ipl-logo

Compare And Contrast Coal And Natural Gas

776 Words4 Pages

Coal and natural gas are two crucial energy sources that the United States relies on to meet its needs. Coal accounts for 21% of energy production and natural gas for 32%. Yet the production and development of these sources of energy has a major impact on both the natural world and the health of people. This paper will contrast coal and natural gas in terms of their benefits downsides cost of electricity production ecological effects and affects on human health. The costs and benefits of the two sources of energy will also be compared in this paper to determine which option is more beneficial overall.

The advantages of using coal as a source of energy are:

● cheap to make energy with it due to it being abundant and readily available in …show more content…

Coal has a huge negative influence on the environment including:

● emissions of carbon dioxide sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that cause air pollution
● dumping of garbage and mining for coal both cause water contamination
● Mining activities cause habitat damage and land disruption

Coal's detrimental effects on human health include the following:

● lung cancer as well as other lung diseases are brought on by air pollution
● Due to exposure to hazardous compounds from coal mining and combustion there is a higher risk of heart disease neurological diseases and congenital abnormalities
● Working with or around coal for production can be very hazardous

Now how does natural gas compare?
The advantages of using natural gas as a source of energy …show more content…

Natural gas has an effect on the environment which includes:

● air pollution brought on by combustion's carbon dioxide and other pollutants.
● Leaks of methane that occur during extraction and transportation that cause climate change.

Natural gas has a detrimental effect on human health which includes:

● lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses are brought on by air pollution.
● risks of hydraulic fracturing like as earthquakes and contaminated water.

The following is my cost-benefit analysis of coal and natural gas:

● compared to natural gas which costs 6.58 cents per kilowatt-hour to produce electricity coal is a more affordable energy source at 10.69 cents per kilowatt-hour
● natural gas however has less of an adverse effect on the environment and human health than coal
● natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gasses than coal making it environmentally friendly energy source
● Compared to coal natural gas has lower mining and combustion

Show More
Related
810 Words | 4 Pages

Fracking the Good and The Bad In the essay, “Hope It’s in Your Backyard,” by Neil deMause, he wrote about the positive and negative factors of fracking and its effect on the world. The ramifications of fracking could be devastating to the earth with regards to natural gas and oil. It is debated that fracking, in the United States, would stimulate economic growth, lower gas prices, create more jobs, and make our country independent for oil and natural gas. The effects of burning fossil fuels is negative to the earth’s climate and the cause of some pollution. Natural gas is cheaper, but its effect on our ecosystem may be devastating.

Read More
2076 Words | 9 Pages

The air quality improves by using natural gas to generate electricity instead of coal. The use of natural gas reduces carbon dioxide emissions causing a decrease in air pollution. Some argue that since fracking allows us to obtain more oil, our dependency on foreign oil will decrease. Since our dependency should decrease other foreign countries will lower their tax rates. They will lower taxes because they know we are not dependent of them and their oil.

Read More
859 Words | 4 Pages

1) The leakage of the natural gas The primary component of natural gas is methane which is non-toxic, however the

Read More
2027 Words | 9 Pages

According to the EarthWorks government site there are some seriously negative health effects that come with fracking. This is due to all the chemicals used to make the fracking fluid and how they can make their way into contact with humans. These chemicals can be ingested in water, contact with skin, or even be respired by way of vapor. These chemicals can lead to health hazards in almost every area imaginable such as EarthWorks cited Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective by Theo Colborn where he broke these hazards into the 12 categories seen here: “skin, eye and sensory organ, respiratory, gastrointestinal and liver, brain and nervous system, immune, kidney, cardiovascular and blood, cancer, mutagenic, endocrine disruption, other, and ecological…”. There are 71 chemicals used in fracking that are known to cause 10 or more health effects individually.

Read More
1603 Words | 7 Pages

Another benefit from switching to clean-burning natural gas is a decrease in pollutants in the air, which will decrease airborne illnesses and premature deaths. He discusses the impact of energy independence for countries that rely on insecure regions for their energy needs. For example, the U.S. will rely less on the Middle East, Europe will rely less on Russia and India will rely less on Iran. By presenting fracking as the answer to the world’s problems, Pierce counters the arguments of critics who cite the environmental problems of fracking. His paper is one-sided because he leaves out the other side of the debate by ignoring any negative aspects of fracking.

Read More
882 Words | 4 Pages

Energy is a key factor in today's society, especially in Kentucky. Kentucky's main energy resource is coal, 91.8 percent of our energy comes from this resource but coal is nonrenewable, meaning that there is a limited amount of this type of fuel. Coal mining is also detrimental to the environment, people living and working in coal mining communities have a higher chance of getting lung cancer. with surface mining, this has been linked as a cause for poisoning local residences from the chemicals used in the mountaintop mining. there are still issues with the environment and natural wildlife in the surrounding areas of the coal mining as well.

Read More
811 Words | 4 Pages

A smart, inexpensive way to help reduce methane emissions could help the industry grow immensely and overall help save the planet as well. “Hillary Clinton, former U.S. secretary of state and probable candidate for president, also likes to describe natural gas as a “bridge” to a greener economy” (“Natural Gas Boom no Boon to Climate Change”). A positive democratic opinion on fracking should be considered among the American population to continue to grow and invest in the industry. Previous studies have shown that the use of natural gas instead of coal to heat homes or provide electricity could greatly reduce the global carbon dioxide emissions. Aside from air emissions, many skeptics worry about the chemicals that are

Read More
254 Words | 2 Pages

“Rikki-tikki-tavi” is a story by Rudyard kipling that has a very helpful,murders, and happy mongoose. His name is Rikki. rikki he is the main character of the story. He is ready to murder snakes that stand in his way.

Read More
49 Words | 1 Pages

1. Even though fracking reduces carbon emissions, it is still harmful to the environment. For example: water pollution/contamination. There can be accidental seeping of the chemicals (possibly carcinogenic) and can contaminate groundwater around the site due to bad practice (this imposes harm to both the ecosystem and people 's health).

Read More
519 Words | 3 Pages

First, one of the main issue in fracking is how it effects the air pollution. These natural gases can produce harmful fumes in the air and have had early deaths of thousands of people each year. This can be considered health hazards to humans but is still to be unknown. Fracking is the burning of coal. Fracking can pollute the air hundred miles away with little to no fracking and greenhouse gas is used to reduce the reliance of coal.

Read More
721 Words | 3 Pages

By fracking for natural gas and shifting from coal to natural gas power generation plants, we could benefit economically, save our environment, and save millions of gallons of

Read More
1059 Words | 5 Pages

In the first edition of this book called Coal Energy Systems written by the same author as Clean Coal Engineering Technology (Second addition) says that coal is the main energy source in the United States. The start of the second edition says that coal is the largest source of fuel in the world and exists in about 70 different countries. Coal can generate as much electricity as all the other energy sources combined and in the United States, coal is the abundant energy source. Coal has a big history of producing many pollutants into the atmosphere and has been contributed to many health problems. An act was put in place called The Clean Air Act Amendments if 1970.

Read More
181 Words | 1 Pages

(Fracking and Poverty) Furthermore, “The gas industry has chosen to voluntarily tell what additives are used at each well site through the Frack Focus database” (“EIA Kids Natural Gas Basics”) So there are some disadvantages, but the advantages of fracking are more

Read More
340 Words | 2 Pages

I am really neutral on the issue. I know there are benefits to fracking for natural gas. It is better for the climate than fossil fuels, and it is cheaper. What I do not know is the extent of the damages it can potentially cause. It is a relatively new practice, and enough time has not passed to cause justification or condemnation.

Read More
679 Words | 3 Pages

Using natural gas from fracking is a better and safer alternative than using coal because natural gas does not emit as much carbon dioxide into our atmosphere. The graphs presented on natfuel.com shows that the amount of carbon dioxide

Read More

More about Compare And Contrast Coal And Natural Gas

Related Topics

Open Document