Coal Now Cheaper Than Ever
According to the American Energy Society, “Much like production of oil, gas and all renewables, new innovations have improved coal mining productivity in the US by 26% in the last five years, reaching 6.8 tons per miner hour in 2017, up from 5.4 tons per miner hour in 2012.”
To call this a “mixed blessing” would be charitable. That’s because, not only is coal burning responsible for one third of US carbon emissions—the main contributor to climate disruption—but it is also making us sick, leading to as many as 13,000 premature deaths every year and more than $100 billion in annual health costs. This is due to the slurry of toxic chemicals released into our skies and waterways: oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, heavy metals, and radioactive isotopes.
Thus, making coal cheaper to produce makes it harder to remove from our civilization. As long as things are profitable, regardless of how terrible they are, they will remain a part of our world. If you think that’s an exaggeration, look at the poaching of rhinoceros (whose horns are sold as aphrodisiac) and elephants (whose tusk are sold as jewelry). Look at child sex trafficking. Humans will participate in the most disgusting practices imaginable where money is concerned.
Fortunately, as I pointed out in Bullish on Renewable Energy, the cost associated with solar and wind are falling even faster. As Buckminster Fuller said: “You never change things by fighting against the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
Wish us luck.
Craig,
Why exaggerate, distort and misquote ?
The quote you cite from the Sierra Club is at best forth hand and employs the vague terms;
“Stronger soot standards COULD avoid up to 35,700 PREMATURE deaths, 23,290 visits to the emergency room, and 2.7 million days of missed work or school due to air pollution-caused ailments every year.Continuing to allow high levels of coal pollution in our air COULD result in more than $100 billion in annual health costs”.
The original source of this information was careful to qualify these estimates as only speculative with little forensic or empirical evidence to support the hypothesis. The original study was heavily criticized for citing the “premature” death of a man in his late seventies who according to the study, MAY have lived “two more years”, although even this was speculative.
Such deliberate disinformation works against the credibility of supporting clean(er) energy.
Why continue to publish such unhelpful and easily discredited information ? The US draws a third of it’s electricity from coal and coal is a significant export asset, gaining the US both revenue and strategic advantage.
Heavily subsidized Wind and Solar will not satisfied the need for the sort of industrialized ‘power on demand’ energy , required by a re-industrializing USA .
Much better and more practical to support rapidly developing Carbon sequestration and commercial by-product potential of Clean(er) Coal Technologies becoming available.