Nuclear Green in a Nut Shell

I among others have been challenged for taking advocacy positions instead of offering analyses, and listening to people who disagree with my views. Yet I and others, for example Barry Brook, are simply advocating positions we arrived at by analysis after talking to people who hold different views. I came to the conclusion that I advocate by asking how a post carbon grid would operate. I assumed that everything was on the table, but what the climate scientists were telling us we needed to get rid of 80% of our CO2 emissions. I did a brief sector by sector analysis of the energy economy, and determined that the most obvious place to start was the generation of electricity for the grid, the sources of space heat, and hot water, and the replacement of fossil fuels in transportation. Since I was not sure about the elimination of fossil fuels in other sectors. i decided that it would not be wise to assume that the sectors I was ignoring were good candidates for an 80% fossil fuel reduction. This included agriculture, the military, and air and water born transportation.

I concluded that the electrification of rail transportation was practical, and that electrical rail had good potential to replace long range trucking. I further concluded that solar systems could provide hot water in many parts of the country, and that there was good potential to use solar for space heating in some areas. I also noted that in much of the country, air conditioning was the rule in homes, offices and businesses. Although ground source heat pumps are efficient, they are expensive and also expensive to service. Air source hear pumps rely on a technology that is very similar to air conditioning, Replacement cycles for air conditioning systems are such that most of the cost of air source space heating conversion would be covered by the cost of replacing worn out air conditioning systems.

I had some doubts about biofuel replacements for fossil fuels, but I came to the conclusion that batteries and capacitors technology was evolving rapidly enough to replace fossil fuels in non rail surface transportation by 2050. Thus electrification offered a significant part of the solution, and thus it was very important that the decarbinization of the grid would approach 100% by 2050.

I then looked at efficiency, of which much was expected. I quickly discovered that there was a serious conceptual problem with the efficiency solution. Economists have known for 150 years about Jevons Paradox. Jevons a 19th century resource economists, had discovered that greater efficiency in the use of coal lead to more demand for coal. Other economists have noted that if efficiency does not always lead to an increase in energy demand, a rebound effect is quite robust. And thus in the absence of energy price increases efficiency cannot be counted on for big carbon use savings.

I noted that some other people were advocating a simplified lifestyle. Most people, i thought, would prefer to not adopt such a lifestyle. I concluded that the simple lifestyle was likely to lead to greater social conflict, a diminished quality of life, and a lower life expectancy. Some people were pointing to Cuba as a model for a low energy simplified society, but i felt that such a choice came with the cost of political and human rights for the Cuban people, and that most of the people of Cuba would prefer a high energy lifestyle if they could choose. The evidence for this was obvious, Cuba was a dictatorship. The communist party of Cuba maintained control of political power, and was prepared to use violence against anyone who objected.

Thus I felt that there was no alternative to replacing CO2 emitting electrical generation capacity with post carbon electrical sources. I had not ruled out renewables, but I felt that intermittency was a problem to be solved. I looked at the problem of intermittency, and asked renewable advocates what they would do when sun and wind failed. Use the grid for backup they answered. But I asked, I thought we wanted to get rid of carbon sources on the Grid. After they discovered I was not going to accept the Grid answer, they offered efficiency. When i brought up Jevons and rebounds, they turned to backups like batteries, pump storage, and Compressed air storage. I investigated all of these proposed back up technologies and found that they were all expensive and were inefficient to boot. Compressed air storage, required the of natural gas. A further renewable strategy is to create redundant solar and wind facilities, and link them with an expanded grid. The linked system is more likely to provide reliable electricity, than stand alone solar or wind units. However like energy storage backups, the redundancy plan turns out to be more expensive than conventional nuclear power systems. I did offer one novel renewable back up plan. Molten Salt Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors can be built with low prices and have attractive features that makes them useful in peak power.back up roles. LFTRs thus could provide reliable, relatively low cost backups for renewables. But, the LFTRs would be capable of operating full time. Thus it would be cheaper to remove the renewable electrical sources from the system and simply operate the LFTRs full time.

When I calculated the cost of renewables with backup, and compared it to the cost of nuclear power I reached the conclusion that nuclear power was cheaper. Renewable advocates rejected this conclusion. Nuclear has to be more expensive, they said. They complained about how unsafe reactors are. They pointed to the so called "problem of nuclear waste." They raised the issue of nuclear proliferation. They argued that we were running out of uranium.

