain our technologicaly dependent lives. "
12 months ago: So is this you admitting you are playing with words or is this you being a good moderator? Well seeing as the conversation is between me and you then you can't possibly be moderating the moderator? Perhaps you think you are moderating me? Yes, yes you are definitely playing with words. Well then on we go with your game silly boy.

Sorry if I seem condescending or insulting by repeatedly calling you silly. You see, I've grown rather fond of that word since it seems to describe your never ending argument so well. It's a silly argument, you see and I'm failing to find a distinction between the orator and the oration. Then again I might feel jealous that you too know how to use a dictionary. Bravo.

So tell me are you saying that I am soliciting support, publicly for an AGW business? Which one Mr. moderator? Coal? Because even if I use your definition it still implies duplicity on my part. Am I showing support or contempt for the Coal industry? Ahh, I get it! You are intimating that I'm being dishonest, right? Wrong, Charlie! No disingenuous diatribe on my part just an acknowledgement of culpability on my part as I've already stated!

But seriously Mr. Box, I do understand what you are saying. You are saying that without coal there can be no innovative clean energy. You are even quoting me to prove that this is common knowledge even to me. Well I'm flattered that you use me as a source but really, you shouldn't. I'm uneducated and am quite unreliable as an official source. Besides you are doing me a disservice by misquoting me.

Here is a fact that I'm sure you and I can agree upon. Coal is cheap and plentiful! Right? This being the case it is also the first consideration for energy needs. Right? I believe I've also said that too. Which stands to reason that scientist in the industry would come up with uses for coal byproducts in order to maximize profits much like it's been done with crude oil. This then would result in green innovations right? Wrong! It hasn't happened with crude oil. The main byproduct being plastics it has proven to be an ecological disaster. It hasn't happened with natural gas either which is obtained by hydro-fracking which is a proven contaminant to natural local water supplies.

Green innovations happen concurrently, in spite off and in place of current innovations. Some countries don't have natural coal or oil supplies so they depend on such things as biomass, steam geysers and geothermal convection. Other nations have to import oil and coal at a heavy cost so they have become leaders in solar and wind technology. Bio-diesel as it is now called was the original fuel source for the diesel engine before crude oil became popularized. Not to mention that the main competitor for the original internal combustion engine was the electric car! Nowhere in this long list are any of these innovations a byproduct of dirty coal, petro crude oil or fracking gas. If anything the green innovations mentioned have been hampered from growth because of the unusually low prices of coal, oil and gas that don't factor the natural cost of their product. If the actual toll that coal takes on nature would be included into it's cost then it would not be used.
Let me make this abundantly clear the culture of coal exists because we have created it! It is artificial in nature and we've grown dependent on it. It can't be sustained naturally and it will wreck serious damage. It is also reversible and easily so!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Wow, a lot of words. None of which I found offensive or condescending. Why would you think that? I try to always consider the source, and because we've gone round and round in the past, I realize there is nothing to get my feathers ruffled over. My ego is on a diet.

I guess I'll just skip all the gobbledegook and cut to the chase:

Coal: The flyash produced from burning coal replaces natural limestone and clays used in Portland cement, reducing the need to mine for these compounds. It makes cheaper, stronger, and less permeable cement at a lower cost than naturally found materials.

It is also being mixed with molten aluminum to make a super light, super strong metal foam that absorbs more energy than standard metals. Cars built with this metal will be lighter and safer, saving gas and lives. Naturally, it would also decrease our need for raw aluminum too.

Also, coal can be used to strip oxygen and leave only pure hydrogen, to be used in totally non polluting energy production. Non-polluting in the sense that the actual production causes no pollution. That's after all the pollution generated by the construction of the non polluting facility.


"Green innovations happen concurrently, in spite off and in place of current innovations."

I'm not sure how your dictionary reads, but would that statement inherently include "because of current innovations"?
12 months ago: You don't disagree with me, you just can't bring yourself to admit that coal is not the source of green innovation. All of the things you mentioned can happen without coal being sold at rock bottom prices but they are not! Furthermore, just because these green technologies are feasible it doesn't mean they will be broadly implemented, because they are not! Coal can be made a very clean fuel. I said it before and I stand behind the idea that it must but it will not do so without a cost. This added cost of turning coal into a clean fuel will cost a lot and it is this cost that will take away coals apeal of being inexpensive and reliable. Once the price goes up and it has to be manipulated over and over to make it green then it will loose its appeal. There is no way that the co industry will allow that. Get it?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
12 months ago: Once again, and for the last time, I will say: Coal is indirectly responsible for green energy innovation, and directly responsible for some green non-energy innovation. And most importantly, it will keep the lights on while the other innovations are being put into place.
12 months ago: Siempre. You're back again.
12 months ago: You miss that ole guy, huh Red!
Keep saying it Box. It don't make it true!
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
12 months ago: For once I have to agree with OOTB. WE will probably use coal for a while because that is our current main power source. It is inherently dirty and polluting and destroys the land.

