Date post: | 05-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | jupri-mohd-bani |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 12
7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
1/12
Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for TheEnvironmentI feel that one of the most important single pieces of information at
this moment in history is that the entire sustainable energy and
post-carbon movement is pinned to a group of elements that are notmined in any significant quantityoutside of China,a country that isexpected to cease exporting them within 5 years.
Rare earth elements are critical materials for the ongoing development of a wide variety ofgreen technologies, ranging form electric automobiles to wind power generators, energy
efficient CF light bulbs, and the hand held communication devices that are rapidly replacingliterally millions of trees that have been consumed to provide daily news and information inprint form. Future availability of certain REEs may constitute the singlegreatest
vulnerabilityin the fight to build environmentally sustainable technologies and to reduceglobal CO2 output and pollution. This page,through a comparisonof coal based electricpower generation and REE dependent wind power generation technology,explores one
example of just how significant the difference is between traditional technologies and themodern 'green' alternatives that are replacing them. It is not my intention, through thispage, to criticise the historical role of the coal industry or coal power technology, but ratherto point out the opportunities inherent in modern, ecologically appropriate technology. In
fact, when I began this project, I had no idea how dramatic the results of the comparison
would be. Coal was, for many years, the best available option for getting electricity to themasses, but it came with appreciable environmental and health trade offs. Modern
technologies will also have trade offs, and nothing is perfect. Nevertheless, when we canclearly do better, we should.
How Green is Green?
Comparing the Environmental Impacts of Wind Power andCoal Power
Robert E. Beauford, April 16, 2011
1. Introduction
Technological change to more sustainable technologies does not eliminate the need for ongoing
environmental responsibility. Any form of power generation will involve compromises with the environment.
Facilities require a physical area of land upon which to be erected, metals and other construction materials
with which to be assembled, materials to build and maintain wires for power distribution, and so on. This is
true regardless of the fundamental technology employed. In order to better understand both the
environmental costs and benefits of a post carbon energy infrastructure, a quantitative comparison of the
environmental impacts of coal and wind power generation was undertaken. The specific question addressedis as follows: When compared in real human health and environmental terms, how beneficial is the change
to wind power versus traditional coal based power generation? In addition, this study examines the question
Is wind power a realistic answer to future electrical energy needs?
Wind power generation has been an economically viable alternative to more historically dominant electrical
generation processes since the mid to late 1990s. In the few years since the beginning of its expansion in
the marketplace, wind energy has emerged as not only the fastest growing green energy technology, but as
the fastest growing technology within the energy sector as a whole, including traditional sources. In just a
7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
2/12
few years, it has grown to represent almost 2 percent of global power consumption, and has been doubling
in installed generation capacity about every 3 years.2
Coal power, by contrast, is the oldest and currently largest electrical power generation technology employed
at an industrial level today. Coal provided about 54% of US electrical power in 2009, and is the single
largest air polluter in the US.1
2. Scope of Comparison
The intention of this study was to examine the environmental impact of each technology in an operational
phase. As a result, only brief and sporadic attention has been given to setup costs of generation facilities.
The focus is on ongoing resource consumption, emissions, and environmental and human impacts during the
operational, or power generating, phase of the facilities for each technology. Regional scope is primarily
limited to the US, due to the ready availability of data. This introduces some possibly non-negligible biases,
since emissions standards, age of generation facilities, installed emissions controls, and employed
technologies may vary substantially for different world regions. The differences were not examined. Also,
despite the assumption of basic equivalence in facility maintenance, setup, and so on in this survey, facility
construction cannot truly be equated for coal and wind power generation facilities. Coal power plants require
an entire mine infrastructure, railroad facilities, and substantial water supply infrastructure in addition to
actual power generation facilities.
