Truth v. Fiction: Fact-Checking Robert F. Kennedy and
the Need for Truth in the Energy Debate
Scott Douglass
Energy Law, Fall 2011
Introduction
Energy is a necessity for daily life and the integral ingredient for economic growth. Hence, if someone can provide something as valuable and necessaryas energy, then he stands to gain a lot of money. This hypothesis is proven true by the energy industry—it is a multi-trillion dollar industry globally. The International Energy Agency predicts that $37.9 trillion will be invested in energy supply infrastructure between 2011 and 2035—not to mention how much will be paid by consumers of that energy. Energy consumers in the United States alone spent $1.1 trillion on energy in 2009, less than the $1.3 trillion they spent in 2007. Yahoo! Finance suggests that the oil and gas industry itself is worth $24.4 trillion. And the S&P 500 measures its global clean energy industry index (a relatively narrow measure) as having a market capitalization of around $50 billion. Moreover, at least $211 billion were invested in renewable energy in 2010, more than the $160 billion invested in 2009.
Given the vast amount of money invested in the energy industry, there is a lot of information and misinformation written about it—what is the cheapest source, what is the most environmentally harmful, what will be the most efficient or most sustainable in the future. The debate is fervent on whether the government should support the renewable industry, and frustration is high at the subsidies, tax breaks, and perceived handouts the government gives to traditional energy companies in the coal, oil, and gas industries. As companies and governments ramp up investment and promotion of renewable energy, and as incumbent, mostly fossil fuel-energy companies seek to compete with, invest in, or stifle the upstart renewable industry, it is important that the debate be driven by truth and by reliable information.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has spoken extensively on behalf of the renewable energy industry. He is a passionate advocate for the environment. Some of the claims he has made in his advocacy, if true, are shocking and worthy of the condemnation he associates with them. Mr. Kennedy is also a stakeholder in renewable resource investment and development companies, such as Brightsource Energy.
Since investment in all energy sectors runs in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and such investing will only increase in the future—especially in renewable energy—it is important that the debate underpinning such investments be fueled by accurate and reliable information. Therefore, I will attempt to fact-check a few of the claims Mr. Kennedy has made regarding renewable energy and the incumbent energy industry. Before doing so, I acknowledge that the advocacy of Mr. Kennedy—and those like him—is incredibly important to advance the sustainable energy movement and to promote the virtues of renewable energy investment, especially at a time when tightening budgets will force us to make tough choices on which energy policies we support or oppose. Mr. Kennedy’s advocacy is even more important when put in contrast with energy companies’ records on adherence to the truth and integrity, records that have rightfully come under fire in the past. Moreover, the burgeoning renewable energy industry is up against the nearly endless resources of the coal, oil, and gas industries, whose control of most avenues of current energy production give them a strong interest in maintaining the status quo of the energy market. Nonetheless, as investment in renewable energy, especially by the U.S. government, ramps up, it is important that we are working with facts and truth.
I will discuss several general topics Mr. Kennedy has spoken about, investigate his claims, and provide other helpful background information. First, I will discuss the coal industry’s influence in the United States. Second, I will discuss the Mojave Desert solar-thermal power plant in California and solar power generally. Third, I will discuss the Cape Wind Energy Project in Massachusetts and wind energy generally.
The American Coal Industry
The Claims
Mr. Kennedy had a lot to say about coal. He claimed that the 90,000-pound coal train gondolas have warped “every railroad in the country” except light-rail tracks and that this explains why we do not have a high-speed rail system (minute 4:40). And he claimed that the burning of coal for electricity costs $345 billion a year in direct health care costs (minute 5:30) because of the emission of ozone and particulates into the atmosphere. Mr. Kennedy also claimed that coal pollutants kill 60,000 Americans annually (minute 5:15). Finally, shifting gears slightly, Mr. Kennedy said mining companies “have blown up 500 of the biggest mountains in West Virginia” (minute 8:30).
The Facts
The process of calculating the health costs of fossil fuel-energy production is very complicated (I was never able to discern the actual projection of costs made by this report). However, the government-sponsored National Academies of Science estimates that the overall energy industry costs $120 billion in health care each year in America, just over half of which is caused by the burning of coal. A report from the non-profit Clean Air Task Force claims coal-fired power plants caused over $100 million in adverse health effects. Another report, from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, does support Mr. Kennedy’s claim that the burning of coal costs $345 billion annually—with the crucial caveat that this calculation runs the gamut of costs associated with coal, such as climate change. This caveat goes against Mr. Kennedy’s specific claim that the coal particulates alone cost this much to human health (in other words, seemingly not counting the effects of global warming). Strangely, the Huffington Post interpreted the Harvard Medical School study to claim that coal costs $500billion in healthcare expenses. The study did conclude that the upper end of its calculations could be interpreted to mean that coal costs $523 billion a year, so it’s not clear why some sources chose the lower end and others chose an approximation of the higher end.
