The Burning of Fossil Fuels and Global Warming

To the Editor:
Where does the truth lie with coal?
Reading the editorials, it is troubling to see that coal is made to sound as if it offers all of the solutions to Delaware's energy needs with few if any negatives. Publicists tell us that the new process of coal gasification is a proven technology that addresses all of the previous problems associated with the burning of coal. But just a little research demonstrates that that’s an exaggeration at best. . Coal recycling often termed “recapture,” seems to be somewhat of a generic term describing various technologies used to recycle the effluents and dangerous by-products emitted into the atmosphere as a result of the burning of coal. Inasmuch as standards are not available, much of this information must be taken at face value. However, experts suggest, even at the high end of the technology, as much as twenty percent of the residues, including dangerous oxides of mercury and other heavy metals along with carbon dioxide, may in fact reenter the environment via the land or the sea depending on the type of system and methods being used.
Moreover, as we’ve learned, inasmuch as this technology is new and unproven, much of the data surrounding the positive effects of recapture are not at this point provable; nor is there a track record that documents what the advocates for the burning of fossil fuels suggest..
In fact, a recent report suggested that the recycling process, itself, contributes to the generation of 600 tons of C02 every hour under the proposed system—that’s a lot of gas that could enter the environment if it is not efficiently recycled by the system being considered if all of the reports funneling in are accurate and those residues and by products can contribute significantly to global warming.
Why should we even consider the problem of effluents and the build-up of gases under even the best conditions with the burning of coal?
Well, for one, the Sierra Club has determined that Delaware has one of the worst track records when it comes to water and air quality and pollution, the bulk of it due to the burning of coal in our present facility on the Indian River. But, actually, more disturbing is the fact that our government and the energy producing facility and its owners, the same ones who will be running the expanded facility, have done little to present us with the facts and virtually nothing to remediate the problem to date according to the watch dog groups who monitor environmental abuses. In fact, if anything, under the existing system of producing energy, conditions have actually worsened affecting the delicate ecosystem and the long term preservation of habitat for various species that tend to seek out marshland areas as shelter.
Acknowledging the problems of coal energy, it is unthinkable in the light of what we know that our delegates have been so dismissive of alternative technologies until a case was made by both scientists and others with an interest in protection of the environment. Their argument helped elucidate the dangers of continuing our dependency on fossil fuels. We know from the record, that continued use of coal can only adversely affect our health and the health of our state, not to mention the well-being of the various species that are dependent on our wetlands and marsh lands. The arguments that dictate our decisions on this matter until now have been heavily weighted towards a straight forward cost analysis and the economic impact on the State rather than health costs and the inherent dangers of burning fossil fuels on the long term health conditions in the State. .
It seems that at the very least a truly concerned government would recommend another yardstick that's predicated on other more meaningful criteria such as the contribution to global warming, heating of the Bays, the health of our various species, including the impact on the food chain and how these factors impact our own survivability in view of global warming. .The cost of endangered health would vastly change the dynamics in a cost-benefit analysis.
Oddly enough, this state and neighboring Maryland play a considerable role in husbanding key elements of the food chain inasmuch as the marshlands and estuary are home to vast numbers of species that were available in profusion until pollutants and warming effects changed this critical habitat.. For the most part, in the interests of expediency, it seems that until it became a crisis, our attitudes towards good stewardship were governed by expediency without much thought to the environment or protection of species or considerations of clean air and safe water.
The Federal government has also been complicit in looking the other way when it comes to protecting species, preserving the environment and the potential impact of pollution on health. The government has consistently denied or ignored the dangers of emissions and changes in air and water composition through government-friendly appointments to EPA and through the explicit act of shelving OSHA for another ten years. By then, the damage may be irreversible.
We also understand that the recycling process used in Delaware may either put the effluents into the ground or into the Bay; and we do not know the outcome of such a policy except that these by-products would more than likely contribute to a greater acidification of the water-ways and be detrimental at the very least to the species that are exposed to them; not to mention, the anticipated warming of Bay and Ocean temperatures which would contribute to the global warming effect.
As part of the process to produce added energy in Delaware, under the best of conditions and expensive recycling, the present studies show that likely 20% of the effluents will be recycled back into the environment. And we know what that has produced from prior experience. The failure of the coal lobby to clean up its act in Delaware will always make their pseudo concerns for safety and good health suspect.
But there is an alternative and it’s clean wind power.
While we do not claim that wind power is not without its detractors, the fact of the matter is that wind power has so many positives, and a proven track record of performance, that our failure to promote it seems unconscionable.
To begin with wind power requires no burning of fossil fuels.
Clean, affordable wind energy is a gift from God. It is natural, it is clean and it is available to us. Under the arguments made against wind energy, we are told that it is an undependable resource. Well, if that’s the case, it is surprising to see so many installations popping up all over the world with nothing but good reports.. And even now, we understand that progress is being made in wind generation almost daily with virtually no downside, no affect on global warming except to ease it, no health risks and only clean reliable energy as a byproduct.
Among the downside claims: Wind power generators will contribute to the death of migrating birds. But wind patterns and computer charting has proven that local birds fly below the height of the towers and that migratory birds instinctively change their patterns as a result of the wind generators. As a result, we show that very few, if any, birds suffer mortality from the wind generators.
Secondly, we are told that they will ruin the view. Based upon experience, the designers and builders plan to put them far out to sea, six miles so that they will not interfere with line of sight views; in effect, many say, contrary to the comments of opponents to the system, that the wind generators are really quite beautiful and have an aesthetic that is very welcoming to the eye.

All of the arguments made against wind energy by those who would have us burn fossil fuels against the best judgments of our best scientists have been proved either untrue or unsupported or no longer pertinent..
Wind energy can not only exceed our minimal goals of under 400 megawatts of electricity, but it can also help us supply excess energy to help meet the northeast coast’s electrical energy needs through the grid and earn Delaware a gross profit over the longer term. And longer term is how we need to think if we are going to come out on top in our battle against air and water born diseases, the health of our infrastructure and the global warming battle that looms ahead.
In none of these arguments have we factored in the medical costs associated with continued burning of fossil fuels which nation-wide are quoted at 20,000 lives annually even with gasification; but even this shocking figure does not incorporate the cost of illness that affects each and everyone of us from exposure to a coal-burning environment; neither does it reflect on the cost of rebuilding the health of the environment, the cost of loss of species and habitat and the dangers of global warming. All of these have a significant cost that if factored in would demonstrate that more of the same policies are not in the best interests of the citizens of Delaware.
Moreover, we also have a chance now to show that Delawareans are ahead of the curve, that our leaders are concerned for the citizens of this great State, and that we know how to pioneer in things that are good for America. When in the past America has been put to the challenge, we have always proven ourselves more than equal to the task. Where else could such an opportunity be thrust in our laps when we have already eliminated the downside risk. This is a ‘no-brainer’ and if we don’t push this gift with all of our might, shame on us. Thank you,
A concerned citizen for clean air and water.
Sincerely,
Les Aaron
Consultant