The earliest attested use of the term "American"
to identify an ancestral or cultural identity dates to the late 1500s,
with the term signifying "the indigenous peoples discovered in the
Western Hemisphere by Europeans." In the following century, the term "American" was extended as a reference to colonists of European descent. The Oxford English Dictionary identifies this secondary meaning as "historical" and states that the term "American" today "chiefly [means] a native (birthright) or citizen of the United States."
President Theodore Roosevelt asserted that an "American race" had been formed on the American frontier, one distinct from other ethnic groups, such as the Anglo-Saxons. He believed, "The conquest and settlement by the whites of the Indian lands was necessary to the greatness of the race...." "We are making a new race, a new type, in this country." Roosevelt's "race" beliefs certainly weren't unique in the 19th and early 20th century. Eric Kaufmann has suggested that American nativism
has been explained primarily in psychological and economic terms to the
neglect of a crucial cultural and ethnic dimension. Kauffman contends
American nativism cannot be understood without reference to the theorem
of the age that an "American" national ethnic group had taken shape
prior to the large-scale immigration of the mid-19th century.
According to U.S. Census Bureau;
"Ancestry refers to a person's ethnic origin or descent, 'roots,' or
heritage, or the place of birth of the person or the person's parents or
ancestors before their arrival in the United States".
According to 2000 U.S census data, an increasing number of United States citizens identify simply as "American" on the question of ancestry.
The Census Bureau reports the number of people in the United States who
reported "American" and no other ancestry increased from 12.4 million
in 1990 to 20.2 million in 2000. This increase represents the largest numerical growth of any ethnic group in the United States during the 1990s.
In the 1980 census, 26% of United States residents cited that they were of English ancestry, making them the largest group at the time.
Slightly more than half of these individuals would cite that they were
of "American" ancestry on subsequent censuses when the option to do so
was made available, with areas where "American" ancestry predominates on
the 2000 census corresponding to places where "English" predominated on
the 1980 census.
In the 2000 United States Census, 6.9% of the American population chose to self-identify itself as having "American ancestry". The four states in which a plurality of the population reported American ancestry were Arkansas (15.7%), Kentucky (20.7%), Tennessee (17.3%), and West Virginia (18.7%). Sizable percentages of the populations of Alabama (16.8%), Mississippi (14.0%), North Carolina (13.7%), South Carolina (13.7%), Georgia (13.3%), and Indiana (11.8%) also reported American ancestry.
Map showing areas in red with high concentration of people who self-report as having "American" ancestry in 2000
In the Southern United States as a whole, 11.2% reported "American" ancestry, second only to African American. American was the fourth most common ancestry reported in the Midwest (6.5%) and West (4.1%). All Southern states except for Delaware, Maryland, Florida, and Texas reported 10% or more American, but outside the South, only Missouri
and Indiana did so. American was in the top five ancestries reported in
all Southern states except for Delaware, in four Midwestern states
bordering the South (Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, and Ohio) as well as Iowa, and six Northwestern states (Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming), but only one Northeastern state, Maine.
The pattern of areas with high levels of American is similar to that of
areas with high levels of not reporting any national ancestry.
Reynolds
Farley writes that "we may now be in an era of optional ethnicity, in
which no simple census question will distinguish those who identify
strongly with a specific European group from those who report symbolic
or imagined ethnicity."
Stanley Lieberson and Mary C. Waters
write: "As whites become increasingly distant in generations and time
from their immigrant ancestors, the tendency to distort, or remember
selectively, one's ethnic origins increases.... [E]thnic categories are
social phenomena that over the long run are constantly being redefined
and reformulated."
Mary C. Waters contends that white Americans of European origin are
afforded a wide range of choice: "In a sense, they are constantly given
an actual choice—they can either identify themselves with their ethnic
ancestry or they can 'melt' into the wider society and call themselves
American."
Professors Anthony Daniel Perez and Charles Hirschman write:
"European national origins are still common among whites—almost 3 of 5
whites name one or more European countries in response to the ancestry
question. ... However, a significant share of whites respond that they
are simply "American" or leave the ancestry question blank on their
census forms. Ethnicity is receding from the consciousness of many white
Americans. Because national origins do not count for very much in
contemporary America, many whites are content with a simplified
Americanized racial identity. The loss of specific ancestral attachments
among many white Americans also results from high patterns of
intermarriage and ethnic blending among whites of different European
stocks."
Appalachia
is often divided into three regions—southern (portions of Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, and Tennessee), central
(portions of Kentucky, southern West Virginia, southern and southeastern
Ohio, Virginia, and Tennessee), and northern (parts of New York,
Pennsylvania, northern West Virginia, Maryland, and northern and
northeastern Ohio) Appalachia. Though all areas of Appalachia share problems of rural poverty, inadequate jobs, services, transportation, education, and infrastructure, some elements (particularly those relating to industry and natural resource extraction) are unique to each sub-region. For example, Appalachians in the central sub-region experience the deepest poverty, partially due to the area's isolation from urban growth centers.
Appalachia is particularly interesting in the context of social
and economic divisions within and between the region's socioeconomic
communities. In addition, outsiders' often incorrect and
over-generalized external perspectives, and their relationship to
culture and folklore of this near-isolated area, are important to the
region's future development.
Poverty, politics, and uneven economic development
Though
industry and business existed in Appalachia before the 20th century,
the major modern industries of agriculture, large-scale coal mining, timber,
and other outside corporate entries did not truly take root until this
time. Many Appalachians sold their rights to land and minerals to such
corporations, to the extent that 99 percent of the residents control
less than half of the land. Thus, though the area has a wealth of
natural resources, natives are often poor.
Since at least the 1960s, Appalachia has a higher poverty rate and a
higher percentage of working poor than the rest of the nation. Wages, employment rates, and education also lag. The Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC) was created in 1965 to address some of the region's problems, and
though there have been improvements, serious issues still exist.
Communities that are not considered "growth centers" are bypassed for
investment and fall further behind. In 1999, roughly a quarter of the
counties in the region qualified as "distressed," the ARC's worst status
ranking. Fifty-seven percent of adults in central Appalachia did not
graduate from high school (as opposed to less than 20 percent in the general U.S.), roughly 20 percent of homes have no telephone, and the population is declining.
According to the statistics conducted by ARC, one out of every
three Appalachians suffered from poverty; their average income was 23
percent lower than the average level of American per capita income; and
due to the poor infrastructure, health care, high unemployment rate and other tough living conditions, two million or more Appalachians left their homes during the 1950s.