For purposes
of comparison, a typical coal fired electrical power generation facility will be assumed to be a 500 megawatt
(MW) coal plant. This is not accurate in terms of actual average output of generation facilities in the US, but
is an accepted and consistent norm in all literature that was reviewed. There were, as of 2010, 594
operating coal power plants in the US.3
They range in capacity from less than 100 MW to about 3000MW,
though the largest of these represent a very small number of plants.4 The average capacity of US coal fired
power plants is about 667MW, or about 1/3 larger than the typical plant used for comparative purposes.5,6
7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
3/12
There are, as of yet, no typical wind power plants. Most are in the 100MW to 800MW range. A 20 thousandmegawatt facility has been proposed and is in the initial phases of construction in China. Wind power
projects, called wind farms are often unit scalable, and unlike coal fired power stations, may be expanded
slowly and steadily over time.
3. Results
Ongoing Consumable Inputs
A typical coal fired power generation facility requires the annual availability of about 2.2 billion gallons of
water.1 Coal power generation is the second largest consumer of water in the US, following only agriculture
in demand.7 In addition, a plant requires about 1.4 million tons of coal to remain in operation, and will
require approximately permanent storage for about .14 million tons of toxic solid non-combustiblewastes.1,8 A substantially larger permanent storage location is required per year for the deposit of up to 14
million tons of overburden removed in order to gain access to fuel. This last number is highly variable,
ranging from as little as a few million tons to well over 25 million tons of waste rock per plant per year.
Wind power has no ongoing consumable inputs beyond facility maintenance.
CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Typical U.S. coal fired power plants annually emit about 3.7 million tons of CO2 each,1 not including
emissions form mining or transport of fuel. This is the largest single industry source of greenhouse gas
emissions, both in America and in the world. Globally, coal combustion generates about 20% of all CO2
emissions, and in America it represents over 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions combined.9
If mining and
transport emissions are combined with power generation emission, the US figure is closer to 30% of total
greenhouse gas emissions.10
Wind power generation produces no CO2 or other greenhouse gas emissions.
Acid Gas Emissions
About 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide are produced by each typical U.S. coal fired power plant each year, as
well as substantial quantities of hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and other acid gasses.1
Coal power
generation is responsible for about 65% of all US sulfur dioxide emissions.11 SO2 and other acid gasses not
only contribute to acid rain, but also directly attack respiratory health, damaging lung tissue and increasing
7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
4/12
the likelihood of both lung and heart disease.12 In China, the World Bank has estimated that over 50,000
annual deaths are directly attributable to coal power generation, out of about 650,000 deaths attributed to
pollution, and that over 400,000 new cases of chronic bronchitis are directly attributable to acid gas and
particulate coal plant emissions.13
In the US, though the majority of coal power plants still employ no acid
gas reduction technology, SO2 emissions have substantially declined since the early 1980s, largely due to
the elimination of high sulfur coal as generation fuel.14 This reduction illustrates the effectiveness of Federal
environmental enforcement in protecting public health, and encourages more of the same.
Wind power
generation, by contrast, produces no acid gas emissions.
Airborne Particulate Emissions
A typical US coal fired power plant emits about 500 tons of small airborne particles annually.1These
particles, which are primarily composed of unburned or non-combustible remnants of power plant fuel, can
be transported substantial distances by wind. Because many of these particles are small enough to pass
directly into the bloodstream through the lungs, the effects on public health can be significant.15
In addition
to substantially elevated incidence of chronic bronchitis, asthma, and heart attacks (38,000/year), between
23,000 and 30,000 annual US deaths are attributable to these particulate coal emissions.15,16,17 The
cumulative negative health effects of coal particulate emissions is roughly quantifiable in terms of hospital
admissions (21,850 per year), emergency room visits (26,000 per year), and lost work days (3,186,000 per
year).15 In addition, black carbon, which is largely coal power plant particulates, has emerged as a
substantial climate change factor, and is contributing substantially to global ice mass loss due to a lesseningof reflectivity of glaciers and ice sheets.18
Wind power generation results in no measurable particulate emissions. Large fragments of windmill blades,
however, are occasionally lost and flung for appreciable distances. This is primarily due to people shooting at
them.