But i was aware of a Generation IV nuclear technology that could answer all these issues. it was Molten Salt technology, and i knew about it, because my father had worked on it for 20 years. So I reviewed the evidence accumulated in Oak Ridge between 1950 and 1980. i reviewed the ORNL research, and looked at recent discussions. There seemed to be a strong case. Another Generation IV technology, the Integral Fast Reactor appear to also offer viable solutions to many unclear power issues, but is likely to be more expensive and more technologically challenging than MSRs, and objections may be raised on grounds of nuclear proliferation dangers. Generation III and even Generation II nuclear technology appear to be an acceptable bridge, but conventional nuclear technology does not solve all the problems that MSRs and IFRs will solve.

All of my conclusions have come by analysis. I have listened to the advocates of other viewpoints. My analysis points to the following conclusions:

1. Fossil Fuel are on their way out as energy sources.

2. Fossil fuel energy technology will have to be replaced.

3. Efficiency cannot be counted on to replace fossil fuels use.

4. Renewables require back up.

5. Renewables with fossil fuel back up will not meet 2050 carbon emission goals.

6. Renewables with energy storage back ups will be more expensive than nuclear.

7. Renewables with redundancy will be more expensive than nuclear.

8. Nuclear power is a less expensive and more reliable source of post carbon electricity than renewables.

9. Generation IV nuclear technology offers many attractive features, and could solve some or all of the objections now raised to nuclear power.

Since I first completed this analysis, I have reviewed its components on a number of occasions. My reviews continue to demonstrate that my analysis remains sound. During the last 3 years numerous studies related to components of my analysis have been published. These studies point to the same conclusions. Further, these studies have not received effective contradiction. This is the case for my original analysis. There is a growing body of evidence that the renewables paradigm has failed.

My advocacy is primarily based on reports of the findings of my analyses and the analyses offered by others. I believe that those who disagree with us need to offer strong reasons for doing so, or loose credibility. So far they have not done so,

Nuclear Power in the future of Cement Manufacture

Cement manufacture is a significant source of Global CO2 emissions. About 3.4% to 5% of anthropogenic CO2 is emitted from the Cement manufacturing process. The process of manufacturing portland cement requires the burning of large amounts of fossil fuels. In addition the cement manufacturing process triggers the emission of even larger amounts of CO2 as a byproduct of heating raw materials. Lisa J. Hanle, Kamala R. Jayaraman and Joshua S. Smith point out,

Cement is often considered a key industry for a number of reasons. To begin with, cement is an essential input into the production of concrete, a primary building material for the construction industry. Due to the importance of cement for various construction-related activities such as highways, residential and commercial buildings, tunnels and dams, production trends tend to reflect general economic activity.

In addition to the emission of CO2 by burning fossil fuels during the production of cement and the the discharge of CO2 from raw materials during cement processing, the burning of fossil fuels to produce electricity used while grinding cement clinkers also contributes to the atmospheric CO2 burden. Burning fossil fuels in cement manufacturing also releases a significant amount of NOX and SO2 gases, creating further environmental problems. There has as of yet been no environmentally satisfactory solution to the cement manufacturing issues, involving the substitution of renewable energy for fossil fuels.

If the international economic industrialization process is to continue during the 21st century, and continue to spread to under industrialized countries, the global demand for cement will skyrocket. Given the current rate of global CO2 emissions by the cement industry, the elimination of CO2 emissions associate with cement manufacture, will play a significant role in the decarbonation of human society.

The relation between cement and CO2 is actually complex. Cement in concrete actually goes through prolonged chemical curing processes, during which over half of the CO2 emitted during the manufacturing process is reabsorbed. Thus the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels during cement manufacture constitutes a separate issue from the CO2 emitted by raw materials, because much of the latter CO2 will later be recaptured later on.

CO2 emissions from materials can be controlled by using a low carbon emissions cement manufacturing process, that might begin with different materials, or inclusion of alternative materials in the raw materials mix. Alternatively carbon recapture could be facilitated during the curing process.

Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels while processing cement materials, can be eliminated use of nuclear power in the heat production process. One approach would be the production a carbon neutral flsmable gas using process heat from a reactor. The gas would then be burned to provide sufficient heat to process cement raw materials. There are decarbonization objections to this approach, Even if the gas manufacturing process is carbon neutral, we may not be assured of carbon neutrality during all stages of handling and use. For example methane has a far more serious greenhouse implications than CO2 does. Methane lossed inadvertantly to leaks is not carbon neutral, as is methane loses due to imperfect combustion. Thus the introduction of carbon based gases into the cement manufacturing process, presents significant challenges if carbon neutrality is the goal.

