Many people would have you believe that coal is a cheap safe form of energy production. That is only if you ignore the costs, both human and environmental, that coal burning produces.

A 2001 EU-funded study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy, over the decade from 1995 to 2005 found that the cost of producing electricity from coal would double over its present value, if external costs were taken into account. These external costs include damage to the environment and to human health from airborne particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI and arsenic emissions produced by coal.

- Coal and coal waste products (including fly ash, bottom ash and boiler slag) release approximately 20 toxic-release chemicals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, vanadium, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, selenium and radium, which are dangerous if released into the environment. While these substances are trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released

- Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes which, if released into the environment, may lead to radioactive contamination. Coal plants emit radiation in the form of radioactive fly ash, which is inhaled and ingested by neighbours, and incorporated into crops.

- Historically, coal mining has been a very dangerous activity, and the list of historical coal mining disasters is long. The principal hazards are mine wall failures and vehicle collisions; underground mining hazards include suffocation, gas poisoning, roof collapse and gas explosions. Chronic lung diseases, such as pneumoconiosis (black lung) were once common in miners, leading to reduced life expectancy. In some mining countries black lung is still common, with 4,000 new cases of black lung every year in the US (4 percent of workers annually) and 10,000 new cases every year in China (0.2 percent of workers). Rates may be higher than reported in some regions.

- In New York State winds deposit mercury from the coal-fired power plants of the Midwest, contaminating the waters of the Catskill Mountains. Mercury is concentrated up the food chain, as it is converted into methylmercury, a toxic compound which harms both wildlife and people who consume freshwater fish. The mercury is consumed by worms, which are eaten by fish, which are eaten by birds (including bald eagles).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry

Did you mention radioactivity? (yes, I see that you did)

On practically every study conducted recently, solar and wind are cheaper per unit generated than coal or natural gas, and baseload is no longer an issue as there are plenty of storage options available.  Considering that the price of renewable energy is projected to fall even more, any government considering coal fired power generation must have rocks in their collective skulls. The costs need to be considered over the lifetime of the project.

Apart from that, there are many more jobs in Solar PV installation and maintenance per million units generated than there are in  coal mining and generation combined.

A friend of mine has gone completely off the grid, using solar and batteries. For the rare occasions where there is insufficient power, he has a diesel generator. 

I am informed that it's about half the price of grid electricity (Qld) when amortised over 10 years.   

When the subsidies end, I can imagine that many more people will follow suit.

As I've always said, the best argument against fossil fuels and in particular, coal, should be made against how dirty it is.

I believe in AGW but I don't catastrophise what will happen.

Coal, on the other hand is filthy and if the true cost was applied against it, it would not be competitive.

I still think we need a mix of nuclear and rewnewables.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 12^th, 2018 at 12:19pm:

Many people would have you believe that coal is a cheap safe form of energy production. That is only if you ignore the costs, both human and environmental, that coal burning produces.

Many fkkheaded greenies would have you believe that coal can be shut down and solar can just take over, but is only if you don't need electricity after 6 o'clock or if this country can find over $2 trillion to pay for batteries.

So remember kids, greenies are lying cretins and should be ignored, unless you want to be a third world sh1t hole.


Look are technologically advance countries, like Japan & Korea,(no not the socialist utopia) and see where they are heading for their base load power, not fkken solar or wind that is for sure.


Immediate 40% reduction in CO2 output using Australian coal and HELE power station and yes they are a lot smarter than you. Pity we won't be letting the Indians do the same.


If you belie the answer is solar then you are a rolled gold cretin.  :) :) :)

"Coal and coal waste products -While these substances are trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released.21"

From the underlying paper - "The potential benefits and threats of these released materials will someday be of such significance that they should not now be ignored"

Potential benefits? I thought it was all downside.

Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes which, if released into the environment, may lead to radioactive contamination.

So much uncertainty.

""Historically, coal mining has been a very dangerous activity"

Agreed. And yet miners still do it. Even protesting closing mines.

"In New York State winds deposit mercury from the coal-fired power plants of the Midwest, contaminating the waters of the Catskill Mountains. Mercury is concentrated up the food chain, as it is converted into methylmercury, a toxic compound which harms both wildlife and people who consume freshwater fish. The mercury is consumed by worms, which are eaten by fish, which are eaten by birds (including bald eagles). "

And further -
"Ocean fish account for the majority of human exposure to methylmercury; the full range of sources of methylmercury in ocean fish is not well understood."

Remember the Hazelwood coal mine fire of 2014?

The fire burned for 45 days

fire broke out inside the Hazelwood open cut mine.

