By Steve Blankinship, Associate Editor

People believe all kinds of things. But just because some beliefs are ill-founded— based neither on sound economic nor engineering principles—does not prevent a significant number of people from believing they are true. Many such beliefs are held, nurtured, protected and proselytized with a religious fervor that transcends common sense. And they can reach a level where it becomes hard to separate science, political philosophy and religion.

I would be far from the first to equate environmentalism (whatever that means these days) to a religious movement. A quick web search will turn up any number of essays, op-eds and even a few books on the topic.

About six years ago, I attended a green energy conference in Austin, Texas, that featured a speaker from Europe (Germany I think it was, not that it matters) who extolled the virtues of covering every new structure built with photovoltaic collectors. And many existing structures, too. Personally, I think the general idea behind such policy has a great deal of value and is worth exploring.

Then, right in the midst of an otherwise interesting, even compelling, case for such ubiquitous PV saturation, he launched into a tirade against the pope. I do not recall the connection he was trying to establish between power production and the Vatican. But I do remember thinking at the time (as I do now) that his views on the papacy seemed completely irrelevant at an energy event, were probably inappropriate at any technology event and just plain goofy, not necessarily in that order.

That pope-dissing solar energy advocate comes to mind when I see much of what is said in today’s energy debate. Too much of it is simply too far out there and too much is based on extreme beliefs. Much of that discussion is about an eventual transition from an overwhelming dependence on coal, natural gas and nuclear generation. Too much of it is based upon a blind faith in the ability to transition to an almost total dependence on renewables (which, by many environmentalists’ definitions, do not include hydroelectric and biomass) coupled with conservation measures, many of which are very plausible, very achievable and with a short-term return on investment that’s expected to be reasonable.

It’s a debate dominated by people ill-equipped for it: lawyers, politicians, political advocates, zealots and visionaries typically associated with the political left and purveyors of pie-in-the-sky technologies that can achieve economic viability only through massive and permanent public subsidies, if even then.

Since at least the early 1970s, belief systems regarding energy and the environment have been engrained into young minds by teachers and the textbooks used as their study guides. These beliefs have been nurtured and complemented by Saturday morning TV cartoons, countless movies berating evil corporations, the horrors of nuclear power and greedy coal companies that have raped the earth and killed their employees with coal dust and cave-ins in order to fuel pollution-spewing power plants.

They have created a generation of adults who believe they can continue to enjoy a lifestyle that only abundant and affordable electricity can provide—and do it without coal, nuclear, natural gas or even without hydro or biomass-based solutions.

Before you draw any preconceived beliefs about what I believe, I have told my friends in the power sector for years that I view myself as an energy agnostic ... and that I’m very religious about it. I don’t care how we make energy as long as it meets four essential criteria.

I believe we must have a strategy based on what is abundant, clean, reliable and affordable or offers a reasonable promise of being so by date-specific deadlines. Having worked in the power industry for nearly 40 years, I probably know more about what all the various interests and players have done—both good and bad—than many who claim the high ground on greenness claim to know. I have seen the results of mountaintop mining and various controversial mining practices that compromise safely and kill miners outright.

I have seen what comes of irresponsible strip mining. I have also seen the remarkably positive results of responsible overburden removal. I have witnessed what has been achieved by modern reclamation techniques that convert recently mined terrain that was once barren scrub land into rolling green pastures, wetlands, wildlife preserves or almost anything one can imagine that improves upon what was there before mining ever took place. I have seen power plants built before the 1960s that didn’t even employ particulate removal (electrostatic precipitators and bag houses) and coal plants built as late as the 1970s without wet or dry flue gas desulfurization and without selective catalytic reduction.

Equally important, I have seen, fully recognize and fully appreciate the positive role the environmental community has played in forcing these technologies to development and on to commercialization. Without the activism these groups have employed, we would not have these technologies today. And certainly would not have them at the stage of advancement we have today.

I have also seen laws that have brought about unintended consequences, such as New Source Review that kills any attempt to improve plant performance and efficacy and lower carbon emissions per unit of electricity produced. NSR has forced old, unreliable coal plants to continue operating while producing more carbon per unit of electrify generated.

I have seen supercritical and ultra-supercritical technologies that can increase combustion temperatures and operating efficiencies high enough to replace coal plants built many decades ago with plants that increase power output with less fuel while producing less carbon emissions. This technology is already available and being used, both here and in other countries.