There would be no such problem if the gas were hydrogen. My well informed readers will recognize that there are problems with the handling and storage of hydrogen, but those probles relate more to the storage of hydrogen than its production. The hydrogen problems can be minimalized if hydrogen is burned immediately after its production.

Nuclear power can contribute to cement manufacture, both by serving as the indirect source of the required heat input, and as a carbon free source of electricity.

Both gas cooled and liquid salt cooled reactors could be useful in cement manufacturer, but LFTRs have the potential to perform the heat production role with the lowest potential cost. The LIFT would be the energy source that is most compatible with high energy post-carbon future. It has the greatest potential to produce industrial heat and electricity at a low cost, while for all practical purposes, energy produced by LFTRs would not be limited by natural forces or supply problems.

If decarbonization is imagined to be adressed on a sector by sector basis. In terms of electrical generation decarbonization can take place by substituting nuclear power for fossel fuel generating systems. In surface transportation, decarbonization can be accomplished by electrification. Space heating can also be electrified, especially through use of heat pumps. Finally energy for the industrial sector can be provided by greater electrification or by nuclear heat inputs.

This vision would assign to nuclear power a predominate role in the production of post carbon energy. It is quite evident that this role could not be fulfilled by conventional light water nuclear technology. First because of the limited avaliability of U-235. By a switich to Generation IV nuclear technology, energy avaliability of current supplies of nuclear fuel would be increased by a factor of 500 or more.

The program endorced by Nuclear Green is highly ambitious. I advocate the use of nuclear powered energy sources in the creation of a globalized high energy industrialized economy. My view is that this program is not incompatible with environmental values, infact it is more consistent with environmental protection than a low energy renewables powered post-carbon future. In addition, a post carbon high energy future would be less likely to produce the political and economic conditions that would lead to war.

Obama's Greatest Task: Winning the Energy War

The American Election is over and the next president, Mr. Barack Obama, faces an extremely daunting set of problems. The most obvious is an economic crises that still threatens to spiral into an international depression. It is not yet clear that the disaster has been avoided, but quite obviously the problems that lie at the heart of the crises are still with us. The real problem is the structure of the world economy. The current world economy is unsustainable because it depends on American borrowing to purchase foreign manufactured goods. Since American businesses have decided that they can keep prices lower, by shipping manufacturing jobs abroad. But since we no longer manufacture things, we have nothing to trade for the goods we want. Since we Americans cannot pay for things we buy through trade, we have to borrow money to buy Japanese cars, and Chinese manufactured TV sets. But we have ultimately no way to repay the loans.

Foreign lenders are hungry for investment opportunities in the United States, and hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign loans are pouring into the American economy. Americans are no ones fools, and if a bank is willing to offer me a mortgage to pay for a much larger home at a fire sale rate, we are going to take the money and run. Foreign investment has paid for American real estate inflation, but the bubble, in an unproductive economy, could not last forever. The Obama Administration must address the structural problems of the international trading system, but beyond that it must lay the groundwork for a new American Industrial revolution, one which again makes the United States a center of international industrial production, and a major source of industrial goods in the world trading system. Those structural changes in the world and the American economies will not come without a great deal of pain.

In order for the United States to restore its industrial productivity, its energy problems must be solved. Our political leadership already knew in the 1970's that we faced an energy crises. M. King Hubbert had projected an eventual decline in both American and world oil production in 1949. In December 1957 when Edward Teller spoke to the American Chemical Society, he noted a that world use of carbon based fuels posed a serious problem for the future of society. Teller simply stated what scientist knew for all of the 20th century, that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas, and by adding it to the atmosphere we were creating a condition that would make our planet warmer.

Today, both Hubbert's and Teller's predictions are coming to pass. World production of oil can only keep pace with world oil production in a depressed economy. The world transportation economies are based on technologies that are unsustainable. With ever declining oil production, oil fueled air, sea and land transportation systems will start grinding to a halt, unless substitute power systems are designed and put in place. World society has not even begun to do that yet, and we have already seen the first wave of the peek oil crisis.