Nitrogen Oxide (NO(x)), Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, and Other ToxicEmissions
7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
5/12
A typical US coal fired power plant annually produces 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide, 720 tons of carbon
monoxide, 220 tons of hydrocarbons, and 76 other known toxic air pollutants not previously mentioned in
this report.1,19 Overall air pollution from coal plants is greater than from any other industrial
source.19
Interactions between many of these chemicals are poorly or not at all understood. Nitrogen oxide
emissions from a single plant are equivalent to the annual output from 500,000 modern cars.1 Coal power is
the second largest nitrogen oxide emitter in the US after automobiles. NO(x) emissions damage lung tissue
directly and are a major contributor to the formation of ozone, which causes further respiratory illness.20,21
Itshould be noted that the formation of near surface ozone as a pollutant is entirely bad for people and the
environment, and does nothing to replace or contribute to the upper atmospheric ozone upon which we
depend for existence on this planet.
Wind power generation produces no nitrogen oxide or related emissions.
Mercury, Heavy Metals and Radionuclides
US coal fired
power plants are the largest contributors to mercury pollution in the nation24,25, producing about 170 pounds
of airborne mercury per typical plant per year.1 Very low levels of mercury exposure produces significant
negative health effects in children exposed during fetal development, infancy, or early childhood. A single
event of exposure to relatively small levels of mercury can produce a lifetime drop in IQ of 5 points.
Researchers have found blood concentrations of mercury adequate to pose a significant threat to infants in
about 1 out of every 6 US women.22,23,24
In addition to mercury, coal power plants emit significant quantities
of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and several other dangerous metals.26,27 While 225 lbs. of arsenic emitted
annually from a typical coal power plant may seem an insignificant amount, exposure to only 50 parts per
billion of arsenic in drinking water has been found to produce cancer in 1 out of 100 people.27
It is interesting to note that a single typical US coal fired electric power plant also emits an amount of
uranium and thorium that is roughly equivalent to the airborne emission from all US nuclear power plants
combined. Surprisingly, this amount is still so close to background radiation levels that no resulting health
risk has been documented.28,8
Wind power generation produces no heavy metal or radionuclide emissions.
7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
6/12
Ensuring a Fair Comparison
In order to be sure that this is a fair examination of the comparative environmental impacts of
coal and wind power generation, examination of the specific suspected negative environmental
impacts of wind power generation should also be undertaken. A substantive search of existing
literature produces only two accusations of negative environmental or health impacts from wind
power generation. These, along with some of the known impacts of coal power generation arelisted below. The following two section will address these wind related issues: affects on
wildlife, and affects on communities adjacent to the generation facilities.
Coal Power, Environmental Problems
Strip Mining and Permanent Habitat Loss Overburden Disposal from Mountaintop Removal Toxic Coal Ash and Sludge Disposal Surface/Subsurface Water Contamination from Runoff Waste Heat in Surface Waterways CO2 Emissions to the Atmosphere Lead, Mercury, Arsenic, Etc. Emissions Uranium and Thorium Emissions Carbon Monoxide and Ozone Emissions Airborne Particulate Emissions Acidic Gasses (Dioxide, Chloride, Fluoride) Direct Health Effects on Miners Etc..
Wind Power
Bird and Bat Deaths People are annoyed by
the swish.
Effects on Wildlife (Including Birds and Bats)
Effects on wildlife, from coal power generation, are widespread and profound. Along with 2.2 billion gallons
of water drawn in to the typical US coal plant each year, comes about 21 million fish eggs and juvenile fish
which are destroyed. As many as 1.5 million adult fish are trapped against intake screens, though many of
these survive the experience.1 Fuel production, through coal mining, is astoundingly destructive to the
landscape and to habitat. Uncounted wildlife of all types are destroyed.30,31 Unlike most human activities
that damage or reduce carrying capacity of a habitat area, when it is said that habitat is destroyed by
surface mining for coal, the phrase is truly accurate. In West Virginia, a common method of accessing and
mining coal is referred to as mountain top removal and valley fill.32,33 The process is exactly what it sounds
like, and has resulted, in that state alone, in the destruction of about 300,000 acres of hardwood forest and
over 1000 miles of streams.33 The same particulate emissions, heavy metals, and acid precipitation that
negatively affect human health also kill or injure insects, plant life, fish and other aquatic life, birds, and
mammals.30,31 The total annual U.S. loss in terms of animal, fish, and bird life due to coal power generation
has not been clearly quantified, but is unquestionably in the high millions.
