"The KyotoProtocols, agreed to by many Nations, would benefit the world's environment. Choose One Type of Fossil Fuel currently used and outline the possible advantages and Disadvantages of reducing the use of that fuel."

Regardless of all this, however, are the long term effects of burning Coal. While the ‘post-combustion’ method appears to be affective, it is very expensive, and subsequently not the only method used. Regrettably, other, cheaper alternatives may not filter out as much pollutant and so, while there appears to be an improvement in the amount of chemicals in the atmosphere, this is but a short term solution. Carbon Dioxide is not only released into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels, it is also naturally released by humans and other animals, plants and even through the soil. Previously, the environment would balance this input of C02 as plants use it up during the day and turn it into oxygen, or it is absorbed by rain or ocean. Now, on the other hand, there is simply too much input and not enough to take it out again. This combined with the fact that Carbon-dioxide has a much longer residency time than other fossil fuels, means that reducing its pollutants a little, will not be sufficient enough when thinking about the future. In spite of of all of these known facts, Coal is still the most popular source of energy simply because of its extensive availability, especially in the USA and Russia where coal fields are in abundance. “The United States reserves of coal are estimated to be about 31% of the total world deposits, about 3.2 trillion short tons of the estimated reserves between nine and twelve trillion tons.” This accessibility means that coal is also one of the cheaper fuels to acquire. It is estimated that by 2030, coal demand will rise by 53% until it covers 45% of the worlds power needs. As a result of this immense availability, Coal prices are much lower than those of other fossil fuels such as Crude oil or Natural gas. These two vital factors make Coal an energy resource that most are unwilling to give up, they are not, nonetheless, the only reasons. The Coal Industry generates millions of jobs, from the mining sector to the Corporation heads. Cutting back on coal as a fuel would mean cutting back on these jobs, a task that nobody is eager to take on.

If the use of coal as an energy source is reduced, there needs to be a replacement source for that energy and the most logical replacement would be a renewable source such as hydroelectric power, solar power, wind power or Nuclear energy. Using Oil, petroleum or natural gas would be completely pointless and almost as bad as using coal. That said, a significant number of jobs would be lost by using these renewable sources. An area of the coal industry that would experience considerable job loss would be the transportation sector, as most renewable/natural sources of energy are converted to energy at the site of the source. With coal, this is not always possible and so many different modes of transportation are used, the first and foremost being trains, with the coal being transported cross country to the place of burning. This is an inconvenient and often time-consuming method. Sometimes the coal is transported as coal slurry, in pipelines built above ground and needless to say, this method serves as a great disturbance to the surrounding ecosystem. Converting the coal to electricity on site is another process used, the problem with this, however, is that the energy then needs to be moved to other locations for use, and when electricity is transported it loses a great deal of its energy, thus, a lot more coal is needed for the same amount of final product. Neither three of these methods are very cost effective, so money would be saved in that particular area should the energy source be replaced with a renewable, natural one.

“Coal comes from ancient plants buried over millions of years in Earth’s crust”, thus, making use of the natural resources available to us, coal and other fossil fuels like it will be available for a longer period of time. Then again, natural resources require technology and machinery to turn it into electricity. The fuel in itself costs nothing to obtain, it is freely available everywhere, harnessing the resource and extracting the energy from it is an altogether different process. Solar panels and turbines are expensive pieces of equipment to begin with, add to this the fact that natural resources are fickle resources and the price gets higher. “At a wind speed of 25 Miles per hour, a 12 ft. propeller plus attached generator optimistically produces only 5 kilowatts – the power to generate one electric range.” The solar panels used for solar energy are also large but weak. For both of these energy sources it would take hefty amounts of land to generate an amount of electricity of any real use. Also, because the energy is being generated from the environment, it is unreliable and useful only in certain weather conditions and locations. What good is a solar panel in the rain or at night? What happens to a hydro electric dam in the event of a violent storm or flood? On the other hand, the equipment would require a “mass of labour for maintenance”. Making up for some of the jobs lost with the reduction in coal use. Another source of clean, but not natural or renewable energy, is Nuclear Power. This controversial electricity source has its opponents for obvious reasons. Nuclear power is thought to be unstable and not worth the risk of exposure or explosion. However, scientists say, that nuclear plants are a perfectly safe working environment and that “far more people have died and been injured due to fires and explosions in coalmines, oil refineries and natural gas containers”. A lot of money is spent in Nuclear plants, ensuring that everything is in working order and all employees are safely protected, this, combined with the big “what if”, are usually what turns people away from this particular energy resource. Nevertheless, Nuclear energy does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide therefore, contributing to global warming is not an issue. It is also extremely efficient, as huge amounts of energy can be had from small amounts of fuel, effectively resulting in small amounts of waste.

Reducing the use of coal, as outlined in the Kyoto Protocols would be enormously beneficial for the environment and for future generations, however, it would also bring with it huge ramifications for the present generations. People are used to a certain way of living, and any cut-backs or compromises are not usually welcome. Loss of jobs, along with the probability of paying more for their electricity, at least for a while, are circumstances that most citizens will not welcome. It is obvious that in order to help the environment, and effectively ourselves, certain sacrifices have to be made. The renewable choice is the right choice, but coal, is definitely the more appealing one. In the end, it must be remembered that our sources of fossil fuels are not infinite and eventually, whether we choose to or not, alternate energy sources will have to be tapped into. We should use the time we have now, to improve on and perfect renewable resources, instead of shunning them because of their little “inconveniences”.

1756 Words

Bibliography

Books

• Cameron, P.D., Zillman, D. (Ed). (c2001). Kyoto: From Principles to Practise.  The Hague; London; New York: Kluwer Law International.

• Grubb, M., Vrolijk, C. & Brack, D. (1999). Kyoto Protocol: A Guide & Assessment. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, energy & Environmental Programme and Earthscan.

• Thomas, L. (2002). Coal Geology. Chichester, West Sussex, England: Wiley.

• Elliot, D. (2003), Energy, Society and Environment: Technology for a sustainable future. (2nd Ed). London; New York: Routledge.

• Long, D. (c2004). Global Warming. New York: Facts on File.

Electronic Resources

• University of Arizona, (n.d), Energy, The Pros and Cons of Alternative Fuels. Retrieved 1st September 2004 from:  

• Earth Science Australia, (n.d), Coal and Gas Hydrate Resources. Retrieved 1st September 2004 from:  

• World Energy Council. (2004). Global and Regional Coal Demand Perspectives for 2030 and Beyond. Retrieved 1st September 2004 from:   

• Uranium Information Centre Limited. (2003). Global Warming. Retrieved 1st September, 2004 from:   

• Air University Review. (2002). Coal a Long-term energy Alternative. Retrieved 1st September 2004 from:

• Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. (2004). Coal. Retrieved 1st September 2004 from:  

• National Energy Foundation. (n.d). Background: How does burning coal affect the environment?. Retrieved 1st September 2004 from:

---