Facing the peak oil and global warming crises will require a great deal of rethinking about our basic assumptions about the economy, society and the political system. M. King Hubbart pointed out:

"The world's present industrial civilization is handicapped by the coexistence of two universal, overlapping, and incompatible intellectual systems: the accumulated knowledge of the last four centuries of the properties and interrelationships of matter and energy; and the associated monetary culture which has evloved from folkways of prehistoric origin.

"The first of these two systems has been responsible for the spectacular rise, principally during the last two centuries, of the present industrial system and is essential for its continuance. The second, an inheritance from the prescientific past, operates by rules of its own having little in common with those of the matter-energy system. Nevertheless, the monetary system, by means of a loose coupling, exercises a general control over the matter-energy system upon which it is super[im]posed.

"Despite their inherent incompatibilities, these two systems during the last two centuries have had one fundamental characteristic in common, namely, exponential growth, which has made a reasonably stable coexistence possible. But, for various reasons, it is impossible for the matter-energy system to sustain exponential growth for more than a few tens of doublings, and this phase is by now almost over. The monetary system has no such constraints, and, according to one of its most fundamental rules, it must continue to grow by compound interest. This disparity between a monetary system which continues to grow exponentially and a physical system which is unable to do so leads to an increase with time in the ratio of money to the output of the physical system. This manifests itself as price inflation. A monetary alternative corresponding to a zero physical growth rate would be a zero interest rate. The result in either case would be large-scale financial instability."

"With such relationships in mind, a review will be made of the evolution of the world's matter-energy system culminating in the present industrial society. Questions will then be considered regarding the future:

What are the constraints and possibilities imposed by the matter-energy system? human society sustained at near optimum conditions?
Will it be possible to so reform the monetary system that it can serve as a control system to achieve these results?

If not, can an accounting and control system of a non-monetary nature be devised that would be approptirate for the management of an advanced industrial system?
"It appears that the stage is now set for a critical examination of this problem, and that out of such inquries, if a catastrophic solution can be avoided, there can hardly fail to emerge what the historian of science, Thomas S. Kuhn, has called a major scientific and intellectual revolution."

In is not in any ordinary age that Barack Obama will step into the office of the Presidency. By the way the name Barack means lightening in Hebrew. Lets how that he can electrify the world. Doing so will require every bit of his very considerable talent. He must lead the world as if we were at war, and he must do no less than lead us into a new energy age. This is a task that is fully comparable to national and global leadership during World War II Franklin D. Roosevelt played during World War II. Our energy war will not be against other people, but rather it will be against the human misery that we will see if we do not win the war. The energy war is Mr. Obama's to win or loose, and on that victory rests the fate of human society.

Two public statements on energy by C.J. Barton, Sr.

Two comments on energy and CO2 by George Parker and C.J. Barton, Sr.

From his retirement from ORNL in1977 onward my father continued to speak out on nuclear power, fossil fuels, CO2, and global warming.  He and George Parker continued to collaborate on statements in support of nuclear power.  They had first called attention to the problem of global warming in 1977, and 18 years later their concerns had grown.  I believe that the 1995 statement, published in the Oak Ridger, was the last public statement they made together.  Below I have also included my fathers last published statement on energy issues to date.  In that statement he called for a National Energy Policy.   He speaks as a scientist, and calls attention to the wastefulness of using oil and natural gas -  nonrenewable natural resources - for energy rather than as feed stock for the petrochemical industry.   My father was 91, when his wrote the last statement, and although almost every voice of his generation had been silenced by time by death or old age, he still spoke out firmly. The same year he also published a statement of opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

Nuclear power less damaging to environment than coal
By Charles J. Barton, Sr. and George Parker (The Oak Ridger, 1995)

The protest demonstration at the Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant and efforts to prevent its starting show that opposition to nuclear power production in this country is alive and flourishing. Even more convincing evidence of anti-nuclear sentiment is that no new U.S. nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978.

Two aspects of the Watts Bar demon­stration need particular attention: the state­ment of the demonstrators that their aim is to protect the environment and their signs attempting to associate the Watts Bar plant with the Chernobyl disaster.

There are presently 419 operating nu­clear power plants worldwide (108 in the United States). Of these, 330 are light-wa­ter moderated, as is the Watts Bar plant, Many of them have been safely operated for 10 to 20 years. To date, there has been only one major accident in an operating reactor of the light-water type.

The accident at Three Mile Island at­tracted a tremendous amount of TV and newspaper attention. However, the fact that no one exposed to radiation from that, accident received a radiation dose greater than that which the average U.S. citizen receives from natural sources in a year has largely been ignored.

