I've been following the Global Warming debate...err sorry, Climate Change debate now that it's actually getting cooler and the energy bill that was recently passed for quite some time now. I've read literally hundreds of documents, opinions and other articles. As the "War on Coal" continues to gather steam the best way to fight ignorance is with facts. I'm going to share with you a lot of things I've learned. Typically the people who support this bill or the anti coal crowd are ill informed and will continually cite bogus information or things that have little truth. The fact is most of them know very little about this issue and are simply repeating what they have heard elsewhere. The people behind this push have the moral ground, no one wants pollution but we also need factual information to make informed decisions. Arm yourself with factual information and you make yourself a formidable opponent when debating this topic.
- A Starting Point
George H. Bush proclaimed he was going to be the environmental President. From his administration came some of the first major legislation to combat pollution. Acid Rain, Lead and other things were the large topics of the day. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1990, it's ironic that most people on the Global Warming side of this issue will often complain about people ignoring the science when the very catalyst for where we are at today did just that. In 1980 Congress commissioned a study on acid rain that ultimately cost $600 million dollars over a ten year span. This study was to define and shape some of the language in the the Clean Air Act regarding acid rain. Once completed since the findings did not fit the politics it was dismissed and according to the following article ultimately destroyed the career of one scientist who helped author it. Ever wonder why you won't here anyone speak up? Read the story of Ed Krug why. The following excerpt is from a very long article.
Some people don't like what Edward Krug has to say about acid rain. That was apparent when he spoke at a seminar on the subject last April in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Krug, a soil scientist who had helped conduct a 10-year federal study of acid rain, spoke with some expertise. He told his audience that he and his fellow researchers on the National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project had determined that acid rain was an environmental nuisance, not a catastrophe.
It was a message that environmentalists didn't want to hear. One woman hissed at him, "You need to take a reality check."
Unfortunately for Krug, she isn't the only one who doesn't like his ideas. Congress ignored NAPAP's findings, and when Krug tried to point out that the federal government is forcing utilities to spend billions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn't exist, a federal agency did everything in its power to keep the media from listening to him. Krug's research has upset the plans of some of Washington's most powerful bureaucrats, and they aren't happy. Because of them, the 44-year-old Krug has experienced numerous reality checks.
Krug is respected in his field. His mentor, John Tedrow, a world-renowned soil scientist at Rutgers University, says that Krug borders "on genius." Krug has developed an internationally accepted theory on lake acidity. He has published in prestigious scientific journals. He organized the Acid Rain Symposium at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has served as an adviser to two directors of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But today, because of politics, he cannot find work in his field.
After Krug appeared on 60 Minutes to talk about what his research for NAPAP revealed about the relationship between acid rain and acidic lakes, the EPA branded him a scientist of "limited credibility," called his statements "outlandish," and said he was "on the fringes of environmental science." The Agency, under pressure, later recanted those accusations.
After he published an internationally praised acid-rain assessment, the EPA organized a scathing secret review that other scientists called a "sham." The producer of the 60 Minutes broadcast says the EPA attempted to discredit Krug while CBS was preparing the story. The EPA denied the charges.
Why did this happen? "He was," a colleague says, "a bit immature in the area of political science."
Source: ACID TEST by William Anderson Published in Reason Magazine, January 1992 - The General Misconception of Increasing Air Pollution
False and no where near the truth. This may be a surprise to most people but the most common air pollutants associated with burning fossil fuels other than Nitrogen Dioxide have been decreasing since the 70's despite increased power generation, more cars and more buildings all using more energy. This is according to the EPA:
Annual emissions estimates are used as one indicator of the effectiveness of our programs. The graph below shows that between 1980 and 2008, gross domestic product increased 126 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 91 percent, energy consumption increased 29 percent, and U.S. population grew by 34 percent. During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 54 percent. The graph also shows that between 1980 and 2007, CO2 emissions increased by 32%.
Source: EPA: Air Quality Trends - Asthma
Over the last two decades there has been an ever increasing amount of asthma, environmentalists have seized on this and will point to fossil fuel burning as the culprit. This section has specifically followed the above one as it shows we have decrease in air pollution and in that same time frame asthma has increased. Perhaps we need to burn more fossil fuels? Of course I'm kidding and I'm not medical doctor or scientist but trying to make a connection between fossil fuel burning and asthma certainly has no correlation with what the facts on air pollution are.
I have my own theory that it's been caused by modern building techniques that have been implemented over the last few decades that would coincide with the increase in asthma. Buildings of today are much more efficient but that efficiency traps everything inside the dwelling. You also have kids spending more time inside than you did in the past.
For those of you concerned about asthma and using coal in your home most of the forum members here that have this affliction have suggested using coal has improved their situation as crazy as that sounds. There is medical study that has the same conclusion. See this KB article for more information: Asthma and Coal Heating - Using the Word "Pollutant" to Describe CO2
CO2 of course has continued to rise of with our increased use of fossil fuels. Keep in mind many will try and demonize it and put it into the common category of pollutant. CO2 is not a pollutant but a greenhouse gas and a very important part of the environment. When you look at the big picture even as a greenhouse gas it's a paltry amount when compared to the mother of all greenhouse gases water vapor. Should we call water a pollutant? - The Misuse of Imagery
We've all seen the pictures of the smoke stacks belching smoke. There's one directly above in the image from the EPA. What you may not realize is that is not smoke but water vapor. Let's take this image for example that one poster made the unfortunate mistake of posting within a discussion I was involved in on another forum:
It was posted with the exclamation "those aren't clouds" which ironically is exactly what they are and it took a lot of convincing before he wanted to believe me. We have two types of stacks in this picture. The dominant one in the front and same ones behind it are cooling stacks which produce nothing but water vapor. The skinny stacks to the right would be the ones used to vent the gases from firing coal and since wet scrubbers are used in many coal fired power plants that is most likely all water vapor as well. It's ironic but in the case of the stacks on the right it's pollution control that is being depicted as pollution.edit:Image has been removed
I went and tracked down the source of the image. The photographer of this image actually used a setting on the camera that will make details such as you have here with black on white stand out. That is why the top of the cooling stack that is producing nothing but water appears to be so black. Not only is it false representation of coal plant by trying to pawn it off as pollution but we have an image that was purposely manipulated to produce the most dramatic effect possible. Here's a quote from the photographer:
the smoke looks bad (and even worse due to the HDR processing)
- Subsidies
This is often thrown about that fossil fuel sector receives massive subsidies, it does as do all other forms of energy we use. Personally I think they should drop all subsidization but that's for another topic. The one document that I'm aware of that gives a very good overview of subsidies is a 2007 report produced by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) which is an arm of the Department of Energy. This report is compilation of different subsidies given to different energy sectors for the year 2007.
So let's delve into this document shall we? In 2007 energy subsidies to all sectors totaled an estimated $16.6 Billion dollars. This document breaks this down into an overall category and then has two other breakdowns for electricity and another for liquid fuels (gas, ethanol for vehicles). Firstly I'll list the totals for all that can be applied to these specific fuels. Keep in mind the net generation from renewable resources is a relatively small percentage of the overall total.
I'm not going to list every sector, see the document for the full breakdown. Here's the subsidation specifi to sectors for electricity generation.- Table ES1
- Coal, Natural Gas, Petroleum & Nuclear
- $6.718 Billion
- Renewables
- $4.875 Billion
First we'll tackle the "Refined Coal" category as that has the largest subsidy. They don't exactly define what refined coal is but as best I can gather it's coal that has been processed like K-Fuel which has much lower emissions when burned in existing power plants. They mix it with coal and it lowers them significantly. As I understand it this transformed coal is quite similar to anthracite. None the less if this subsidy dropped off the face of the planet since it generates such a little amount of energy it's really insignificant in the grand scheme of things.- Table ES5
- Coal
- Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 1,946
Subsidization : $854 million
Cost per megawatthour of generation $0.44
- Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 1,946
- Refined Coal
- Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 72
Subsidization : $2,156 million
Cost per megawatthour of generation: $29.81
- Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 72
- Nuclear
- Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 794
Subsidization : $1,267 million
Cost per meggwatthour of generation: $1.59
- Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 1
Subsidization : $14 million
Cost per meggwatthour of generation: $24.34
- Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 794
- Wind
- Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 31
Subsidization : $724 million
Cost per megawatthour of generation: $23.37
- Net generation in billion kilowatthours: 31
The largest producer of energy is of course is coal, as you can see it receives a little more than wind generation. What is significant is because electricity produced by wind generation is so small the cost per megawatt is staggering. The average home consumes roughly 1 megawatt per month so if all their electric came from wind you would have to add $24 to your bill compared to the 44 cents coal gets.
Even if we combine both the coal and refined coal subsidies together it's still doesn't amount to much per megawatt. About $1.50
I'll throw the subsidies in here for liquid fuels simply because the subsidy for ethanol is so out outrageous. I'm not sure if the subsidy the farmers receive for growing the corn itself is also included, the document doesn't specify.
As you can see ethanol received the most subsidization of any sector. This of course would be because of the huge farming lobby. 19000% more than the oil.- Table ES6.
- Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids
- FuelConsumption(quadrillion Btu): 55.78
Subsidization : $1,921 Million
Subsidy per million Btu: $0.03
- FuelConsumption(quadrillion Btu): 55.78
- Ethanol/Biofuels
- FuelConsumption(quadrillion Btu): 0.57
Subsidization : $3,249 Million
Subsidy per million Btu: $5.72
- FuelConsumption(quadrillion Btu): 0.57
- Radiation
Radiation in coal and fly ash? Certainly there is as there is radiation in everything. The claim often heard is "Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste." This claim first started making the rounds after this article coincidentally titled "Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste" was published in Scientific American and online site supposedly about science. Frankly they and the author should be ashamed of themselves for using such an inflammatory and deceptive title.
The editors note that was added a full year after publication of this article:By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation
The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.
Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.
Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]
Source: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste By Mara Hvistendahl December 13, 2007
As a general clarification to the author of this article they should be informed their title could just as easily have been "Dirt more radioactive than nuclear waste" under these circumstances and in fact should be a of greater concern. According to the USGS fly ash contains very little radioactivity. The uranium levels are slightly above that of granite rock which is used for kitchen counter tops and is right inside the home. For the average citizen the dirt beneath your feet is the greatest concern because of greater exposure to radiation through Radon gas.*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
Source: Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste Page 2 Editors note
The graph to the left shows the uranium concentrations in fly ash, the pie chart to the right shows the average exposure to radiation by source. Coal ash falls falls under "other" and accounts for less than 1% of the radiation exposure a person living in the US can expect.
Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm. The vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated radioactivity, compared to common soils or rocks. This observation provides a useful geologic perspective for addressing societal concerns regarding possible radiation and radon hazard.
Source: Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash - Mercury
When you burn coal it does emit mercury into the atmosphere, coal fired power plants are the single greatest source of human created emissions within the U.S. Borders. Having said that power plant emissions contribute less than 1% to the global pool to the EPA.
Less than 1%, should that be repeated? Yes it should, coal fired power plants in the U.S. account for less than 1% of the global pool. We need to consider this on a global context. The strict environmental legislation here is more beneficial to others. Not that this is bad thing but if you want to address mercury it has to be done globally.- Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent.
- EPA has conducted extensive analyses on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and subsequent regional patterns of deposition to U.S. waters. Those analyses conclude that regional transport of mercury emission from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. is responsible for very little of the mercury in U.S. waters. That small contribution will be significantly reduced after EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule are implemented.