The claim about the number of Americans killed by coal is even more serious. According to the American Lung Association(ALA) and the Clean Air Task Force (CATF), coal plants cause the deaths of 13,000 people annually, whereas the Harvard study claims that 34,000 people die as a result of coal. I was not able to locate a source that supports Mr. Kennedy’s claim, or that even approaches it. Moreover, both ALA and CATF have an interest in declaring that the use of coal causes more deaths, yet neither group’s figures closely approximate the 60,000 deaths claimed by Mr. Kennedy. The chart below is an alarming illustration showing the concentration of where most coal pollutant-related deaths occur each year.
As for the mountain-top removal claim, the Harvard study cited above concluded that “[mountain top removal] has been completed on approximately 500 sites in Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, and Tennessee.” The New York Times reaffirmedthat mountain top removal had been conducted at 500 sites in four states. Thus, while Mr. Kennedy is technically correct that 500 “mountains” have been decapitated, there is no proof to support a claim that they are the “biggest” mountains in the Appalachians. Moreover, the sites range over four states, so it is spurious to suggest that West Virginia’s 500 biggest mountains have been destroyed.
The claim by Mr. Kennedy pertaining to coal and high-speed rail was the most intriguing to me. To reiterate, he claimed that the 90,000-pound coal gondolas have warped “every railroad in the country” except light-rail tracks and thus explain why we do not have a high-speed rail system.
Coal is the single largest rail cargo—47 percent by tonnage and 25 percent by revenue—of freight rail use in the United States. Undoubtedly, the constant pounding of train cars filled with heavy, dense coal will wear on tracks more than, say, an Amtrak train filled with lighter and less-dense humans or a light-rail commuter train on a track. But according to a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) report on high-speed rail, the challenges America faces in implementing high-speed rail do not include over-worn railroad tracks from coal gondolas. The challenges include lack of expertise, state fiscal constraints, access to private railroads, multi-state coordination, and the need for high-speed rail safety standards. Under the last category, the FRA wrote, “While most high-speed systems overseas have a good safety record, usually on dedicated track, U.S. railroad safety standards are designed to keep passengers and crew safe in a mixed operating environment with conventional freight equipment, which is much heavier than comparable foreign equipment.” Thus, the FRA seems more concerned with the safety issue of multiple types of trains operating on the same tracks and with slower-moving freight trains getting into jams with faster passenger trains—not with the possibility that coal gondolas have made train tracks unfit for high-speed transport.
Indeed, the more likely culprits preventing the implementation of high-speed rail in the United States include prohibitive costs, lack of consumer demand when faster and cheaper alternatives exist, and project mismanagement in high-speed rail projects already underway. And U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood blames Congress as the “only thing stopping” high-speed rail development in this country. I could not find a single source that blamed coal for America’s lack of high-speed rail. Moreover, the Economist has suggested that increased high-speed rail could destroy America’s world-class freight rail system—quite the opposite from Mr. Kennedy’s suggestion.
The Determination
Mr. Kennedy is on the right track on all of his claims. Burning coal does cost the American healthcare system hundreds of billions of dollars annually, though Mr. Kennedy’s $345-billion suggestion was on the high end of estimates. And tens of thousands of people die from conditions exacerbated by coal particulates each year, but Mr. Kennedy’s claim outstripped the estimates of reputable organizations like ALA. Regarding mountain top removal, Mr. Kennedy again was close to the mark, but he waxed a little too dramatic by suggesting that 500 of West Virginia’s biggest mountains had been decapitated, when in fact it was 500 mountains of all heights over four states. For all of these claims, Mr. Kennedy was close enough. His points are well-taken: coal is a hazardous and destructive source of energy, and hastening its retirement from the energy profile is a good thing.
But Mr. Kennedy went too far when he tried to blame coal for our lack of high-speed rail. Absence of proof supporting Mr. Kennedy’s claim does not mean that he is wrong. But I believe that, considering the lack of any statement or report convincingly blaming coal for the lack of high-speed rail, the absence of proof suggests that Mr. Kennedy’s claim is patently false.
Mojave Desert Solar-Thermal Power Project
The Claims
Mr. Kennedy claims that in the Mojave Desert, his company is building the “biggest power plant in America” and “the biggest power plant ever built” (minute 3:20).
