Michael Rosenthal

(3/2019) One of the frustrating things in the life of the scientist comes when you pick up the daily paper and see how many issues are being discussed (or argued) in which the scientific basis is being ignored. One of these which we see almost daily in the newspapers is the issue of the effect of energy generation on the environment. I have an excellent education in science (a great small college undergraduate background and a first-rate PhD in chemistry), and some 50+ years of experience in college science teaching and continuing to study science. All the answers as currently understood are always available for reference. Many topics require continuing study and research and an ongoing reinterpretation of the results to form revised conclusions. The underlying laws of nature, however, do not change. New interpretations arise and new discoveries are made, but you can count on, for example, the Law of Conservation of Energy to be stable and permanent.

The negative impact of the use of fossil fuels on the environment is real and will not change. Global warming will continue to occur as long as we pour carbon dioxide and other combustion products into the atmosphere. The frustrating thing to me is that we possess the capability to generate electricity with minimal impact on the environment, but bad judgment, financial gain, and yes, political considerations, affect our decisions on the topic.

One of the interesting aspects of this issue is how varied the leading methods of energy production are from state to state in the United States. The New York Times recently published a great story (January 28, 2019) reviewing how each of the 50 states produces energy.

First of all, they report that coal is no longer the leading energy generation source. It has been replaced in the leader’s role by natural gas! Natural gas is better for the environment than coal, but there are even more environmentally friendly ways to produce electricity. Coal produced more than half of the United States’ energy in in 2001, and now its portion is down to less than one-third. Recyclables, wind and solar, have made progress in raising their share of energy production, but they still have a distance to go to realize their full potential. I believe that each new house built should have solar panels as part of their construction cost. Wind now produces more than six percent of our energy and solar sources produce almost 2 percent.

Here is the current data on energy production in the United States from 2017: Natural Gas produced 32% of our energy, surpassing coal, which produced 30%. Nuclear power produced 20% of our energy. Hydroelectric sources produced 7% of our energy; wind produced about 6% of our energy, petroleum produced about 1%, and solar sources produced nearly 2 %. Coal remains the main source of electricity in 18 states, down from 32 states in 2001.

There is wide variation state-by-state in how energy is produced, and while some states import energy from other states, there are states that export energy, producing more energy than they need. Let’s look at some of the states, beginning with our home state of Maryland.

Maryland’s leading source of energy is nuclear, followed by coal, with smaller contributions from natural gas and hydroelectric. Our neighbor Virginia’s primary energy source is natural gas with a strong contribution from nuclear and a smaller contribution from coal. In Pennsylvania, coal powered the bulk of electricity through 2014, when nuclear energy and natural gas sources surpassed it. West Virginia is still coal country. More than 90% of its electricity comes from coal, and because it produces more energy than it consumes, West Virginia exports electricity across the Mid-Atlantic region.

California has been the leader in energy awareness. The overwhelmingly top source of energy there is natural gas, but half the power there now comes from renewable sources: solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro.

Wyoming is still almost entirely coal; Vermont was very strongly nuclear, but their only nuclear plant closed in 2014, and the majority of its energy now comes from renewable sources, mostly imported from other states.

Hawaii has imported petroleum for the last two decades to produce its electricity, but now has put a long-term plan in place to generate renewable power from local sources.

In New Mexico, a bill is being considered that will require electric utilities to get 50 percent of their power from renewable resources by 2030. Nevada approved such a bill last November.

Governors of Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York have pledged to pursue goals of getting energy from zero-carbon sources.

Another serious problem is transportation emissions. In December nine Eastern states and the District of Columbia announced they would seek through a variety of efforts to reduce emissions from their transportation vehicles.

Economic competition is a major factor in some states. The availability of cheap natural gas has allowed it to replace coal as its overwhelmingly primary source of energy.

Texas, with its uniqueness is worth a look. My family and I lived in Texas for some 6+ years, and I can assure you that Texas goes its own way! There is a bumper sticker there, "Texas - it’s another country". And it is! Texas has produced more electricity than any other state in the United States since 2001, with natural gas the top source and with coal in second place. Wind power is also on the rise there.

Nineteen states and Puerto Rico have formed the United States Climate Alliance, a group that has vowed to uphold the Paris Climate Agreement. This covers one-third of America’s greenhouse gas emissions and nearly half its population. A good summary of individual state actions can be found in The New York Times for February 10, 2019.

So how does this picture look in relation to the problem of global warming? I absolutely assure you that the threat of global warming is REAL! Natural gas is a whole lot better for the environment than is coal, but it still produces considerable amounts of greenhouse gases. We need to utilize more low or zero carbon sources of energy!

An Update on vaccines: Anti-vaccine activists in Washington State are vigorously opposing a bill that would make it harder for families to opt out of vaccination requirements for measles, mumps, and rubella. This is amid the state of Washington’s worst measles outbreak in over twenty years. Why are they doing this? Anti-vaccines activists believe that the vaccines injure or sicken children. They claim that vaccines cause autism in children. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism in children. How does opposition to vaccination on grounds that have no science behind them get started? Well, some people simply believe what they want to believe, in my mind, a human failing, especially when potential sickness or death of children is involved. The Pacific Northeast is the home of some of the United States’ most vocal anti-vaccination activists. This has led to vaccination rates in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho to be some of the lowest in the United States. The World Health Organization listed vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten global threats of 2019.

Read other articles by Michael Rosenthal