When Clinton was president he was about to require pollution controls on coal plants that would reduce mercury by 99%. Bush put that on hold but Obama has now reinstated those requirements.

OOTB is right that coal plants can be used to produce cement and as an added bonus it can sequester CO2. Normal cement produces a ton of CO2 for every ton of cement. If produced from coal byproducts it would sequester 1/2 ton for every ton created. Coal exhaust can also be bubbled through water to clean it and also grow algae which can produce oil.

China is an inspiration for the rest of the world's energy producers. They invest twice what we do in research in green renewable alternatives to coal. They produce most of the solar cells made and they make and install about 1/3rd of all windmills. They also are leaders in making next generation coal plants that are far more advanced than anything we have. http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/20...

Note that one of the main motivations for China researching clean alternatives to coal is that coal (and it's pollution controls) uses a lot of water, that is fast becoming very scarce.

We could put solar thermal/ natural gas hybrid power plants up within a year to replace polluting coal and dangerous nuclear plants. The hybrid plants will produce clean free energy while the sun shines and use the same turbines with natural gas when the sun goes down or storms disrupt the solar gain. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/r...

The natural gas is relatively clean and produces about 1/3rd the CO2 of coal. http://powerplantccs.com/blog/2011/02/na...
12 months ago: Altuist and Box are both right. In fact so am I because I never said anything to the contrary. What my angle was and still is, is that all these green solutions and green bi products of coal increase coals cost to use, which is why those green technologies are not wide spread across the industry. Coals main attraction as a fuel is that it is cheap and plentiful. Make it expensive and plentiful and you will see a lot less of it.

Mr. Box contends that green energy innovations are the direct well spring of the usage of coal. While I've insisted the opposite that keeping America and China addicted to cheap coal keeps both nations from pushing a greener yet more expensive fuel source. Since the days of Tomas Edison and Henry Ford there has been green alternatives but the idea of bubbling crude just free for the taking closed the eyes of Americans to Bio-Diesel made from peanut oil instead

Coal has caused a culture of addiction to unrealistically low fuel and has convinced us that their should be no penalty to misusing our natural resources in exchange for cheap fuel. You see? The problem with coal is its cost. By the way Box doesn't think there is anything inspirational about China, Altruist.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
12 months ago: China should be inspirational to all conservatives who rail against government control and regulation, because the pollution and poisons are a direct result of anti regulation. This is the true free market capitalism they espouse.

On the other hand China is forward looking and working on 50 year plans and they see quite clearly that Fossil fuels are the fuels and energy sources of the past and they are moving to dominate the markets in the 21st century energy sources.

Very good post Dwayne. While you talk about the cheapness of coal you also point out that the total cost including the pollution, water, and health issues is not really cheap compared to renewable energy sources.
12 months ago: Coal has a history. Mankind first burned wood and then, as cities grew larger, burned coal. If there had never been coal on Earth, we would not be where we are today. Culture and cities require fuel in many ways.

But let's move on even though we have not yet exhausted all of the coal on Earth, okay?
Karthik
Karthik
India
12 months ago: DJ... As Terryeo said, we have not yet exhausted coal on all the Earth.Since supply is great.It is cheap. Once it gets exhausted, it becomes expensive, and then you should see people going to other sources.

Same is the case with pollution. Mankind has not yet felt the effects of pollution. They say it but most dont mean it. Global warming, ozone layer depletion and all that...but currently economical growth seems to be camouflaging all these stuff.And again, once these things get so intense,people will be forced to shift to other sources of energy.Even though coal is cheap.
Karthik
Karthik
India
12 months ago: And, by the way DJ, shouldn't this be a rant.
12 months ago: Thanks for your input Karthik. I don't disagree with the benefits of coal as a fuel. I've actually extolled its use here in this rave and how much it has helped my country in it's industrialization. I wouldn't dream of taking that opportunity away from other developing nations. India is going through so much transformation right now as is China and I'm sure cheap fuel is integral to this development. My commentary in this essay is expository. I don't think Americans in particular understand how closely our culture has developed around coal.