The Chernobyl-type reactor is far from reaching the safety requirements for nucle­ar power plants in this country. In fact, this country and several European nations have offered Ukraine substantial inducements to close power plants of this type because of doubts concerning their safety.

Coal-burning power plants produce about 52 percent of the electricity used in this country. Coal contains a small amount of radioactive materials: 1.3 parts, per mil­'lion,ofuranium and 3.2 ppm of thorium on the average.

Because of the tremendous amount of coal required to produce electricity, 4 mil­lion tons per year for a 1000-megawatt plant, a significant quantity of these natu­rally occurring radioactive materials is dis­tributed to the environment around coal burning plants in fly ash.

Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory have calculated that people in the vicinity of such plants receive a radia­tion dose from this source about 100 times greater than that which they would receive from a nuclear power plant.

The above-mentioned radiation dose from uranium and thorium in fly ash is of small consequence when compared to the adverse effects of other impurities in coal. Sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxides in coal combustion gases is an important contrib­utor to acid rain. The increasing concen­tration of carbon dioxide in the atmo­sphere (greenhouse effect) is also believed to contribute to global warming.

Unfortunately, health effects of coal combustion products are not nearly as well known as the effect of radioactive materi­als, but studies at the Electric Power Re­search Institute and elsewhere have shown the total health effects of generating elec­tricity with coal are greater than for nucle­ar power plants.

Accidents in coal mines, health effects in mining (black lung) and accidents at railroad crossings are principal contribu­tors to the total health effects of the coal­plant fuel cycle. The health effect of min­ing uranium, principally lung cancer from exposure to radon, is an important contrib­utor to the health effects of the nuclear re­actor fuel cycle.

The information cited above provides evidence that nuclear power plants are less harmful to the environment than coal­burning plants.

This raises the question: Why are peo­ple in groups like Earth First willing to risk being jailed in efforts to, as they view it, protect the environment?

Richard Roberts, an official in the Energy Research and Development Administration, a Department of Energy predecessor agency, stated in 1976 that our country seemed to be swept by a virulent form of "nuclearphobia" exhibited by a disbelief in any encouraging thing that experts in the nuclear energy area might say. There does not seem to have been much improvement in this situation in the last 18 years.

One cause of nuclearphobia is an appar­ent lack of interest on the part of newspa­pers and TV news people in positive news. It seems that anyone can produce an arti­cle saying that something will hurt you, especially radiation, and can get the atten­tion of news people.

Efforts to rebut misinformation seldom get published in newspapers or aired on TV, the only sources of most of the pub­lic's information. Better educated news people should be able to weigh the evi­dence and, at least, present both sides of such arguments.

A large effort has been put forth in this country in recent years to develop new standard nuclear power plant designs.

These plants will be even safer to operate than those presently in use and can proba­bly be built more economically. As aging nuclear power plants are retired and elec­tricity requirements continue to increase, electric utilities will have to choose the technology for future power plants.

In spite of wishful thinking about new power sources such as wind and sun, the choices for large power plants presently are coal and nuclear.

Some countries, notably France, Japan and Great Britain, have already made their choice in favor of nuclear power. France is already producing 75 percent of its elec­tricity in such plants.

Our choice for meeting future electricity needs should be based on facts, not fear.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerns about use of fossil fuels and global warming
By Charles J. Barton, Sr., (The Oak Ridger, 2003)

Hans Blix, outgoing director general of The IAEA published an article entitled Atomic Energy in the 21st Century in the September Issue of Nuclear News, a publication of the American Nuclear Society.

This excellent article considers factors affecting energy policy from the global viewpoint that his position provides..

I will discuss here the pressing need for adopting a national energy policy to guide the expansion of U.S. electrical power production in the 21st century.

First, a little history. In 1975 I attended a Project Independence hear­ing in Philadelphia at the request of Ed Struxness, my boss at the time. This was one of a series of 10 such hearings held at various locations around the country.

Their announced objective was development of a national strategy to reduce the likelihood of a repetition of the scarcity of oil caused by the earlier Arab embargo on oil shipments to the United States. This strategy, if it had been achieved, could have served as a limited na­tional energy policy.

My report to Struxness on the Philadelphia hearing was subtitled "An Axe-Grinders Convention."

Many speakers were scientists es­pousing various energy-producing techniques such as solar and wind power or use of renewable fuels for electricity generation.

