Daniel Hooberman: Burning coal is really toxic to the environment, society

To The Daily Sun,

I’m writing in response to the recent letter advocating the continued use of coal as an energy source in the U.S. There are multiple inaccuracies in the letter.

Burning coal produces a severely toxic mixture of compounds including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, mercury, arsenic, lead, coal dust and ash. As a physician, I can testify that these chemicals have terrible effects on human health and fetal development, along with environmental degradation. Although “scrubbing” coal does somewhat reduce the health effects of coal burning, it is very expensive and generates vast quantities of toxic sludge. It also does not reduce climate changing carbon dioxide. The recent global heat wave is frightening evidence of a warming planet.

The statement that Europe’s expanded use of solar and wind is responsible for energy shortages is simply not true. The war in Ukraine and Donald Trump’s Iran war has reduced natural gas supplies. Renewable energy has had a huge beneficial effect on their energy supplies. Europe realizes this and is expanding these sources and adding batteries for storage.

It is clear that nuclear power should be expanded. However, nuclear power is expensive and takes years of planning until it can be brought on line. Small nuclear reactors are still in the early stage and will take years to develop.

The Gulf of Maine has massive energy potential. Harnessing just 3% of Maine’s wind generating capacity could heat every home in Maine and power every car in Maine. Granite Staters could also benefit from this cheap form of energy. Solar power is the least expensive form of energy generation. Adding battery storage helps with the intermittency problem. In addition, renewable energy jobs are excellent paying jobs.

Renewable energy reduces costs, promotes economic development and reduces pollution and greenhouse gases. Burning coal increases costs.

Daniel Hooberman

Laconia