Poverty in Appalachian had not been given attention until the 1960s. In
the year 1960, the Region's government was trying to solve the poverty
problem with a will. After one year, the newly elected President John F. Kennedy
was touched by the poverty he saw there and decided to improve the
living standard of Appalachians. In 1963, President Kennedy set up President's Appalachian Regional Committee,
aimed to formulate a program to improve the Appalachian economy. The
program was outlined in 1964. One year later, his successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson submitted PARC's reports to the Congress and the program was passed in 1965.
Infrastructure as an agent of poverty
One
of the factors at the root of Appalachian economic struggles is the
poor infrastructure. Though the region is crisscrossed by many U.S. and interstate
highways, those routes primarily serve cross-country traffic rather
than local traffic. Towns closer to the major highways and nearer to the
many larger cities fringing the region (Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Columbus, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., etc.) are disproportionately better-off than rural regions in the mountainous interior.
Transportation
may be the reason which most restricts the development of the economy.
So after the Appalachian Regional Commission was established, road
construction has become the first concern of regional development. In
the following years, the Commission has spent plenty of capital on road
construction.
Instead of being tied to the land, jobs in the towns tend to emphasize industry and services—important
signs of a more diversified economy. However, aside from the major
urban centers along its perimeter, the entire Appalachian region still
suffers from population decline and the loss of younger residents to the
cities.
Another factor affecting development has been sheer inequality in
power between the classes. Historically, elites interested in
satisfying personal goals have controlled Appalachian politics to the
expense of the region's poorer residents.
Seeing no personal benefit to establishing infrastructure, they
generally eschewed developments that would have been difficult and
expensive to establish in the mountainous areas.
Instead, they allowed the region to rely on industry—using barges to
send natural resources to market, requiring that workers have only
minimal education, etc.--and created no infrastructure for business.
There is a lot of evidence to show that economic status generally
has a positive effect on education. This positive link suggests that
people in Appalachia are less educated than in rest areas of the nation.
"Labor economists estimated that the inflation-adjusted rate of return
to an additional year of schooling is about 10 percent on average".
(Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland) This means, each additional school
year will contribute a 10 percent average gain in earnings. "At the same
time, this 10 percent average return masks important variation in
returns across individuals with different levels of schooling". (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland) High school graduates often earn more than those with GED
recipients. During past decades, the Appalachian population are better
educated than many years ago, but it still lags behind the United
States' average level.From Burris's research, the central lands of Appalachia have been
dominated by landowners who only show interest in the profits of mountaintop coal mining,
undermining the importance of those who live in the areas and the
effect their business has on their lives. It is the cyclical way of life
where those who profit from the detrimental effects are the ones who do not have to endure those effects. This economy has caused a region-wide depression
on the people as well as other afflictions such as illness and
addiction. The goal is to eliminate the depression and need people feel
to abuse pain medications. As systems work together to aim attention of
younger generations at education instead of drugs.
"For well over a century now, central Appalachia has been ruled by
absentee landowners only interested in making the highest profit
available from natural resource extraction, primarily coal. From the
beginning of its presence in the mountains, the coal industry
intentionally created single-industry economies to exert absolute
control over the people, the politicians, the land and the wealth that
still flows out of the mountains". (American Psychologic Association)
Now, with roughly 100,000 jobs left for miners, Appalachianites
are unable to access jobs or the resources and opportunities necessary
to lift themselves out of poverty. Some academics contend that the situation of Appalachianites amounts to one similar to that in third world countries: Residents live on land that cannot be traded outside of trusted circles or used as collateral because, due to the history of unincorporated businesses with unidentified liabilities, there are not adequate records of ownership rights. This "dead" capital
is a factor that contributes to the historical poverty of the region,
limiting Appalachianites' abilities to use their investments in home and
other land-related capital.
Political inequalities
The elite class instilled strong systems of inequality into Appalachian politics and economy. For instance, the powerful have a history of encouraging racial divisions in order to divide workers and pit them against each other, spurring competition and serving to lower workers' wages. Family history and economic status
are also bases of discrimination: One resident notes of employers, "If
you have a rich name, they'll take you--otherwise you can't get no
work."
Since the 19th century, coal operators and plantation bosses have discouraged education and civic action,
allowing workers to become indebted to plantation stores, live in
company housing, and generally make themselves vulnerable to the
interests of their powerful employers. Community members who experienced a justifiable fear of punishment for speaking out against the corruption of the status quo developed a habit of compliance rather than democratic institutions for social change.
Fearful of punishment, middle class residents allied themselves with
the elites rather than challenging the system that colored their
everyday lives. Burdened by the choice between exile and exploitation,
the actual and potential middle class left the region, widening the gap
between the poor and those in power. Observers often perceive a fatalistic attitude on the part of the Appalachian people; many suggest that this is due to the history of political corruption and disenfranchisement, which led to weak civic cultures
and a sense of powerlessness. Says a volunteer in the area, "the people
usually regard politicians as crooks who won't do anything."
In the remote mountain districts, violent feuds often happen.
Appalachians use assassination and guns as weapons, against each other
for several years. The major participants are always the elite class and people who are fighting for their political rights.
Educational disadvantages
In 2000, 80.49 percent of all adults in the United States were high school graduates, as opposed to 76.89 in Appalachia. Almost 30 percent of Appalachian adults are considered functionally illiterate.
Education differences between men and women are greater in Appalachia
than the rest of the nation, tying into a greater trend of gender inequalities.
Education in Appalachia has historically lagged behind average literacy levels of United States.
At first, education in this region was largely nurtured through
religious institutions. Children who found time away from family work
were often taught to read about the Bible and Christian morality. Then,
after the civil war, some districts established primary schools and high
schools. People began to access standard education during this period,
and higher education in large communities was expanded at that time.
Lately, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, education in
rural areas has been advanced; some settlement schools and sponsored
schools were established by organizations.
In the 20th century, the national policy has begun affecting education
in Appalachia. Those schools were trying to meet the demands which
federal and state settled. Some public schools were facing the problem
of gathering funds because of government's No Child Left Behind policy. (DeYoung 1517–1521)
Since Appalachia is a place with abundant resources such as coal,
mineral, land and forest, the main jobs here are lumbering, mining and
farming. None of these jobs need a high education, and employers don't
decide the jobs based on their education level. A diploma has not been a
priority in job finding. Many children of school age dropped school to
help their family work.
Women in Appalachia have less opportunity in access of jobs. Many kinds
of jobs in this area require a strong body, so that men are preferred
than women by employers when they are seeking jobs.
The National Career Development Association has organized a
program hoping to increase the education in the Appalachia region, which
has been deprived of what other parts of the nation take for granted.
