Future Use Of Coal...

[mp202]

This Is My Science Project I Had Recently Completed. It Is Train Related. I Encourage You To Read.




​

Coal fires a great portion of the nation’s economy as well as worldwide. People are in a constant demand for coal energy. A large sum of people are demanding for a change in the way we produce energy to eliminate environmental issues.
At the end of 2011, the United States produced approximately 1.1 billion short tons of coal to meet the export demand. Our United States can produce enough coal to power the nation as well as portions of other countries such as Puerto Rico. Export rates are rising by at least 10% every year. The current rate is $41.01 per short ton. That is a great sum of money to be put back into the U.S. economy.


Production mainly comes from the Western Region. More precisely, the Powder River Basin. This region alone produces half of the coal the United States produces annually approximately 587.6 million short tons. Coalmines in this region contribute a great sum of the nations funding, almost 9%. Together the entire coal industry contributes about 11% of the nations funding. If we were to lose this entire asset, the United States would lose about $4,511,100,000 in revenue per year as well as suffering a major unemployment increase from the almost 91,611 people being laid off.


Coal miners have an above average salary. They earn approximately $85,799, multiply that by the amount of workers and you get $7,860,132,189. Why is this important?The U.S. Government will earn about $1,786,529,742 in mandatory income tax.


Other jobs supported by the coal industry such as railroads power about 17.68% of our economy. The two largest transporters of coal are CSX and BNSF with about a total of 56% percent of our nations coal. These railroads also drive export to Mexico as well as shipping to ports. Railroads also donate 11% of the nations budget annually from their total revenue of $2.5 billion.


There are about 138,623 railroad employees with an average salary of about $41,369. In total, the government collects about $9,308.02 per employee for a grand total of $1,290,306,349.57 in all.


The coal industry and all of its assets bring up about 20% of the nations funding annually with a net income of about $7,587,936,091.57, and that excludes the 110’s of billions of dollars that come from export. No matter how you see it, coal is a vital part of the American economy. However, others tend to think not. Major environmental concerns are being addressed such as carbon emissions and acid water runoff from plants. With the money that we earn from the coal industry, we can reinvest to help make it safer and environmentally friendly. With that kind of money, we can update a large majority of existing power plants to meet and go above the standards of the Clean Air Act. Also prevent acid runoff by making use of excess coal.

In conclusion, we need to continue to use coal as it powers not only our homes, but also the global economy. We need to reuse the money made from the coal industry to improve and exceed the standards of environmentalists to make this a safer place to live and do without the worries of toxic emissions.

 

[BobCass]

Nice Report..I Think another thing that enters picture here is "The Pollution"..Coal burning is in our future..It's how a great Deal of Electricity is generated..It is a very expensive to get the Scrubbers needed for clean air, However..

 

[mp202]

Thanks Bob!

 

[H222]

I see it very pointless to say 'our united states' in your report. Surely your teacher knows where he/she lives. Unless you're just trying to subtly add words to make it longer, I completely understand that

Jamie

 

[whitepass]

Coal miners have an above average salary. They earn approximately $85,799

I think that number is way to high and "approximately" dose not mean what you think it means.

 

[mp202]

As for the salary, I think that is about right considering I my friends dad is a coal miner and that's how much he made (according to my friend because he had to do the same type of report as well)

 

[Dinorius_Redundicus]

Whitepass' point was that if you're going to say 'approximately' or 'about' then you don't quote exact numbers like $85,799. It would make more sense if you rounded the numbers off, for example, to $85,000. There are many instances of this in your essay.

.

 

[mp202]

Well, I apologize for the error. By the way, I didnt bring this to the forums for it to be nit-picked at for simple errors in my English. I shared it because I wanted to show people the relationship between coal/railroads/economy and how it's an important asset.

 

[JCitron]

Blake,

You did very well with this report. I do hope you included sources with the version you submitted to your teacher. Having the sources where you got your information, helps prevent the nit-picking you received in the forum over the facts and figures.
If you need help with citing sources in a paper or project, contact me. I'll surely help you.

