Environment, International, Politics

Study: Switching From Coal Would Save 52,000 Lives Annually In The United States

220px-AlfedPalmersmokestacksWe have previously discussed studies that show the number of people killed by pollution each year — a concrete cost rarely discussed in debates like the current outcry over the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Accord.  In a new study published in Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews (DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.119), researchers from Michigan Technological University found that switching over to photovotaics from coal would prevent 51,999 premature deaths a year and potentially making as much as $2.5 million for each life saved.  What is interesting is that those people opposing environmental controls clearly do not view themselves in one of these groups of fatalities even though pollution tends to impact everyone fairly evenly.

Each year coal causes tens of thousands of Americans premature deaths in the United States.  The Paris Accord is often discussed in terms of temperature control.  Indeed, President Trump referred to the small decrease that would be attained from carbon reductions. What was missed is that the Accord is designed to stop the worsening of the atmosphere as the first priority. This study shows that there are also concrete benefits in terms of lives.

I was critical of the Paris Accord as not going far enough (even though the Accord has a provision for interim adjustments to attain greater reductions).  However, I still believe that the Trump Administration has placed this country on a path that will cost both health and economic benefits.  As noted earlier, the alternative fuel industry employs more people than coal, oil, and gas operations combined in this country.  Green technology and alternative fuels are the expanding economy and market around the world.  We are now moving aggressively away from the new economy and it will cost not just jobs but lives in the long run in my view.

 

Here is the study: Carbon Pollution study

133 thoughts on “Study: Switching From Coal Would Save 52,000 Lives Annually In The United States”

    2. Or, everybody can just stay inside all day, and only come out at night.

  2. Frank, can you please explain in detail the subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives from the government.

  3. Solar Power vs. Coal? Let me put it to you this way, which would you rather see? “The Coal Miner’s Daughter?” Or the “Solar Panel Installer’s Daughter?” I rest my case.

  4. Since coal is, presumably, being used because it is cheaper, you can’t just look at one benefit. You must do a complete cost/benefit analysis. What must be given up if coal is not used? How many lives will that cost? What non-life costs are there, e.g., issues of standard of living – these count, too. At 2.5 million per life saved, do the benefits of coal offset that?

    I like your thoughtfulness on a wide range of topics, but it would be nice if you took a little more care.

    1. Important considerations that are not being discussed sufficiently.

  5. I’m with Trump and
    You are too!
    He’s gonna take good care of you.

    I’m a Kraker and you’re one too.

  7. There is an implicit tradeoff underlying all this, along the lines of “As long as I have a job today, I don’t care if my grandchildren choke or get poisoned 50 years from now.”

    I have also read that many Republicans actually (personally) favor environmental action, but oppose it ONLY because they want to stick it to Democrats. That is, politics trumps (so to speak) the common good.

  8. Any truth they’re doing a study on feeding all of California residents Soylent Green, I hope?

    1. J Pismo Clam – I would read a study about Solyent Green feed to CA residents. That would perk up my day. 🙂

      1. PS-They might be already, do you really think they’d know the difference?

  9. I like the lively Sunday talk on mining coal. C02 is an easier emission than plenty of others. There are only a few variables and you have it. Smog is another thing. Particulate output you can spot and you know you are breathing it straight away. Indoor is on the list and who is getting a filter to deal with their own? Like a few plants and a hepa filter?

  10. OK, now I have tracked down the actual, physical BULLSH*T in the cited article. The headline is a complete fabrication! Here’s the headline:

    “Study: Switching From Coal Would Save 52,000 Lives Annually In The United States”

    No, this particular study FINDS no such thing! Reference to lines 139 and 140 of the study reveal:

    139 where Drc is the total number o0 deaths due to coal fired electrical emissions- which is
    140 52,000/year [53].

    If you go to endnote 53, you find this study is merely repeating and pluggin in the findings of a 2005 study, to wit:

    http://lae.mit.edu/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/US-air-pollution-paper.pdf

    (see the 11th line of the abstract.)

    Sooo, a 12 year old, 2005 study, of questionable value, is resurrected in 2017 sooo that we can have an exciting headline, as if this was new found information!

    This is the kind bullsh*tty stuff that makes both environmental headlines, and the people reporting them, seem like a bunch of liars and con artists! The problem is, your average Joe Schmo isn’t going to read through this sort of crap, and will never know what the truth is. They will just read the headline, and move on.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. To report or not to report; that is the question.

      Should the press report unfounded conjecture and speculation?

      Is it possible for “fossils” to exist at a depth of 35,000 feet – the depth of the deepest oil well?

