Saving lives with coal

Discussion in 'Environment' started by bripat9643, Oct 23, 2011.

  1. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,752
    Thanks Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,272
    http://www.dondodd.com/driessen/010709.html


    Saving lives with coal

    The benefits of coal-generated electricity are too often ignored in public policy debates

    By Paul Driessen

    January 07, 2009

    There is no such thing as "clean coal," environmentalists insist. Burning coal to generate electricity emits soot particles that cause respiratory problems, lung cancer and heart disease, killing 24,000 Americans annually, they argue.

    It's the kind of claim that eco-activist Bruce Hamilton says "builds the Sierra Club," by generating cash and lobbying clout for his and similar groups.

    It's also disingenuous, unethical and harmful.

    Since 1970, unhealthy power plant pollutants have been reduced by almost 95% per unit of energy produced. Particulate emissions (soot) decreased 90% below 1970 levels, even as coal use tripled, and new technologies and regulations will nearly eliminate most coal-related pollution by 2020, notes air quality expert Joel Schwartz.

    Moreover, the vast bulk of modern power plant particulates are ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate. "Neither substance is harmful, even at levels tens of times greater than are ever found in the air Americans breathe," Schwartz says.

    The alleged death toll is based on speculative links between pollution and disease, and unwarranted extrapolations from responsible estimates to levels that grab headlines and prompt contributions.

    Coal helps keep American homes, businesses, factories, airports, schools and hospitals humming, and provides myriad benefits that never get mentioned by anti-coal factions. Even if we accept these groups' assertions as fact, the benefits of coal should be considered in any policy debate - just as we acknowledge (and strive to reduce) motor vehicle deaths, but recognize the value of transporting people, products and produce.

    Coal generates half of all US electricity, and 60-98% in twenty-two states, according to the Energy Information Administration. Modern, state-of-the-art, low-pollution coal-fired generators have replaced both antiquated power plants and monstrous industrial furnaces that were the backbone of our nation's steel-making and industrial might just two generations ago. They build and power thousands of products that improve and save millions of lives.

    Imposing excessive new regulations, or closing coal-fired power plants, would produce few health or environmental benefits. But it would exact huge costs on society - and bring factories, offices and economies to a screeching halt in states that are 80-98% dependent on coal: Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

    Coal's reliable, affordable electricity creates millions of high-paying jobs, and thus provides health insurance, rent and mortgage money, nutrition, clothing and retirement benefits for countless families. It keeps people warm (and alive) on freezing nights, and comfortable during summer heat waves like the 2003 scorcher that killed 15,000 elderly French citizens who didn't have air-conditioning.

    Thanks to coal-based electricity, CT scans, x-rays, colonoscopies and other examinations detect cancer, heart disease and other health threats, saving numerous lives every year. Life-saving and enhancing surgeries are performed because doctors have lights, lasers, computers, and sterile operating rooms and equipment. Premie wards and life-support systems carry people through critical illnesses.

    Children and adults get vaccinations that remain viable because of dependable refrigeration. Millions avoid deadly intestinal bacteria, due to refrigerators and freezers, and water that is sterilized and piped in large measure because of electricity.

    American families live in houses that are built from stronger materials and to higher standards, because of electricity. Tens of millions have been warned of natural disasters, and given time to flee, thanks to radios and televisions.

    Environmentalists talk glibly about replacing America's 600-plus coal-fired power plants, and the 2 billion megawatt-hours of electricity they generate annually. But with what?

    Most greens detest nuclear power as much as they hate coal. They want to dismantle dams, not build new ones. They oppose drilling for natural gas that could partially substitute for coal, and fuel essential backup generators for wind farms. They support geothermal energy in theory, but rarely in practice.

    They oppose construction of new state-of-the-art coal-fired plants that America needs to supply more baseload power, to serve a growing population and electricity-hungry products and equipment of every description. Most do support wind energy - and it must also play a role.

    However, right now, wind turbines provide a mere 1% of all US electricity. Wind power leader Texas gets just 2% of its electricity from breezes - versus 36% from coal. On blistering summer afternoons, when they most need reliable air-conditioners, Texans can count on wind turbines to generate at only 9% of their installed capacity, because that's when the wind blows least. (Compare that to 80-95% reliability for coal, gas and nuclear.)

    How exactly will Texas replace 36% of its electricity with renewable energy? How exactly will Indiana and North Dakota replace the 94% of the low-cost electricity that they get from coal?

    What happens to all those benefits when coal power is legislated, regulated, litigated, priced or cap-and-traded to the sidelines? To lives that are improved and saved with that electricity?

    A little specificity, moral clarity and social responsibility would help here. We generally can't expect it from environmental activists - who excel at denigrating and opposing energy, but do little to generate anything but hot air and political power.