By Monday, fire resources were stretched and the seriousness of the mine fire was becoming apparent, specifically the threat to electricity generation.

Within days Deputy Premier Peter Ryan was warning that the fire could burn for weeks.

It was becoming clear just how difficult it would be to put this fire out.

It also became apparent just how poor the air quality was.

The EPA brought in portable equipment to improve air quality testing as local residents began to complain about suffering adverse health effects from the fire.

Residents were warned to stay indoors, if possible, as Fire Services Commissioner Craig Lapsley warned the blaze had the potential to become Victoria's "most significant fire".

Children were bussed to nearby schools so they could safely play outdoors.

A health assessment centre was opened in town to evaluate the health complaints of local residents.

At this point Mr Lapsley acknowledged they were considering evacuating the whole town but had deemed it unnecessary.

But three weeks after the fire started some vulnerable residents were advised to leave town for their own safety.

Pregnant women, children under five, the elderly and those with pre-existing heart or lung complaints were told to leave South Morwell, the suburb closest to the mine.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-02/hazelwood-coal-mine-fire-morwell/5711564

Have you ever heard of natural burning coal, peat? What mitigation strategies are in place?

How many died?

"But in a statement, it also said its own investigations into official birth deaths and marriages figures showed there was no increase in deaths during the time of the fire.

    "We have also received official data from the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages on deaths in Morwell, Churchill, Moe and Traralgon from January to June in the years 2009 to 2014 inclusive.

    The data shows no increase in deaths in Morwell during the period of the Hazelwood open cut coal mine fire compared with the same period in previous years.""

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/hazelwood-mine-fire-pollution-blamed-for-11-deaths/5740824

lee wrote on Feb 13^th, 2018 at 8:35pm:

Have you ever heard of natural burning coal, peat? What mitigation strategies are in place? How many died? "But in a statement, it also said its own investigations into official birth deaths and marriages figures showed there was no increase in deaths during the time of the fire.     "We have also received official data from the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages on deaths in Morwell, Churchill, Moe and Traralgon from January to June in the years 2009 to 2014 inclusive.     The data shows no increase in deaths in Morwell during the period of the Hazelwood open cut coal mine fire compared with the same period in previous years."" http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/hazelwood-mine-fire-pollution-blamed-for-11-deaths/5740824

Id say Lee's paychecks probably come from the coal industry.

Pho Huc wrote on Feb 14^th, 2018 at 2:53am:

lee wrote on Feb 13th, 2018 at 8:35pm: Have you ever heard of natural burning coal, peat? What mitigation strategies are in place? How many died? "But in a statement, it also said its own investigations into official birth deaths and marriages figures showed there was no increase in deaths during the time of the fire.     "We have also received official data from the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages on deaths in Morwell, Churchill, Moe and Traralgon from January to June in the years 2009 to 2014 inclusive.     The data shows no increase in deaths in Morwell during the period of the Hazelwood open cut coal mine fire compared with the same period in previous years."" http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/hazelwood-mine-fire-pollution-blamed-for-11-deaths/5740824 Id say Lee's paychecks probably come from the coal industry.

You could say anything you want. Without evidence it means nothing. How is the study of the sailings of the Arctic going? The one that paper you quoted said couldn't have happened.

Pho Huc wrote on Feb 14^th, 2018 at 2:53am:

Id say Lee's paychecks probably come from the coal industry.

I agree  ;)

Some of you may remember the New Zealand coal mine disaster in 2010 where 29 people were killed

The Pike River Mine disaster was a coal mining accident that began on 19 November 2010 in the Pike River Mine,

A methane explosion occurred in the mine at approximately 3:44 p.m. . At the time of the explosion 31 miners and contractors were present in the mine. Two miners managed to walk from the mine; they were treated for moderate injuries and released from Greymouth Hospital the next day. The remaining 16 miners and 13 contractors, often referred to as the twenty-nine, were believed to be at least 1,500 metres (4,900 ft) from the mine's entrance.

Following a second explosion on 24 November at 2:37 p.m., the 29 remaining men were believed by police to be dead. Police Superintendent Gary Knowles, officer in command of the rescue operation (Operation Pike) said he believed that "based on that explosion, no one survived." A third explosion occurred at 3:39 p.m. on 26 November 2010, and a fourth explosion occurred just before 2 p.m. on 28 November 2010. According to the new mine owner, Solid Energy, the bodies of the 29 miners who died there may never be recovered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_River_Mine_disaster

yes. Mining is a dangerous industry. Do you have a point?