Coal MiningEssay Preview: Coal MiningReport this essayCoal MiningCoal mining is taking coal out of the earth for use as fuel, and there are two types of it: surface and mountaintop mining and underground mining. Coal is one of the most important resources because of its ability to be a fuel.
Surface mining is used when the coal is near the surface, and a process known as strip mining extracts it; this is literally tearing a strip out of the earth to expose the coal. This is a highly controversial method though because by taking so many strips, the topography of the mountain changes drastically. Underground mining is the second technique where one builds coalmines because the coal is too far underground. There are four types of underground mining, and they are longwall mining, continuous mining, blast mining, and shortwall mining. Longwall mining is the most common, accounting for about 50% of all underground mining, and a machine is used to drill the coal out where it is then place on a conveyor after it falls down. Continuous mining too utilizes the conveyor belt system, and is also used by a machine. The machine contains many “teeth”, which scrape the coal from the seams of the many rooms built by miners for the machine to travel in. Blast mining is very straightforward because explosives such as dynamite are literally used to blast the coal out. After the coal is blasted out, miners manually place them on a conveyor belt. This method only accounts for about 5% of underground mining though, and it requires a lot of work because miners have to loosen the coal bed so it breaks more easily also. The least used method, shortall mining, and uses a machine, like the longwall, but the longwall machine is much bigger and convenient. Through all these methods, pure coal is obtained so that it can be used as fuel for things such as heating.
Coal, like all fossil fuels, is harmful to the environment. When it is burned, it releases harmful gases into the atmosphere, which damage the earth; however, there are also many harmful effects by obtaining it also. For example, in strip mining large strips of a mountain are taken out; the mountain will now no longer have a smooth topography, but things such as slight dips or unnatural material that can hurt the mountain when it is filled again. Slights dips for example could cause buildup of such things as snow, and thus be much more susceptible to avalanches. Underground mining too has an obvious impact because whole mines are drilled, and in some cases large areas are exploded. These disrupt natural habitats, and in the long term can cause
The mining of coal often adds to the environmental damage, and in all cases it is only a question of when and how much.
In theory, fossil fuel-generated carbon dioxide is harmless to the earth. But we cannot say with certainty that this is the case, because of the difficulty in using statistics to calculate how much carbon dioxide is produced by burning fossil fuels and some fossil fuels are emitted in excess of the level which is supposed to be required to avoid them.
The scientific literature on a question like this is scarce, but the recent research which seems to explain our current problem has proved very important. In a paper published in 2007, the National Research Council found that it was too high to continue using, because of the lack of relevant control groups. By 2008, the number of research groups had increased to over half a million and their use had grown from 6.5 million to more than 21 million from 2010–12. The current report, “Alarmist estimates: the impacts of coal on the earth’s climate,” and other studies, says: “An important limitation on the evidence is that these estimates have no meaningful statistical significance. The results are only suggestive of the potential for a large increase in emissions without serious long-term consequences.”
”[pg 837] The current report is the first to offer a simple, nonobvious explanation for this puzzling increase in emissions: it assumes that burning of the coal is more likely than burning of gas to continue for decades. This argument is wrong, of course, but in one sense it is particularly relevant now as the costs of coal are rising by more than 40% annually. As Professor Hirschfeld and I write:
[pg 838]
<< Back to Top >>
- The scientific literature on a question like this is plentiful, but the recent research which seems to explain our current problem has proved very important. In a paper published in 2007, the National Research Council found that it was too high to continue using, because of the lack of relevant control groups. By 2008, the number of research groups had grown to over half a million and their use had grown from 6.5 million to more than 21 million from 2010–12. The current report, “ Alarmist estimates: the impacts of coal on the earth’s climate,” and other studies, says: “An important limitation on the evidence is that these estimates have no meaningful statistical significance. The results are only suggestive of the potential for a large increase in emissions without serious long-term consequences.”
”[pg 838]
The mining of coal often adds to the environmental damage, and in all cases it is only a question of when and how much.
In theory, fossil fuel-generated carbon dioxide is harmless to the earth. But we cannot say with certainty that this is the case, because of the difficulty in using statistics to calculate how much carbon dioxide is produced by burning fossil fuels and some fossil fuels are emitted in excess of the level which is supposed to be required to avoid them.
The scientific literature on a question like this is scarce, but the recent research which seems to explain our current problem has proved very important. In a paper published in 2007, the National Research Council found that it was too high to continue using, because of the lack of relevant control groups. By 2008, the number of research groups had increased to over half a million and their use had grown from 6.5 million to more than 21 million from 2010–12. The current report, “Alarmist estimates: the impacts of coal on the earth’s climate,” and other studies, says: “An important limitation on the evidence is that these estimates have no meaningful statistical significance. The results are only suggestive of the potential for a large increase in emissions without serious long-term consequences.”
”[pg 837] The current report is the first to offer a simple, nonobvious explanation for this puzzling increase in emissions: it assumes that burning of the coal is more likely than burning of gas to continue for decades. This argument is wrong, of course, but in one sense it is particularly relevant now as the costs of coal are rising by more than 40% annually. As Professor Hirschfeld and I write:
[pg 838]
<< Back to Top >>
- The scientific literature on a question like this is plentiful, but the recent research which seems to explain our current problem has proved very important. In a paper published in 2007, the National Research Council found that it was too high to continue using, because of the lack of relevant control groups. By 2008, the number of research groups had grown to over half a million and their use had grown from 6.5 million to more than 21 million from 2010–12. The current report, “ Alarmist estimates: the impacts of coal on the earth’s climate,” and other studies, says: “An important limitation on the evidence is that these estimates have no meaningful statistical significance. The results are only suggestive of the potential for a large increase in emissions without serious long-term consequences.”
”[pg 838]