These speakers were obviously hoping for funds to further develop their pet projects. Other axe ­grinders were politicians ranging from senators and governors to mayors, with a wide range of objectives.

The results of the Project Inde­pendence hearings were to be sum­marized in a report soon after the hearings were concluded and, pre­sumably, actions to reduce our de­pendence on imported oil were to be undertaken.

Although a number of projects that I heard discussed at the hearing continued to be funded, only the fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas - have been widely used for large scale production of electricity.

The principal result of the early 1970's oil shortage was the storage of a large quantity of oil in under­ ground salt mines.

Nothing resembling a national energy policy emerged. Although nuclear power plants produce ap­proximately 20 percent of U.S. electricity, there have been no new orders for nuclear power plants in the United States since 1978;

Blix points out the advantage of nuclear power as compared to use of fossil fuels. He says that, world­wide, the fossil fuels provide about 85 percent of commercial energy, divided as follows: 37 percent for oil, 25% for coal, 21 percent for gas. The balance is divided nearly equally between hydro and nuclear power.

In the United States, coal burning power plants produce more than 50 percent of the electricity used.

One advantage of nuclear power that Blix emphasized is the limited volume of nuclear waste in comparison to coal. He stated that the limited volume of nuclear waste is one of the greatest advantages of nuclear power.

This statement is in contrast to the common belief that nuclear wastes are one of the greatest liabil­ities of nuclear power.

Blix introduced me to the concept of energy density. He says that one kilogram (kg) of firewood pro­duces about one kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity; 1 kg of coal produces about 3 kWh; 1 kg of oil produces about 4 kWh; 1 kg of natural uranium produces about 50,000 kWh; and 1 kg of plutonium produces about 6,000,000 kWh.

The latter figure confirms my be­lief that President Jimmy Carter dealt a major blow to the U.S. nu­clear power industry by eliminating the used fuel reprocessing option.

Although there are significant en­vironmental effects of coal-burning power plants resulting from produc­tion of huge qualities of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and waste, the most worrisome factor ls the global warming effect of carbon dioxide, an effect coal shares with oil, gas and other burnable fuels.

It seems like an argument to limit worldwide production of carbon dioxide will be reached in the near future. The only options for a large scale increase in the production of electricity that do not produce carbon dioxide are nuclear and hydro power.

In most country these are for new dam projects. Blix states: “If the fear of global warming after all were to be unfounded, nothing would have been lost by greater use of nuclear power, as the cost of nuclear power is roughly competitive with fossil fuel alternatives.

Not mentioned in Blix' article but of concern to me as a chemist is the continued use of oil and natural gas for the generation of electricity. These non-renewable resources, particularly Natural gas, could be better used in my opinion for future production of petrochemicals.

I believe that all of the above-mentioned factors and others discussed by Blix need to be carefully examined in preparation for the adoption of a US energy policy, which is long overdue.

The Economic Case for Eliminating Fossil Fuels Use

Even if we did not believe in AGW there are powerful reasons for quickly ending the use of Fossil fuels. My father found data which showed that for every GWy of electricity generated by coal fired power plants, there were as many as 100 deaths. Not only that but their are clear indicators that the use of liquid fossil fuels in transportation is associated with staggering problems problems. There has been a tremendous increase in asthma cases in advanced societies during the last 30 years. In the United States the number of individuals diagnosed with asthma has tripled. There are now over 20 million Americans who suffer from asthma. Research has shown that the number of hospital and ER admissions for acute breathing problems peak on days of heavy transportation related air pollution. We could lower
our national health care costs by up to 20% by eliminating the use of fossil fuels in the generation of electricity and in transportation. Researchers report that atmospheric carbon fuel particulates are on the rise in the Eastern United States. Repeated studies have shown that carbon fuel particulates have a direct negative impact on human health.

A few years ago a group of Canadian doctors began to look at the health related costs of producing electricity from coal. They found that atmospheric pollutants from coal fired electrical generating plants were a significant source of health problems in the provence of Ontario. There research found that air pollution from all sources kills more than 5,900 people each year in Onterio. A Ontario government follow up study found that coal-fired power plants in Omtario were responsible for up to 668 deaths. In addition, atmospheric pollutants from coal fired generators were responsible for 928 hospital admissions and 1,100 emergency room visits every year. The health related cost to the people in Ontario associated with generating electricity by burning coal was found to be $4.4 billion. When the added health care coasts associated with burning coal were added to the direct coasts of generating electricity at coal-fired generators, coal began to look a great deal more expensive than other electricity sources.

