Bautz 1

Nicholas Bautz
Mrs. DeBock
English IV Honors
29 Oct 2015
Essential Question: Why is American society pushing for a movement away from coal energy yet
it is still majorly used throughout the nation?
Working Thesis: Despite resentment from American society, coal energy is still majorly used
throughout the nation.
Refined Thesis: Despite substantial resentment from American society, coal continues to
Americas primary resource for energy production.
Service Annotated Bibliography
Clemente, Jude. "Coal Is the Most Secure Form of Energy." Coal. Ed. Roman Espejo. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Three National Security
Dimensions of Coal." American Coal 1 (2010). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19
Oct. 2015.
The article presents an argument stating that coal is the most secure form of energy
available for Americans. The author, Jude Clemente, makes the claim that coal is the best source
of energy for Americans because it is decentralized, easily transportable, and in abundance.
Clemente goes on to elaborate on his claim that coal power plants provide energy that is both
stable in price and availability. A significant amount of supporting evidence is presented to
support this claim. Furthermore, Clemente progresses to insisting that clean coal technologies are
the future for coal in supporting the longevity of its use and dampening its effect on the

Bautz 2
environment. This article is critical for establishing an understanding of why coal has been and
continues to be used thoroughly throughout America.

Gwynne, S. C. "Clean Coal Technologies Are Not the future of Energy Future." Coal. Ed.
Michael Logan. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Coal
Hard Facts." Texas Monthly (Jan. 2007). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Oct.
2015.
The article presents an argument that appeals to the reasons behind coal use. Gwynne
argues that government regulation plays a major role in American coal consumption. The article
establishes that coal and gas are both cheap, but both pollute the environment. The article goes
on to reason that government regulations requiring the use of clean energy technologies like CCT
(Clean Coal Technologies) or CGT (Clean Gas Technologies) are responsible for the unaffected
volume of coal and gas consumption. Gwynne also notes that coal power plants emit
ineradicable amounts of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury. The article states that coal
would have been long replaced if the political blunder of Three Mile Island had not happened.
Due to the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor, antinuclear sentiments have taken
root in American Government. However, the article reasons that politicians will eventually
understand that energy alternatives are indeed the answer. This article prevents a substantial
amount of evidence that is essential for proving the thesis. Information presented allows for a
strong argument against coal use throughout America.
Samuelson, Robert J. "Carbon Footprints and Nuclear Energy." Coal. Ed. Michael Logan.
Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Hollywood's Climate

Bautz 3
Follies." Washington Post 21 Mar. 2007. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 15 Oct.
2015.
The article argues that nuclear energy does not compare to other forms of renewable
energy in terms of cost and efficiency. The fact that every energy source leaves a carbon footprint
is constantly and thoroughly emphasized throughout the article. However, the article contradicts
itself multiple times by noting forms of so-called carbon free energy. Samuelson goes on to
argue that renewable energy offers more bang for the buck. However, a lack of supporting
evidence for this point is presented making the point seem weak. Subsequently, the article
struggles to present evidence from both sides of the argument. This will make denunciation of
these claims nearly effortless. This article will assist with forming a strong push behind the
central idea as its claims disagree with the thesis of the paper. Claims made by Samuelson will be
effectively demonstrate the weaker counter argument against uclear energy.

Sierra Club. "Coal Power Harms the Environment." What Energy Sources Should Be Pursued?
Ed. Stuart A. Kallen. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Rpt. from "Clean Air:
Dirty Coal Power." Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
The article strives to for a general consensus that energy generated from coal results in a
multitude of environmental repercussions. Let it be noted that this article was composed in 2005
and a follow up article it presented. Sierra Club argues that coal power plants emits enormous
amounts of nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide, and mercury, all of which are poisonous and toxic. The
article goes on to emphasize that coal plants have found loopholes in the Clean Air Act which
allow them to use outdated equipment to keep costs low. Sierra Club notes specific
environmental effects of coal power plants. Smog is a haze caused by Nitrogen Oxide reacting

Bautz 4
with organic compounds; smog is a carcinogen if directly inhaled. Soot is ash produced by coal
firing plants. The ecosystems within the vicinity of coal power plants are destroyed as many
organisms can withstand the conditions created by the massive amounts of coal soot. The article
is necessary for exposing the manacles of coal production in the United States.

Sierra Club. "Coal Should Not Be the Energy of the Future." Coal. Ed. Roman Espejo. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Dirty Truth About Coal:
Why Yesterday's Technology Should Not Be Part of Tomorrow's Energy Future." 2008.
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
Throughout the article, it is reiterated that coal is a hazardous source of energy for
American society. Sierra Club expresses how the hazards of obtaining coal are harmful for the
environment and society. Mining causes the destruction of ecosystems as well as pollution of the
mining vicinity. Furthermore, it is noted that coal mining is a major source of water and air
pollution. Contamination of ground water can be crippling to residential and rural areas that rely
heavily on groundwater for drinking and the cultivation of crops. Water pollution from coal
mining has been notorious for its economic repercussions as well as its ability to destroy
residential wells. The article goes on to state that there is an estimated 500 million dollar loss
each year due to pollutants from coal power plants. The article presents a sufficient amount of
information that will be exceptional for establishing the negative impact that coal has on the
economy as well as the environment.

Bautz 5
"Table: Carbon Dioxide Pollution from Coal-Fired Power Plants." Coal. Ed. Michael Logan.
Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
Web. 29 Oct. 2015.
The graph is an accurate depiction of carbon dioxide pollution from coal fired power plants
compared to all methods of gross electricity production. It is observed that coal accounts for
approximately 80 percent of all carbon dioxide pollution from gross energy production in the
US. This graph is necessary to prove the enormous impact coal brings upon the environment
with its pollution.