The region is primarily utilized for mining, coal, and its other natural
resources and farmland. Families that live in these parts have become
accustomed to a certain way of life whether it involve school or
working. Many kids are not given the opportunity to be successful, only
to remain in the family business surrounding one of the many natural
resources from their land. The New Opportunity School for Women, NOSW,
has begun offering 14 women a 3-week course in Berea, Kentucky, on
employment opportunities, skills, basic knowledge that they may not have
received. The NOSW also offers a residential housing opportunity to
those with low-income after their participation in the course and
thereafter. This brings hope to Appalachian women, although it only
allows 14 participants, it is a start and that number can only grow with
growth within the Appalachian region.
"Women from the Appalachian region of Kentucky and surrounding
south central Appalachian states share common challenges resulting from
low educational attainment, limited employment skills, few strong role
models and low self-esteem. The presence of these challenges are
directly linked to high incidences of early marriage, teen pregnancies,
divorce, domestic violence, substance abuse and high school dropout
rates". (National Career Development Association.)
This program provides interview, job search, computer and other
basic skills that are useful in careers for those less skilled. Women
can participate freely, no extra money is required.
Participants are provided with classes from Monday to Friday, 8 am to
12 pm and afternoon is internship time. These classes are mainly about:
job search, interview skill, math, women's health, computer skills,
leadership development, and self-protection.
(National Career Development Association) Internships not only include
working in a real work site, but also include a training of choosing
interview clothes and make-ups. The organizer will also hold some events
during the weekends except for additional classes. For instance, the
American Association of University Women and the Berea Younger Women's
Club are available for participants to choose. They can also go for a
field trip to some places. All these efforts are conducted to help women
build confidence in job finding. As a vulnerable group of people, these
rich experiences can help them become an active part in their living
communities. After graduating from NOSW, professional agencies will
provides each of them counseling services about education. This program
has achieved active outcomes. According to a recent survey, after
attending this program, 80 percent of those women participants have
incomes for less than 10,000 dollars per year with their half high
school degree. Among them, 79 percent of graduates are employed, 55
percent of graduates got an associate degree (two-year), a bachelor's
degree or even a master's degree, and 35 percent of graduates got a
Certification Program degree. (National Career Development Association)
Gender inequalities in Appalachia
Women
have traditionally been reedited to the domestic sphere, often lack
access to resources and employment opportunities, are disproportionately
represented in peripheral labor markets, and have lower wages and higher vulnerability to job loss.
Throughout the region, women typically earn 64 percent of men's wages.
However, when adjusted for the fact that women take less risky jobs,
that require less qualifications, they make roughly the same amount. Women are also often the hardest-hit by poverty—for example, 70 percent of female-headed households with children under the age of six are in distressed counties, a figure substantially higher than the national average.
Where there is oppression, there is opposition. There are a lot
of fearless and outstanding women in Appalachia who stood out to fight
for their rights. Women in the Appalachia have long earned their
reputation for being strong as well as struggling. Among the many men
within the region, women have participated in the fields, mines, and
labor movements. Many women have given their all and then some for their
families and to stand up for what they believe in. Women have also made
waves through literature, art, and keeping their stories and family
history alive within their culture.
"Women have played a major role in the labor and activist
movements in the coal-bearing regions of Appalachia.", "Other crucial
roles for women have involved education, literature, healthcare and art,
and the promotion of minorities in our region". (Appalachian Voices).
There are many achievements conducted by outstanding women
leadership. Those women devoted their lifelong efforts in improving
their social status and in fighting against poverty in their communities
and their living regions. A woman named Kathy Selvage was a citizen
lobbyist for years and worked in the fight against a proposal for a Wise
County coal-fired plant. She says that Appalachian women are people of
action. Lorelei Scarbro helped establish a community center in
Whitesville, W.V. to encourage outside activity besides the home and
workplace. This reunites them with togetherness and a place to convene
about ideas and local build-up. Vivian Stockman is the face of the stand
against mountaintop removal and has worked endlessly to spread the word
through photos of the detrimental effects it has on the land that
people call home. These women, among countless others have done
everything they can to end the poverty and depression that has plagued
their region for so long.
"A coal miner's daughter from Wise County, Va., Selvage has
always had a great respect for miners, but when a coal company began
blasting off mountaintops in her community, Selvage began working to
bring national exposure to mountaintop removal coal mining".
(Appalachian Voices).
Rural Appalachian has found projects to help women save for their life
especially life after retirement. It is kind of program to help females
who have problems in raising their children and retirement save money.
Some women have saved surprisingly a little for their retirement and
they are facing the risk of running out of their money. Appalachian
Savings Project was established to alleviate this risk by recreating
saving plans for those self-employed women workers who do not have those
plans provided by companies. This program is aiming to help the female
workers who have children to care about. Anita Wallace is a mother who
operates a family day care in Athens County, Ohio. She is 40 years old
while her husband is 47 years old and they have three of their own
children to raise. As Wallace is self-employed, she has not provided
with company retirement plans, for example, company 401(k). She often
complaints about that it is expensive to raise children. Since she is
not employed by another company, to have retirement funds is a difficult
thing for her. Appalachian Saving Project made her an offer that "if
she saved 600 dollars in United States saving bonds in a year, it would
match half of that".(Npr)
Wallace thought it was a great idea, because even if she has not enough
money to put in one month, she doesn't need to worry about that. Now
she has an account and save 50 dollars per month in it. This program is
designed to help women with low or relatively low incomes save for their
retired life and to alleviate the retirement crisis for them. Due to
the lagged economic status in Appalachian regions and discriminations,
there are an increasing number of women who are getting jobs without
comprehensive benefits, such as retirement plans. Instead of
consumption, it is an investment to have this saving account. Many
mothers put their children at first place and will not start to save
money for their retirement until their children are independent and do
not need their help any more. However, this program is encouraging them
to save money for their own need instead of their kids'. There are also
some complaints. Most of them complain that they don't have enough time
to attend the financial classes and money is always not enough to spare.
In a word, the road ahead of Appalachian Saving Project will not be
flat. All it wants is that women can realize they can save for
themselves and then save more.
Outside perspectives and stereotypes
Though mainstream Americans assume that Appalachian culture is homogeneous in the region, many distinct locales and sub-regions exist.
Over-generalizations of Appalachianites as impulsive, personalistic,
and individualistic "hillbillies" abound. Many scholars speculate that
these stereotypes have been created by powerful economic and political
forces to justify exploitation of Appalachian peoples.
