Coal's true cost | Nature Geoscience

The deaths of birds have become a rallying point against the proliferation of wind farms. Yet the loss of human life in mines is rarely linked with coal as an energy source. In October 2010,

millions watched as 33 Chilean miners were winched to safety after spending 69 days trapped underground in a copper and gold mine. Just a few days later, but half a world away, 37 Chinese

coal miners were killed by an explosion. By all accounts, the Chinese miners never had the chance to reach an emergency shelter such as the one that protected their Chilean colleagues. Such

safety precautions are few and far between in China's mix of state-run, private and illegal coal mines. Coal mine disasters are not limited to countries with lax regulations: 2010 saw

an unusually lethal incident in which 29 coal miners lost their lives in a coal mine in West Virginia, USA. And that same year, New Zealand lost 29 workers to a series of explosions in the

Pike River coal mine. Despite these numbers, the media rarely make the connection between coal as a means of power generation and the risk of working in the mines. The desirability of wind

power, by contrast, is frequently discussed in the context of its negative impacts on birds and bats (see, for example, http://nyti.ms/hBzndT). Wind turbines are erected in areas with

strong, constant winds — areas that often coincide with the paths of migratory birds. Unfortunately, collisions between birds and rotor blades are usually fatal. As a result, the groups that

lead the fight to reduce carbon emissions can easily find themselves leading the charge against wind power, too. Dead birds seem to evoke a stronger response than dead miners. Renewable

energies are apparently held to a higher standard. Because they are thought of as an environmentally friendly energy source, wind farms disappoint as soon as they are not perfectly

innocuous. They do not receive the understanding and leeway usually granted to industrial-scale power plants — to look ugly, to generate noise or to bear risks for the environment. Perhaps

it is time to place bird fatalities in the context of other power sources. No known source of energy is without some risk of collateral damage. One need not look further than the Deepwater

Horizon explosion and spill to see the potential costs in oil recovery. The crises at several nuclear reactors in Japan following the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 have shown that

nuclear power plants are no match for the forces of nature. Solar panels generally rely on the supply of rare Earth elements; mining of these ores tends to leave behind a slightly

radioactive slurry of mine tailings, and their refinement relies on powerful, toxic acids. And large-scale dams such as the Three Gorges dam in China are criticised for dramatically altering

river hydrology, sediment characteristics and ecosystems. Yet the world's energy demands soar. According to the US Energy Information Administration

(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html), coal-derived power accounts for 27% of world energy production, and coal consumption is projected to grow by 56% by 2035. Scrubber technology is

creating coal-burning power plants that release fewer pollutants. Add in carbon capture and storage technology, and coal might have the potential to become a relatively cheap and abundant

energy source with a minimal carbon footprint. It may even help to fuel transport (_Nature Geosci._ 2, 818–820; 2009). Coal has slowly begun to shed its association with the smog and

pollution that blanketed cities such as London decades ago. As a cleaner and greener image of coal emerges, perhaps the deaths of the miners, too, will come into sharper public focus.

Whether or not that happens any time soon, we need a more integrated approach to deciding how much risk — to the lives of humans and birds, to ecosystems and to the planet's climate —

we are willing to accept in return for energy availability. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Coal's true cost. _Nature Geosci_ 4, 209

(2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1136 Download citation * Published: 31 March 2011 * Issue Date: April 2011 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1136 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share

the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer

Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative