Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
. . .Whenwefinallybreakthroughthecordonandclimbsanddunestoreachitsbrim,anapocalyptic
sight greets us: a giant, secret toxic dump . . .
The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water
and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.
For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one
hour, but those who live in Mr. Yan's village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same
poison every day.
People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at
unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born
with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.
3
Does this mean the energy source this process makes possible is dirty and immoral? When I speak at
colleges and students tell me that fossil fuels are “dirty,” I sometimes ask them that question without first
telling them what kind of energy the story is talking about. Inevitably they say it should be banned. When
I reveal it's wind power, they protest, “No, just because something has problems doesn't mean we ban it.
Otherwise we would ban everything. We should look at the big picture and try to solve the problem.”
Exactly, I say. And we need to take the same approach with fossil fuels.
USING TECHNOLOGY TO MINIMIZE, NEUTRALIZE, AND REVERSE POLLUTION
Coal as a fuel has many advantages: Modern coal technology can harness coal energy extremely cheaply,
and it is available in enormous quantities in many regions of the world. One of its disadvantages lies in its
natural properties. As a solid fuel of condensed biological origin, it includes a lot of materials that were
part of the natural environment long ago and that are potentially harmful to human health, such as sulfur,
nitrogen, and heavy metals.
Fortunately, thanks to technology, coal has been getting healthier and cleaner since the 1800s, and today
places that are home to coal plants, such as North Dakota, also have some of the world's cleanest air.
In the 1800s, coal was a major provider of energy for private households in Western countries, heating
the stoves that were at the center of every home to cook and to keep the deadly cold outside. But it had a
major direct health impact: the constant coal smoke indoors, which is almost always worse than any out-
door air pollution (although the coal stoves also led to plenty of outdoor air pollution). Urban areas were
particularly affected, as they were the centers of industrial activity and at the same time densely populated.
Pollution was visible as the smoke dampened the sunlight in the cities, darkened the laundry hanging to
dry, and even blackened the trees with soot. Still, the energy from coal was so valuable that these side ef-
fects were more than tolerated. In many cases they were embraced.
Take Manchester, England, a major industrial city full of coal waste. There was no movement against
air pollution in Manchester—even though its pollution makes China's air today seem pristine.