7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
7/12
Wind power
has been criticized for contributing to the deaths of birds. Several scientific studies have been done on this
issue, and the results confirm that this is a problem, though a minor one.34,35 The results should be
understood within the context of overall bird mortality rates. The highest estimates of US bird kills due to
impacts with windmill blades falls around 60,000 individuals. Bat deaths may be as high as 3 times this
number. Most studies estimate 1/10th to of this figure, or about 6,000 to 30,000 individuals. By contrast,
coal and gas extraction are estimated to kill between 30 and 40 million birds each year. Impacts with
electric lines kill about 174 million, pesticides kill about 67 million, legal hunting kills over 100 million, cars
kill about 100 million, and domestic cats kill well over 100 million.36,37
Noise and Health Effects on Communities Adjacent to Generation Facilities
Communities in the immediate vicinity of coal mining and power generation facilities have been well studied
in order to understand the health impacts of the industry. Unfortunately, these communities, which provide
the most to the coal power industry, share a disproportionate percentage of the negative impacts that come
from the process. Coal industry communities show substantial percentage increases in kidney disease41,43
,
heart disease 41,43,45, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and other lung diseases38,41,43,45,
hypertension41,43,45, asthma38,45, lung cancer 38,44,45, infant mortality38, cerebral vascular disease45, and
possibly other cancers and diabetes mellitus38,45.
7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
8/12
Wind power
generation has a cleaner health record.Some residents of communities immediately adjacent to wind power
generation facilities have reported feelings of stress or annoyance in response to the swishing sound from
the generator blades. While these feelings may be valid, studies comparing these populations with control
groups in surrounding areas have consistently found that the percentage of annoyed and stressed persons
does not exceed the background levels of annoyed and stressed people in the overall regional
populations.39,40
4. Discussion and Implications of the Present Results
This chart illustrates an extremely modest 13.5% growth rate for wind energy capacity in the US
rom present to 2030. This estimated growth is based on a figure that is less than half of the
current observed 5 year average growth rate and is lower than any single year growth rate since
the emergence of wind power as a competitive presence in the power generation market in about
7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
9/12
1998. Data from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html
A fact based comparison between the environmental and health impacts of wind versus coal powered
electrical generation leaves little doubt that wind power is astoundingly cleaner, healthier, better for the
environment, and that it contributes less to global climate change. Questions have been repeatedly raised,
however, regarding the practicality of wind as a large scale source of electrical power, and misconceptions
dominate the public dialogue. Several of these misconceptions need to be remedied.
Since the mid-1990s, wind power generation has taken enormous leaps forward, both in technology and
application. First, the effectiveness of individual windmills is increasing. 600 to 750 kilowatt generators have
been largely replaced, in modern installations, by 3 megawatt generators. 10 megawatt generators are
already in existence, and are soon to be employed in significant numbers in offshore wind farms. It is
reasonable to expect that further technological increases will emerge. Secondly, the world communitys
understanding of the requirements and potentials of wind power generation has expanded dramatically with
the ongoing incorporation of large scale wind generation facilities in to national power grids. There are far
fewer unknowns in 2011 than there were in 1998.