For example, the same forces that put up barriers to prevent the
development of civic culture promulgate the image of Appalachian peoples
as politically apathetic, without a social consciousness,
and deserving of their disenfranchised state. In spite of the region's
desperate need for aid, weariness of being represented as "helpless,
dumb and poor" often creates an attitude of hostility among
Appalachianites.
Appalachians as a separate status group
It has been suggested that Appalachia constitutes a separate status group under the sociologist Max Weber's definition. The criteria are tradition, endogamy,
an emphasis on intimate interaction and isolation from outsiders,
monopolization of economic opportunities, and ownership of certain
commodities rather than others. Appalachia fulfills at least the first four, if not all five. Furthermore, mainstream Americans tend to see Appalachia as a separate subculture of low status. Based on these facts, it is reasonable to say that Appalachia constitutes a separate status group.
Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia is the study of environmental justice
– the interdisciplinary body of social science literature studying
theories of the environment and justice; environmental laws, policies,
and their implementations and enforcement; development and
sustainability; and political ecology – in relation to Coal mining in
Appalachia.
In the late 1990s, several Appalachian women, including Julia Bonds,
began to speak out against MTR and its effects on the people and
environment of mining communities. Research has shown that MTR is
causing "irreparable" environmental damage in Appalachia. The blasting
of mountaintops has polluted stream and water supplies have been
contaminated by toxic waste from coal processing called slurry ponds.
Scientists have noted an increase in respiratory and heart problems
among area residents, including lung cancer. Mortality rates and birth
defect rates are higher in the areas surrounding surface mining locations.
Coal mining production in Appalachia declined from 1990 to 2015,
but there is some debate over why. Cited factors include a rising demand
for clean energy, environmental policies and regulations set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and globalization. The number of coal mining jobs in the region remained steady from 2000 to 2010, but declined by 37% between 2011 and 2015.
Less production is responsible for much of this job loss, but improved
mining techniques like mountain-top removal also contributed.
Discourse around coal in the area has sparked a debate in academia over
whether it creates wealth or poverty. The core debate centers around
coal production's impact on local and national economy.
Background
Coal production
Appalachia is one of three coal-mining regions in the United States; the others are the Interior coal region, and the Western coal region, which includes the Powder River Basin. Eight states lie in the Appalachian coal region: Alabama, eastern Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
West Virginia is the largest coal-producing state in Appalachia, and
the second-largest coal-producing state in the United States, accounting
for about 11% of the nation's total coal production in 2014 (the
largest coal-producing state is Wyoming, which lies in the Western coal region and accounts for 40% of U.S. coal production).
Two other states in the Appalachian coal region, Kentucky and
Pennsylvania, account for 8% and 6% of U.S. coal production,
respectively.
The coal industry in Appalachia has changed over time. According to U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration
data, Central Appalachia—consisting of southern West Virginia, eastern
Kentucky, western Virginia, and eastern Tennessee—made up almost 29% of
U.S. coal production in the U.S. in 1990, but only about 13% by 2013. By contrast, coal production in Northern Appalachian has remained relatively stable, going from 16% in 1990 to 12.5% in 2013. As a result, "both regions account for nearly the same share of U.S. coal production" as of 2014.
In the Appalachian coal region, 72% of coal produced came from underground mines. This is a much higher percentage than in the Western coal region, where 90% of all coal produced comes from surface mines.
History
Historically, "the building of coal towns began in the 1880s, peaked in the 1920s, and virtually ended with the coming of the Great Depression" when the availability of other forms of energy—namely, oil, gas, and hydroelectricity—reduced demand for coal. The company town
was particularly dominant in southern Appalachia; in 1925, almost 80%
of West Virginia coal miners lived in company towns, while an average of
64.4% of coal miners in Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee
lived in company towns.
Impacts of coal mining in Appalachia
Strip mining in Barnesville, Ohio
Since 1995, the Appalachian region has produced about half of the United States' coal.
Although Appalachia has played a large role in contributing to the coal
supply of the United States, the communities surrounding such mining
practices have suffered immensely. Several studies have shown disparities between mining communities and non-mining communities in terms of public health, environmental degradation, pollution, and overall quality of life in Appalachia. Variations of surface coal mining techniques in the Appalachia include contour, area, high-wall, auger, and mountaintop removal mining (MTR).
Surface mining
The
damage caused by mountaintop removal strip mining has had a calculable
effect on the environment and communities in Appalachia. The resource
rich region remains economically deprived and suffers from the
externalities of coal mining, including the health problems caused by
coal pollution. The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is the federal agency tasked with regulating strip-mining under the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA). According to OSM, "[t]o the extent that low income populations
are prevalent in the coalfields, the impacts of mountaintop mining are
felt disproportionately by these environmental justice populations".
Most local residents are unable to see the extent of the damage
that has been caused by surface mining. Geologist Sean P. Bemis
investigated claims by local residents that the extent of the damage was
not easily visible. In interviews with the research team, former miner
Chuck Nelson stated that the extent of the destruction is only clearly
visible from a plane. Coalfield resident activist Maria Gunnoe gave a
similar account to the researchers, saying "I never realized it was so
bad. My first fly-over with South Wings [non-profit aviation
organization], and that right there is what really fired me up. When I
got off the plane that day, I cried all the way across the tarmac, all
the way home..." The Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed this in a 2009 report:
Despite the public scrutiny that
surface mining in mountainous areas has received, the public is limited
in its ability to access information on the scope of these operations -
their size, location, and how long they have been in operation - and on
what the mountain can be expected to look like after mining operations
have ceased and the land has been reclaimed
— Government Accountability Office (GAO), as quoted in Fighting King Coal
There are no official records of the total number of "disturbed
acres" that have resulted from surface mining, but geospatial analysis
has shown that between 1.05million and 1.28million acres of land and
more than 500 mountains in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and
Virginia have been surface mined.
Mountaintop removal
One
form of surface mining is mountaintop removal (MTR). This technique may
remove up to 800 to 1000 feet of mountaintops, to reach coal seams not
accessible by other surface mining techniques.
This practice was used on a small scale in the 1970's and became
heavily used in the 1990's. This extraction technique became popular
because the increased demand for high-grade low-sulfur coal, due to the Clean Air Act amendments passed in 1990.
The process of MTR begins by the deforestation of a chosen mountaintop,
then it is blasted with explosives. Next all of the excess soil and
rock or "spoil" is moved out, after the mining operation is complete
this will be replaced. Once this rock has been disturbed in this
process, swelling will take place. The spoil will expand by fifteen to
twenty five percent, due to air incorporation and voids. This excess spoil or "overburden"
then is dumped into nearby streams or valleys, this process is called a
valley fill. Since the boom in MTR usage as many as 500 mountaintops
have been destroyed and 2000 miles of waterways have been filled.
