This page was last updated on August 25, 2014.
Time to support clean-energy methods; Kathy Nelson; Beaver County Times; August 17, 2014.
Ms. Nelson wrote at three previous letters about FirstEnergy since 2010, “Not difficult decision” (2/6/13), “Deny company’s zoning request” (6/23/11), and “Don’t buy utility’s fly-ash proposal” (5/9/10). This is the first letter I critiqued.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Sometimes looking at the bigger picture is the right thing to do. Coal-fired power plants should not be considered in this bigger picture.
“The health risks related to burning coal, and disposing of the toxic bi-products [sic] (CCBs), for the purpose of producing electricity are enormous. I know this first hand as I live 1/2 mile from one of our country’s largest coal bi-products [sic] disposal facilities.”
[RWC] Ms. Nelson refers to the Little Blue Run disposal facility for FirstEnergy’s Bruce Mansfield plant.
“Polluted wells from which we get our drinking water, polluted air that we breath [sic] every day, and the extreme devaluation of our property values are among some the negative aspects of burning coal for electricity.
“The fight between union workers who are employed by such facilities and environmental groups dedicated to preserving our world, should never exist. This should not be a debate between health and jobs. We need both, but sick employes cannot work.”
[RWC] Ms. Nelson appears to imply employees at coal-fired power plants have an elevated health risk compared to the general population or other industrial employees. In 2011, the American Lung Association (ALA) asserted, “Particle pollution from power plants is estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year.” Note the use of the terms “estimated” and “approximately.” This is because there is no way to know definitively that any given person died from “particle pollution from power plants,” either as a primary or secondary cause. For the sake of argument, let’s accept the ALA number. All choices balance something. Are 13,000 deaths/year too much to pay for nearly 50% of our electricity production? I don’t know. More than 30,000 people in the U.S. die each year in auto accidents and how many more allegedly die from car/truck/train-generated air pollution? Should we ban cars, trucks, and trains? How many bird deaths are acceptable for solar and wind power? Before you laugh at my “bird deaths” comment, remember we outlawed DDT worldwide because its overuse allegedly hurt the raptor (eagles, falcons, etc.) population via weakened egg shells, even though its use to control mosquitoes/malaria saved hundreds of thousands of human lives annually, especially in so-called “developing” countries. In 2007, after more than 40 years of DDT hysteria, the World Health Organization reversed its position. What new data changed the WHO’s mind? None. All of the DDT science has been well documented since the 1960s. How many million people died unnecessarily because of DDT consensus? (Note: While much has been understandably made about the return of bald eagles to the Pittsburgh area, the National Aviary says the birds were gone from this area “for 200 years or more,” long before DDT was first used in the U.S. in the mid-1940s. Allegedly there were as many as 44 breeding pairs of peregrine falcons in PA during the early 1900s before disappearing. I have no knowledge in this area, but 44 breeding pairs (less than one per county) for an area the size of PA doesn’t sound like very many.)
Assuming “environmental groups [are] dedicated to preserving our world” is a huge leap of faith. Indeed, as soon as “clean-energy methods” get close to commercial viability, they are no longer deemed “green.” We’ve seen this already with some hydro, wind, and solar projects.
“Conversion to clean energy is a long and expensive process, but I believe one that cannot and should not be hindered. Some jobs will suffer, I agree, but in the process, new and reliable employment will be created. Most importantly, employees will be healthy enough to go to work and support their families.”
[RWC] Ms. Nelson didn’t define “clean energy,” but she makes it clear she doesn’t believe coal-fired plants can ever meet her definition.
While we’re going through the “long and expensive … conversion to clean energy” and most of the rest of the world uses cheaper “fossil fuel,” how do we compete economically? Here’s a thought. Does anyone doubt our “clean energy” equipment would end up being manufactured offshore in countries using cheap, carbon-containing energy, like India, Red China, and so on?
I’ve written before I have no problem with “clean energy” and I think most of us believe we should exploit all economically and technically viable energy sources. By “economically viable” I mean the ability to compete in the marketplace without subsidies, tax credits, et cetera. This is the same position I take with all forms of energy production. What I take issue with is pinning our present and future solely on “clean energy” while tying our hands behind our back regarding domestic production of coal, hydro, natural gas, nuclear, and oil-based energy. Instead, we need to let the marketplace do its job without government interference beyond that deemed necessary by limited-government principles.
© 2004-2014 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.