I was perusing the Evansville Business magazine yesterday and came across an article by Beth White, entitled, "King Coal." It was kind of ironic to me that the first page of the story contains an enthusiastic comment about coal being "a gold mine of opportunity," while showing a picture of a smokestack spewing out pollution. The article discusses millions of tons of coal in the ground in Southwest Indiana, proclaiming that there is effectively a billion dollar gold mine underneath our feet. Coal is declared the "major domestic energy source" by Vectren's CEO, Niel Ellerbrook, and a key to future energy security. The article goes on to discuss coal gasification technology or IGCC, which "is seen by many as a breakthrough technology that could reduce the 'greenhouse gas' emissions blamed for global warming." The article further mentions pollution controls designed to reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions, which are being installed in some of the conventional coal plants.

It all sounds good on the surface, until you dig deeper, like you will in order to reach the coal--a lot deeper. Exactly how much of the state will need to be mined to give us this wealth of coal, given that more than one-third of Indiana is located above a 60,000 square mile oval of Ice Age coal? Are we going to dig up one third of the state? And how about Illinois, which has most of the Illinois Basin--the area of coal deposits discussed in the article? In addition, the article really glosses over the devasting effects to the environment that coal burning has, especially particulate matter that is known to cause serious problems to human health--just ask the EPA's own scientific panel. Even with limitations on pollution via controls, this technology is not fool-proof and is currently not very effective at limiting another major environmental problem, mercury being emitted from the smokestacks. Mercury enters our waterways, contaminates fish and can cause neuologic problems to children, even while they are still in utero. Moreover, IGCC technology is not perfected yet and is often planned without carbon dioxide capturing systems in place. Accordingly, the greenhouse effect will not necessarily be thwarted by plants solely using IGCC technology. Given the costs associated with IGCC technology, utilities are not going to fully convert to it anytime soon anyway. So, we are left with the conventional coal burning power plants, many already 40 to 50 years old.

In terms of the security issue, are we talking energy security for our lifetimes? If so, perhaps coal is the answer if we can deal with all of the pollution that goes along with it. Yet, if we are talking a permanent solution, coal cannot be the answer, as it is of finite supply, no matter how plentiful it is now. In addition, if it will simply be used as it is today, with no carbon dioxide limitations, the full climate change repercussions may be realized during the lifetimes of our children or grandchildren. What kind of security will there be then, when massive droughts occur in some areas, tremendous flooding occurs in others and there is all around chaos in the climate? We may simply be steering ourselves towards an eventual Ice Age, kind of like the one that created the gold-mine of coal that Indiana is sitting on today. Maybe we should leave a lot of it alone and make alternative energy the next leader rather than making coal king.