Beautiful, Clean, Coal?

Beautiful, Clean, Coal – Really?

       America’s chief executive, in his State of the Union address, once again assumed the missionary position for the energy lobby. His exact words? “We have ended the war on American Energy and we have ended the war on beautiful clean coal. We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world.”

       In truth, this is three lies. Two are venal sins, one mortal. To begin with, there isn’t, and never has been, a “war” on American energy. That’s simply Republicanese for “any attempts to preserve the environment for posterity.” Also, in truth, the United States is still a net energy importer at present, in spite of the Great Cheetoh’s claim to the contrary. When it comes to individual energy sources, the U.S. status as a net exporter of coal and refined petroleum products predates Trump and has nothing to do with the current administration. The third and far more egregious lie was the use of the word “Clean” in any sentence which also contains the word “coal.”

        I will for brevity’s sake, not revisit the medical effects on those who work in the production phase of coal, since there are (literally) volumes of data and a documented history of corporate denial and governmental inactivity on behalf of the thousands of black lung and cancer victims of the coal industry in Appalachia. Apparently, the assumptions of the corporate entities in New York (you didn’t really think they’d live in East Buttf**k Kentucky, did ya?) were:  a) “They’re poor and have no advocates” and 2) “They’re also illiterate and don’t vote.”

       Accordingly, and since I have not only the time and the disdain for coal fiction, but also because I worked for decades in an industry which unlike coal is safe and clean – nuclear power I offer the following. Yeah, it's long, so?

       To begin with, I have distilled relevant data from several reputable sources regarding “beautiful, clean coal.”  

       The American Lung Association (ALA) recently released a report on the dramatic health hazards surrounding coal-fired power plants.  The report, headlined  “Toxic Air: The Case For Cleaning Up Coal-Fired Power Plants,” reveals the dangers of air pollution emitted by coal plants.

One statement which leaps off the page is: “Particle pollution from power plants is estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year.” As it turns out, it isn’t even a contest, for who wins the air pollution derby.  “Coal-fired power plants that sell electricity to the grid produce more hazardous air pollution in the U.S. than any other industrial pollution sources.” The report further details, over 386,000 tons of air pollutants emitted from over 400 plants in the U.S. per year. Interestingly, while most of the power plants are physically located in the Midwest and Southeast, the entire nation is threatened by their toxic emissions.

       An ALA graph accompanying the report shows that while pollutants such as acid gases stay in the local area, metals such as lead and arsenic travel beyond state lines, and fine particulate matter has a global impact. In other words, while for some workers the pollution may be a tradeoff for employment at a plant, other regions don’t reap the same benefits, but still pay for the costs to their health.

        One facet of this report is the connection of specific pollutants to the diseases with which they are associated.  According to the ALA study, 76% of U.S. acid gas emissions, which are known to irritate breathing passages, come from coal-fired power plants. Out of all industrial sources, these plants are also the biggest emitter of airborne mercury, which can become part of the human food chain through fish and wildlife — high mercury levels are linked to brain damage, birth defects, and damage to the nervous system. Overall, air pollutants from coal plants can cause heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, birth defects, and premature death.

       The three main pollutants from coal-fired power stations are sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and invisible particulate matter. Collectively, they act as irritants and cause inflammation in the lungs leading to asthma, chronic lung disease, and restricted lung growth in children. The small particles are associated with lung cancer and are also absorbed through the lungs into the blood stream to cause angina, heart attacks and strokes.

       Research estimates that 24 people die for every terawatt hours (TWh) of coal burnt. Children are at even higher  risk from air pollution because they breathe more for their body weight than adults.

Another report, authored by three University of Wisconsin researchers, was entitled “Estimating the Health Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants Receiving International Financing”

The authors summarized what is a large technical study thus: “Summary:  In addition to the environmental and human health harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, coal-fired power plants emit massive amounts of toxic air pollutants that result in significant numbers of deaths and disease. We estimate that between roughly 6000 and 10,700 annual deaths from heart ailments, respiratory disease and lung cancer can be attributed to the 88 coalfired power plants and companies receiving public international financing.”

       “Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is also associated with other health outcomes, including infant deaths, asthma and other lung diseases.”  Clean and beautiful, huh?

Finally, some sobering numbers from a statistical survey actually done for the EPA (and, subsequently,  the subject of attempted suppression by the energy industry): “Coal is the largest energy source for generating electricity at U.S. power plants. There are approximately 1,200 coal-fired generators at 450 facilities in the United States. They generate about 44.6 percent of the country's electricity. There are approximately 125 coal-fired power facilities in the Southwest. Texas generates more electricity from coal-fired power plants than any other state in the country.

        Conclusions: “Coal-fired power plants are among the country's greatest sources of pollution. They are the biggest industrial emitters of mercury and arsenic into the air. They emit 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as posing a threat to human health and the environment.”

        “Coal-fired power plants also emit cadmium, chromium, dioxins, formaldehyde, furans, lead, nickel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. They emit volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, and xylene. Emissions include acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. Small amounts of radioactive materials such as radium, thorium, and uranium are also emitted.”

       A separate study done years later actually estimates the radioactivity (defined as the total amount of radioactive material released) of coal fired plant smokestack fly ash as 50 times that of any operating US nuclear power plant.