      The world’s deepest dinosaur discovery is 7,400 feet.

      That dudn’t make any sense!

    3. A study from MIT ought to be taken seriously.

      Anyway, by those without prejudice.

      1. Actually, I tried to make sense out of the MIT Report, and it was pretty much just some sort of statistical hooey, and difficult equations. Sooo, I just went to the Report on Cause of Death, and there weren’t no 52,000 people dying of Coal Powered Electrical Generation. I couldn’t even find a heading for it.

        I am pretty smart, and I do not say that with any ego, and I don’t tend to believe in studies that I can’t even interpret. That just comes down to having faith in some smart guy, who you don’t know from Adam, and who you don’t know what their prejudices are. If an idea is sound, it can be phrased in ordinary English, and if the author doesn’t make that attempt, then I tend to go with BULLSH*T!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. You have a bad habit of just Making Stuff Up. You could learn enough to study the MIT report, but can’t be bothered, so you just go with the emotions. Bad idea in science.

          1. Or maybe, if you just accept the findings of a study without understanding how they arrived at the numbers, then that makes you a person of faith, not a “scientist”. People can write explanations of Quantum Entanglement where the results, if not the mechanisms themselves, are understandable.

            I do not see any any reason that a study which supposedly finds 52,000 lives are lost because of coal generated electricity could not be explained. Unless, the whole point was for it not to be explained, but just accepted. Like the article above, where nobody but me actually read the nine pages to discover where the 52,000 figure came from, and then discovered it was just the findings of a previous study, 12 years ago.

            Where were you in that process??? Why didn’t you read the study? There was a link to it. It was not that hard to read. But you were happy in the FAITH that the article was correct and “found” that switching from coal blah blah blah.

            The only they “found” was the previous study, which apparently even they did not understand enough to provide an explanation.

            (FWIW, it seems like 2005 study is trying to statistically link particle dispersion patterns to premature deaths by region, which if so, that is a tenuous connection. And not one borne out in reference to “Causes of Death”, reports which find most respiratory deaths are due to smoking, and indoor air quality.)

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

      2. David Benson – why should a study from MIT be taken seriously?

        1. Because MIT is one of the top universities in the world.

          1. They are and their research should be taken seriously, but even their research should be critically analyzed.

            The whole picture is not understood, so public policy should not be set. Pollution is a problem and it does cause chronic illness and death. However, it is not just factories and cars, as is targeted by these papers.

            The paper this blog post is about is from Michigan Technological University and determines coal pollution to be a direct cause of copd, lung cancer, congestive heart failure, and asthma.

            Pollution, a mix of toxins, does contribute to disease. However, a poor diet and lack of sunshine is a greater contributer. Insufficient vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants and vitamin D from the sun impairs the body’s ability to detoxify and to properly perform cellular functions.

            Pennsylvania was a dark red on the map, as were many other NE states. Pittsburgh is in the top ten cloudiest cities in the nation, so lots of vitamin D deficiency (and, the more northern states receive less exposure simply due to geographical location). Many of the dark red states also have a higher population density–what is their level of physical activity, what is the quality of their diets, what is the air movement like? Iowa has a fair number of coal plants, but is a much lighter red. Why? It is windier there and sunnier, does that matter? Is the air cleared by wind more effectively? What about the diets of those afflicted? Are less affluent people more greatly affected by these diseases? What does their diet look like–plenty of fresh vegetables or plenty of processed food?

            The paper is correlative. The issue of pollution causing health problems should be considered seriously, but disease occurs in a complex system. Those lives could also be saved or at least improved through other, unrelated, means, potentially. Maybe those 52,000 deaths are solely attributable to coal emissions, but considering the Standard American Diet and our habit being indoors, and chronic stress, I am skeptical.

          2. They are and their research should be taken seriously, but even their research should be critically analyzed.

            The whole picture is not understood, so public policy for global warming should not be set. Pollution is a problem and it does cause chronic illness and death. However, it is not just factories and cars, as is targeted by these papers.

            The paper this blog post is about is from Michigan Technological University and determines coal pollution to be a direct cause of copd, lung cancer, congestive heart failure, and asthma.

            Pollution, a mix of toxins, does contribute to disease. However, a poor diet and lack of sunshine is a greater contributer. Insufficient vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants and vitamin D from the sun impairs the body’s ability to detoxify and to properly perform cellular functions.