82 nations now have active wind power generation programs, and the technology has grown to supply about
2.5% of the worlds electrical power demands.46
Wind power is the fastest growing electrical generation
technology on the planet, and installed generating capacity is doubling about every 3 years. Many
predictions, both from inside the wind power industry and from outside sources, suggest that wind powerwill supply about 20% of US power consumption by 2030, and may represent between 20 and 30% of
overall global power supplies by that date.47,51 Several countries, including Denmark, Spain, Portugal, and
Ireland, are well beyond the US in terms of percentage of power generated from wind. Experience in these
countries has established, not only that intermittency, or variation in wind speed and availability, does not
affect the utility of wind power generation in a modern power grid, but also that a modern power grid can
absorb the replacement of 20% or more of overall electrical generation capacity by wind power without any
substantial restructuring or compensation for regional flux.48,49,50
Aggressive development of wind technology is proceeding around the world. Various European institutions
have begun earnest exploration of the necessities for building a power grid that is composed entirely of
integrated renewable sources, and China has committed to truly vast wind projects that are expected to
supply an unparalleled amount of emission free renewable energy.
Taking into account the various recent advances in technology, rapid global expansion and success in
applying the technology, and the level of future commitment expressed by world governments for this
sustainable technology, it is very likely that wind power will represent 30% or more of global power
generation within the first half of the 21st
century.
References
1 Union of Concerned Scientists, Coal vs. Wind, 2009 (April 2011), web
sitehttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html
2 World Wind Energy Association, World Wind Energy Report 2009 (April 2010), web
sitehttp://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php
3U.S. Energy Information Administration, Count of Electric Power Industry Power Plants, by Sector, by
Predominant Energy Sources within Plant, Report Revised April, 2011 (April 2011)
websitehttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.html
4 MIT Energy Initiative, Largest Coal-Fired Power Plants of Top Coal-Based U.S. Electric Utilities(April,
2009), web sitehttp://web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/reports/table-plants.pdf
5 Energy Justice Network, FACT SHEET: Clean Coal Power Plants (IGCC), April 2007 (April, 2011) web
sitehttp://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/igcc/factsheet-long.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.htmlhttp://www.wwindea.org/home/index.phphttp://www.wwindea.org/home/index.phphttp://www.wwindea.org/home/index.phphttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.htmlhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.htmlhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.htmlhttp://web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/reports/table-plants.pdfhttp://web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/reports/table-plants.pdfhttp://web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/reports/table-plants.pdfhttp://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/igcc/factsheet-long.pdfhttp://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/igcc/factsheet-long.pdfhttp://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/igcc/factsheet-long.pdfhttp://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/igcc/factsheet-long.pdfhttp://web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/reports/table-plants.pdfhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.htmlhttp://www.wwindea.org/home/index.phphttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
10/12
6 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860 Database, Report revised January 4, 2011 (April
2011) web sitehttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html
7 Center for Media and Democracy, SourceWatch, Water consumption from coal plants,Modified January 31,
2011 (April, 2011) web
sitehttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Water_consumption_from_coal_plants
8 United States Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS-163-97, Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash:Abundance, Forms, and Environmental Significance, October, 1997 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html
9 Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Coal and Climate Change Facts (April, 2011) web
sitehttp://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfm
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS:
1990-2009, April 2011 (April 2011) web site http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads11/US-
GHG-Inventory-2011-Complete_Report.pdf
11 Center for Media and Democracy, SourceWatch, Sulfur Dioxide and Coal, Modified January 12, 2011,
(April 2011) web sitehttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sulfur_dioxide_and_coal
12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sulfur Dioxide, Health, March 30, 2011 (April 2011) websitehttp://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/health.html
13 The World Bank, Environment in East Asia and Pacific, Air Quality Management, 2011 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://go.worldbank.org/YN2QSMAF60
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Air Trends, Sulfur Dioxide, December 17, 2010 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sulfur.html
15 Abt Associates, The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions, October 2000
(April 2011) web sitehttp://www.abtassociates.com/reports/particulate-related.pdf
16 Ecology America, Inc, Ecomall, Study says coal plant pollution kills 30,000 per year(April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair13.htm
17 Lockwood A. H., Welker-Hood K., Rauch M., Gottlied B., Physicians for Social Responsibility,Coals Assault
on Human Health, November, 2009 (April 2011) web sitehttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-