Mountaintop mining and valley fills can lead to large scale landscape
changes. These may include: fragmentation of forests, conversion of
habitats, and loss of large tracts and forested areas.
There also may be adverse effects to the people living in these
Appalachian mining communities Micheal Hendrix a researcher at Indiana
State University, in an interview with Yale, stated that “The number of
excess deaths every year comes to about 1,200 people who live in these
mining communities compared to other parts of Appalachia.” The diseases most prevalent in these MTR areas include: cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and COPD.
These are not only the occupational illnesses of miners but of the
general public. Birth defects especially heart defects risk goes up by
181% in MTR areas. Researchers are beginning to research smaller particulate matter as the cause of these illnesses, and increased mortality.
Effects on health
Several
studies have found that communities within the Appalachian region
surrounding coal mining practices disproportionately experience negative
health effects than communities with no coal mining. Such health disparities are largely attributed to the contamination of water and land associated with coal surface mining. MTR has increased salinity, metals, magnesium, and sulfates within Appalachian watersheds, threatening human health.
Sixty-three percent of stream beds near coalfields within the
Appalachia mountains have been identified as "impaired" due to high
toxic chemical and metal contamination. In West Virginia, 14 counties are experiencing water that exceeds safe drinking water standards by seven times more than non-mining counties. Combustion waste and fly ash from MTR lend to toxic dusts pollute the surrounding air and have contributed to increased levels of cancer, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, and kidney disease. Public health costs of pollution in the Appalachia are upwards of 75 billion dollars a year. In
a comparative analysis of health-related quality of residences in
counties with and without coal mining Appalachia "reported significantly
fewer healthy days for both physical and mental health". The same study highlights strong correlations between heavy coal mining counties and a greater risk of depression and severe psychological distress. Areas in the Appalachia with coal surface mining exhibit greater rates of adverse health effects and reduced self-rated health in comparison to the national average. In addition, studies from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have concluded a high "relationship between surface coal mining jobs and the prevalence of pneumoconiosis". Lastly, through examination of mortality rates, county-level poverty rates,
and coal mining within counties of the Appalachia, it was identified
that coal mining areas of Appalachia experienced higher mortality rates
then counties with no coal mining.
Environmental impacts
Mountaintop removal coal mining in Martin County, Kentucky
Coal surface mining has heavily altered the hydrological cycle and landscape of the Appalachia causing environmental degradation and contributing to ecosystem damages beyond repair.Surface coal mining in the Appalachian has contributed to the destruction of over 500 mountain tops.
In addition, it has led to the clearance of over 1 million acres of
forests and contributed to the degradation or permanent loss of over
12000 miles of streams crucial to the Appalachia watershed from 1985-
2001. Increased salinity and metal contamination of the Appalachian streams have led to toxic effects of fish and bird species.
Mountaintop removal, or MTR, is a type of surface mining that has
played a major role in negatively impacting the Appalachian environment.
When MTR is used, it causes much of the contaminants from the process
to be emptied into surrounding valleys which, oftentimes, make their way
into nearby streams. These wastes are disposed in "valley fills" which have collapsed and produced heavy flash floods in Appalachia.The Environmental Protection Agency approximates that between 1985 and
2001, over 700 miles worth of streams in the Appalachians were covered
by these "valley fills" due to mountaintop removal coal mining.
There is a debate about whether coal production is a source of
wealth or poverty in Appalachia. The U.S. geological survey and the U.S.
bureau of mines states that there is a coal-wealth paradox in
Appalachia. Appalachia is home to some of the largest coal mines yet the
average per capita income is only about 68% of the national per capita
income.
However, work done by Black and Sanders shows that between 1970 and
1980 the increase in coal production substantially boosted the pay of
low skilled workers in Appalachia and likely caused a decrease in income
inequality.
Although coal mining industries are often associated with
increased jobs and economic growth, this association does not hold for
Appalachia, where two-thirds of the counties have higher levels of unemployment than the nation and per capita personal wages falling 20% lower than the nation.
More specifically, in Hendryx and Zullig's comparative analysis of
Appalachia counties, those with coal mining had greater economic
disparities and more poverty than those without industry.The shift towards coal surface mining from underground mining led to a
50% decline in mining jobs from 1985 to 2005, and competition from cheap
natural gas also decreased demand for coal, leading some mines to close
or reduce extraction, which further increased unemployment. From 2014 to 2015, overall mining employment for Appalachia has dropped by 15.9%. A NASA study states that promises of beneficial post-mining development in the Appalachian region have yet to materialize.
A 2017 study found that neighborhoods closest to coal impoundments are
"slightly more likely to have higher rates of poverty and unemployment,
even after controlling for rurality, mining-related variables, and
spatial dependence".
Specific events
Buffalo Creek Disaster
In 1972, a slurry pond built by Pittson Coal Company collapsed. In what is known as the Buffalo Creek disaster
130 million gallons of sludge flooded Buffalo Creek. More recently, a
waste impoundment owned by Massey burst in Kentucky, flooding nearby
streams with 250 tons of coal slurry.
In the view of Jedediah Purdy, The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act
improved the quality of air and water for much of America, but created
"sacrificial zones" in America, including coal mining communities in
Appalachia, that hid the environmental effects of industry and
agriculture from people in suburbs but increased exposure to danger for
people who lived near sites of pollution.
These laws, along with the National Environmental Policy Act form the basis in law for regulation of coal mining, including mountaintop removal mining.
Regulations issued on the basis of these laws focus on issuing or
withholding permits for new mining operations; the regulations
themselves have been contested.
As of 2012, these laws did not take into account direct effects on
communities near mines nor economic or racial disparities in those
communities, and regulations and executive orders issued that attempted
to address such environmental justice concerns had been struck down, and
legal challenges based on potential effects on local communities
generally failed, since neither the law nor regulations were written to
address these concerns and judges ruled based on what the law and
regulations actually said.
The Affordable Care Act is a federal government health care law; it includes provisions that amend the Black Lung Benefits program.
The Black Lung Benefits program details the extent to which coal miners
have their medical coverage compensated by the federal government.
The ACA provisions that amend the Black Lung Benefits program are
commonly known as the Byrd Amendments taking its name from the late West
Virginia Congressman Robert Byrd. The Byrd Amendments are found in
Section 1556 of the ACA.