The Facts
The biggest power plant in the world currently is the Three Gorges Dam in China, which generates a capacity of 18,200megawatts (MW). One of Three Gorges’ 26 generators produces 700MW—more than the 500MW that the Mojave solar project will produce on completion (more below). In the United States, the largest power plant is the Grand Coulee hydroelectric plant in Washington state, and it has 7,079MW of generating capacity, far out-stripping any proposed solar project. However, the Ivanpah project (the solar project I believe Mr. Kennedy was referring to) is currently slated as the world’s largest solar-thermal plant, a subset of solar energy plants.
It is important to note here the difference between solar photovoltaic and solar-thermal. Solar-thermal power uses mirrors to concentrate the sun’s heat into a tower where water or molten salt is then heated and used as steam to create electricity, whereas solar photovoltaic panels convert sunlight directly into electricity. Solar photovoltaic is cheaper and older than the solar-thermal method.
The Mojave Desert, which spans parts of California, Nevada, and Arizona, is the epicenter for solar energy development, partly as a result of being in a sun-intensive desert and partly due to California’s strict mandate to energy utilities that by 2010, 20 percent of all source energy had to derive from renewable energy sources (that mandate has since increased to 33 percent by 2020). In 2007, Cleantech America and the Kings River Conservation District announced plans to build an 80MW solar array power plant in the California portion of the Mojave Desert. At the time of the announcement, the plant was slated to be the largest solar plant in the world, overtaking the then-biggest 15MW plant on Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
In 2008 Brightsource and Pacific Gas & Electric announced their plans to build another solar plant called Ivanpah, also in the Mojave Desert. It is to be built in phases and could have 500MW capacity, with the potential to increase to 900MW—enough to power 375,000 homes in California (another source, however, reports that the site will only have 392MW capacity, enough for 140,000 homes). At the time, this usurped the Cleantech project as the largest solar power plant on record when completed. The first phase of the plant was scheduled to come online in 2011, but the opening now has been pushed back to 2013. Unfortunately for Brightsource, the bragging rights to the largest solar plant “ever built” will be short-lived. In 2009, First Solar announced plans to build the next world’s biggest solar plant, this time in China. On completion in 2019, that plant will provide 2,000MW, enough for 3 million homes, but it, too, has faced delays and likely will not open on time. No matter, because China has since announced an even more ambitious, nuclear-scale, 1 gigawatt (GW) solar power plant outside of Beijing. And finally, SolarMillennum announced last year that it would be building the world’s largest solar plant,also in the Mojave, to be completed in 2013 and to generate enough energy for 300,000 homes.
The Determination
Mr. Kennedy likely misspoke when he said his company’s solar-thermal project in the Mojave Desertwould be the “biggest power plant ever built.” Even if the Brightsource solar plant is the largest solar-thermal plant when it is completed, it likely will not be the largest solar plant for long. And as renewable power plants become more popular, the Ivanpah plant will not hold the title as largest solar-thermal plant for long, either. Nonetheless, it is revolutionary in its scope and ambition as a solar-thermal plant, and it demonstrates that solar-thermal is a viable, even preferable, option for major metropolitan areas like those in California.
The Cape Wind Energy Project
The Claims
Mr. Kennedy claimed that 63 percent of the fish caught in Cape Cod inhabit the fishery where the Cape Wind Project’s wind turbines would go; thus the project would destroy the fishery (minute 55:30). Mr. Kennedy also claimed that the electricity produced by the project will cost 24 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), higher than Massachusetts residents’ current rates (minute 56:40).
The Facts
The Cape Wind Projectplans to construct 130 wind turbine generators in a 25-square mile area in federal waters in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts, off Cape Cod. The project would have a maximum capacity of 468 megawatts—enough to provide about 75 percent of the electricity demand for Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket, or 200,000 homes in Massachusetts. The turbines would stand approximately 40 stories high. On October 27, 2011, a federal appeals court revoked the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) “Determination of No Hazard” ruling for the Cape Wind Project, suggesting that the FAA had not followed its own regulations when it determined that the 440-foot wind turbines did not pose a threat to small planes flying low in the area. The ruling is yet another setback for the project because the FAA must re-issue a determination for the project to move forward, and the legal obstacle will further discourage financing, which the project has been hard to
come by recently.
1
The government agency responsible for the environmental assessment of the Cape Wind Project—the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement at the Department of Interior—reported that the effects of the wind project on the fisheries would be “minor” and “negligible.” However, the agency’s methodology in assessing the size, location, and effects on the fisheries was widely assailed as incorrect and using improper methodology. The Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership, representing fishermen in Nantucket Sound, released a separate report claiming that fishermen’s livelihoods would be severely harmed by the installation of wind turbines even if the project installed measures to protect mobile gear fishing (the type of fishing done in the area).