We hate it because it is dirty but we use it unashamedly. But confront us on our usage of it and once again we detach ourselves from it. As I see it, the problem is that we have not embraced the culture of coal to the extent that is necessary to transform it into a clean fuel source. I caution of course that doing so will raise the price of coal and reduce its appeal as a cheap fuel which perhaps is why clean coal technology is so slow in being adapted on a large scale, nationally or internationally. I suppose the reason I wrote this as a rave is because I am hopeful for coals future! I am certain counties that use coal can preserve their natural heritage as well as their health and environment and still make use of coal as an abundant fuel source even if it may not still be cheap in order to accomplish all this.
Karthik
Karthik
India
12 months ago: DJ. there is one major problem though with coal being used, especially in India. India has got a lot of coal reserves. But most of the coal is of inferior quality. And the amount of pollution, it ccauses is much more worse than in the US.

Also, I am not really a supporter of development without really being concerned about the ecosystems. If it does turn out that they can use coal and reduce the pollution, well and good. But I dont see this happening, as particularly in India, I dont see any effort being made in conducting researches to improve the standards. Nor is any effort being put to improve the usage of other sources of energy.

Atleast on the initiatives part, US is far ahead.. I dont know about much about the growth in China btw...
12 months ago:
Karthik: As I said, coals potential as a clean fuel will only be tapped by spending lots of money on research, ultimately rising its cost. You are right that such money would likely not be spent in India on an inferior fuel source. It makes much more sense to invest in something of higher quality that is more cost affective. I don't think the solution to the worlds energy needs rest in coal nor do IO think anybody should use coal without considering the ramifications. I just believe that the potential for much good is there and that countries such as the US and China who already have a considerable amount of money invested in coal should put some more of that money into improving this fuel source.

BTW: I saw on a documentary about the global environmental footprint of various nations that in rural areas in India a popular cooking fuel is dried cow dung. You may not know this but in the US many local water supplies are polluted by the leaching of cow dung into the local aquifers. I believe that if we dried and sold cow dung as a fuel this would solve that problem without making a negative impact on the enviroment. In certain ways then India is far ahead of the US. Because such an idea has not even been considered and believe me we have a lot of cows.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: Dwayne, coal dung would make a lousy fuel, but you are correct that it is a terrible pollutant. The latest technologies use the cow dung to create methane gas which can then be used for a clean burning fuel and then the rest can be composted to become a good soil amendment.

Those in India have a small carbon footprint because they don't live on much.

People in third world countries walk miles to collect firewood or use dried cow dung. When refugees are concentrated they denude the countryside of trees. The people have health problems because of the dirty smoke. Now many organizations are trying to get cheap clean burning stoves to these people so they only need a fraction of whatever fuel they can find, but it burns it hotter and cleaner and concentrates the heat where it is needed.
11 months ago: I'm not sure I understand what you mean Altruist. Is cow dung a cleaner fuel to burn than coal or just as bad? I know it is easier to source cow dung than it is to source wood and cow dung also could serve to conserve deforestation. Since factory farmed cows produce so much polluting waste it would make sense to dry it and burn it to run a electricity producing steam plant.
11 months ago: This is a relaterd article.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/200...
11 months ago: Here is another one.

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemScienc...
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
11 months ago: Dwayne you can do a lot with cow dung, but just burning the dried chips doesn't make much sense because our technology is not set up to do that. How many cow dung stoves have you seen on the market. In third world countries you can probably burn chips in a rocket stove more cleanly. But as your 1st article pointed out it has about 1/3rd the energy density of coal so transporting it doesn't make much sense.

Your 2nd article pointed out a danger of burning cow dung I was not aware of. I knew it had all kinds of carcinogens but didn't know that the cows concentrate arsenic that can be inhaled when the dung is used as a fuel.

Still cow manure is a good potential energy source that is now just a huge and expensive environmental problem.

It makes much more sense to 1. Digest it to produce methane, or 2. collect the ammonia to produce hydrogen, or 3. my favorite, use it as a nutrient to produce oil from algae (See my recent rave). It is also possible 4. to pyrolize the cow chips in a low or oxygen free environment to produce volatile gases that can be used for fuel, and bio-char which is wonderful for growing crops and which is good for breaking down clay soils to good soil that can support crops.

Each of the above processes will allow the fuel to be used in our existing technology. and each has solid byproducts that can be used as fertilizers.

Each of the above processes
11 months ago: Thanks for the clarification. That is what I thought you meant but I wasn't sure. This is why I brought it up because currently industrial feed lots have them festering in giant containment ponds that gradually leach into aquifers whereas in India they put the dung to use right away. Understandably their technology and manner of use lacks the refinement that our larger wallets can afford but they do put their locally sourced resources to use whereas we do not.

Just the thought of any combination of the procedures you mentioned could not only increase the profitability of these feedlots which would make the stockholders happy but it would solve two huge problems, pollution and alternative fuel sources. It's the same thing with coal. It's not for a lack of green solutions that we see little change in the status quo . It is old dinosaurs wasting money on outmoded systems. Change is necessary. We shouldn't be afraid of change.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave