Miners experience on-the-job deaths at the rate of 27.5 per 100,000—eight times the average U.S. rate of industrial fatalities (image: treehugger.com)

Fossil fuel is the least expensive source of energy, right?

It depends on how you define “cost.” On average, fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and oil, have the lowest direct costs per kilowatt generated or mile driven. It would cost you more at present to heat your home with wind-generated electricity than with heating oil, for example.

However, we know that the ecological costs of fossil fuels can be high. They are the leading emitters of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, that are threatening the planet with climate change.

It also appears that they impose substantial health costs on the people who work in the energy sector. According to a Medical College of Wisconsin study reported August 19th in ScienceDaily, increasing use of some forms of renewable energy would drastically reduce deaths, injuries, and illnesses affecting energy workers. Not only would this reduce the human toll on workers and their families, but it would also reduce the economic cost to the nation—as the ongoing health care debate demonstrates, health care is not free and someone (other premium payers or taxpayers, typically) always pays the cost of medical procedures.

The study compared the health risks associated with fossil fuels with those associated with the main renewable energy sources in use at this time: solar, wind, and biofuel. Researchers found that there are significant health risks associated with the following phases converting fossil fuels to energy:

• Extraction: mining (including working in oil or gas fields) is the second-most dangerous profession in the nation, with 27.5 deaths per 100,000. That is eight times the U.S. average industrial fatality rate of 3.4 deaths per 100,000. In addition, miners and oil or gas-field workers also face illnesses induced by fumes, dust and particles, and even radiation.

• Refining or processing: oil in particular needs to be refined from its “crude” form into usable forms, such as gasoline, heating oil, kerosene, etc. Refining involves heat, pressure, and chemicals, and so there are fumes to deal with, as well as the potential for dangerous leaks, ruptures, or explosions.

• Transportation: not that driving is particularly dangerous, but the more miles driven, the more accidents there will be statistically. Heating oil, gasoline, propane, diesel, kerosene, etc. are typically delivered by truck.

• Generation: generating electricity using fossil fuels involves burning them, or combustion, to create high-pressure steam to spin turbines. Any time you mix flammable fuel, fire, and high-pressure steam, there’s a potential for accidents and injury.

Compared to the fossil fuel sector, solar and wind power are benign industries, since they completely avoid the dangers of extraction, refining, generation by combustion, and delivery. However, very significantly, biofuel does not offer any health benefits. Farming and agriculture—the biofuel version of extraction—is the only industrial segment deadlier than mining, with 28.7 deaths per 100,000. In addition, biofuels need to be refined or processed; are combusted; and need to be delivered. In short, biofuels are essentially “renewable or sustainable fossil fuels” and interact with workers and society the same way.

Ironically then, the very industries that oil workers are opposing in industry-backed rallies against the administration’s climate bill would be healthier for them to work in than their current sector. Their risk of death, disabling injury, or chronic illness would be much lower were they to work in solar or wind power than in oil, coal, or natural gas.

It’s fair to ask whether these oil, gas, and coal workers still be so against the pending climate bill, with its cap-and-trade provisions favoring non-fossil energy, if they knew about the health costs of their fields?

The fact is, they almost certainly know those costs. While workers and their families might not know the exact statistics, they do know the risks—they live with them. And while, like anyone, they’d undoubtedly like their jobs to be as safe as possible, they also want to work. How many oil, coal, or natural gas workers would truly be able to transition from the fossil fuel industry to the green energy industry? There are 700,000 people currently employed in the conventional energy sector, many of whom would not have the skills, training, or education to change careers; and even the ones who might be able to make the transition might not have green jobs available where they live. So is a less-healthy job better than no job? Based on the obvious fact that they take the jobs, coal miners and oil industry workers clearly think so.

The entire issue of green vs. non-green energy is like that—full of trade offs. Green energy reduces carbon emissions—but is more costly at present than conventional energy. The cap-and-trade scheme embodied in the climate bill will increase fossil fuel costs, including the cost to heat our homes with oil, at least short- and mid-term; however, it may ultimately lower “oil” prices both by reducing demand and by fostering the development of renewable oil supplements and replacements. Promoting the alternative energy sector at the expense of the conventional energy sector will create jobs in the former while costing jobs in the latter.

Despite the often-overheated rhetoric from both sides of the debate, there are no easy or simple answers. What is most important is to have an honest and informed debate—and that means considering all the costs and benefits of different options. In that way, the Medical College of Wisconsin study is a useful contribution to the discussion. It quantifies in a helpful way an additional cost of “cheap” oil, coal, and natural gas—a cost that is all too-easily forgotten, but which should be weighed in the balance opposite the cost of a kilowatt, gallon of gasoline, or tank of heating oil.

AN abandoned coal mine tunnel. (image: image64.webshots.com)

Mine shafts that are about to be closed because of insufficient coal yield could be used to extract geothermal energy from the ground, write two engineers in the journal Renewable Energy, Science Daily reported on Monday.

This energy, from the internal heat of the Earth, could be used to provide electricity and hot water to nearby towns.

Converting mineshafts into geothermal boilers is an excellent way of making use of low-intensity geothermal energy, wrote Spanish engineer Rafael Rodriguez, from the Oviedo Higher Technical School of Mining Engineering. Currently, geothermal energy is rarely used in Spain.

Rodriguez and his colleague, Maria Belarmina Diaz, developed a method to determine the amount of heat a recently closed mine tunnel could provide based on earlier information, when the tunnel was in use. He explained that when the mine is still active and the tunnels accessible, one can gather data about ventilation, the properties of rocks, as well as taking samples. It is also possible to design better circuits and program the closure of certain sections of the mine to be used for geothermal energy production.
Rodriguez stressed, however, that although geothermal energy can be utilized once the mine is no longer active, it is not possible to make any changes or gather data to improve the system.

Geothermal energy is not dependent upon climatic conditions—such as solar or wind—and helps to reduce CO2 emissions. It also makes use of a local natural resource and does not pollute the surrounding area.

Although it is too soon to tell, this technology could provide much-needed energy savings to coal mining communities in the US as the coal industry continues to shrink and shed jobs.