            Pennsylvania was a dark red on the map, as were many other NE states. Pittsburgh is in the top ten cloudiest cities in the nation, so lots of vitamin D deficiency (and, the more northern states receive less exposure simply due to geographical location). Many of the dark red states also have a higher population density–what is their level of physical activity, what is the quality of their diets, what is the air movement like? Iowa has a fair number of coal plants, but is a much lighter red. Why? It is windier there and sunnier, does that matter? Is the air cleared by wind more effectively? What about the diets of those afflicted? Are less affluent people more greatly affected by these diseases? What does their diet look like–plenty of fresh vegetables or plenty of processed food?

            The paper is correlative. The issue of pollution causing health problems should be considered seriously, but disease occurs in a complex system. Those lives could also be saved or at least improved through other, unrelated, means, potentially. Maybe those 52,000 deaths are solely attributable to coal emissions, but considering the Standard American Diet and our habit being indoors, and chronic stress, I am skeptical.

          3. David Benson – it is the scholar who we have to take seriously, even at MIT. It is still publish or perish. I spent too much time in the warm womb of academia learning the ins and outs of the academic publication game. And as I said before, there is a new study that show that 57% of the results found in scientific papers cannot be replicated. I remember all number of professors writing articles for journals that no one would read.

  11. Now that Trump has exposed the brass tacks of the agreement, many pundits are now saying this deal has nothing to do with science, but that it would rally the world’s nations toward general cooperation, and would compel the creation of new jobs and industries.

    Which kind of exposes the bait and switch nature of the whole Paris accord. Punch through with claims of scientific legitimacy and global catastrophic urgency, but actually sub-textually acknowledging it is really just a run-of-the-mill political economic treaty.

    2. Sounds like new world order. Papa Bush was a big proponent of that and look where we are today. More disorder. I was born in ’42 and we’ve been warring ever since. Would ISIS be successful if families had houses with A/C and swimming pools?

  13. The total deaths per year due to PV is more challenging to determine. For thin film amorphous silicon PV the value is currently zero based on the limited number of cases in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies Risk Management Program database. The actual values of deaths from other PV materials is similarly not available.

    Well that’s an inconvenient truth. I’m not surprised the throwing granny off a cliff empathy approach is being trotted out since the climate change data is highly suspect. Of course conservatives will be portrayed as wanting to pollute everyone, kill whatever and whomever, all for the mighty Koch Brothers dollar.

    What’s stopping the renewable energy folks from just doing this on their own? If it’s the right thing to do then just do it already. And when you argue it would be a waste of time because your neighbor isn’t doing their part, then you’ll begin to see the folly of the Paris Accord.

  15. I am for outlawing coal. And coal miners and coal miners’ daughters. And smoking of tobacco and pot. And outlawing opiates. Outlawing doctors who prescribe opiates. Stop the “saving” or “rescue” of opiate or heroin over dose dorks. Death penalty for opiate manufacturing mogals and tobacco empire mogals. Shoot em on sight.

    1. Jack, You forgot alcohol, we need to ban alcohol as well. It went so well the last time!

      1. Mass rioting if they try the alcohol ban again! We citizens need something to turn to when we read what government is doing. I heard most of the coal we produce will go to other countries. Coal mining is a dying job creator. Now is when new products should be developed and produced in West Virginia. Forward thinking could keep WV employed.

      2. The coal miners’ daughters, if they are good lookers, can go to Vegas and be hookers. Make America Great Again! But. They can not go if they are minors.

        1. futuret – if the Bildebergers went to another dimension, I would not be hurt. 😉

  16. PS How viable are alternative sources of energy if the government subsidies are removed from the equation?

    1. Their subsidies pale when compared to the over the 600 billion in government subsidies the fossil fuels companies receive. Oil and gas alone get nearly 400 billion.

      1. Their subsidies pale when compared to the over the 600 billion in government subsidies the fossil fuels companies receive. Oil and gas alone get nearly 400 billion.

        Thanks for the Media Matters talking points. It’s been an education.

        Gross output in the oil and gas sector sums to $200 bn per annum. The notion that they’re receiving ‘400 billion in subsidies’ is absurd.

      2. Now you’ve got it.

        “SUBSIDIES” of any form are unconstitutional.

        Government is limited to security and infrastructure as:

        Justice

        Tranquility

        Common Defence

        Promote General Welfare.

        Majority rules and minorities MUST adapt to the outcome of freedom.

        The American thesis and constitutional mandate are Freedom and Self-Reliance.

        The “pursuit of happiness” is the highest and noblest ambition.

        Weaponizing “incentives” in the tax code, punitive taxation, “deductions,” “bailouts,” subsidies, affirmative

        action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, social services, etc. are all unconstitutional governmental interference,

        dictatorship, oppression and tyranny.

        Taxation funds security and infrastructure.

        The right to private property precludes “redistribution of wealth” as taxation

        to take private property from one man to give private property to another.