A more recent Canadian study found that Ontario hospitals received in one year 12,518 asthma related visits (7,825 children and 4,693 adults). Of the people making ER visits 847 children (10.8%) and 322 adults (6.9%) were admitted to the hospital. The number of children with asthma, the severity of asma attacks, and yje number of asthma related hospital admissions are increasing. A Canadian study found that the number of children getting asthma attacks was increasing and that one out of five Canadian children suffered from asthma. Over one third of Ontario health insurance expenses were asthma related. Australian researchers report that 19.2% of Australian children between 5 and 14 suffer from asthma. Australia researchers found that Australia has the second-highest reported death rate from asthma in the world, and that the asthma death rate among Australian children increasing by 50% between 1980 to 1990. The number of asthma sufferers in the United States grew from 6.7 million people in 1980 to 17.3 million in 1998, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Researchers have repeatedly found a relationship between asthma and auto related air pollution. particularly ozone and particulates. The auro related air pollution is directly related to burning fossile fuels - gasoline and diesel fuels - in our cars, trucks, trains, aircraft and ships. Thus an indirect cost of burning fossil fuels, is the added bruden of an epidemic of childhood asthma, and related healthcare costs for the medical treatment of asthma.

Although litte has yet been done to confront the health problems related to burning fossil fuels in Ontario cars, the Ontario Parliament decided to shut down Ontario's coal fired power plants, because of their health related coasts. When it explored its clean electrical generating options the Ontario government discovered that several older electricity generating reactors in Ontario had been shut down and mothballed. By reconditioning the mothballed reactors, much of Ontario's coal fired electrical generating coal fired enectrical generating capacity can be replaced for far less than the cost of building new power plants from scratch. A side effect will be that electricity will be generated without producing global warming causing CO2.

Similar solutions must be found for automobiles because, peak oil will soon make carbon based transportation fuels prohibitively expensive, because pollutants from transportation exhausts have contributed to a world wide asthma plague among children and to lung related health problems for over 15% of the population of the United States, and because auto related CO2 emissions threaten our future on the Planet Earth.

Ontario premier Daiton McGuinty is no fan or nuclear power. He recently stated: “I don’t like nuclear power,” but he also realizes that nuclear power is the only viable option for Ontario’s CO2 and pollutant free energy future: “Natural gas is too expensive, wind power is unreliable, coal plants pollute the air and Ontario’s hydroelectric potential has largely been maxed out, leaving nuclear power expansions ‘on the table’ for the province.”

Brian Wong has reported that the use of fossil fuels, not only burdens so society with added healthcare costs, but shortens the life expectancy of Europeans. Wong points out that chronic illness cost the American Economy over $1.3 trillion a year. Wong reports that 16.9% of Americans suffer from Pulmonary Conditions. We are talking about 50 million people whose health and life span are effected by atmospheric pollution form fossil fuels. Wong argues that by switching from coal fired electrical generation to nuclear generation, 40% of American rail freight hauling capaciry would be freed up, thus facilitating the transfer of freight from trucking to rail without large new capitol investments by the railroads.

I raised an asthmatic child, and spent many sleepless nights with him while he was having asthma attacks. This is a serious illness, a wide spread epidemic that quite literally effects millions of children. Because we know that the burring of fossil fuels is a major source of the problem, it is imperative that we eliminate the burning of fossil fuels in transportation and in the generating of electricity.

The health care savings from the elimination of fossil fuels will more than pay the cost of doing so. I have observed that great progress in the use of battery and ultra-capacitor technology. Given current technology hybrid cars with 40 to 60 mile battery ranges will be on the market within 5 years. Within 10 years 100 mile + plug in ranges will be quite likely.

Long range trucking should be eliminated, because of the health care problems associated with truck exhaust. Urban trucking can be conducted with battery powered trucks, while inter urban freight shipping could be transfered to rail. A second health care saving that would happen because of the elimination of interurban trucking would be the elimination of the accidental death and injuries caused by trucks on the highways.

Railroads can be electrified. Rail electrification and the transfer of freight to rail are rational responces of peak oil, particulate related health costs, and global warming. 10% of American oil use can be eliminated by shifting freight from diesel trucks to electrified rail.

One does not have to believe in AGW to see the health advantages and savings in health care costs that could be gained by stopping the use of fossil fuels in electrical generation and in transportation.

.