Letters to the Editor

Reduction of coal use also hurts agriculture

Curtis Tate’s article in the May 12 Belleville News-Democrat was about transportation costs of low sulfur coal from Wyoming and the costs to install sulfur scrubbers in the processing portion of burning coal were the main problems for energy-production shutdowns in the area. The article mentioned that the Obama administration and EPA weren’t to blame for these problem. Never mind that from the beginning Obama and his minions blatantly said they were going to run the coal industry out of business.

I have worked in agriculture for 39 years and am involved in nutrient recommendations for all crops grown in Southern Illinois. Despite what the Sierra Club says and has influenced in regulation with their 1880s pre-industrial attitude they call “science,” the coal industry and industry in general has reduced sulfur content to such an extend over the last 30 years that we in agriculture will now need to add sulfur to our crop nutrient plans since it is so limited in supply from atmospheric deposition as previously supplied prior to the regulations. This conclusion is supported by research at the University of Illinois!

And ,there will be no way in hell that solar and wind will make up the difference to supply energy that coal has met all these years. Whether natural gas can meet the need is yet to be determined and at what cost. This again is government at its worst and special interest pseudo scientists like Sierra Club screwing up things they know not of.

Brent Rains, Collinsville