Source: Fact Sheet - EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule
According to this graph found on the EPA website globally mercury comes from three major sources; natural, new emissions from human activity and mercury that has been remitted from previous human activity.The U.S. is the third largest emitter of anthropogenic mercury although its emissions, estimated to account for roughly three percent of the global total, are far lower than emissions from China, the largest source globally. In the U.S. and globally, coal combustion is the largest source of anthropogenic mercury emissions. (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Global Atmospheric Mercury Assessment: Sources, Emissions and Transport (PDF), Geneva, 2008) (44 pp., 6.8M, about PDF).
EPA has estimated that about one third of U.S. emissions are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle.
Source: Mercury Emissions: The Global Context
Is a mercury a concern? Certainly but again when put into context the arguments again amount to fear mongering and grossly out of proportion to what the facts are. You're more likely to be exposed to mercury from a natural source than a power plant.Natural sources of mercury—such as volcanic eruptions and emissions from the ocean—have been estimated to contribute about a third of current worldwide mercury air emissions, whereas anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions account for the remaining two-thirds. These estimates are highly uncertain. Land, water, and other surfaces can repeatedly re-emit mercury into the atmosphere after its initial release into the environment. Much of the mercury circulating through today's environment is mercury that was released years ago. The pie chart below shows that anthropogenic emissions are roughly split between these re-emitted emissions from previous human activity, and direct emissions from current human activity.
Mercury Emissions: The Global Context
- The Rising Oceans
Factual but would it surprise you that the statement the oceans are falling would also be true? The perception is that oceans are rising at an alarming rate and we're all going to have beach front property soon. The earliest historical records I have found are available on NOAA's (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) site. Let's take a look at the historical record for The Battery, New York which goes back to 1856:
I'm no scientist and my eyesight isn't as good as it was when I was younger but I'll swear what I see here is a steady increase since 1856 without any significant deviation? Seems to me the rise in the sea level at this particular station would be normal given we have the same pattern over nearly the last 150 years. Now someone could argue that this graph show the beginning of the industrial age and I would counter that the use of fossil fuels has increased exponentially in this time frame yet we see a steady increase.
The mean sea level trend is 2.77 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1856 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.91 feet in 100 years.
Source: Mean Sea Level Trend: The Battery, New York
As I already mentioned it might surprise you the sea levels are dropping and that is the case, also on NOAA's site you can find graphs with dropping levels such as this one from Stockholm, Sweden:
Not only does this graph show them dropping but at significantly faster rate than they are rising in New York. I'm not going to try and explain or justify either of these occurrences, the point of this is to show that the sea is alive and it is both rising and dropping. There is after all ancient cities under many feet of water that were inundated long before the industrial age began and the population of the earth was insignificant compared to what it is today.
The mean sea level trend is -3.94 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.35 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1889 to 2003 which is equivalent to a change of -1.29 feet in 100 years.
Source: Mean Sea Level Trend: Stockholm, Sweden
This article is not intended to be anti-environmental, my personal opinions on the subject is we need to protect the environment but that protection needs to be done in a practical and prudent manner based on facts. The fact is the use of fossil fuels will never be perfectly environmental friendly, even if you eliminate all emissions you will still have environmental damage through mining, drilling and other activities. In my opinion a small price to pay to maintain our way of life. In the U.S. we have one of the highest standards of livings on the planet in part because of cheap energy produced through fossil fuels, specifically that which is produced from coal. They make our lives prosperous, keep our houses warm and make life generally much easier than what it would be without them. Many people want to change that and take this country down a path which I consider to be quite dangerous which may very well be completely unnecessary. I'll reiterate the purpose of this article is to show that much of the doom and gloom you'll hear in the media when examined closely has little or no factual basis. I hope that I have enlightened some of you and provided you with some information you were not aware of, the drop in air pollution stands out as I was surprised myself that not only has it dropped but by more than a full 50%. Certainly if you are using coal to heat your home you might be coming under fire from your friends, neighbors and colleagues. My hope is that you'll be able to use the information provided to enlighten to what reality is.
I will note this article will be followed up by part 2: "Consensus My Ass" where I will be discussing the biggest sledge hammer the consensus that CO2 is causing Global Warming.......errr sorry Climate Change.