John

 

[mp202]

John, I wrote the sources down in my notes and i cant remember them. But it seems the criticism is mainly for my use of the word "approximately".

 

[mp202]

Also here's something else I would like to share with everybody. My drawing of a train at CIMIC, IL. Yes I know the second loco is transparent and many details are missing. And also the CIMIC sign is way out of scale...

 

[johnwhelan]

If its a science project then it might be worth while balancing the pros with a few cons. Most of Europe has restrictions on coal burning because of air pollution, for example London UK was hit badly in 1952, I seem to recall some 10,000 people died because of it and it basically started off the environmental movement and the UK's clean air acts.

There are risks with coal production, there should be some figures lying around somewhere saying how many miners or coal workers are killed or injured per year. The interesting thing is we accept these as being acceptable but other sources of energy such as nuclear power must live with higher safety standards since we wouldn't be so accepting of the same number of deaths in the workforce.

Basically any science research project usually ends with the words but further research is needed in this field. That way its an invitation for someone to fund more research.

Cheerio John B.Sc.

 

[H222]

You could talk about negatives and then talk about another type of power source.

More intelligent sentences = higher grades.

Still, if you're going to call yourself extremely literate, get ready to cop a lot of criticism of anything that's perfect. It's why I just use my vocabulary/grammar skills, instead of announcing it to everybody

Jamie

 

[whitepass]

I did a quick look and in the US the top wage for coal mining is $41,000, wages run $12/hr to $20/hr from US Department of Labor. Just trying to help you not criticize.

 

[wva-usa]

I did a quick look and in the US the top wage for coal mining is $41,000, wages run $12/hr to $20/hr from US Department of Labor. Just trying to help you not criticize.

The figures you quoted sound a little low when compared to wages for coal mining occupations shown on Bureau of Labor Statistics found here. Wages, of course, vary based on the specific job being performed, but here's the data for continuous mining machine operators, based on 2011 wages:

Hourly Median: $24.43
Hourly Mean: $23.95
Annual Median: $50,810
Annual Mean: $49,810

 

[Konni]

Hi, John

If its a science project then it might be worth while balancing the pros with a few cons. Most of Europe has restrictions on coal burning because of air pollution, for example London UK was hit badly in 1952, I seem to recall some 10,000 people died because of it and it basically started off the environmental movement and the UK's clean air acts.

There are risks with coal production, there should be some figures lying around somewhere saying how many miners or coal workers are killed or injured per year. The interesting thing is we accept these as being acceptable but other sources of energy such as nuclear power must live with higher safety standards since we wouldn't be so accepting of the same number of deaths in the workforce.

Basically any science research project usually ends with the words but further research is needed in this field. That way its an invitation for someone to fund more research.

Cheerio John B.Sc.

You cant'quote incidents from the 1950s. Since then the technology of coal fired plants has developed considerably. The technology for removing dusts as well as sulfurous and nitrogenous emissions is very advanced and its use standard with modern coal firing power plants. Accordingly modern coal fired power plants are emitting nothing but water and carbon dioxide.
In Germany they are also investigating technologies to remove carbon dioxide from power plant exhausts and to deposit it underground.


As to safety, do not compare apples with pears. Worker safety issues in conjunction with the use of coal are are related to coal mining. I doubt, whether uranium mining is principially safer! Anyhow, accident rates are dependent upon safety standards employed. Here we apparently see considerable differences betwee e. g. the UK and Germany on the one hand and countries of Eastern Europe and China, on the other. I have no idea where the US stands here.

I have looked into the matter a bit myself although relating to the situation in Germany. The reason was, that coal firing power plants, coal mines and the rail links between them provide wonderful subjects for content creating.

@ BlakeDooley,

This was quite a nice essay, particularly considering that you are only 13 years old. Some of the criticisms posted might be appropriate for the essay of a university student, but not for a high school student.
I am, however, a bit surprised that your teachers did not tell you about the importance of a bibliography. It tells where you got your information from, and incidentially how much you worked in preparing the essay. For a reader really interested into the subject it is also helpful for follow-up reading.


