Schicht im Schacht
Feb. 7th, 2007 08:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dream_labyrinthWhen I was driving home today, I listened to a report on the radio about the coal mining in the Ruhr and Saar areas.
There is one company that owns the eight mines currently still in use in Germany.
The peak in coal mining was in the Fifties. Coal mining was one of the major industries after the war, contributing to the recovery of German economy.
However, I think as early as the Sixties, coal mining had to subsidised. There is a lot of coal in the ground, but very deep, so mining is expensive. For a long time, there was an addition to the energy price, the Kohlepfennig, used to subsidise coal mining. But this was ruled unconstitutional in 1994. Since 1995, the subdsidies are paid from the naional budget.
Now the government plans to reduce coal mining bit by bit and stop it altogether by 2018.
And many people hate the idea.
They say that people will lose their jobs - which is certain, as there are people working not only in the mines but also in the industry catering to mining.
They say that it will make us dependent on oil - which is likely true as the government also sticks with the idea of stopping the use of atomic energy.
And, most importantly in the current discussion, they say it will lead to incalculabe costs. Once the mining is stopped, it has to be made sure the mines are safe, so there will be no accidents. Also, even after the mining stops, pumping off the ground water will have to continue, otherwise some regions will pretty much drown.
So the supporters of coal mining say it is much better to continue mining as these are unsurmountable problems.
I would like to disagree.
Yes, people will lose their jobs. But does that mean the national budget, meaning every tax payer, will have to support an unprofitable industry for all times?
Yes, we would depend on oil. As we do now, as nobody actually buys the coal anymore. Besides, I am by no means convinced that the nuclear power phase-out is such a brilliant idea.
But then unlike many west Germans, I remember times when we were not allowed to leave school during breaks and were told to not play outside and not sleep with the windows open because of thick layers of smog over the town - and that was not all the fault of the industrial plants around my home town, it was also due to the heating with coal in so many households. Yes, atomic energy is dangerous. So is crossing the street. (I know that isn't a perfect comparison. I know that there are probably better ways of producing energy. But an atomic plant is pretty clean in comparison to your common coal power plant. And the risks are not as high as painted by some people. This is not Chernobyl. (There is an atomic power plant about 40 kilometres south of where I live. Does that bother me? Not at all. But then I always maintain that if Germany is attacked with nuclear weapons, I hope to be where the bomb strikes. Then at least I'm dead right away and don't have to bother with living in a contaminated environment.))
Anyway, back to coal mining and the third argument: the future costs.
There are actually numbers being thrown around, which I think is pretty funny as there is no way of predicting even what will be needed, let alone how much it will cost, and for how long. Maybe nobody will live in the Ruhr area anymore one 100 years, and flooding it won't bother anyone.
But let's assume those things will have to be done for all eternity, do you really think it is an alternative to keep the mining going and supporting that? As long as the mining continues, it will leave damages to the environment that are added to the bill. As long as the mining continues, the costs will rise exponentially. Personally, if I have a choice of my tax money supporting a failing industry or the prevention of flooding of a town, I'd rather prevent the flooding than support the industry.
Besides, I think that the actual costs of keeping the former mining areas safe is less than the cost for keeping the mines going. Because now, we pay for the workers, and the machines, and the training of new workers, and the construction of new machines, and the retirement of the workers, and the storage of the coal nobody wants.
Then, we will pay for the machines to pump the water (I would think those are cheaper than the machinery needed in a working mine, too). We need to pay a few people to do regular check-ups. We need to pay pensions for the current workers until they die (which is probably not all that long, considering the health risks of mining).
The coal won't crawl off if we don't mine it. It's not as if it won't be there in a few hundred years if there is again a need to use it. And the slight chance that the industry might be needed again in some distant future is, in my eyes, not a good reason to keep paying for that industry until that very distant future.
Oh, and funny story about the gullability (is that a word?) of people: Some power providers offer environmentally friendly power. Meaning, the power coming from your outlet will be won solely from solar or water energy. even if all your neighbours don't bother and get the OMG!EBIL atomic energy.
Uhm? How do they do that?
Or rather, who believes that??
There is one company that owns the eight mines currently still in use in Germany.
The peak in coal mining was in the Fifties. Coal mining was one of the major industries after the war, contributing to the recovery of German economy.
However, I think as early as the Sixties, coal mining had to subsidised. There is a lot of coal in the ground, but very deep, so mining is expensive. For a long time, there was an addition to the energy price, the Kohlepfennig, used to subsidise coal mining. But this was ruled unconstitutional in 1994. Since 1995, the subdsidies are paid from the naional budget.
Now the government plans to reduce coal mining bit by bit and stop it altogether by 2018.
And many people hate the idea.
They say that people will lose their jobs - which is certain, as there are people working not only in the mines but also in the industry catering to mining.
They say that it will make us dependent on oil - which is likely true as the government also sticks with the idea of stopping the use of atomic energy.
And, most importantly in the current discussion, they say it will lead to incalculabe costs. Once the mining is stopped, it has to be made sure the mines are safe, so there will be no accidents. Also, even after the mining stops, pumping off the ground water will have to continue, otherwise some regions will pretty much drown.
