POWER PLANTS CITED AS CHIEF CAUSE (of soot deaths)

LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER ^ | Thu, Jun. 10, 2004 | By Andy Mead

[toddst]

Kentucky is No. 2 in the nation in the estimated rate of deaths caused by soot from coal-fired power plants, according to a report released yesterday.

The other states in the top five, including No. 1 West Virginia, all border Kentucky.

"Dirty Air, Dirty Power" was produced by an advocacy group called Clear the Air. It says soot, also called fine particle pollution, cuts short the lives of nearly 24,000 Americans each year. In Kentucky, the estimated toll is 745 deaths a year.

The problem is especially bad in Kentucky and neighboring states because coal-fired plants dominate the region, said Angela Ledford, Clear the Air's director.

"We used to think 'Oh, that pollution blows away, so, it's going to affect people in the northeast,'" Ledford said. "But per capita, you're having more severe impacts because of living near those plants."

More than 3.3 million of Kentucky's 4 million residents live within 30 miles of a power plant, the report says.

The report, which advocates stricter pollution controls than those supported by the Bush administration, was immediately attacked by the electric power industry, which supports the president's policy.

"This report, like its list of tired predecessors, cherry picks and distorts the science related to particulate matter and health effects," said Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for Edison Electric Institute, an industry association.

He said "some of the most comprehensive research" linking soot to health problems suggests that power plants aren't the source of the problem.

Ledford said, however, that Clear the Air relied on the same research methods used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The estimates of health effects were determined by Abt Associates, a consulting firm used by the EPA.

Dirty Air compares the Bush administration's "Clear Skies" program with several other proposals for dealing with power plant pollution, including one championed by Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vermont.

Neither plan has been able to attract a majority in Congress.

Environmentalists say the Clear Skies plan would be less stringent than the Clean Air Act and give power plants longer to comply.

Riedinger, the industry spokesman, disputes that also. He says the administration proposal, which would use a "cap and trade" method to encourage pollution reductions, could mean a faster cleanup.

The Dirty Air report says implementing the Jeffords bill would avoid 22,000 of the estimated annual 24,000 power plant-related deaths.

The Bush plan, the report says, would mean more deaths than a faithful following of the Clean Air Act.

Although no plan has won enough congressional support to become law, the EPA is requiring Kentucky to weaken air quality regulations, said Tom FitzGerald of the Kentucky Resources Council.

The numbers for pollution-caused deaths in Dirty Air are based on computer models that take into account how much pollution plants release, readings by air quality monitors, and studies that link pollution with health problems.

That method screens out pollution not related to power plants. So California, which has plenty of dirty air from automobile exhausts, fares much better than Kentucky in the Dirty Air report.

California's estimated deaths from power plants is 249, a third of Kentucky's 745.

And the most dangerous city, in terms of per capita deaths from power plant pollution, is not smoggy Los Angeles, but Wheeling, W.Va.

In addition to deaths, the Dirty Air report says, power plant pollution also causes increased numbers of heart attacks, hospital visits, asthma attacks and lost work days.

Riedinger said Dirty Air is "designed to scare the public, impugn the power sector, and undermine the administration's pollution-cutting programs."

Ledford said she hopes it stimulates discussion on an air quality debate that has been largely ignored.

"I think what we've seen in the last four years is a huge step backwards, even in the way we're talking about it," she said

[hopespringseternal]

I am not for that. Far too messy and a very dirty bomb sitting on our soil. Better ways to go about it than nuclear.

What is so messy about it? As far as it being a dirty bomb, practically the only way to breach containment short of a nuclear weapon would be a "bunker buster" bomb, and the terrorists are a little short on the military infrastructure to deliver one to the continental United States.

[BJungNan]

One of us is an optimist. The other believes we have reached the limits of our techincal abilities.

Let's start with cars and place ourselves back in 1997. A chrysler New Yorker was very comfortable and could travel down the highway at 70 mph getting about 14 mpg and putting out relatively clean air.

Move ahead in time to 2004. A Lincoln Town Car which is still very comfortable and luxurious can travel the same stretch of highway at 70 mph putting out much cleaner exhaust and getting 25 mpg. And it is a far safer vehicle.

In 1977 would you have thought it possible that Americans could still have the luxury they want and be able to get 80% better milage and have much cleaner exhaust? Or did you think then also that we had reached the limits of our automobile technology?

Certainly we can improve milage efficiency without compromising motorist comfort or safety. Not overnight, but over 25 years certainly. And with national resolve, we could do it at years, even decades, sooner.

As for houses, we have not even scratched the surface. Again, without a little resolve and not a whole lot of added cost, everyone could be enjoying a $48.00 average monthly electric bill like I enjoy.

Get some faith.

[from occupied ga]

Your point is well taken, and I have faith, but I have more cynicism. Gas engines are approaching thermodynamic limits - not there yet, but not a whole lot more to be squeezed out either, and the "improvements" (I don't consider mandatory expensive air bags* and mandatory expensive anti-lock brakes to be improvements**) have not come at a cheap price. Even adjusting for inflation, a car today is significantly more expensive than in the'70s Just had my fuel injected car worked on for misfiring. Problem: intermittently shorting wire in injector control circuit. cost to find and fix $450. Like I said - efficiency at a price. Even today $450 buys a lot of gas.

*Just buckle your seat belt and you don't need an air bag - Seems to me with air bags the mandatory seat belt laws are just there as fund raisers (see cynicism justified)

**Insurance institute studies of cars with and without anti-lock brakes show no difference in the numbers of accidents and no difference in the costs of accidents between the two, so why do we have to pay for them?

[BJungNan]

You too have a point. The safety has come at a price. I know about those car repairs. Taking mine in tomorrow becasue the air bag light is on.

Getting back to my optimism, I do think we can do it. And if we could see the answer in an instant, well, we would not need engineers.

We will have to keep working on this one but I remain convinced (not a blind optimist, mind you) we do not need to expand nuclear to solve our energy needs.

And we do not need to return to the dark ages as the environmental religion (hacky sack crowd) would like to see. They just hate cars and air conditioning and technology and their every move it geared towards eliminating these "evil forces."

[Calamari]

Legend has it that one Mrs. O'Leary's cow and one lantern burned down much of Chicago!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Soot blowing is always after dark. Fresh snow presents a problem with the evidence...