    However, we should expect, and demand, clear answers from judges, elected representatives and unelected government regulators. That's the essence of ethics and social responsibility.

    If we are going to end this recession, retain American jobs and living standards, and rejuvenate our economy, we will need vast quantities of electricity from coal - and every other source - now and for decades to come. The rest of the world also needs coal, to lift people out of poverty and save lives.

    In impoverished countries, two billion people rarely or never have electricity. Four million infants, children and parents die every year from lung infections - caused by smoke, soot and other pollutants from open fires that heat their homes and cook their meager food, because they don't have electricity. Two million more perish from intestinal diseases, caused by unsafe water and spoiled food, because they lack refrigeration, sanitation and water treatment.

    Radical environmentalists trumpet the exaggerated death count from producing electricity here in the United States. But they callously battle every proposal to build coal, gas or hydroelectric projects in these destitute countries.

    24,000 speculative deaths versus six million very real deaths is hardly a fair tradeoff.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    From 2.5 gw to 42 gw in 12 years. Wind is doing just fine, Pattycake. And, given the present inovations coming online, solar will have at least that kind of growth in the next decade. Geothermal has yet to be even began to be tapped, according to MIT, that will be far cheaper than wind or solar.

    Wind is also cheaper than dirty coal. Solar will be shortly. Neither requiers the removal of mountain tops, and the poisoning of the rivers of this nation. Goodby coal.
     
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,149
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,179
    Clean coal is going to be huge after 2012. Like as in.........enormous. And natural gas..........this is where our energy will be coming from for the forseable future..........

    From Yahoo Finance...........

    Forget About Wind & Solar

    Its simple.........here in America, it doesnt make economic sense.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2011
  4. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,104
    Thanks Received:
    9,264
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,387
    As long as nat gas prices remain suppressed, yes it will be increasingly relied upon to generate electricity.
    Interesting facts on coal- thanks for that. :thup:

    There is no hydrocarbon boogyman.
     
  5. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    At the cost of how many raptors, miagratory birds and bats?

    At the cost of how much damage to the landscape?
     
  6. wirebender
    Offline

    wirebender Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,723
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NC
    Ratings:
    +120
    Green energy. like most things green is a pipe dream plagued with unintended consequences.
     
  7. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,149
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,179
    no worries here wire.......see my new thread!!! Only those with the political IQ of a small soap dish dont get it.
     
  8. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,104
    Thanks Received:
    9,264
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,387
    Wind, solar, hydro, geo, etc. have much merit.
    Unfortunately economics isn't one of them.
    Some day, hopefully.
     
  9. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    67,752
    Thanks Received:
    8,068
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +27,272
    Electricity from the sun and wind account for %1 of our consumption. Furthermore, almost every watt of this production needs backup that only fossil fueled sources can provide.

    Your belief that growth from a minute percentage from a slightly less minute percentage will continue at the same rate is laughable.

    Wind is not cheaper than coal. it's far more expensive. Solar is at least 4 times as expensive.

    Where do you get these bullshit ideas?
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,440
    Thanks Received:
    5,409
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,294
    Unlike you, Pattycake, not from obeses junkies on the radio.

    Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch

    The investment banking company Lazard Ltd. released the following comparison among generation technologies, in 2008 dollars. The levelized costs include production tax credits, investment tax credits, and accelerated asset depreciation as applicable. Assumes 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, and 5-20 year tax life. Assumptions for alternative technologies include: 30% debt at 8% interest rate, 40% tax equity at 8.5% costs and 30% common equity at 12% cost. Assumptions for conventional generation technologies: 60% debt at 8.0% interest rate and 40% equity at 12% cost. Assumes coal price of $2.50 per MMBtu and natural gas price of $8.00 per MMBtu. 12% cost, 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, 5-20 year tax life, coal at $2.50 per million Btu, and natural gas at $8.00 per million Bt.[2]

    Coal/Nuclear/Gas: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

    Gas peaking: 22.5 - 34.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)
    IGCC: 11.0 - 14.1 (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
    Nuclear: 10.7 - 13.8
    Advanced supercritical coal: 7.8 - 14.4 (high end includes 90% carbon capture and storage) (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
    Gas combined cycle: 7.4 - 10.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)
    Alternatives: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)

    Solar PV (crystalline): 16.0 - 19.6
    Fuel cell: 12.7 - 15.0
    Solar PV (thin film): 13.1 - 18.2
    Solar thermal: 12.9 - 20.6 (low end is solar tower; high end is solar trough)
    Biomass direct: 6.5 - 11.3
    Wind: 5.7 - 11.3
    Geothermal: 5.8 - 9.3
    Energy efficiency: 0.0 - 5.0
     

Share This Page