For years, humanity has heavily relied on the use of fossil fuels; in fact, 81 percent of the total energy used in the U.S. is extracted from oil, coal, and natural gas (National Geographic). This energy is used to heat and provide electricity for homes, businesses, cars, and factories.
Unfortunately, the excessive use of Earth’s natural resources is leaving us at risk of depletion of these necessities and is a threat to all life and human existence. With measurable harm to planet Earth, scientists have begun searching for new solutions to sustain human life.
One alternative being studied and considered is mineral carbonation, a process by which minerals are converted into carbon dioxide through a chemical reaction. This process is becoming increasingly popular as a way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by containing the CO2 in solid byproducts. This involves combining CO2 from industrial emissions with naturally occurring minerals to form stable carbonates – may not be the most efficient or cost-effective storage option available. Although anything may seem better when compared to fossil fuels and their harmful impact, mineral carbonation is not a solution to the detriments to harmful emissions as it is time-consuming, expensive, and causes harm to soil, air, and water.
LAND CLEARING AND HARM TO SOIL
With fossil fuels contributing to low-quality soil and erosion, mineral carbonation and mining do not seem to be sustainable. The material required involves displacing millions of tonnes of rock, earth, and soil, which escalates the potential for sedimentation, erosion, and loss of habitat.
If this method is used, there will be an increased need for land rehabilitation. This would involve the reshaping of landform due to the volume of tailing, which would be larger than the mined rock. In this sense, this method is unsustainable.
THE IMPACT ON AIR AND WATER
One of the significant environmental impacts of mining is the pollution of air and water. When mineral ore is extracted from underground, it is often done through drilling and blasting, which creates dust and particulate matter.
The wind or water can then carry these pollutants and contaminate nearby streams, lakes, and other water bodies.
This can have severe consequences for aquatic life and drinking water sources. Moreover, mining dust also poses serious health risks for humans, particularly those living near the mining sites. Dust particles can cause respiratory problems as well. Excessive dust reduces visibility, particularly in areas where mining operations are close to roads and highways.
To address this issue, mining companies need to adopt measures to control the amount of dust and fine matter produced during mining operations. This can include implementing proper ventilation systems, using dust-suppressing agents, and investing in new technologies to reduce emissions. Additionally, mining companies should prioritize responsible waste management practices to prevent habitat destruction and limit the release of toxic substances into the environment.
THE IMPACT ON TIME AND MONEY
When assessing the feasibility of carbon capture and storage methods, time and money are two key factors to consider.
Aside from the fact that mineral carbonation requires additional energy to be used, its implementation leads to the production of more CO2 in the process. This defeats the purpose of carbon capture since the emission offsets are minimal. Additionally, the mining industry would have to be drastically expanded to store the amount of CO2 produced from burning coal, which poses significant environmental concerns and financial burdens.
Other carbon capture methods, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and direct air capture (DAC), may be more practical in terms of their time and financial costs. CCS involves capturing CO2 emissions from industrial processes and storing them in underground reservoirs. DAC, on the other hand, directly captures CO2 from the air and stores it in a similar way to CCS. Both methods, while still facing challenges, have the potential to be more scalable and cost-effective in the long run compared to mineral carbonation.
A FINAL NOTE
In order to use natural resources effectively for mankind, we must take into account all facets of the situation, as disturbing the environment can cause a number of adverse, unintended consequences. Cyanide spills, destruction of wildlife habitats, and fish kills are all “side effects” of mining on public lands in the West and can be found all over the world.
Sustainable energy sources can provide economic advantages such as job creation and reduced energy costs in the long run. Investing in renewable energy can also lead to new opportunities for innovative technologies and advancements in the energy sector. •