So the supporters of coal mining say it is much better to continue mining as these are unsurmountable problems.
I would like to disagree.
Yes, people will lose their jobs. But does that mean the national budget, meaning every tax payer, will have to support an unprofitable industry for all times?
Yes, we would depend on oil. As we do now, as nobody actually buys the coal anymore. Besides, I am by no means convinced that the nuclear power phase-out is such a brilliant idea.
But then unlike many west Germans, I remember times when we were not allowed to leave school during breaks and were told to not play outside and not sleep with the windows open because of thick layers of smog over the town - and that was not all the fault of the industrial plants around my home town, it was also due to the heating with coal in so many households. Yes, atomic energy is dangerous. So is crossing the street. (I know that isn't a perfect comparison. I know that there are probably better ways of producing energy. But an atomic plant is pretty clean in comparison to your common coal power plant. And the risks are not as high as painted by some people. This is not Chernobyl. (There is an atomic power plant about 40 kilometres south of where I live. Does that bother me? Not at all. But then I always maintain that if Germany is attacked with nuclear weapons, I hope to be where the bomb strikes. Then at least I'm dead right away and don't have to bother with living in a contaminated environment.))
Anyway, back to coal mining and the third argument: the future costs.
There are actually numbers being thrown around, which I think is pretty funny as there is no way of predicting even what will be needed, let alone how much it will cost, and for how long. Maybe nobody will live in the Ruhr area anymore one 100 years, and flooding it won't bother anyone.
But let's assume those things will have to be done for all eternity, do you really think it is an alternative to keep the mining going and supporting that? As long as the mining continues, it will leave damages to the environment that are added to the bill. As long as the mining continues, the costs will rise exponentially. Personally, if I have a choice of my tax money supporting a failing industry or the prevention of flooding of a town, I'd rather prevent the flooding than support the industry.
Besides, I think that the actual costs of keeping the former mining areas safe is less than the cost for keeping the mines going. Because now, we pay for the workers, and the machines, and the training of new workers, and the construction of new machines, and the retirement of the workers, and the storage of the coal nobody wants.
Then, we will pay for the machines to pump the water (I would think those are cheaper than the machinery needed in a working mine, too). We need to pay a few people to do regular check-ups. We need to pay pensions for the current workers until they die (which is probably not all that long, considering the health risks of mining).
The coal won't crawl off if we don't mine it. It's not as if it won't be there in a few hundred years if there is again a need to use it. And the slight chance that the industry might be needed again in some distant future is, in my eyes, not a good reason to keep paying for that industry until that very distant future.
Oh, and funny story about the gullability (is that a word?) of people: Some power providers offer environmentally friendly power. Meaning, the power coming from your outlet will be won solely from solar or water energy. even if all your neighbours don't bother and get the OMG!EBIL atomic energy.
Uhm? How do they do that?
Or rather, who believes that??
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 08:57 pm (UTC)They may offer discounts, but only because the loss of a few customers won't affect their bottom lines, and will help during times of peak power usage (ie, they don't have to spend money to improve the electrical grid if you leave). Heck, it even looks good on paper to say you support ecologically-friendly power alternatives but right now it is not yet cost-effective. Solar panels have a finite lifespan--they don't work forever. And the batteries used to store the energy is hardly a healthy thing to dispose of. Water energy also has limits, especially if a lot of people begin to use it. It's sad, but alternative energy is still very much in it's infancy.
The moment someone finds a cheap, truly environmentally safe source of power, the electric company will panic because then they are all out of work. As for the coal... I agree with you. If it is not used, not needed, and not marketable--then stop it, discontinue it, and let it go. People will find new work, and even if they stop it there will always be a need for trained geologists, for mining (of precious metals, gems, tunnels, etc.). Even then, people can be re-trained into new fields. It may have a short adjustment period, but people will get past it. From what little I understand of the situation, I say let it go.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 09:05 pm (UTC)I agree with you on the alternative energy. Once it is politically safe to cover the Sahara desert with sun collectors and once we're able to transport the energy to somewhere we can use it, then it starts getting interesting.
And wind power has the severe disadvantage of not only chopping up birds that fly too close to the wind mills, but also distracting migrating birds. There are so many problems right now, and Germany faces the problem of not having enough space to build enough windmills, not enough sunshine for any good amount of solar energy and ebb and flood are not strong enough to use for power.
So we would still depend on other countries to supply power for us. Which would mean we don't use atomic energy anymore, but import power from countries that do. Very practical!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-08 12:06 am (UTC)We need better forms of energy, and personaly I'm not too fond of wind power becuase as you know, I'm rather fond of birdies. I don't think any one form of energy will replace oil, it's going to require everyone and everything to be more energy efficent, and some people would do well to electric cars that require pluging in (assuming that a country has excess generating capacity at off peak hours), some vehicles like trucks would be best of sticking with diesel, some hybrid cars and natural gas cars. Develipment has to continue on more efficient solar power, nuclear fusion and more efficient fission, perhaps tidal power, or hamsters running wheels power. Imagine a nation powered by hamster wheels. Imagine the land area needed to grow hamster food, imagine the piles of hamster poop, imagine having to burry or dispose of the millions of hamsters who died (through natural causes, I'm not promoting hamster abuse).