human-health.html
18 University of Iowa - Health Science, ScienceDaily, Black Carbon Implicated in Global Warming, 30 Jul.
2010. (April 2011)http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100729144225.htm
19 The American Lung Association,Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, March,
2011, (April 2011) web sitehttp://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdf
20 Environmental Defense Fund, Power Plants, Pollution and Soot, Jan 9, 2006 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=78
21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nitrogen Dioxide, Health, October 28, 2010 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/health.html
22 Mahaffey K., Cliffner R. P., and Bodurow C., National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(5): 562-570, Blood Organic Mercury and Dietary Mercury Intake:
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 and 2000, November 19, 2003 (April 2011) web
site http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.6587
23 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Center for Disease Control,Toxicological Profile for
Mercury, March, 1999 (April 2011) web site http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp46.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.htmlhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.htmlhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.htmlhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Water_consumption_from_coal_plantshttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Water_consumption_from_coal_plantshttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Water_consumption_from_coal_plantshttp://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.htmlhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.htmlhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.htmlhttp://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfmhttp://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfmhttp://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfmhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sulfur_dioxide_and_coalhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sulfur_dioxide_and_coalhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sulfur_dioxide_and_coalhttp://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/health.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/health.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/health.htmlhttp://go.worldbank.org/YN2QSMAF60http://go.worldbank.org/YN2QSMAF60http://go.worldbank.org/YN2QSMAF60http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sulfur.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sulfur.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sulfur.htmlhttp://www.abtassociates.com/reports/particulate-related.pdfhttp://www.abtassociates.com/reports/particulate-related.pdfhttp://www.abtassociates.com/reports/particulate-related.pdfhttp://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair13.htmhttp://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair13.htmhttp://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair13.htmhttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.htmlhttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.htmlhttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.htmlhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100729144225.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100729144225.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100729144225.htmhttp://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdfhttp://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdfhttp://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdfhttp://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdfhttp://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdfhttp://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdfhttp://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=78http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=78http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=78http://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/health.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/health.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/health.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/health.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/health.htmlhttp://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=78http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=78http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdfhttp://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/toxic-air-report.pdfhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100729144225.htmhttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.htmlhttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.htmlhttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.htmlhttp://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair13.htmhttp://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair13.htmhttp://www.abtassociates.com/reports/particulate-related.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/airtrends/sulfur.htmlhttp://go.worldbank.org/YN2QSMAF60http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/health.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/health.htmlhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sulfur_dioxide_and_coalhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sulfur_dioxide_and_coalhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sulfur_dioxide_and_coalhttp://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfmhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.htmlhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Water_consumption_from_coal_plantshttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
11/12
24 National Wildlife Federation, Mercury Pollution from Coal-fired Power Plants, (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.nwf.org/en/GlobalWarming/PolicySolutions/~/media/PDFs/Global Warming/Policy-
Solutions/NWF Mercury Fact Sheet FINAL.ashx
25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury, Basic Information, October 1, 2010 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htm
26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, News Releases from Headquarters, EPA Proposes First NationalStandard for Mercury Pollution from Power Plants / Mercury and air toxics standards represent one of
strongest health protections from air pollution since passage of Clean Air Act, March 16, 2011 (April 2011)
web
sitehttp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/55615df6595fbfa385
2578550050942f!OpenDocument
27Union of Concerned Scientists, Coal vs. Wind, 2009 (April 2011), web
sitehttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html
28 Gabbard A., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Coal Combustion, Nuclear Resource or Danger, February 5,