This summer I spoke with an executive from a major engineering, procurement and construction firm. Like me, EPCs can be energy agnostics. They are happy to build whatever kind of power plant energy providers order and regulatory commissions approve. He said his company roughly estimated that if we just retired average coal plants in the existing coal fleet—not even the least efficient ones—the U.S. could build 9,000 to 10,000 MW of new coal plants using supercritical boilers and not raise our carbon footprint one bit. And integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants using carbon capture and storage can possibly be built producing significant energy while emitting zero carbon, SOX, NOX and mercury.

I am fully aware, probably to a greater extent than most anti-nuclear activists, of cavalier safety designs and practices routinely employed by the former Soviet Union, whose approach to a nuclear program was creating hybrid plants that provided both power and weapons-grade fuel for Mother Russia. Such astonishingly foolhardy practices led to what happened at Chernobyl, which remains the only commercial nuclear reactor accident in the 50-year history of commercial nuclear power known to have produced even a single civilian fatality.

Like many Soviet commercial reactors, Chernobyl didn’t even provide such rudimentary safety elements as a containment building surrounding the reactor. It was as if you placed a nuclear reactor on an open platform in Utah and ran it at full power whenever the power was needed.

Opinion polls continue to reveal that a significant number of people believe humans have never walked on the moon. They believe our Apollo missions were staged in a TV studio as an elaborate hoax perpetrated on the public for any number of self-promotional, politically motivated reasons. I personally knew an elderly couple who held this belief. This couple also believed, with equal fervor, that professional wrestling was a very real sport involving no orchestration whatsoever.

Speaking of space, how many times have we heard people make statements like this: “If we can send a man to the moon, why can’t we (fill in the blank)?” When it comes to amateur energy pundits, it’s “If we can land a man on the moon, why can’t we create all our power from wind and solar?” The rather obvious, yet apparently elusive, flaw in this thinking is that scaling up some technologies to commercial level is a different thing entirely. We sent fewer than two dozen astronauts to the moon at an astronomical (no pun intended) cost per man. I don’t care to research a more accurate figure, but suffice it to say it was at least in the tens of millions of dollars per astronaut, expressed in 1960- and 1970-era dollars. How can one apply such numbers to the cost of providing all the electricity for everyone on earth, wherever and whenever they need it?

Perhaps singer/composer Stevie Wonder summed it up best, when he wrote and sang, “When you believe in things you don’t understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain’t the way.” Be very careful in separating superstition from belief. And when you hold firm beliefs, make sure you have come to embrace them only after careful consideration, vetting and using that faculty you have that separates us from all other species, namely an intellect.

One final and very personal note. I believe that every person needs to have a colonoscopy once they reach middle age if they have never had one. Depending on the results, they need to follow their doctor’s recommendation for follow-ups. I firmly believe colon cancer is one of the few absolutely preventable cancers, but only if caught early by a colonoscopy, which is the surest way of doing so. I did not have this completely painless and only slightly unpleasant procedure performed until it was far too late.

And so it is, with deep sadness and regret, that I will no longer be able to continue working with my dear friends at Power Engineering and all of you who read us, watch us and contribute to the excellence of our pages, videos, webcasts, programs and events. Being engaged in the power industry means you are involved in one of the most important and critical industries on Earth. And objectively writing about it is especially important to all of society, and to every one of us.

I pray you will continue to explore the truth, separate facts from fervently held but unfounded beliefs and promote deployment of technologies that will best assure peace and prosperity for our world, both for our current generation and for those to come.

Click here to enlarge image

Editor’s Note: This was Steve’s last column. He died September 22 after battling the cancer he wrote about. He was 63. Steve was a longtime journalist with a passion for the electric power industry. Steve was a writer, editor, communications manager and company spokesperson and policy analyst. He joined this magazine in 2000 and was instrumental in creating, nurturing and expanding the Coal-Gen conference; he is shown, above, moderating the 2007 Keynote Session. Those of us at Power Engineering magazine appreciated his integrity, intellect and sense of humor, which never left him. Equally remarkable in his final days was his quiet poise and strength. In the end he offered us many lessons for which we had not thought to ask. Steve lived in Dallas and is survived by his wife Patricia, sons Robert and Charles and by countless friends around the world.