Lowering coal-fired power plant emissions may have saved 1,700 lives in one year

Sep 03, 2014
Lowering coal-fired power plant emissions may have saved 1,700 lives in 1 year

After scoring a Supreme Court victory this spring, the Environmental Protection Agency can move forward with its strategy to cut air pollution from coal-fired power plants in several states—and new research suggests the impact could be lifesaving. Scientists assessed the effects of one state's prescient restrictions on plant emissions in a report in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology. They estimated that the state's legislation prevented about 1,700 premature deaths in 2012.

Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson and Ya-Ru Li explain that the U.S. has been working for years to lower levels of particulate matter, a form of that can cause serious health problems when people breathe it in. Certain kinds of particulate matter form mainly from power plant emissions. More than 10 years ago, correctly anticipating the federal government would eventually set tighter restrictions on power plants, North Carolina had approved more stringent goals than neighboring states. It required 14 major coal-fired plants within its borders to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides by 60 percent and 72 percent, respectively, over a 10-year period. Gibson's team wanted to see what effect the measures were having.

They found that the policy had successfully reduced emissions in North Carolina more than other southeastern states. Sulfur dioxide levels, for example, dropped an average of 20 percent a year from 2002 to 2012. Across all southeastern states, they dropped 13.6 percent per year. As a result of the improved air in North Carolina, the scientists used a health impact model to estimate that about 1,700 lives were saved in 2012 alone.

Explore further: Air pollution controls linked to lower death rates in North Carolina

More information: "Health and Air Quality Benefits of Policies to Reduce Coal-Fired Power Plant Emissions: A Case Study in North Carolina" Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (17), pp 10019–10027. DOI: 10.1021/es501358a

Abstract
We analyzed sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and fine particulate sulfate (PM2.5 sulfate) concentrations in the southeastern United States during 2002–2012, in order to evaluate the health impacts in North Carolina (NC) of the NC Clean Smokestacks Act of 2002. This state law required progressive reductions (beyond those mandated by federal rules) in pollutant emissions from NC's coal-fired power plants. Although coal-fired power plants remain NC's leading SO2 source, a trend analysis shows significant declines in SO2 emissions (−20.3%/year) and PM2.5 sulfate concentrations (−8.7%/year) since passage of the act. Emissions reductions were significantly greater in NC than in neighboring states, and emissions and PM2.5 sulfate concentration reductions were highest in NC's piedmont region, where 9 of the state's 14 major coal-fired power plants are located. Our risk model estimates that these air quality improvements decreased the risk of premature death attributable to PM2.5 sulfate in NC by about 63%, resulting in an estimated 1700 (95% CI: 1500, 1800) deaths prevented in 2012. These findings lend support to recent studies predicting that implementing the proposed federal Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court) could substantially decrease U.S. premature deaths attributable to coal-fired power plant emissions.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Power plant plan further clouds coal's future

Jun 03, 2014

President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to reduce the gases blamed for global warming from the nation's power plants gives many coal-dependent states more lenient restrictions—and won't necessarily be the primary reason ...

Exporting US coal to Asia could drop emissions 21 percent

Aug 19, 2014

Under the right scenario, exporting U.S. coal to power plants in South Korea could lead to a 21 percent drop in greenhouse gas emissions compared to burning the fossil fuel at plants in the United States, according to a new ...

Recommended for you

Rio's Olympic golf course in legal bunker

Sep 18, 2014

The return of golf to the Olympics after what will be 112 years by the time Rio hosts South America's first Games in 2016 comes amid accusations environmental laws were got round to build the facility in ...

User comments : 29

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2014
Lowering coal-fired power plant emissions may have saved 1,700 lives in one year


Utter bullshit.
shavera
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 03, 2014
^Didn't bother to read the article.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2014
Lowering coal-fired power plant emissions may have saved 1,700 lives in one year


Utter bullshit.

Don't worry, The black bears will be fine.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2014
The final desperate gasps of the AGW Cult. We have seen through their CO2 lies, so now they must link it with SO2.
SaulAlinsky
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2014
Utter bullshit.

Don't sign your posts.
supamark23
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2014
The final desperate gasps of the AGW Cult. We have seen through their CO2 lies, so now they must link it with SO2.


