What are the disadvantages for using coal as the major future energy source?
447545
Polution.And carondioxide
885374
Coal, oil and gas are called "fossil fuels" because they have been formed from the organic remains of prehistoric plants and animals. \n\nCoal provides around 28% of our energy, and oil provides 40%. \n\nBurning coal produces sulphur dioxide, an acidic gas that contributes to the formation of acid rain. This can be largely avoided using "flue gas desulphurisation" to clean up the gases before they are released into the atmosphere. This method uses limestone, and produces gypsum for the building industry as a by-product. However, it uses a lot of limestone. \n\nCrude oil (called "petroleum") is easier to get out of the ground than coal, as it can flow along pipes. This also makes it cheaper to transport. \n   \nNatural gas provides around 20% of the world's consumption of energy, and as well as being burnt in power stations, is used by many people to heat their homes. \nIt is easy to transport along pipes, and gas power stations produce comparatively little pollution.\n\nOther fossil fuels are being investigated, such as bituminous sands and oil shale. The difficulty is that they need expensive processing before we can use them; however Canada has large reserves of 'tar sands' , which makes it economic for them to produce a great deal of energy this way. \nFind out more at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html \n\nThe steam that has passed through the power station's turbines has to be cooled, to condense it back into water before it can be pumped round again. This is what happens in the huge "cooling towers" seen at power stations. \n\nSome power stations are built on the coast, so they can use sea water to cool the steam instead. However, this warms the sea and can affect the environment, although the fish seem to like it. \n \nAdvantages\nVery large amounts of electricity can be generated in one place using coal, fairly cheaply. \n\n\nTransporting oil and gas to the power stations is easy. \n\n\nGas-fired power stations are very efficient. \n\nA fossil-fuelled power station can be built almost anywhere, so long as you can get large quantities of fuel to it. Didcot power station, in Oxfordshire, has a dedicated rail link to supply the coal. \n\nDisadvantages\nBasically, the main drawback of fossil fuels is pollution. \nBurning any fossil fuel produces carbon dioxide, which contributes to the "greenhouse effect", warming the Earth. \n\nBurning coal produces more carbon dioxide than burning oil or gas. It also produces sulphur dioxide, a gas that contributes to acid rain. We can reduce this before releasing the waste gases into the atmosphere.\n\nMining coal can be difficult and dangerous. Strip mining destroys large areas of the landscape.\n\nCoal-fired power stations need huge amounts of fuel, which means train-loads of coal almost constantly. In order to cope with changing demands for power, the station needs reserves. \nThis means covering a large area of countryside next to the power station with piles of coal.
226685
Well, other forms of energy create so much more pollution that nuclear energy is the safest, most viable source of energy. I'll admit it's far from perfect, but considering the low output of energy collection devices such as solar and wind, nuclear energy has a huge output for a very low energy input.\n\nAnd nuclear power plants are among the most efficient power sources we have. Coal and nuclear plants are about 30-40% efficient. In contrast, the human body is only 20% efficient. Until we can develop a system of fusion that creates an acceptable amount of energy to warrant the energy required to start the reaction, fission is our best bet.
204816
An interesting sidelight - When I visited China just a few years ago, the people of Beijing were very excited to be hosting the 2008 Olympic summer games. Beijing has terrible air quality problems stemming primarily from the use of soft brown coal in power plants and industries.  With the pride of the nation at stake the Communist government simply decreed that after a given date (before the beginning of the Olympics) no one in the area would be allowed to burn coal. They will then burn relatively plentiful supplies of natural gas.  How is that for evil producing good!
806968
. Coal is formed by heat and pressure over millions of years on vegetation deposited in ancient shallow swamps . It varies in density, porosity, hardness, and reflectivity.
362433
an power plant will consume more input than it will produce in output.  even fusion power plants will not be 100% efficient due to transmission loss and transfer loss.
