12

Digging up the real costs of coal

Jeff Biggers

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

TEXT OF INTERVIEW

Kai Ryssdal: Almost 10 years ago, writer and sometime radio producer Jeff Biggers, went along with his mother on a family trip. To the coal-mining hollow in southern Ill., where she'd grown up.

JEFF BIGGERS' MOM: Go slow, Doug, this is Dallas' house right here. Then ours was up on the hill, and um, oh look at that...

What she was looking at, Jeff Biggers says, wasn't a house at all anymore but a crater blasted away by strip-mining. Jeff's book about what mining did to the miners, to their families, and to the land is called "Reckoning at Eagle Creek."

Jeff Biggers: You know, what I didn't realize, Kai, when we went up to this strip-mine site, that it wasn't just our family that had been strip-mined, but it's the history of the region that had been strip-mined. And for someone who never really considered coal a part of my life, it set me off on this 10-year journey to really understand sort of the staggering human and environmental cost of coal that the rest of the nation really had paid for. You know, part of the great mythology is coal is cheap and coal is clean.

Ryssdal: Remind us really briefly, Jeff, what clean coal is or is supposed to be, actually.

BIGGERS: Today we use clean coal to refer to carbon, capture and storage. When we somehow are going to catch these emissions, these carbon dioxide emissions that come out our coal fire plants that provide 40 percent of the carbon emissions today in the nation and somehow put them back underground.

Ryssdal: You mention costs, but Jeff, for the average person on the street who uses coal-powered electricity, I mean coal is just cheap.

BIGGERS: Coal is cheap if you just talk about kilowatts, but now we have to talk about the external costs of coal. You know, the National Academy of Scientists just this year released an incredible study that showed us the external health care and environmental costs of coal were at least $62 billion extra. If you look at the Black Lung program, Kai, where three coalminers still die daily from black lung disease, think about it, in 2010, we have to pay billions of dollars for this program because the coal companies defaulted on it.

Ryssdal: Obviously, this is a heartfelt topic for you. I have to ask you, though, how realistic you think your fight is. As long as we can have cheap coal to power our electrical plants, and don't have to see the damage, how far are you going to get?

BIGGERS: You know, our expression now, Kai, is that we all live in the coal fields. Because we all live within an hour or two hours of a coal fire plant that is spewing carbon dioxide emissions. And as we know from the research of climate destabilization and climate change, we're reaching a tipping point here. I believe the only way we can move forward is to commit to a coal-free future.

Ryssdal: What about the industry itself, though, Jeff? I mean down in the hollows of Illinois where you're from, I bet there are people there who would say, yeah, come on in, bring that mining stuff because we need the jobs. This is a region that is historically depressed, now even more so.

BIGGERS: Right, and I'm glad that you bring up the issue of jobs because it's really one of the great mythologies that somehow the coal industry has provided jobs. You know, the coal industry is heavily mechanized, and over 65 percent of our coal comes from strip mines, like Mountaintop Removal, in West Virginia, in Appalachian states, where you literally don't need coal miners anymore. They use massive explosives, ammonium nitrate fuel oil explosives and then heavy equipment operators like bulldozers. So for one job that we're using in the coal mine has ultimately taken away two or three other jobs that we used to have.

Ryssdal: OK, let me ask you this, though. The statistics are that coal accounts for something like 44ish percent of our electrical production. If we don't use coal, and specifically, clean coal, what do we use?

BIGGERS: There are so many studies that show that we don't have to have one silver bullet to replace coal. That there's a schmorgesborg of alternatives. We have solar, we have geothermal, we have offshore wind. There are so many different options, it's not funny. And the first way, of course, is to literally just reduce our consumption.

Ryssdal: Isn't it a little bit like the price of oil, though, in that when the price of oil is low, there's no incentive for searching for these alternative means? And the price of coal, at least on the market as the everyday consumer is concerned, is still fairly low, so there's no incentive for the search for alternatives.

BIGGERS: And that is why we have to factor in the external coast of coal as part of the equation. Coal is the new tobacco of today. It is that dirty. And it's that something that we truly have to move beyond.

Ryssdal: You still have family down in Eagle Creek, Jeff?

BIGGERS: Eagle Creek ultimately doesn't exist any longer. One of the oldest historic communities in America has been completed erased from the American experience.

Ryssdal: The book by Jeff Biggers is called "Reckoning at Eagle Creek: The Secret Legacy of Coal in the Heartland." Jeff, thanks a lot.

BIGGERS: Thanks so much for having me on.

Pages

S.J. Phred's picture
S.J. Phred - Feb 24, 2010

One of the things people forget about alternate energy sources: the amount of electricity lost, trying to send it thru our antiquated network of wires and towers.

If energy was made closer to where its supposed to go, less energy gets lost in "transportation", and so less is needed to make up for the loss. So, if offshore winds make power, you don't need enough power for the country, just for the big coastal city. Solar power can be used, say, in California to power California. Wind power can be used near Chicago, to catch the off lake winds, just to power Chicago. And so forth.

Plus, we don't get such terrorist scares as when NYC went dark due to someone in Ohio flipping the wrong switch.