This has nothing to do with global warming fuckstain, it's about cutting emissions of shit that poisons the environment.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2014
This has nothing to do with global warming fuckstain, it's about cutting emissions of shit that poisons the environment.

Agreed. Though, I would not have worded it so mildly.
supamark23
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2014
This has nothing to do with global warming fuckstain, it's about cutting emissions of shit that poisons the environment.

Agreed. Though, I would not have worded it so mildly.


lol.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2014
This has nothing to do with global warming fuckstain, it's about cutting emissions of shit that poisons the environment.
-- supaturd
Wow!! If turds had nerves I would say I definitely struck one in this turdstain.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2014
Yep, you deniers must be pissed off or something. What? You've been proven so wrong on every point that your the butt of all jokes from anyone with more than a second grade education!

Like; "what do you call a denier with a CO2 pellet gun?" Cop bate or a weak link?

What do you call a denier that just bought a solar panel? Remorseful or Cheap?

What do you call a denier that just bought a wind mill? Survivalist or Advantageous?

etc. etc. What I call deniers just can't be repeated; the knuckle dragging twits from the tar pit that was his mother.

freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
Propaganda from Progressives..... Lies are now coming so often and so easy to them and they know that those that support progressive causes either are too dumb to research the truth or just don't care about the truth.

Proof..... Obama and the Democrats have just said another 5 IRS employees "lost" emails.....
Aligo
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
The problem is, the proponents of renewables don't want to account to whole net cost of their energy. As jthis Nature.com article implies, from long term perspective the "renewables" ust convert the fossil-fuel into raw source crisis. If the contribution from wind turbines and solar energy to global energy production is to rise from the current 400 TWh to 12,000 TWh in 2035 and 25,000 TWh in 2050, as projected by the World Wide Fund for Nature, about 3,200 million tonnes of steel, 310 million tonnes of aluminium and 40 million tonnes of copper will be required to build the latest generations of wind and solar facilities. This corresponds to a 5 to 18% annual increase in the global production of these metals for the next 40 years. And 25,000 TWh is still just one sixth of the total world energy consumption. This is not how the sustainable evolution is supposed to look like.
Aligo
2 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2014
Best of all, the spraying of sulphates into atmosphere belongs into main strategies of fighters against "anthropogenic global warming". So you as a tax payer would pay them twice-times: for removal of sulphates with replacement of coal plants and for their spraying into air somewhere else. Just for not to threat the income of researchers with research of cold fusion and another strategical replacements of classical energy sources. This is how the big business works at the global scale.
Aligo
2 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2014
For example in this article the global warming pause after 2002 year is directly linked to sulfur emissions in China. So that the China is fighting with its coal plants against global warming and USA is fighting with their removal. One doesn't need to be very clever for to smell something there...
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2014
Our risk model estimates that these air quality improvements decreased the risk of premature death attributable to PM2.5 sulfate in NC by about 63%, resulting in an estimated 1700 (95% CI: 1500, 1800) deaths prevented in 2012.


This is obviously a false claim.

95% confidence level my ass.

Cleaning up pollution is great and all, just don't make up shit like that, and if you're doing statistical analysis, at least admit when there is no actual reference to compare it to.

The cleaner air from NC would have mostly moved offshore anyway due to weather fronts, or into other states to the NE, so the greatest beneficiaries would be FISH and WATER FOWL down wind, not human beings in NC.
gkam
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
Why do those with no appreciable education in Climate Science have such firm opinions?

I think it is due to political prejudice, and not education.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
Propaganda from Progressives..... Lies are now coming so often and so easy to them and they know that those that support progressive causes either are too dumb to research the truth or just don't care about the truth.

Proof..... Obama and the Democrats have just said another 5 IRS employees "lost" emails.....
@freefromthought
1- broken logic troll comment
2- this only proves that you can't trust a politician (imagine that)
3- obama is not a scientist
4- you've offered NO empirical evidence for your conjecture
5- you have NO evidence to support your claims regarding propaganda from climate science therefore your comment is anti-science propaganda

proof that there are people being paid to undermine REAL science: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

Proof from you: ZERO

Troll comment from you: ALL of them RE: Climate Science (so far)
gkam
5 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2014
I want Aligo to tell me the ratio of energy required to construct a nuclear powerplant with the energy we get from it. Be sure to include the Fuel Cycle and the production of all that calcined concrete and molten steel.
Aligo
1 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2014
I don't need to leave the PO to argue the nuclear energy. In particular, the absence of moderator and requirement of fuel cycle ads another levels of risk into existing nuclear plant technology. Of course, without cold fusion the nuclear power is the main viable option, but it's not a good option in the world, the geopolitical stability of which depends on control of nuclear proliferation. This is just a problem waiting to happen.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2014
95% confidence level my ass.


