Coal: Clean Energy or Silent Killer?

There are hundreds of coal burning power plants across the United States. Nearly 52% of the energy generated for the United States is produced from coal burning power plants, while only 14.8% is produced from nuclear energy. Our government initially liked the idea of so-called clean energy from nuclear plants, but once concerns grew over potential radiation, accidents, and the release of nuclear waste they decided to look elsewhere for our main source of energy. Since the United States is riddles with coal, they found this to be a good and supposed clean source of fuel. Because of lack of research on what happens to coal when it is burned, it has unfortunately been the cause of many health problem and deaths in the US, along with having a role in global warming.

I grew up near a coal-fired power plant in Southeastern Ohio. I moved away from the area immediately following graduation of high school, but my entire immediate family still lives there. The town of Cheshire, OH is home to the General James M. Gavin power plant, which is owned and operated by American Electric Power. The plant was built in 1975 and offered jobs to the residents as well as prosperity for the town. The power plant is a coal-fired plant which has two units; each unit containing a cooling tower which is 492 feet high and a smokestack that is 830 feet. It is deemed one of the largest facilities in the world and it is the largest facility in Ohio, rising above twenty-three other plants. All-in-all, the plant generates approximately 2600 megawatts of energy to around two-millions customers. The plant employs 380 people yet burns around 25,000 tons of coal a day which pollutes the air, soil, and water even with the use of scrubbers and SCR's. So do the benefits outweigh the risks? In 2002, the ATSDR did research to see whether the sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide being emitted from the Gavin plant was posing a health risk to the residents of Cheshire. I can tell you first hand about the infamous blue cloud of smoke that constantly hung over the city of Cheshire and often wafted into the city of Gallipolis. Along with the blue plume of death also came the ever so dangerous fly ash, which would float in the air as well as cover everything insight from cars to houses to play grounds.

In 2001 the Gavin plant was basically forced to install pollution control devices which in turn sulfuric acid aerosols and sulfur trioxides. This caused severe burning of the eyes and throat, as well as breathing problems. One of the worst things about the plant was the location. It is located within viewing distance of a school, as well as a closely knit small town where people's families had built and lived there for hundreds of years. Needless to say, the high school is still functioning but the town is no longer there. In 2002 AEP bought the city of Cheshire for $20 million, which also included the buy out of residential homes, which they bulldozed once vacated. The property owners inside the city limits received 3 ½ times the value of their property, with a minimum of $100,000. Property owners outside the city limits received around two times the value of their property and renters received $5,000 for each year they lived in Cheshire but not to go over $25,000. However, in order for AEP to keep themselves from harms way and away from litigation, the residents that took the offers also had to sign a "health waiver" which released AEP from responsibility of any future health problems. So what would become of the large number of elderly that had lived in the area their entire lives and didn't want to move or couldn't move? If they were over the age of 71, they could still sell their property to AEP and continue to live in the home free of charge, until they die. As of late 2002 when the buyout was complete, there were still a dozen elderly residents living in what they were now calling the village of Cheshire. At least 90% of the residents agreed to the buyout and signed the health waivers, but the businesses were given nothing. Since the plant has installed the added pollution control devices as well as change the type of coal they were using, they are within the standards of the state and federal EPA guidelines. But does this make it safe? The area of Gallia County has a drastic amount of cancer patients, in both humans and animals. To this day when I visit my mother, I have a laundry-list of temporary health problems such as breathing problems, soar throat, sinus congestion, and upset stomach. It is unbelievable to think that something like this is taking place in our country, and what's worse is this is only one case and one area.

According to a story done by the Associated Press, Reuters and MSNBC, coal-burning power plants tend to contribute to thousands of premature deaths every year. Their research uncovered the fact that the use of coal in power plants, especially the older plants, leads to around 24,000 shortened lives per year. 2,800 of these premature deaths are from lung cancer, and a research study that was released in 2004, showed that it could be prevented if the federal Government would enforce stricter guidelines on power plants that use coal. Some lobbyists on the other hand argue that if more strict rules are set into motion then it would ultimately raise the price of electricity, thus hitting the tax payer in the pocket book. They also pointed out that even with the 41% increase of energy usage, the amount of soot released into the environment dropped by 75% over a 29 year span.

In 2003, the University of Maryland reported that when the local power plant shut down during a blackout in August of 2003, the skies were surprisingly cleaner. They showed a 90% reduction of sulfur dioxide, a 50% reduction in smog, and a 70% reduction of light-scattering particles in the air (which reduce visibility). They stated that the air quality was proven to be better by not only measuring it with instruments, but you could also see more clearly and there was not a haze in the sky.

The initial report from the Activists group (which came from Harvard University and the American Cancer Society) found there were 3 states that had the highest mortality rate from the coal burning plants. These 3 states were Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Also West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee showed the highest per capita mortality risks. The people, largely in these areas, that had died prematurely, did so as a result from exposure to soot. On average they lost approximately 14 years of their life. Coal burning power plants are responsible for around 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks per year, but they are also to blame for approximately 554,000 asthma attacks each year.

So with all of our knowledge and technology, our planet should be a lot cleaner as of 2007, right? Wrong. Even though the federal and state EPA's have certain policies and restrictions in place, it does not protect us or the environment from the dangers that are produced when coal is burned for energy. There are so many chemicals and compounds found in coal, some seem to think it is more radioactive and dangerous than nuclear energy. The scrubbers, along with other pollution reduction components do not completely filter such things as fly ash. Fly ash is mostly composed of glass. This glass is the left-over non-combustible part of the coal. This material is what was being released into the environment in Cheshire, OH and being breathed in daily by the residents. If the filters and scrubbers work correctly and are kept up to date, they can capture nearly 99.5% of the fly ash and other residue that gets emitted from the burning coal.

However, if you add in all of the coal-burning plants across the country and calculate all of the material the pollution devices do not stop, how much of the "bad stuff" is getting into our air, water, and soil? Well, according to Alex Gabbard, "Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations."

But it's not only the people in the United States that end up suffering from the use of coal-burning power plants. According to the Sierra Club, sometimes the entire tops of mountains are removed in order to get to the actual coal. Then once the coal is retrieved and fired, it is responsible for the release of 36% of the carbon dioxide in the country. It is believed that carbon dioxide aids in global warming, which is melting the polar ice caps as well as wreaking havoc on the weather patterns.

So what can we do in order to make the planet cleaner, yet still use coal for energy since it is needed? First we need to get on board with the term "carbon tax". Carbon tax is an example of a pollution tax. It would be a tax on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide, such as coal-burning plants. They could use the money generated from the carbon tax to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. New Zealand was the first country to impose the carbon tax on its people. Beginning in 2005 New Zealanders ended up paying weekly tax on electricity, petrol and gas. But is this the fix-all that we need to make the environment cleaner from coal? Even though I believe it may help, the question would be if the amount of tax collected would be distributed correctly, and how much good would it actually be on the environment?

There are tons of other options circulating around the internet and the world in general. Some seem to think that use of "ultra-supercritical" plants would be the best way, since they are cleaner and we could continue to use coal. However, nearly 90% of the world's plants are "sub-critical", which happen to be the dirtiest kind of coal producing plants. It seems that the ball is rolling on the ultra-supercritical plants because China is expected to open the first operating plant sometime this year. But what are the large companies such as AEP doing in the United States, in order to make the environment cleaner and save lives? Are they looking into the ultra clean plants like China? Actually, AEP is hoping to construct a super power plant called an IGCC. It is riddled with new technology where they crush coal and mix it with water and oxygen in a high-pressure gasifier, where it makes a low emission and low sulfur dioxide combustible fuel. The downfall is that this new type of plant would cost 15 to 20 percent more than the conventional coal plant. Even the fact that it has been stated that these plants are not reliable will not stop AEP form building at least 2 of the 600 megawatt plants soon.

So, it's a slippery slope on saving lives and the environment from the "fall-out" of burning coal as energy. We as a country and as a planet have limited resources that will give us the same amount of energy as coal. However, with technology and scientific advances, we should be able to at least make the world a cleaner place to live without taxing the people to death or raising the rates for electrical consumption. More research needs to be done, and there needs to be more involvement from the federal and state government. We have come a long way since the 1930's when they didn't know much about the downfall of coal-fired plants. Hopefully in another 80 years we will know even more and have a better source of energy, just as long as the earth can hold out that much longer.

*Resources*
-Gabbard, Alex. "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". URL:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
(26 Jan 2007)
-Murphy, Carey and Lea Prainsack. "The Cheshire Transaction". URL:
http://www.cheshiretransaction.com/index.html (26 Jan 2007)
-MSNBC Online. "Deadly Power Plants? Study Fuels Debate". Contributed by
Reuters and AP. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/
(26 Jan 2007)
-Berlin-Snell, Marilyn. "Can Coal be Clean?" Sierra Club Magazine Online.
URL: http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp (26 Jan 2007)