2008 (April 2011) web sitehttp://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
29 (reference deleted)
30 BioDiversity Research Institute, Mercury Connections, 2005 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.briloon.org/mercury/mercon_ex_sum.htm
31 National Wildlife Federation, Poisoning Wildlife, The Reality of Mercury Pollution, September, 2006 (April
2011) web sitehttp://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/PoisoningWildlifeMercuryPollution1.pdf
32 Wake Forest University, Science Daily, Mountaintop mining poisons fish. March 1, 2011 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100226214742.htm
33 PBS, Independent Lens, Razing Appalachia, Mountaintop Removal Mining: The Facts, May 14, 2003 (April
2005) web sitehttp://www.pbs.org/independentlens/razingappalachia/mtop.html
34offshorewind.Biz,Wind Turbines and Birds Might Mix, March 30, 2011 (April 2011) web site
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2011/03/30/wind-turbines-and-birds-might-mix-usa/
35 Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, Wind Power and Bird Studies, (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htm
36 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Damage Management, Table G. Animals Taken by Wildlife
Services - FY 2009, (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/Basic_Tables_PD
R_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdf
37 Curry and Kerlinger, LLC, What Kills Birds, (April 2011) web sitehttp://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm
38 Hart J. T., National Institute of Health, Pub Med Central, The Health of Coal Mining Communities, 1971
(April 2011) web sitehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2156484/pdf/jroyalcgprac00261-
0018.pdf
39 Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ministry Reports, The Potential Health Impact of Wind
Turbines, May 20, 2010 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf
40 Colby W. D., Dobie R., Leventhall G., Lipscomb D. M., McCunney R. J., Seilo M. T., Wind-Turbine Sound
and Health Effects: An Expert Panel Review, December, 2009 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/img/WindTurbineNoise.pdf
http://www.nwf.org/en/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Policy-Solutions/NWF%20Mercury%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL.ashxhttp://www.nwf.org/en/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Policy-Solutions/NWF%20Mercury%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL.ashxhttp://www.nwf.org/en/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Policy-Solutions/NWF%20Mercury%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL.ashxhttp://www.nwf.org/en/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Policy-Solutions/NWF%20Mercury%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL.ashxhttp://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htmhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/55615df6595fbfa3852578550050942f!OpenDocumenthttp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/55615df6595fbfa3852578550050942f!OpenDocumenthttp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/55615df6595fbfa3852578550050942f!OpenDocumenthttp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/55615df6595fbfa3852578550050942f!OpenDocumenthttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.htmlhttp://www.briloon.org/mercury/mercon_ex_sum.htmhttp://www.briloon.org/mercury/mercon_ex_sum.htmhttp://www.briloon.org/mercury/mercon_ex_sum.htmhttp://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/PoisoningWildlifeMercuryPollution1.pdfhttp://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/PoisoningWildlifeMercuryPollution1.pdfhttp://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/PoisoningWildlifeMercuryPollution1.pdfhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100226214742.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100226214742.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100226214742.htmhttp://www.pbs.org/independentlens/razingappalachia/mtop.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/independentlens/razingappalachia/mtop.htmlhttp://www.pbs.org/independentlens/razingappalachia/mtop.htmlhttp://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htmhttp://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htmhttp://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htmhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdfhttp://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htmhttp://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htmhttp://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htmhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2156484/pdf/jroyalcgprac00261-0018.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2156484/pdf/jroyalcgprac00261-0018.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2156484/pdf/jroyalcgprac00261-0018.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2156484/pdf/jroyalcgprac00261-0018.pdfhttp://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdfhttp://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdfhttp://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdfhttp://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/img/WindTurbineNoise.pdfhttp://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/img/WindTurbineNoise.pdfhttp://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/img/WindTurbineNoise.pdfhttp://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/img/WindTurbineNoise.pdfhttp://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2156484/pdf/jroyalcgprac00261-0018.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2156484/pdf/jroyalcgprac00261-0018.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2156484/pdf/jroyalcgprac00261-0018.pdfhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2156484/pdf/jroyalcgprac00261-0018.pdfhttp://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htmhttp://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htmhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdfhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdfhttp://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htmhttp://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htmhttp://www.pbs.org/independentlens/razingappalachia/mtop.htmlhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100226214742.