In recent years, the coal mining industry has come under attack from a variety of persons for various reasons. Many of the complaints of environmentalists and others are valid. But I would like to point out several of the benefits of coal mining.
Useful Products and Byproducts of Coal
Thousands of products are made out of coal and coal byproducts. For example, coal is used to produce many useful chemicals. Coal is not just used to generate heat and electricity, although the biggest use of coal is for those purposes. A webpage on The World Coal Association website is one source that lists a few of the thousands of uses of coal. A webpage on Reference.com is another.
Electricity and Heating Benefits of Coal Mining
Much electricity is still generated by coal, and historically coal has been the #1 energy source for producing electricity in the United States. Cheaper natural gas and oil prices have reduced coal's share in the
energy market, but according to a United States Energy Administration webpage,
in 2015 coal and natural gas each accounted for 33% of the energy share
in electricity generation in the United States. Coal is expected to
drop to #2 behind natural gas when 2016 data becomes available, but coal
remains a major energy source for electricity generation in the
United States.
Also, over the centuries that coal has been mined, the coal produced has generated heat to keep many homes and businesses warm. This has been done through fireplaces, coal stoves, coal furnaces, and radiators with steam heated by coal.
In addition, coal converted into coke has played a major role in the steel industry. Much coal was also used in the past for train locomotives, as well as steamboats.
Jobs and Company Towns
Coal mining generated a huge number of jobs directly, and many more indirectly through other companies and individuals that provided goods and services to miners and their families. In the rural Appalachian coal fields that were sparsely settled before coal mining companies brought people in, the coal companies actually built towns.
They built houses for miners, schools, company stores, churches, recreation centers, hospitals, and other businesses that provided goods and services to the miners and their families. In many cases the facilities provided to the miners were comparable to or better than those that the typical person in rural areas of the United States had at the time.
Coal has provided hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States
over the years, as well as hundreds of thousands more in support
industries related to coal. In southeastern Kentucky, where I am from,
coal mining has been the biggest employer for a century. Coal mining
companies brought huge numbers of immigrants to the area to mine the
coal, and provided all the basic necessities for them (food, shelter,
clothing, etc.) via the company towns they built.
Closing Thoughts
As I close, I do want to make it clear that though the benefits of coal mining may have far exceeded its drawbacks during the centuries of mining, there have been problems. Coal mining has historically been a dangerous job. Pollution is generated in its production, transportation, and consumption.
Coal mining companies often used unethical methods to acquire land and/or mineral rights on land. And there have been other problems over the years, such as labor disputes that sometimes became violent.
But, despite the problems, I think it is important to remember the very important role that coal mining has played historically in this country (and the world). Coal mining and the coal produced by it provided the fuel that enabled the Industrial Revolution to take place. Without coal mining, several things that we perhaps basically take for granted might not have happened as quickly or as well as they did: steel production, locomotives and railroads, electricity generation, and a huge number of products that we perhaps take for granted.
It may be time for coal mining to decline, and in another generation it may virtually cease if renewable fuels work out well. But let's not forget the positive role that coal played in our past and to a large degree still plays in our present.
And who knows? Maybe in another generation we'll find currently unforeseen environmental problems with renewable fuels like solar power. Much coal remains in the ground in various places, and improvements in methods of mining, transportation, and usage can potentially make it a much cleaner fuel in the future than it has been in the past.
Disclosure: Although
I am not a practicing mining engineer, I do hold a mining engineering
degree from the University of Kentucky, worked two summers in the mining
industry during college, and some of my relatives worked in the mining
industry, including both my father and paternal grandfather who worked
as mining engineers.
Note: This article was last modified on January 23, 2017 when I added the picture of the "Kentucky Coal Products Tree."
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Friday, November 18, 2016
Fracking Seems to Be Causing Numerous Earthquakes Via Wastewater Disposal
Energy companies that produce oil and natural gas by fracking, and dispose of huge quantities of wastewater containing chemicals as part of the process, seem to be causing a very large increase in the number of earthquakes in areas where fracking occurs.
A June 10, 2015 United States Geological Survey article titled "6 Facts about Human-caused Earthquakes" states "injecting fluid underground can cause earthquakes, a fact that was established decades ago by USGS scientists."
According to a November 18, 2016 Associated Press article that is available on numerous websites, including a webpage on the Tulsa World website, residents of Pawnee, Oklahoma have filed a class-action lawsuit against 27 companies due to damages from earthquakes believed to be caused by wastewater disposal from fracking.
I am surprised that there have not been more lawsuits and more outrage over this practice. While widespread availability of relatively cheap oil and natural gas has many benefits, the risks and damages that occur from producing it also need to be considered.
If it is demonstrated that these oil and natural gas producers are directly responsible (as seems likely) for the large increase in earthquakes and the damages the earthquakes cause, then these companies are presumably liable for reimbursing those impacted by the damages.
I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. But it seems to me that if it has been known for decades that injecting fluids into the ground can lead to earthquakes, and it is known that there has been a huge increase in the number of earthquakes in areas where fluids have been injected into the ground in recent years, that it is logical that this fluid injection is the likely cause of these earthquakes.
I am not stating that fracking must stop or even that the disposal of wastewater by injecting it into the ground must cease. But, I strongly support holding these energy companies liable for the damages they are causing. Even if persons feel that the benefits of the oil and gas production via this method justify allowing it to continue, the persons who suffer damages from the earthquakes deserve compensation for their damages as I see it.
