kristopher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-11 11:22 AM
Original message |
| ENORMOUS HEALTH AND WATER IMPACTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR POWER "HIDDEN" FROM CONSUMERS |
|
Press release from Civil Society Institute
COST OF ELECTRIC POWER REPORT: ENORMOUS HEALTH AND WATER IMPACTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR POWER "HIDDEN" FROM CONSUMERS
WASHINGTON, D.C.///January 25, 2011///An astounding 200 billion gallons of water withdrawn from America's water supply each day … annual costs to society from premature deaths due to power plant pollution so high that they are up to four times the price of all electricity produced in the U.S. … and four metric tons of high-level radioactive wastes for every terawatt of electricity produced by nuclear reactors, even though there is no long-term storage solution in place. These are just some of the little understood and largely "hidden" water, health and other costs from U.S. coal and nuclear electricity production detailed in a new analysis released today by Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI) think tank. The Synapse report for CSI also outlines the considerable health impacts of the nation's current reliance on coal and nuclear power.
Pam Solo, president and founder, Civil Society Institute, said: "What we refer to as the 'Business As Usual' (BAU) approach to electricity production carries significant costs, chief among them the health impacts. As the White House and the Congress propose moving from a Renewable Energy Standard to what they are calling a "Clean Energy Standard," there should be a full and public debate about what constitutes 'clean' energy. Traditional energy developers and producers refer to the social and economic impacts of reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power as 'externalities'. The high risk and extensive cost in terms of human health, productivity and long term economic competitiveness are essential components of defining and moving toward a sustainable and truly clean energy future. Water quality and water availability are perhaps the key lens through which to look at whether energy sources are indeed clean and should have any part in a 'Clean Energy Standard."
Dr. Jeremy Fisher, scientist, Synapse Energy Economics Inc., said: "The existing coal fleet in the United States exacts an expensive toll on the US. The fleet itself is fairly inexpensive to operate, and for years has been a source of cheap electricity. However, we know now that each year, emissions of acid gasses and toxic particulates are at the root of thousands of premature deaths each year. The fleet leaches waste into our groundwater and rivers, heats hundreds of waterways with thermal effluent, consumes millions of acre-feet of water, and releases the largest fraction of emissions which are leading us quickly towards a very different climate. These costs, as dramatic as they may be, are almost completely hidden from the public view and are invisible to consumers." ...
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/c012511release.cfm
|
| hootinholler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-11 12:12 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Don't buy into Natural Gas as being clean either. |
| joshcryer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-11 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 2. Didn't you know? Exemptions mean that fracking issues are not even noticed by the EPA. |
|
Therefore they cause no problems.
(I saw Gasland, incredible documentary.)
|
| hootinholler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-26-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
I can't recall if that point is made in Gas Land or not.
-Hoot
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Fri May 10th 2024, 03:27 PM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