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100226214742.htmhttp://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/PoisoningWildlifeMercuryPollution1.pdfhttp://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/PoisoningWildlifeMercuryPollution1.pdfhttp://www.nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/PoisoningWildlifeMercuryPollution1.pdfhttp://www.briloon.org/mercury/mercon_ex_sum.htmhttp://www.briloon.org/mercury/mercon_ex_sum.htmhttp://www.briloon.org/mercury/mercon_ex_sum.htmhttp://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.htmlhttp://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.htmlhttp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/55615df6595fbfa3852578550050942f!OpenDocumenthttp://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/55615df6595fbfa3852578550050942f!OpenDocumenthttp://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htmhttp://www.nwf.org/en/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Policy-Solutions/NWF%20Mercury%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL.ashxhttp://www.nwf.org/en/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Policy-Solutions/NWF%20Mercury%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL.ashxhttp://www.nwf.org/en/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Policy-Solutions/NWF%20Mercury%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL.ashxhttp://www.nwf.org/en/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Policy-Solutions/NWF%20Mercury%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL.ashxhttp://www.nwf.org/en/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Policy-Solutions/NWF%20Mercury%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL.ashx7/31/2019 Why Rare Earth Elements Matter for the Environment
12/12
41 West Virginia University Health Sciences Center, ScienceDaily,Chronic Illness Linked To Coal-mining
Pollution, Study Shows, March 27, 2008 (April, 2011) web
sitehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326201751.htm
42 (reference deleted)
43 Hendryx M., Ahern M. M., Am J Public Health, 98(4):669-71,Relations between health indicators and
residential proximity to coal mining in WestVirginia, April, 2008; epub Feb 28, 2008.
44 Hendryx M, Fedorko E, Anesetti-Rothermel A. Geospat Health, 4(2):243-56,A geographical information
system-based analysis of cancer mortality and population exposure to coal mining activities in West Virginia,
United States of America.May, 2010.
45 Physicians for Social Responsibility, Coals assault on human health, November 2009, (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.html
46World Wind Energy Association,World Wind Energy Report 2009, March, 2010 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/worldwindenergyreport2009_s.pdf
47 U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, DOE/GO-102008-2567,20% Wind
Energy by 2030, July 2008 (April 2011) web sitehttp://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf
48 Sinden G., Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, Characteristics
of the UK wind resource: Long-term patterns and relationship to electricity demand, in press (April 2011)
web sitehttp://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf
49 McMillen S., Wind Power is Not Intermittent, March, 2009 (April 2011) web
sitehttp://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-03-Wind-Power-Is-Not-Intermittent.html
50 Kutscher C.F., American Solar Energy Society, Tackling Climate Change in the U.S., January, 2007 (April
2011) web site http://ases.org/images/stories/file/ASES/climate_change.pdf
51 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Summary Statistics for the United States, 1998 through 2009,
Report Revised April, 2011 (April 2011) websitehttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html
_______________________________________
Author contact information:
R. E. Beauford, Arkansas Center for Space and Planetary Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR,
72701, USA.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326201751.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326201751.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326201751.htmhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18309131http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18309131http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18309131http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503192http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503192http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503192http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503192http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503192http://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.htmlhttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.htmlhttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wind_Energy_Associationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wind_Energy_Associationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wind_Energy_Associationhttp://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/worldwindenergyreport2009_s.pdfhttp://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/worldwindenergyreport2009_s.pdfhttp://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/worldwindenergyreport2009_s.pdfhttp://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdfhttp://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdfhttp://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdfhttp://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdfhttp://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdfhttp://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-03-Wind-Power-Is-Not-Intermittent.htmlhttp://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-03-Wind-Power-Is-Not-Intermittent.htmlhttp://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-03-Wind-Power-Is-Not-Intermittent.htmlhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.htmlhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.htmlhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.htmlmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.htmlhttp://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-03-Wind-Power-Is-Not-Intermittent.htmlhttp://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-03-Wind-Power-Is-Not-Intermittent.htmlhttp://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdfhttp://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdfhttp://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdfhttp://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdfhttp://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/worldwindenergyreport2009_s.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wind_Energy_Associationhttp://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.htmlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503192http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503192http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503192http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503192http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20503192http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18309131http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18309131http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18309131http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080326201751.htm