Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Coal as a loser

June 22, 2012
The Journal

To the editor:

In reply to Mr. Thom's letter of June 18 titled, "Obama Crippling Coal," some response needs to be offered.

First, health reasons need to be considered when one throws rocks at the EPA for setting high emission standards for coal powered electrical generation plants. To cite a recent Government Accountability Office report: "power plants that burn coal produce 90 times as much sulfur dioxide, five times as much nitrogen oxide and twice as much carbon dioxide as those that run on natural gas..." The health reasons alone seem to mandate the use of anything available but coal!

Secondly, perhaps we should concentrate more on the alternatives available: hydroelectric plants, solar energy farms, wind generation or tidal power. Because of the high health cost generated from a more polluted environment, it would seem better to concentrate less on any coal use and more on any viable alternative available!

Remember the coal industry is spending millions of dollars to convince the public that coal is a clean, safe source of power: the fact is that none of what they say is true!

John H. & Marilyn J. Lieske

New Ulm

 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web