        The People are free.

        The People are the SOVEREIGN.

        The government is the SUBJECT of that SOVEREIGN.

        1. No infrastructure ! All roads to be toll roads ! Pay to use the sidewalk ! Every man for himself !!

      3. Why? At one time that money went to small oil company development. I didn’t know there were small oil companies. How about starting Solyndra back up and send their solar panels to the world? This week’s attacks on the President over the Paris deal were so overblown. Solar panels, recycling, water conservation have become a way of life in CA. Brown might rant and rave, but the stats show we’ve done a good job.

  17. The sad thing is there are people who don’t care if other people die for a great many reasons and many of them used to run our government and many others are still waiting to be ‘rooted out’ such as the fired and rehired VA employee criminals and the EPA scum who covered up Flint Michigan. Stick your left wing ideology up where those emmissions came from. and then add a big plug. At least dairy and beef herds are useful.

    1. White house suspended the regulations on methane gas. Undoubtedly the old gasbags that post here probably support tthat.

  18. Study: Switching From Coal Would Save 52,000 Lives Annually In The United States

    What fuel source would you suggest replacing US coal fired power plants with as coal is used to generate 30% of all electricity generated in the US in 2017?

    https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

    As noted earlier, the alternative fuel industry employs more people than coal, oil, and gas operations combined in this country.

    Yes, As noted earlier, the alternative fuel industry (ie wind, solar, geothermal) only accounts for 7% of all electricity generated in the US in 2017. The total number of persons working in a related industry has no bearing on the amount of electricity generated (unless they run on hamster wheels tied to turbines). There is also the major problem of intermittencey of the electricity generated from alternative sources as the nations electric grid requires a stable load at all times to remain viable.

    If by magic you were able to eliminate all US coal fired power plants over night without a viable source of electricity to replace them more than 52,000 persons would lose their lives annually from a lack of electricity (30%) and thus would suffer from reduced standards of living with much lower quality of life. The billions upon billions of humans living today are a direct attestation that the use of hydrocarbons to power our society today (eg refrigeration, communications) is beneficial and not nearly as deleterious as its critics assume.

    How “green” is solar power?

    Italicized/bold text below is excerpted from a report found at the Stanford Journal of International Relations titled:

    Cleaning Up After Clean Energy: Hazardous Waste in the Solar Industry

    These hopes for a viable source of renewable energy, however, have recently been tempered with a word of caution. Toxic waste, experts say< is something the solar industry must watch out for, as detailed by the watchdog nonprofit Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) in a widely circulated new report.

    https://web.stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Solar_11.2.pdf

    Why not conduct a little experiment at your house Mr. Turely? Have solar installed and then disconnect your home from the electric grid (power by 30% coal). You can report back the results.

  19. The sad thing is that there are people in the US who don’t care if people dies from pollution or anything else and many of them run our government. Some in our government would actually be very satisfied if people died! Their “pro life” views have nothing to do with life and everything to do with control.

    1. Their “pro life” views have nothing to do with life and everything to do with control.

      If it helps you feel better, I suppose it’s not so harmful. Just don’t bother other people with your stupid fictions.

  20. Switch to the locked up cleaner burning coal is of course one answer but the higher BTUs gained and the lower emmissions attained were not considered of importance back when the clean burning coal as ‘locked up’ through the immense leadership of the then current vice president Al Gore.

    Second question. What happened to ballyhooed carbon emissions program and it’s resellable credits that made a lot of people very rich very fast. Or the pollutants reduction programs that required a significant reduction in emmissions? Don’t tell me these were abysmal failures except for those who made a profit? Please don’t tell me that.

    This source of information may help explain one recent event…

    Facts About Air Pollution | Sciencetopia
    https://www.sciencetopia.net/pollution/air/facts
    Air Pollution Facts: USA. pollution in salt lake city. Almost one third of air pollution in San Francisco is due to the air pollution in China which can travel as far as …

    China oif course was exempted 100% while the USA was expented to pay billions and billions for something to other countries …… Major disconnect in thinking No wonder congress was left out of that illegal treaty but going ahead with that illegal treaty on the basis of one pen by one individual WILL be the TRUE legacy of the previous administration.

    Thanks wooly headed lack of thinking San Francisco can expect an increase in Chinese pollutants and auto emission pollutants. as they continue the switch from pure socialism to market capitalism.

    Let’s have another carbon tax with the excess exemptions for succcessful reductions being sold to those of lesser success….. wha idio thought tht scam up?

    1. USA was ‘expected’… and China ‘of’ course. and ‘what idiot.’

Comments are closed.