Got a lot of faith in your butt do you?

Cleaning up pollution is great and all, just don't make up shit like that,


Skippy, I don't think you are the good one for telling peoples not to make stuff up. At least they are scientist-Skippys and know about the things they make up. You are the not-scientist-Skippy and makes up stuffs about everything in the whole Britannian Encyclopedium.

The cleaner air from NC would have mostly moved offshore anyway due to weather fronts,.


Well golly gee, we were just talking about this. Making up foolishments I mean.

Skippy if you google on the "air qualities in North Carolina" you will see that stuffs can and do hang about over the cities there. Otherwise why would they even mention the air quality level in the weather forecast.
Aligo
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
You problem generally is, you're downvoting my posts, although they're all perfectly sourced with another mainstream articles. I'm not trolling you - you're trolling me and the green revolution devours its children.
gkam
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
Aligo, the problem has already happened several times. Look up Fukushima and find out the status of the three former reactors, and the condition of the intensely-radioactive Corium.

I tested the safety systems of these Mark I GE BWR's. They are unsafe and future killers.
Aligo
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
the problem has already happened several times
Did you read the above article or not? It has been written before Fukushima and the nuclear accidents are just tiny part of the nuclear power problem (1, 2). If you want to live your dream, just dream it.
gkam
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
Aligo,I have no wish to trouble you, but have to correct some of your statements, which are often misleading. As I mentioned before, I am not here for politics, and do not depend on the opinions of others. I am a 70 year-old technical generalist who probably did too much stuff in life to not see the problems ahead.

My PTS from the war gave me the freedom to not take anything, to "speak truth to power", as cowardly politicians put it. Those of us actually who do that have colorful work histories.
Aligo
1 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2014
My question simply is: what the mainstream physics did with thousands articles about cold fusion findings? Absolutely nothing. No replication means no interest about this subject - end of story. It's as simple as it is.
gkam
5 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2014
Aligo, thanks for the references to the articles with which I agree. Go look at what is (not) happening at WIPP, then look at the babies born without brains near Hanford, and the cracked dam just above the world's largest store of Plutonium waste.

I went into alternative energy because of my part as Research Engineer testing the BWR safety systems and my part in the development of the Industrial Hardening Manual, which was to protect American Industry from the effects of nuclear weapons.

My thesis included the development of an energy system with multiple salable outputs and which ran on pollution, in 1982.
gkam
5 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2014
My question simply is: what the mainstream physics did with http://www.lenr-c...crobat/? Absolutely nothing. No replication means no interest about this subject - end of story. It's as simple as it is.


Many parties are still trying to replicate those "findings". By coincidence, I was giving a seminar for San Diego Gas & Electric when General Atomic did their own tests, and the guy who got the Palladium invited me to the test, done in the old GE Triga Reactor facility. It did not produce any Neutrons that night.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
I want Aligo to tell me the ratio of energy required to construct a nuclear powerplant with the energy we get from it. Be sure to include the Fuel Cycle and the production of all that calcined concrete and molten steel.


Nuclear power is several cents per kilowatt hour cheaper, for the final price found on a bill, than any of the other major fuel sources, even in Louisiana and after paying the fees for "hurricanes" and such.

Most of the cost is actually coming from the Grid itself, not the power plant or fuel costs.

Nuclear power is about a million times more energy dense than chemical energy, so it's silly to think that it is somehow not worth it.
gkam
5 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2014
Sorry Returner, but you have it backwards. And where will you put the waste from your "cheap" heavily-subsidized power?

Tell me, I want to know, and if you are aware of WIPP troubles and the babies born near Hanford recently with no brains. I worked with that technology, and it is a Faustian Bargain.