56424
coal produces CO2 and global warming/ fumes that create air polution(mercury and such) it is also a fossil fuel, meaning that it cannot be renewed\n\nnuclear produces nuclear waste that can be made into weapons although we now have technology that can use 99% of the fuel and the remaining waste will be of such low grade not even a dirty bomb can be made. This is promising for nuclear power since it lasts the longest and is highly productive\n\nsolar is that the panels take up lots of space and that space would be unusuable for anything else(solar fields)\n\ngeothermal is that it can be only placed in certain areas and fumes from the inside of the earth such as Hydrogen Sulfide have to be taken care of otherwise air polution will result.\n\nwind is that there is no constant wind, you have to sit and wait for the wind to come, these also take up lots of space but technology has made it even more efficient\n\nhydroelectric energy is that dams damage the enviroment, fish cannot migrate upstream as a result, and tidal versions are still in development.\n\ni think you might have wanted to say fuel cell so ill answer anyway- fuel cells (hydrogen) currently take more energy to create the hydrogen than the energy the hydrogen can actually release, GM is currently testing wind as a potential energy generator for the hydrogen to be split from water to make hydrogen fuel, however hydrogen technology has become more efficient, currently some machines can generate 70-80% efficiency\n\nnatrual gas is abundant, but there are risks such as explosions involved, it also releases greenhouse gasses such as CO2 when burned although it is cleaner than gasoline and desiel when properly used. like coal natrual gas is also unrenewable since it too is a fossil fuel
398957
Methinks.  Everything has a drawback no matter what - even wind and solar do.  Radioactivity is not caused by humans - the stuff came from the ground in the first place all we are doing in concentrating it.  The waste is a problem - yes - but Japan has had breeder reactors for years which not only eat up the plutonium which used to be waste but create even more energy in the process.  \nThe US currently uses 17 million barrels a day of crude.  The world uses about 84 million barrels.  Estimates of reserves vary widely - anywhere from 600 billion to 10 trillion barrels, which would last between 20 and 300 years at the rate we are using it, and we have probably 500 years worth of coal in the ground too, but it can't last forever.
166225
Generally terrible for the environment, and only provides nominal power given the environmental impact, and the amount of energy put into the original project itself.\n\nI'm much more in favor of the new wind mills.  They turn slowly, so don't kill birds, and provide power about as cheaply as any coal plant can, without the pollution!
430638
Energy development is the ongoing effort to provide abundant and accessible energy, through knowledge, skills and constructions. When harnessing energy from primary energy sources and converting them into ever more convenient secondary energy forms, such as electrical energy and cleaner fuels, both quantity (harnessing more primary energy) and quality (more efficient conversion to secondary energy) are important.\n\nFuture energy development faces great challenges due to an increasing world population, demands for higher standards of living, demands for less pollution and a much-discussed end to fossil fuels. Without energy, the world's entire industrialized infrastructure would collapse; agriculture, transportation, waste collection, information technology, communications and much of the prerequisites that a developed nation takes for granted. A shortage of the energy needed to sustain this infrastructure could lead to a Malthusian catastrophe.\nEarth by night. Many parts of the world will demand energy as their economies develop.\nEnlarge\nEarth by night. Many parts of the world will demand energy as their economies develop.\n[edit]\n\nGeneral considerations\n\nAll the energy we consume is generated by using the four fundamental interactions of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force to create work. Fission energy and fusion energy are generated by electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force. In both cases the weak nuclear force provides significant energy through decay reactions immediately after (and during) the primary reactions. Most forms of terrestrial energy can be traced back to fusion reaction inside the sun, with the exception of tidal power, geothermal energy and nuclear power. Geothermal energy is believed to be generated primarily by radioactive decay inside the Earth[1]. Radioactive decay energy is generated by both the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force. Tidal energy comes from the gravitational potential energy of the Earth/Moon system.\n\nMost human energy sources today use energy from sunlight, either directly like solar cells or in stored forms like fossil fuels. Once the stored forms are used up (assuming no contribution from the three previous energy sources and no energy from space exploration) then the long-term energy usage of humanity is limited to that from the sunlight falling on Earth. The total energy consumption of humanity today is equivalent to about 0.1-0.01% of that. But humanity cannot exploit most of this energy since it also provides the energy for almost all other lifeforms and drives the weather cycle[2][3].\nU.S. energy consumption by sectors.\nEnlarge\nU.S. energy consumption by sectors.