Teenagers weigh environmental benefits of going green against economic realities of moving away from coal

By Michelle Hu, 17, and Nick Greven, 17

The first coal for use as a fuel was mined in the United States in 1748. Since then, coal-generated electricity has revolutionized the United States and now helps power factories and households.

However, the future of coal as an energy source has come into question as governments target carbon emissions.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, about half of the nation's energy comes from coal. In Indiana, that figure is more than 90 percent. But while coal is low in cost, it also is considered by many to be a "dirty" fuel, and environmentalists have rallied to reduce the country's dependence on it.

Proponents of alternative energy stress the production of alternative sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels. Others recognize the importance of coal to Indiana and prefer to explore development of clean coal technology.

In any case, one trend is apparent: Despite widespread acknowledgment of a need to alter habits to protect the environment, many youths are apathetic about changing the status quo.

In Union City, youths ride hybrid school buses, and the high school has a wind turbine and solar panels. The town soon hopes to install a full-size turbine. Although the school's turbine produces enough energy to power only one room, students can use it for research.

The projects were initiated by environmental science teacher John Zakelj, who has taught in the district for nine years. He is an environmental enthusiast and designed his house about a decade ago to be eco-friendly.

Zakelj's students, however, are not as willing to make such changes. "It's something that we're all on board with, the school going green and doing whatever we can to help," said Tyler Fields, 18. "But I mean, it's not something that we're going to go to extremes just to get done."

Another Union City youth, 16-year-old Dustin Holmes, calls himself a motor head and loves everything about cars. "Close as I got to being green is talking about gas mileage for the truck," he said. "That's about it. Ten miles a gallon will hurt you."

Many Union City teens said their friends do little to change their lifestyles.

Edyta Sitko of Greenpeace has seen the same trend. When she began as a global-warming field organizer for Indiana, Sitko said, she expected to work with mostly youths or young professionals. Instead, more than half of the members were in their 40s or 50s.

One reason may be that many communities, such as Jackson, Ky., depend on the coal industry to fuel the economy.

Youths there defend coal as a desirable energy source. "There aren't many jobs around here," said Tabitha Jones, 17, whose father is a rock truck driver for the International Coal Group.

Without the coal industry, Tabitha said, her father would be unemployed.

"In most places you can't get a job without a college education," she said. "But coal mines usually accept people without a college degree, because they can take a mining class and don't have to go to college."

Jackson is just one Kentucky community in which coal is king. According to Kentucky's Office of Employment and Training, the average mining salary for Breathitt County is about $45,000, much higher than the median county income of $25,500.

"I want to protect the environment," Tabitha said. "I think it's good, and I think we should be responsible, but it's also job loss. Unless there was another way to bring those jobs back to the community somehow, I wouldn't (promote alternative energy)."

Clean coal is the term for the method of extracting energy from coal in a clean and efficient manner. The method is still under research and, currently, there are no clean coal plants in existence.

The closest anyone has come to a clean coal plant so far is Duke Energy's coal gasification combined cycle plant in Edwardsport in Knox County, which is set to begin production in 2012.

An integral process that defines clean coal is carbon capture and storage, in which the greenhouse gases that are released by the coal plant are compressed and most often buried underground. This element of the process has yet to be implemented, and its feasibility is what scientists and politicians often debate.

Pros:

Coal is abundant in the United States (Indiana has enough coal to power the state for the next 1,500 years).

A national infrastructure is already in place, with an electrical grid, power plants and coal mines.

Burying compressed CO2 could force oil closer to the surface, allowing for easier access and decrease of oil imports.

Towns and cities dependent on the coal industry will survive.

Coal is the cheapest form of energy.

Source: Marty Irwin, director of the Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research, a state government agency that partners with engineers at Purdue University to develop more efficient methods of extracting energy from coal.

Cons:

Carbon capture and storage isn't expected to be available on a mass level until 2030. To prevent the worst of global warming, many experts agree that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 2015.

Carbon capture and storage uses a lot of energy. It's expected to erase the efficiency gains of the past 50 years in coal-fired power plants.

Storage of compressed CO2 may not be safe on a large level.

Capture and storage could double coal plant costs.

Large-scale investment takes money away from other energy sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric.

Sources: Edyta Sitko, global-warming field organizer for Greenpeace, who has been in Indiana two years working to educate the public on global warming and its contributors, and Greenpeace International report: "False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won't save the climate."