Among the many protections the Byrd Amendments provides coal miners, it
covers medical expenses for coal miners who worked at least 15 years
underground (or comparable surface mining) and who have a totally
disabling respiratory impairment. Further, it shifts the burden of proof
of disability due to "black lung disease" from these coal miners back
to the coal companies. Coalworker's pneumoconiosis or "black lung disease" can be a common health problem faced by retired coal miners.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
Early attempts to regulate strip-mining on the state level were
largely unsuccessful due to lax enforcement. The Appalachian Group to
Save the Land and the People was founded in 1965 to stop surface mining.
In 1968, Congress held the first hearings on strip mining. Ken Hechler
introduced the first strip-mining abolition bill in Congress in 1971.
Though this bill was not passed, provisions establishing a process to
reclaim abandoned strip mines and allowing citizens to sue regulatory
agencies became parts of SMCRA.
SMCRA also created the Office of Surface Mining, an agency within the Department of the Interior,
to promulgate regulations, to fund state regulatory and reclamation
efforts, and to ensure consistency among state regulatory programs.
Advocacy groups
The study of justice has often been defined by the theories of John Rawls.
Justice theory has focused on the principles by the which to distribute
goods in a society. The defining arguments of the environmental justice
movement were about patterns that violated some of these distributive
principles of justice theory. Several contemporary scholars have
developed theories of justice that are broader then the distributional theory of justice.
The study of justice theory, as applied to the environmental
justice, has primarily focused on "maldistribution". In other words,
this area of study has concentrated on the fact that poor communities,
indigenous communities and communities of color are often
disproportionately impacted by environmentally-related negative externalities and receive less environmental protection.
Environmental justice has been identified by scholars as a
movement that acknowledged the disproportionate effects of environmental
damage and toxic contamination on the poor and people of color. It has
also been noted that the race and class of the parties effects the
community's chances of success in enacting reforms. Environmental
justice groups were community grassroots organizations that combined
environmentalism with issues of race a class equality. These groups organized in opposition to the disproportionate threat mountain communities faced from health hazards like acid mine drainage.
Save Our Cumberland Mountains
Save
Our Cumberland Mountains (SOCM, pronounced "sock 'em") was founded when
thirteen residents of the Tennessee coalfields petitioned their state
government to make coal landholders pay a fair share of taxes. SOCM
later grew into one of most significant community organizations in the
region and went on to lead a major legislative campaign against
employers who replaced their permanent employees with long-term
temporary workers.
J.W. Bradley was the president of SOCM for its first five years.
He had worked in the deep mines and was outspoken about what he called
the "evils of strip mining." He believed in using litigation to pursue
reform. In 1974, SOCM established the East Tennessee Research
Corporation as a public interest law firm. By 1976, SOCM was trying to
ban strip mining and targeting individual strip mining operations.
An attorney who worked with SOCM in the 1970s has written that
very few people of color were involved with SOCM in the early years. He
highlights the importance of regional organizations like the Highlander
Research and Education Center that "seek to bring together diverse
communities to share their knowledge about the inner dynamics of
environmental justice issues".
Mountain Justice
Mountain Justice began in 2005 as a summer-long campaign for the abolition of MTM.
The organization was started after a 2004 mining accident in Virginia. A
three year old was killed when a boulder rolled off a MTM site above
his home.
The first MJ meeting took place in Knoxville, Tennessee and included
activists from Coal River Mountain Watch (CRMW), the Sierra Club,
Appalachian Voices, and Katuah Earth First (KEF!). Their mission
statement includes a commitment to non-violence.
Coal pollution mitigation, often called clean coal, is a
series of systems and technologies that seek to mitigate the pollution
and other environmental effects normally associated with the burning
(though not the mining or processing) of coal, which is widely regarded as the dirtiest of the common fuels for industrial processes and power generation.
Approaches attempt to mitigate emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases, and radioactive materials, that arise from the use of coal, mainly for electrical power generation, using various technologies. Historical efforts to reduce coal pollution focused on flue-gas desulfurization
starting in the 1850s and clean burn technologies. These efforts have
been very successful in countries with strong environmental regulation,
where emissions of acid-rain causing compounds and particulates have
been reduced by up to 90% since 1995. More recent developments include carbon capture and storage, which pumps and stores CO2 emissions underground, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) involve coal gasification, which provides a basis for increased efficiency and lower cost in capturing CO2 emissions.
Of the 22 clean coal demonstration projects funded by the U.S.
Department of Energy since 2003, none are in operation as of February
2017, having been abandoned or delayed due to capital budget overruns or
discontinued because of excessive operating expenses.
Regulations
Since the 1970s, various policy and regulatory measures have driven coal pollution mitigation. In the US, the Clean Air Act
was the primary driving force in reducing particulate emissions and
acid rain from coal combustion. As regulations have increased the demand
for coal pollution mitigation technologies, costs have fallen and
performance has improved.
The widespread deployment of pollution-control equipment to reduce sulfur dioxide, NOx and dust emissions is just one example that brought cleaner air to many countries. The desire to tackle rising CO2 emissions to address climate change later introduced Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
Loan guarantees and tax incentives have a long history of use in Australia, EU countries, and the US to encourage the introduction of coal pollution mitigation and other technologies to reduce environmental impact.
Carbon sequestration technology has yet to be tested on a large scale and may not be safe or successful. Sequestered CO2
may eventually leak up through the ground, may lead to unexpected
geological instability or may cause contamination of aquifers used for
drinking water supplies.
As a quarter of world energy consumption in 2019 was from coal, reaching the carbon dioxide reduction targets of the Paris Agreement will require modifications to how coal is used.
Measurement of pollution and availability of pollution data
In
some countries, such as the EU, smokestack measurements from individual
power plants must be published. Whereas in some countries, such as Turkey, they are only reported to the government not the public. However, since the late 2010s satellite measurements of some pollutants have been available.
Combustion By-products
By-products
of coal combustion are compounds which are released into the atmosphere
as a result of burning coal. Coal includes contaminants such as sulfur
compounds and non-combustible minerals. When coal is burned, the
minerals become ash (i.e. particulate matter or PM) and the sulfur forms sulfur dioxide (SO2). Since air is mostly nitrogen, combustion of coal often leads to production of nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are primary causes of acid rain.
For many years—before greenhouse gasses were widely understood to be a
threat—it was thought that these by-products were the only drawback to
using coal. These by-products are still a problem, but they have been
greatly diminished in most advanced countries due to clean air
regulations.
It is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM) emissions from the coal-burning process. For example, various techniques are used in a coal preparation plant to reduce the amount of non-combustible matter (i.e. ash) in the coal prior to burning. During combustion, fluidized bed combustion is used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. After burning, particulate matter (i.e. ash and dust) can be reduced using an electrostatic precipitator and sulfur dioxide emissions can be further reduced with flue-gas desulfurization. Trace amounts of radionuclides are more difficult to remove.
Coal-fired power plants are the largest aggregate source of the toxic heavy metal mercury:
50 tons per year come from coal power plants out of 150 tons emitted
nationally in the US and 5000 tons globally. However, according to the
United States Geological Survey, the trace amounts of mercury in coal
by-products do not pose a threat to public health.
A study in 2013 found that mercury found in the fish in the Pacific
Ocean could possibly be linked to coal-fired plants in Asia.
Potential financial impact
Whether
carbon capture and storage technology is adopted worldwide will
"...depend less on science than on economics. Cleaning coal is very
expensive."
Cost of converting a single coal-fired power plant
Conversion of a conventional coal-fired power plant is done by injecting the CO 2 into ammonium carbonate after which it is then transported and deposited underground (preferably in soil beneath the sea).
This injection process however is by far the most expensive. Besides
the cost of the equipment and the ammonium carbonate, the coal-fired
power plant also needs to use 30% of its generated heat to do the
injection (parasitic load). A test-setup has been done in the American
Electric Power Mountaineer coal-burning power plant.
Newly
built coal-fired power plants can be made to immediately use
gasification of the coal prior to combustion. This makes it much easier
to separate off the CO 2
from the exhaust fumes, making the process cheaper. This gasification
process is done in new coal-burning power plants such as the
coal-burning power plant at Tianjin, called "GreenGen".
As of 2019 some argue that "with the right policy initiatives and
market design" gasification with CCS would be cost effective for some
coal plants.
Politics
Australia
In Australia, carbon capture and storage was often referred to by then Prime MinisterKevin Rudd as a possible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (The previous Prime MinisterJohn Howard had stated that nuclear power was a better alternative, as CCS technology may not prove to be economically feasible.)
Canada
In 2014
SaskPower a provincial-owned electric utility finished renovations on
Boundary Dam's boiler number 3 making it the world's first
post-combustion carbon capture storage facility.
The renovation project ended up costing a little over $1.2 billion and
can scrub out CO2 and toxins from up to 90 percent of the flue gas that
it emits.
China
Since 2006, China releases more CO 2 than any other country. Researchers in China are focusing on increasing efficiency of burning coal so they can get more power out of less coal.
It is estimated that new high efficiency power plants could reduce CO2
emission by 7% because they won't have to burn as much coal to get the
same amount of power.
Japan had adopted prior pilot projects on IGCC coal power plants in the early-1990s and late-2000s.
United States
In the United States, "clean coal" was mentioned by former President George W. Bush on several occasions, including his 2007 State of the Union Address.
Bush's position was that carbon capture and storage technologies should
be encouraged as one means to reduce the country's dependence on
foreign oil.
During the US Presidential campaign for 2008, both candidates John McCain and Barack Obama
expressed interest in the development of CCS technologies as part of an
overall comprehensive energy plan. The development of pollution
mitigation technologies could also create export business for the United
States or any other country working on it.
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act,
signed in 2009 by President Obama, allocated $3.4 billion for advanced
carbon capture and storage technologies, including demonstration
projects.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
has said that "we should strive to have new electricity generation come
from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables", and former
Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu
has said that "It is absolutely worthwhile to invest in carbon capture
and storage", noting that even if the U.S. and Europe turned their backs
on coal, developing nations like India and China would likely not.
The Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management is part of the United States Department of Energy. It sponsors research into "clean coal" technology.
Criticism of the approach
Environmentalists such as Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's
Global Warming and Energy Program, believes that the term "clean coal"
is misleading: "There is no such thing as clean coal and there never
will be. It's an oxymoron." The Sierra Club's Coal Campaign has launched a site refuting the clean coal statements and advertising of the coal industry.
Complaints focus on the environmental impacts of coal extraction, high costs to sequester carbon, and uncertainty of how to manage end result pollutants and radionuclides. In reference to sequestration of carbon, concerns exist about whether geologic storage of CO2 in reservoirs, aquifers, etc., is indefinite/permanent.
The palaeontologist and influential environmental activist Tim Flannery made the assertion that the concept of clean coal might not be viable for all geographical locations.
Critics also believe that the continuing construction of
coal-powered plants (whether or not they use carbon sequestration
techniques) encourages unsustainable mining practices for coal, which
can strip away mountains, hillsides, and natural areas. They also point
out that there can be a large amount of energy required and pollution
emitted in transporting the coal to the power plants.
Greenpeace
is a major opponent of the concept, because they view emissions and
wastes as not being avoided but instead transferred from one waste stream to another. According to Greenpeace USA's Executive Director Phil Radford
speaking in 2012, "even the industry figures it will take 10 or 20
years to arrive, and we need solutions sooner than that. We need to
scale up renewable energy; 'clean coal' is a distraction from that."
Clean coal
The term Clean Coal in modern society often refers to the carbon capture and storage process. The term has been used by advertisers, lobbyists, and politicians such as Donald Trump.
Prior terminology
The
industry term "clean coal" is increasingly used in reference to carbon
capture and storage, an advanced theoretical process that would
eliminate or significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from
coal-based plants and permanently sequester them. More generally, the
term has been found in modern usage to describe technologies designed to
enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal
extraction, preparation, and use.
U.S. Senate Bill 911 in April, 1987, defined clean coal technology as follows:
"The term clean coal technology means any
technology...deployed at a new or existing facility which will achieve
significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of
nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation of
electricity."
Before being adopted in this fashion, historically "clean coal" was
used to refer to clean-burning coal with low levels of impurities,
though this term faded after rates of domestic coal usage dropped. The
term appeared in a speech to mine workers in 1918, in context indicating
coal that was "free of dirt and impurities." In the early 20th century, prior to World War II, clean coal (also called "smokeless coal") generally referred to anthracite and high-grade bituminous coal, used for cooking and home heating.
Clean coal technology is a collection of technologies being developed in attempts to lessen the negative environmental impact of coal energy generation and to mitigate worldwide climate change. When coal is used as a fuel source, the gaseous emissions generated by the thermal decomposition of the coal include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
mercury, and other chemical byproducts that vary depending on the type
of the coal being used. These emissions have been established to have a
negative impact on the environment and human health, contributing to
acid rain, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. As a result, clean
coal technologies are being developed to remove or reduce pollutant
emissions to the atmosphere. Some of the techniques that would be used
to accomplish this include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification (see also IGCC), improved technology for treating flue gases to remove pollutants to increasingly stringent levels and at higher efficiency, carbon capture and storage technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas and dewatering lower rank coals (brown coals) to improve the calorific value, and thus the efficiency of the conversion into electricity. Concerns exist regarding the economic viability of these technologies and the timeframe of delivery, potentially high hidden economic costs in terms of social and environmental damage, and the costs and viability of disposing of removed carbon and other toxic matter.