Cheers,


Konni

 

[johnwhelan]

Hi, John



You cant'quote incidents from the 1950s. Since then the technology of coal fired plants has developed considerably. The technology for removing dusts as well as sulfurous and nitrogenous emissions is very advanced and its use standard with modern coal firing power plants. Accordingly modern coal fired power plants are emitting nothing but water and carbon dioxide.
In Germany they are also investigating technologies to remove carbon dioxide from power plant exhausts and to deposit it underground.


As to safety, do not compare apples with pears. Worker safety issues in conjunction with the use of coal are are related to coal mining. I doubt, whether uranium mining is principially safer! Anyhow, accident rates are dependent upon safety standards employed. Here we apparently see considerable differences betwee e. g. the UK and Germany on the one hand and countries of Eastern Europe and China, on the other. I have no idea where the US stands here.

I have looked into the matter a bit myself although relating to the situation in Germany. The reason was, that coal firing power plants, coal mines and the rail links between them provide wonderful subjects for content creating.


Cheers,


Konni

The London smoke that killed so many was caused in the main by coal burning fires used to heat homes. Historically it was a turning point when air pollution began to be taken seriously. Modern power plants can be clean but many existing ones are not, cannot be economically upgraded and are still a major source of air pollution. Locally in Ontario I think the intention is to close all our coal burning power plants by 2014. The decision is driven by health costs etc associated with air pollution. The pollutants include mercury, lead, cadmium and chromium, besides the more normally stated sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, I think they've even spotted a bit of arsenic in there. It is thought that some 120,000 people in Ontario are affected health wise by air pollution from coal. Unfortunately on the east side of the continent with a prevailing westerly wind we also get a fair amount blown in from the states from time to time.

I understand Germany at the moment has concerns about nuclear power after Japan and has a history of coal mining so there is a political temptation to minimise the risks of coal.

On the health of workers side open cast mining has a different set of risks than underground mining, however the sheer mass of coal being transported and handled means there are related injuries and deaths even away from the mines. Including air pollution from trains used to transport the coal etc.

Anyway we are drifting away from the topic although science to me is more associated with the scientific method where you make a hypothesis then take measurements to see if it true or false and I'm not quite certain where the hypothesis is here.

Note to Blake one of the problems with science is that there are different points of view. The scientific method basically takes a guess then we try to measure if the results fit the guess. For example we might make a guess that certain plants such as deadly nightshade are poisonous. For ethical reasons we can't feed people deadly nightshade and see if they die but we can record the deaths when we know the person has eaten deadly nightshade. Then you need maths to eliminate coincidence, if some one dies shortly after eating a hamburger was it just coincidence? That bit of maths is called statistics. What it means is we are now fairly certain that a normal healthy person who eats a specific minimum quantity of deadly nightshade will die.

I think some one once said we teach children lies. We simplify things for them and often we paint things black and white when they are shades of grey and that is one of the questions here what is the appropriate lie to give you. What we need desperately is people who can ask questions because if you find the right question and the answer then you move forward. Science isn't necessarily about physical things. If someone had made a hypothesis that "people without jobs wouldn't be able to pay their mortgages so what happens to the banks?" a little earlier we might have avoided the bank problems.

Cheerio John

 

[Dinorius_Redundicus]

Yes, I'm sorry Blake if I sounded critical, I was trying to explain Whitepass' point that I think you missed. I mistakenly thought you had put the essay up so people could suggest improvements.

Still, it has raised some interesting discussion about coal. You make a good point that some profits from coal could be used to improve its effect on the environment. The most difficult effect is greenhouse warming from the carbon dioxide emitted when coal is burned. Maybe it's not within the scope of the essay, but it would be again interesting to find examples where the coal industry has funded technology that has made any substantial difference to CO2 emissions and the greenhouse effect.