If the cost of providing this compensation to victims of earthquakes leads to the oil and gas companies (1) finding more environmentally friendly ways of producing the oil or gas and/or (2) raising oil and gas prices to pay for the cost of paying for the damages and for the lawsuits, (3) and/or turning to alternative energy sources or others doing so, then that seems to be what needs to occur.
Oil and natural gas have provided many benefits over the years as energy sources. But these benefits need to be weighed against the negative impacts of the production, transportation, and consumption of this natural gas and oil.
NOTE: This article was last revised on November 19, 2016.
A June 10, 2015 United States Geological Survey article titled "6 Facts about Human-caused Earthquakes" states "injecting fluid underground can cause earthquakes, a fact that was established decades ago by USGS scientists."
According to a November 18, 2016 Associated Press article that is available on numerous websites, including a webpage on the Tulsa World website, residents of Pawnee, Oklahoma have filed a class-action lawsuit against 27 companies due to damages from earthquakes believed to be caused by wastewater disposal from fracking.
I am surprised that there have not been more lawsuits and more outrage over this practice. While widespread availability of relatively cheap oil and natural gas has many benefits, the risks and damages that occur from producing it also need to be considered.
If it is demonstrated that these oil and natural gas producers are directly responsible (as seems likely) for the large increase in earthquakes and the damages the earthquakes cause, then these companies are presumably liable for reimbursing those impacted by the damages.
I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. But it seems to me that if it has been known for decades that injecting fluids into the ground can lead to earthquakes, and it is known that there has been a huge increase in the number of earthquakes in areas where fluids have been injected into the ground in recent years, that it is logical that this fluid injection is the likely cause of these earthquakes.
I am not stating that fracking must stop or even that the disposal of wastewater by injecting it into the ground must cease. But, I strongly support holding these energy companies liable for the damages they are causing. Even if persons feel that the benefits of the oil and gas production via this method justify allowing it to continue, the persons who suffer damages from the earthquakes deserve compensation for their damages as I see it.
If the cost of providing this compensation to victims of earthquakes leads to the oil and gas companies (1) finding more environmentally friendly ways of producing the oil or gas and/or (2) raising oil and gas prices to pay for the cost of paying for the damages and for the lawsuits, (3) and/or turning to alternative energy sources or others doing so, then that seems to be what needs to occur.
Oil and natural gas have provided many benefits over the years as energy sources. But these benefits need to be weighed against the negative impacts of the production, transportation, and consumption of this natural gas and oil.
NOTE: This article was last revised on November 19, 2016.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Neckties: Buying and Wearing Them Is Usually Unnecessary, a Waste of Money, and Potentially Dangerous
It
remains common for many persons to wear neckties to church (and to business
functions, etc.). Why does a man (or anyone) wear a necktie? Do
neckties serve any useful purpose?
A
colorful tie can be attractive, maybe even look elegant. However, wearing
clothing just for appearance seems a waste, especially in an age when
conservation and being environmentally friendly are emphasized. Wearing ties seems pretentious and worldly—not what God or Christ or commonsense would advocate.
Perhaps wearing neckties originated from scarves worn in winter around the face to help protect
people from cold and/or windy weather. Nicely tied, stylish scarves worn when
weather conditions warranted them may have been the precursor of the necktie.
But the ties commonly worn now, tied the way they are tied, serve no useful
purpose that I comprehend. Although I have neither worn nor bought a tie in a few decades, I still own some. The picture below shows most of the ties I still own.
Although I personally have not worn a tie in decades, the wearing of neckties in public still remains a common practice in the United States and
many other countries among persons in leadership positions in business, government,
and religion. Certain formal parties and some restaurants also require a tie.
In fact, so-called “black tie affairs” may require a black tie or more
specifically a black bow tie, a tuxedo, and/or other formal apparel. Indeed,
ties are traditional in some circles.
I
think it is time to end the tradition of wearing ties.
Neckties
cost money to purchase, take time to tie, may feel uncomfortable around one’s
neck, and are a potential safety hazard if they flap around loosely and get
caught in machinery.
In
contrast to ties, much of the clothing we wear serves a useful purpose. Shoes
protect our feet. Undergarments, socks, pants, shirts, hats, and gloves provide
us warmth, protect us from sunburn, and help guard our skin from injuries that
might otherwise result as we contact various objects. But I submit that ties
need to be either recycled into something more useful or discarded.
Personally,
I may never wear a tie again unless
I am in a situation where someone else requests it, such as for a job where
wearing one is mandatory. Do you agree with me that wearing a tie is
unnecessary, potentially unsafe, and a waste of time and money?
If
we love and care for everyone regardless of circumstances, neither we nor they
need to display a necktie as a status symbol or for any other reason that I can
think of.
In fact, try to avoid focusing on ties others wear. Instead,
focus your eyes on their faces, smile at them, and establish eye contact. Our
actions, words, and our other apparel can suitably convey information about us
to one another.
If
you are required to wear a tie at work, please try to get the decision maker(s)
for your workplace to read this two page chapter and to change the policy
requiring employees to wear ties. I think it would be great for everyone to avoid
spending money buying ties and time tying them. Dedicate that money and time
toward more productive and more enjoyable living. Will you do it?
NOTE: This piece is adapted/reprinted from a chapter in my book True Christianity: It May Not Be What You Think (second edition, copyright 2015). That chapter was adapted/reprinted from articles I published earlier online.