\n\nWorld energy production by source: Oil 40%, natural gas 22.5%, coal 23.3%, hydroelectric 7.0%, nuclear 6.5%, biomass and other 0.7%[4]. In the U.S., transportation accounted for 28% of all energy use and 70% of petroleum use in 2001; 97% of transportation fuel was petroleum[5].\n\nThe United Nations projects that world population will stabilize in 2075 at nine billion due to the demographic transition. Birth rates are now falling in most developing nations and the population would decrease in several developed nations if there was no immigration[6]. Still, economic growth probably requires a continued increase in energy consumption. Since 1970, each 1% increase in the Gross world product has yielded a 0.64% increase in energy consumption[7].\n\nIn geology, resources refer to the amount of a specific substance that may be present in a deposit. This definition does not take into account the economic feasibility of exploitation or the fact that resources may not be recoverable using current technology. Reserves constitute those resources that are recoverable using current technology. They can be recovered economically under current market conditions. This definition takes into account current mining technology and the economics of recovery
118282
Fossil energy is provided by things like coal, natural gas and oil. It is not easy to tell which was used first as a fuel, oil or coal. There have been natural seeps of oil around for a long time that could have been burned in lamps. Oil was certainly well known in the ancient world. For example, pitch was used by the ancient Egyptians to seal the pyramids and to coat their mummies. Boats along the Euphrates in some of the earliest human recorded settlements were sealed with pitch.\n\nOil had become so important as a fuel source in China as much as 1700 years ago that it oil wells were being dug to extract it. We have evidence of oil wells up to 800 feet deep were being drilled in China in 347 CE. \n\nAnother contender for oldest fossil fuel usage is coal. It was used as ornamentation in both China and the Roman empire, but was probably first used as fuel in Britain during the Roman period. Peat, a form of coal, was not used as fuel apparently until much later when wood supplies had been exhausted in Europe.
105865
Solar energy is available in a large quantity, in fact much larger than all other safe energy sources put together. Energy obtained from coal, petroleum, other carbon based products and that obtained from nuclear fusion/fission is not safe for the enviornment.\nSo Solar energy has two major advantages -\n1. Abundant, hence making it cheap.\n2. Environmental friendly.
298246
There are only two. One is that oil is a very concentrated form of energy. Having cars run on gas is far more feasible than powering them by, say, burning wood. You just don't get enough of a return on the use of that type of energy. Second is that it is relatively easy to access, at least thus far. One of the things that will happen as oil becomes more scarce is that we will have to try to drill for oil that is in much less accessible places, such as the north sea, or in much deeper deposits. There used to be a third advantage - that it seemed plentiful, if not inexhaustible. This advantage has been proven to be a myth.
590697
>> The Earth has limited supplies of coal and oil. Atomic power plants could still produce electricity after coal and oil become scarce. \n>> Atomic power plants need less fuel than ones which burn fossil fuels. One ton of uranium produces more energy than is produced by several million tons of coal or several million barrels of oil. \n>> Coal and oil burning plants pollute the air. Well-operated atomic power plants do not release contaminants into the environment.
132955
Fossil fuels, such as oil, natural gas, or coal, are non-renoewable sources of energy since the supply of them on Earth is pretty much fixed.
833516
Renewable resources include such energies as wind, solar (sun) power, geothermal (heat from the ground) and hydro (water).  They are beneficial for the Earth because they do not produce harmful emissions and can, theoretically, last forever.  They are often considered a hindrance (or just annoying) to society because they are rarely cheap to harness (or at least not cheaper than fossil fuels) and a suitable infrastructure is not properly in place for such energies.\n\nNon-renewable resources, on the other hand, include such energies as fossil fuels (this is turned from crude oil into gasoline), natural gases (burnt in many processes for energy), wood (this is considered non-renewable if the rate at which it is used is greater than the rate at which it is created), coal (burnt in many processes for energy) and pretty much any Hydrocarbon.  Non-renewable resources are considered useful and valuable because they are generally cheap to use and have been used throughout history.  For this reason, the infrastructure around non-renewable resources is substantially greater than that of its renewable counterpart.  These energies cause a greater problem than they solve because went used, they produce harmful emissions such as carbon dioxide.  These chemicals are detrimental to one’s health and are a contributing factor in the Greenhouse Effect (the leading cause of global warming in the world).\n\nObviously, renewable resources pose a brighter prospect for the future.\n\nI hope this was an informative answer!
1013318
Because coal mines are dangerous structurally, and because they make miners sick (think blacklung).  The health risks are not worth the risk to mine coal when we are onto more sustainable resources like solar power.