See Debatepedia's Global Climate Change Debate Series with the UN Foundation's The People Speak. Press release.
Debate:Coal, use of
From Debatepedia
|
[  ][  ][  ][  ][  ]Should the US Rely More Heavily on Coal Energy? |
This article is based on a Debatabase entry written by Alaina van Horn. Because this document can be modified by any registered user of this site, its contents should be cited with care.
|
[ ]Background and Context of Debate:Coal is a fossil fuel extracted from the ground by underground or surface mining. Coal is used throughout the developed world to fuel transportation, electricity generation, industrial power needs, and household heating. Coal is the largest single source of electricity consumed world-wide. In the United States approximately 50% of electricity is produced by coal power plants. At the same time, environmentalists are concerned about the externalities (pollution) involved in the use of coal for energy. Emissions from burnt coal are considered one of the most environmentally dirty of all the fossil fuels. And, while coal is a non-renewable and finite natural resource, it is estimated at being able to supply the world for somewhere between 200 and 300 more years at current rates of consumption, which concerns many environmentalists that would rather see the life-span of coal use be shorter. This presents a major problem, as populations are increasing, people are becoming more dependent on power-hungry technology, and business, industry and agriculture are booming. Some argue that the United States is not making enough of an effort to investigate and utilize alternative sources of energy, while other similarly situated industrialized countries have. Since the 1980s, for example, the UK has been decreasing its reliance on coal. Coal now supplies only 28% of its electricity production, with natural gas replacing coal as the primary electricity generating fuel. The US nuclear power industry has been required to invest in expensive measures to greatly reduce releases of radioactivity from nuclear fuel and fission products into the environment, but equivalent environmental measures do not currently apply to coal-fired power plants.[1] |
|
[ ][  ][  ][  ][  ]Energy independence: Would a heavier reliance on coal allow the United States to be more energy independent? | |
|
[  ][ ]YesIncreasing our use of coal fuel would allow the USA to become more independent from oil-rich countries in the Middle East: As oil and gas become scarce and prices soar, coal will become the fossil fuel of last resort for many countries. As well as being burned for power, coal can also be turned into petroleum products, gas, etc for use in transport and the home. Investment now in coal mining, in coal-fuelled power plants, and in substitution of coal for oil and gas will make the transition smoother and cheaper.[2] |
[ ][ ]NoDespite its abundance, coal will eventually run out and be replaced by alternative energy: It makes more sense to move directly to sustainable energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind power than to invest in coal now, only to have to invest more later in alternative energy.[3] |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][  ]Coal reserves: Does the United States have such a large amount of coal reserves that it can and should move more aggressively in exploiting this resource? | |
|
[ ][ ]YesAmerica has abundant domestic reserves of coal that it should exploit more fully: Historically, access to a ready supply of coal has allowed the American economy to grow and has improved the quality of life in the United States. In the future, other sources of energy such as oil and gas will be limited and coal will become an even more important resource.[4] |
[ ][ ]NoThe US will reach a "peak" in coal production relatively soon, so it should conserve its coal resources: Although the current amount of known coal reserves could sustain the world for 200-300 more years, scientists estimate that the amount of coal extracted from the ground could peak in the US as early as 2046. “Peak” defines the time after which no matter what efforts are expended, coal production will begin to decline in quality, quantity and energy content.[5] |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Environmental factors: Is the use of coal a major environmental concern, making an increased reliance upon it for energy a bad idea? | |
|
[ ][ ]YesCoal energy is becoming cleaner: Since 1970, energy from coal has become increasingly clean, and technologies are currently developing to make coal energy even cleaner. The U.S. Department of Energy entered into a partnership with the coal industry to improve the efficiency of electricity generation from coal energy, while reducing carbon emissions and other pollutants. The Department of Energy estimates that new clean-coal based power plants should be ready between 2010 and 2020. The USA leads the world in this area of technology, and should continue to pursue it as advances can be shared with other countries, to the benefit of the global environment. Much of the developing world will depend on burning coal for its future power needs, regardless of its polluting effect, so if the USA can pioneer clean technology they can adopt it will make a big difference.[6]
|
[ ][ ]NoCoal is one of the dirtiest energy sources out there, so its use should be decreased: Substances such as fly ash, bottom ash and flue gas desulfurization are produced from coal waste. These all contain heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, copper, zinc and radium, as well as low levels of uranium, thorium and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes. Although these harmful waste products are released only in trace amounts, so much coal in burned in the US that it may lead to radioactive contamination. This actually results in more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants. Although technology is being developed to burn coal more cleanly and efficiently, these new methods are mainly designed to keep emissions below (generous) federal limits. They do not remove significant environmentally damaging emissions.[8] Emissions from coal fired power plants represent the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary cause of global warming. The combustion of coal also produces chemicals that reach with oxygen and water to produce acid rain. Since the carbon content of coal is much higher than oil, burning coal is a more serious threat to global temperatures. Although carbon capture is being proposed, it is largely untried and unproven. Many experts regard it as being likely to offer little environmental benefit, with carbon dioxide likely to escape from any storage medium over the longer term.[9] |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Economics: Is the increased reliance on coal a sound economic policy for the United States? | |
|
[ ][ ]YesRelying on coal fuel is an economically sound policy: Coal ash is rich in minerals, such as aluminum and iron. Such products are of great commercial value and can be extracted and further utilized to boost the US economy. Coal-fired plants are also cheaper to construct than nuclear power plants, mainly because of the absence of regulations necessary to prevent catastrophic accidents.[10] |
[ ][ ]NoBurning coal is dirty and the costs for companies to do it cleanly and to comply with government regulations are prohibitively high: Future regulations are likely to become even more burdensome and expensive as environmental concerns become more important to policy-makers, so investment in such plants makes little business sense. |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Nuclear conversion: Should coal use be increased on the basis that the burning of coal can be used toward the production of nuclear fuel and generation? | |
|
[ ][ ]YesCoal use can aid nuclear power generation: The nuclear fuel potential of the fertile isotopes released from coal combustion is not being utilized. As well as using coal for power generation, isotopes released from the process of coal combustion can be converted in reactors to fissionable elements by breeding. This would yield a virtually unlimited source of nuclear energy that is frequently overlooked as a natural resource.[11] |
[ ][ ]NoNuclear implications of coal combustion raises significant national security concerns: The uranium residue from coal combustion can, over a few years, be accumulated as fissionable material to provide the equivalent of several World War II-type uranium-fuelled weapons. Such fissionable material is accessible to any country that buys coal from the US or has its own reserves. Promoting this technology may therefore help hostile regimes equip themselves with weapons of mass destruction.[12] |
|
[ ]References:[ ]Motions:
[ ]In legislation, policy, and the real world:[ ]See also on Debatepedia:[ ]External links and resources:
[ ]Books:
| |