Sam Mandke's picture
Sam Mandke - Feb 23, 2010

Thanks for this story. This is a small piece of a larger debate we should be having in this country about how we value things. The "market knows all" era should be dead and gone; the external costs of what we do, and the unintended consequences need to be figured into how we value things. Mr. Bigger's story about coal is exemplary on this point: coal produce severe health and environmental problems that do not reflect its relatively cheap market price. Like Wall Street did recently, oil, gas, and coal industries have been passing on the fallout and damage from their activities to tax payers for years. And, tax payers give the coal, oil and gas boys subsidies on top of that. How about giving alternative sources for a few years the same subsidies as fossil fuels, incorporating the real costs of dirty coal, and then we can talk about which one is cheaper?

Lastly, yet another external cost of the oil and gas industry: war in the Middle East.

John Stoiber's picture
John Stoiber - Feb 23, 2010

I have some problems with the issues presented in the story. The report cited from the NAS assumes all claims about CO2 are true and accurate, and there is great debate over that. He mentions the number of people dying from black lung (a horrible situation, of course) and then talks about all the miners jobs going away and replaced by dozer operators (a higher paying job). Looks like the industry is solving some of its own problems bit by bit. In my opinion, strip mining makes a lot more sense than turning a mountain into a pile of rock swiss cheese, ready to collapse at any moment. As long as the process is done in an environmentally sound method that doesn't clog up the streams, etc. - I haven't heard of this method anywhere but there is probably some way to do it. As far as burning the coal, capturing all combustion by products except the CO2 can be done with current technology and go a long way to cleaning the air and water. We will eventually need renewable sources of energy since coal and oil won't last forever - but we won't have that technology for some time. I will agree that we need to pay more for fossil fuel use as long as the premiums go for R&D in clean energy production and conservation - not climate studies and think tanks.

Daryl Reece's picture
Daryl Reece - Feb 23, 2010

I'd like to hear a more balanced, scientific treatment of this topic. Obviously Mr. Biggers doesn't like coal, but he presented a one sided treatment of the problem. How would you replace coal? On an energy density basis, coal is pretty good. Significantly better than solar, wind, geothermal, .... He talks about CO2 sequestration which would apply to ANY hydrocarbon. We need more scientific treatment of these problems, not feelings based "coal is bad" nonsense.

Andrew Shinka's picture
Andrew Shinka - Feb 23, 2010

This was the first one-sided segment I've heard on an NPR program. I kept waiting for a coal proponent to jump in, but they never showed up. Usually NPR (and it's programs) does a fine job of offering both sides of every story. I expect more.

Peter Montague's picture
Peter Montague - Feb 23, 2010

Thanks for this excellent story. Coal is dirty in so many ways -- AND it is non-renewable. Energy efficiency (doing more with less) is far cheaper, far cleaner, and available now. The coal industry's desperate answer is so-called "clean coal" -- their plan to bury carbon dioxide (CO2) in the ground or beneath the ocean. Right now in Linden, New Jersey there's a $5 billion proposal to bury 500 million tons of CO2 beneath the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. Who will pay for this expensive, risky, large-scale experiment? Taxpayers.

Don Peterson's picture
Don Peterson - Feb 23, 2010

Thanks for this story. Kai Ryssdal strikes a good balance -- asking difficult questions in a fair and polite way. The problem of 'externality' costs of standard energy is missing from most discussions of alternative energy costs and I'm glad to see that someone is covering it.

Jonathan Lovelace's picture
Jonathan Lovelace - Feb 22, 2010

Of the three replacements for coal that Mr. Biggers mentioned, solar is the most viable, and it still costs too much to be economical anywhere except the most sunny places. Geothermal energy can be even less safe than coal, as Swiss scientists found when their experiments on making it more widely available caused two earthquakes. And wind power has drastic effects on weather patterns--which far outweigh the so-called climate change Mr. Biggers referred to, as one of that hoax's major proponents admitted recently that there has been no statistically significant global warming for a decade and a half.

Barry Mitchel's picture
Barry Mitchel - Feb 22, 2010

This interview echoed the concerns about coal that I expressed in a song parody, written yesterday and posted at http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/bobdylan252.shtml where comments are welcome.

Phil Henshaw's picture
Phil Henshaw - Feb 22, 2010

It's really stunning that at this rather late date your conversation on resource subjects do not even mention the differences in the physical difficulty of using various resources for various levels of supply. We recently saw "peak oil" a few years ago, but that's only meaningful to those that understand it really means "peak affordable oil"... That in turn means "peak affordable oil at the available quantity". The more you use any resource the quicker you use up the low hanging fruit, and the taller the ladder you need to reach more, and more frequently you have to move the ladder, and higher the cost and risk of overextending. That's the EROI problem in a nutshell. What causes it is the combination of the natural deposition of resources and our plan to use ever more ever faster. I very real terms our plan is to run our whole economy into the ground. It's simple. We have lots of resources, it's just that we're using up the ones our economy was built to use ever faster... That can't avoid meaning discarding ever larger formerly useful parts of the economic system ever faster too... That is because, in the final thermodynamic analysis, things can get more expensive faster than you can get more productive in using them. If you want things spelled out further I'd be happy to help. I may even have left out something in the above too. www.synapse9.com

Pages