       Burning coal in power plants emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides react with precipitation in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Burning coal also produces particulate matter.    About 60 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 50 percent of mercury emissions, and 13 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions come from fossil-fueled power plants. Coal- and oil-fired power plants also account for about 60 percent of arsenic emissions, 30 percent of nickel emissions, and 20 percent of chromium emissions.

       The final and immutable truth is as follows, regardless of what the moron in charge alleges:

Coal-fired power plants account for 81 percent of the electric power industry's greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and climate change. The most significant greenhouse gas emitted by coal-fired power plants is carbon dioxide. They also emit smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. The hazardous air emissions from coal-fired power plants cause serious human health impacts. Arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium compounds, TCDD dioxin, formaldehyde, and nickel compounds are listed as carcinogens in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program. Furan and lead are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens.

        Hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants can, and, statistically, do cause a wide range of health effects, including heart and lung diseases, such as asthma. Exposure to these pollutants can damage the brain, eyes, skin, and breathing passages. It can affect the kidneys, lungs, and nervous and respiratory systems. Exposure can also affect learning, memory, and behavior.

If, in the face of the above statistical data, you think coal is “clean” you are beyond either education or redemption.

        Now, one of the reflexive counters to the “facts of coal” argument is the mindless retort “Oh yeah, what about nuclear power?”  Let me lead off with two factual statements: Neither of the plant designs (especially safety systems) involved in the world’s two reactor accidents which resulted in the release of measurable contaminants to the environment (Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi) could have been licensed to operate in the United States.

       More significantly, there are other types of  reactor designs far more inherently stable and safe than current designs. If you still interested at this point, Google “liquid salt” reactors. We, the US, unlike earlier in the development of nuclear power, are lagging, vice leading, the rest of the industrialized world (Denmark, India, China, the UK) in the development of these, even safer, technologies. Further discussion here is therefore related to the current status and technology of US civilian nuclear power production.

       Perhaps the most powerful statement of the essentially zero effects of Nuclear power plants on the environment and its occupying humans comes from a former Boston investigative reporter, whose crusade took a radical change when she was subjected to real data.

        “As a reporter for a TV station in Boston I reported on a study suggesting an association between elevated leukemia rates and proximity to the Pilgrim Nuclear Power plant. I was proud to have broken such news, but subsequent investigation found no connection.”

     “Had I known then what I have come to know about the actual health effects of nuclear radiation I never would have reported the first story. And if critics of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decision to end a new study on whether living near a nuke raises cancer risk were aware of this information, it’s likely they wouldn’t be as critical. Canceling it makes sense. Calling for the study in the first place didn’t.”

         “The science on radiation risk is clear. The risk is stunningly lower than commonly assumed, certainly far lower than I assumed when I reported on nuclear power issues. Even at the frighteningly high doses received by the hibakusha, the survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan who were within 3 miles of ground zero and were exposed not just in that one instant but for weeks and months and longer, the excess cancer risk is tiny. The chance of dying from radiation-induced cancer for the atomic bomb survivors was 2/3 of 1%! At more moderate doses, the 70 year-long and still-running Life Span Study of the hibakusha and their offspring (under the aegis of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation) has shown no rates of any radiogenic disease elevated above the normal rates in the non-exposed population. No multi-generational genetic damage either. (Even low doses cause birth defects if pregnant mothers are exposed.)”

“This all goes so dramatically against what is commonly assumed, and what I just took for granted in my reporting days. But it is hard evidence from one of the longest and most in-depth and independent epidemiological studies ever done.”

       Remember, this is a rare instance of a reporter discovering and then actually admitting that the data fails to support their initial belief and even more significantly showing that data and owning their error.

       And finally, not coal related, but as support for my assertion that nuclear power is a superior and light years safer alternative for Electric power production:

       This final paragraph comes from a study which, in its long form, is entitled, “Cancer in populations living near nuclear facilities. A survey of mortality nationwide and incidence in two states.” It is long, data filled, and technical, so I’ll close with just the abstract.

       “Reports from the United Kingdom have described increases in leukemia and lymphoma among young persons living near certain nuclear installations. Because of concerns raised by these reports, a mortality survey was conducted in populations living near nuclear facilities in the United States. All facilities began service before 1982. Over 900,000 cancer deaths occurred from 1950 through 1984 in 107 counties with or near nuclear installations. Each study county was matched for comparison to three "control counties" in the same region. There were 1.8 million cancer deaths in the 292 control counties during the 35 years studied. Deaths due to leukemia or other cancers were not more frequent in the study counties than in the control counties. For childhood leukemia mortality, the relative risk comparing the study counties with their controls before plant start-up was 1.08, while after start-up it was 1.03. For leukemia mortality at all ages, the relative risks were 1.02 before start-up and 0.98 after. (ed. Note: this is actually a lower cancer incidence than before the plants went on line! It also is absent any of the coal associated contaminants). If any plant specific cancer risk was present in US counties with nuclear facilities, it was too small to be detected with the methods employed.

        Summary. The next time Trump or anybody else tries to tell you that coal is clean or beautiful, you are encouraged to yell, “bullshit” at the television. Also, the next time some moron decides to play the nuclear scare card, inject a dose of sanity into the conversation. Finally, find out how your elected representatives feel on the coal/nuclear issue and then let them know how you feel.