In its original usage, the term "Clean Coal" was used to refer to
technologies that were designed to reduce emission of pollutants
associated with burning coal, such as washing coal at the mine. This
step removes some of the sulfur and other contaminants, including rocks
and soil. This makes coal cleaner and cheaper to transport. More
recently, the definition of clean coal has been expanded to include
carbon capture and storage.
Clean coal technology usually addresses atmospheric problems resulting
from burning coal. Historically, the primary focus was on SO2 and NOx, the most important gases in causation of acid rain, and particulates which cause visible air pollution and have deleterious effects on human health.
Technology
Several different technological methods are available for the purpose of carbon capture as demanded by the clean coal concept:
Pre-combustion capture – This involves gasification of a feedstock (such as coal) to form synthesis gas, which may be shifted to produce a H2 and CO2-rich gas mixture, from which the CO2 can be efficiently captured and separated, transported, and ultimately sequestered, This technology is usually associated with Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle process configurations.
Post-combustion capture – This refers to capture of CO2 from exhaust gases of combustion processes.
Oxy-fuel combustion – Fossil fuels such as coal are burned in a mixture of recirculated flue gas and oxygen, rather than in air, which largely eliminates nitrogen from the flue gas enabling efficient, low-cost CO2 capture.
The Kemper County IGCC Project, a proposed 582 MWcoal gasification-based power plant, was expected to use pre-combustion capture of CO2 to capture 65% of the CO2 the plant produces, which would have been utilized and geologically sequestered in enhanced oil recovery operations.
However, after many delays and a cost runup to $7.5 billion (triple
the initial budget), the coal gasification project was abandoned and as
of late 2017, Kemper is under construction as a cheaper natural gas power plant.
The Saskatchewan Government's Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture and Sequestration Demonstration Project will use post-combustion, amine-based scrubber technology to capture 90% of the CO2 emitted by Unit 3 of the power plant; this CO2 will be pipelined to and utilized for enhanced oil recovery in the Weyburn oil fields.
An oxyfuel CCS power plant operation processes the exhaust gases so as to separate the CO2 so that it may be stored or sequestered
An early example of a coal-based plant using (oxy-fuel) carbon-capture technology is Swedish company Vattenfall’s Schwarze Pumpe power station located in Spremberg, Germany, built by German firm Siemens, which went on-line in September 2008. The facility captures CO2 and acid rain producing pollutants, separates them, and compresses the CO2 into a liquid. Plans are to inject the CO2
into depleted natural gas fields or other geological formations.
Vattenfall opines that this technology is considered not to be a final
solution for CO2 reduction in the atmosphere, but provides an
achievable solution in the near term while more desirable alternative
solutions to power generation can be made economically practical.
Other examples of oxy-combustion carbon capture are in progress. Callide Power Station
has retrofitted a 30-MWth existing PC-fired power plant to operate in
oxy-fuel mode; in Ciuden, Spain, Endesa has a newly built 30-MWth
oxy-fuel plant using circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC)
technology.
Babcock-ThermoEnergy's Zero Emission Boiler System (ZEBS) is
oxy-combustion-based; this system features near 100% carbon-capture and
according to company information virtually no air-emissions.
Other carbon capture and storage technologies include those that dewater low-rank coals. Low-rank coals
often contain a higher level of moisture content which contains a lower
energy content per tonne. This causes a reduced burning efficiency and
an increased emissions output. Reduction of moisture from the coal prior
to combustion can reduce emissions by up to 50 percent.
Demonstration projects in the United States
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) began conducting a joint program with the industry and State
agencies to demonstrate clean coal technologies large enough for
commercial use. The program, called the Clean Coal Technology &
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), has had a number of successes that
have reduced emissions and waste from coal-based electricity generation. The National Energy Technology Laboratory has administered three rounds of CCPI funding and the following projects were selected during each round:
These programs have helped to meet regulatory challenges by
incorporating pollution control technologies into a portfolio of
cost-effective regulatory compliance options for conventional and
developmental coal-fired power plants. This portfolio has positioned the
U.S. as a top exporter of clean coal technologies such as those used
for SOx, NOx and mercury, and more recently for carbon capture,
consistent with a goal of deploying advanced coal-based power systems in
commercial service with improved efficiency and environmental
performance to meet increasingly stringent environmental regulations and
market demands, leading to widespread, global deployment which will
contribute to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The
DOE continues its programs and initiatives through regional
sequestration partnerships, a carbon sequestration leadership forum and
the Carbon Sequestration Core Program, a CCS research and development
program.
According to a report by the assistant secretary for fossil
energy at the U.S. Department of Energy, clean coal technology has paid
measurable dividends. Technological innovation introduced through the
CCT Program now provides consumers cost-effective, clean, coal-based
energy.
Coal, which is primarily used for the generation of electricity, is the second largest domestic contributor to carbon dioxide emissions in the US.
The public has become more concerned about global warming which has led
to new legislation. The coal industry has responded by running
advertising touting clean coal in an effort to counter negative
perceptions and claiming more than $50 billion towards the development
and deployment of "traditional" clean coal technologies over the past 30
years; and promising $500 million towards carbon capture and storage
research and development.
There is still concern about clean coal technology being perceived as
more environmentally friendly than it is, and the term "Clean Coal" has
been used as an example of "greenwashing".
According to the Sierra Club, "Despite the industry's hype, there's no
such thing as 'clean coal.' But new technologies and policies can help
reduce coal plants' deadly emissions."
Conjunction with enhanced oil recovery and other applications;
commercial-scale CCS is currently being tested in the U.S. and other
countries.
Proposed CCS sites are subjected to extensive investigation and
monitoring to avoid potential hazards, which could include leakage of
sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere, induced geological
instability, or contamination of water sources such as oceans and
aquifers used for drinking water supplies.
The Great Plains Synfuels plant supports the technical
feasibility of carbon dioxide sequestration. Carbon dioxide from the
coal gasification is shipped to Canada where it is injected into the
ground to aid in oil recovery. A drawback of the carbon sequestration
process is that it is expensive compared to traditional processes.
_(cropped).jpg)
