Disparities Generated by Energy Sources in the United States
Embedded Files
Table of Contents
Energy Production
Energy Production
Ever since the Industrial Revolution of 1760, energy sources have become a necessity for the world that we live in. They power so many different aspects of our lives from the light in our homes to our various modes of transportation. Our need for energy has resulted in many different methods of producing it, all of which have their own positive and negative impacts. While these include how effective they are and their effect on the environment, there was one area that we wanted to know about above all: their communal impact. What is it like to live in communities bordering power plants or fuel extraction facilities and how does living in these places impact resident’s lives? What common factors appear in communities that are adversely affected by non-renewable energy production? From previous exposure to media surrounding energy production and their hazards, we are aware of the severe health and global consequences each bears on us. Through our research, however, we sought to zoom in on individual communities which are experiencing disproportionate effects from this sector. By exploring this topic on a smaller scale, we allow visibility into the lives of groups who are targeted and suffer at the hand of energy producers.
"Residential Lights" DMCA, Pxfuel, CCO
"Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Reactors" by Peretz Partensky is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
Of all the various methods of energy production, undoubtedly the one that is feared the most is nuclear power. For the most part this is understandable, given that nuclear research was originally done for the purpose of creating weapons of mass destruction. Though nuclear weapons still exist today, their purpose is not at all similar to that of a standard nuclear power plant. Instead, nuclear energy is primarily used today to produce electricity, and despite its public perception, it is actually one of the safest methods of producing energy currently in use.
How Does Nuclear Work?
How Does Nuclear Work?
The process by which nuclear energy is produced begins with a material called uranium. The uranium is first processed and then stacked together into sealed metal tubes called fuel rods, which power nuclear reactors. Through a process known as fission, the atoms of the uranium within these rods are split into smaller particles, generating an enormous amount of heat. This heat is then used to produce steam, which in turn rotates a large turbine that generates electricity (Nuclear 101: How Does a Nuclear Reactor Work, 2021). Unlike most other forms of energy production, no emissions of any kind are produced through this process since no fuel is traditionally burned, meaning that it is incredibly eco-friendly.
"Typical Boiling-Water Reactor" by Nuclear Regulatory Commission is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Nuclear Power Economics
Nuclear Power Economics
Besides its excellent environmental benefits, nuclear energy also has a large economic influence. Though they are expensive to build, nuclear power plants are relatively cheap to keep running. Combined with the fact that nuclear plants typically operate for a period of around 60 years, this means that nuclear energy can be competitive with fossil fuels as a method of electricity generation in many parts of the world despite the actual fuel for these fossil fuels usually being much cheaper to obtain than the uranium needed for nuclear power (Economics of Nuclear Power, 2022). In the United States, nuclear power generates close to 800 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year, making it the largest source of clean energy in the country. According to the Office of Nuclear Energy, the nuclear industry supports nearly half a million jobs nationally and contributes about $60 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) annually. A single nuclear plant in the United States can employ up to 700 workers whose salaries are often 30% higher than local averages, while also supplying billions of dollars to local economies on a yearly basis through federal and state tax revenues (Advantages and Challenges of Nuclear Energy, 2021). But of course, while there are many benefits to using nuclear energy, this doesn’t mean that the industry is without risks.
What Are the Risks?
What Are the Risks?
While producing nuclear energy is far safer and healthier than many other methods of energy production, it still has its own fair share of dangers. For example, workers in nuclear power plants can potentially be exposed to a number of unique health risks. According to the Encyclopedia of Energy, there are many workers in the nuclear power industry who are exposed to radiological hazards originating from external sources of ionizing radiation. Though in many cases these exposures only cause radioactive energy to be spread to a small fraction of the cells in the body and thus have no significant effect on the one exposed, there are occasions where the interaction of radiation with these cells can result in some very harmful health effects. High doses of ionized radiation exposure are known to cause nausea, radiation burns, cataracts, decreased fertility, spontaneous bleeding, and even death at high enough doses. Lower doses of ionizing radiation aren’t known to have effects that are nearly as extreme, instead the primary concern is that they can potentially increase the chance of conditions like cancer and genetically induced diseases (Richardson, 2004). Thankfully, the amount of radiation that nuclear power plant workers are exposed to on a daily basis is incredibly miniscule, and there are a number of safety procedures in place to prevent plant workforces from ever being exposed to larger amounts of ionized radiation in the first place. But while these procedures are extremely effective, like all things, they aren’t completely foolproof.
"Chernobyl Exploded 4th Reactor 1986" by Joker345 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
Consequences of Nuclear Meltdown
Consequences of Nuclear Meltdown
Aside from regular on-the-job risks, there are several infamous examples of what can happen with nuclear energy when things at a plant go very, very wrong. Perhaps the most well-known of these examples is Chernobyl. Located immediately outside of Pripyat, Ukraine, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was fairly innocuous until the event that occurred on April 26, 1986. The morning of, a steam explosion occurred in reactor 4 of the power plant, causing a domino effect throughout the facility that resulted in a massive amount of radioactivity being released into the atmosphere. This is estimated to have spread into nearby nations and even parts of the eastern seaboard of the United States (Winograd, 2010). About 31 deaths resulted immediately from the event, but there are many more since that are believed to have ties to the incident, caused by the long-term effects of radiation poisoning resulting from the lethal fallout released at the time. While this event was incredibly tragic, when compared to the millions of people that die due to fossil fuels every year, the resulting death toll is actually incredibly low (Ritchie, 2020). The incident’s occurrence was due to a failure by the facility to follow safety procedures and is not reflective of nuclear industry standards as a whole; a number of new procedures were put in place following the incident to ensure that one like it never happened again.
Public Statistics
Public Statistics
The events of Chernobyl had a hugely negative impact on the public perception of nuclear energy. Despite the new safety regulations put in place, nuclear disasters still occur, albeit incredibly rarely and never to the same extreme degree. Knowledge of and hysteria around these events have caused public opinion on nuclear energy within the United States to be largely divided. In a Gallup poll conducted in May 2022, viewpoints were split almost down the middle, with 51% of Americans in favor of nuclear energy while 47% were opposed (Saad, 2022). These fears aren’t completely unfounded.
"Public opposition to nuclear energy production, OWID" by Our World in Data is licensed under CC BY 4.0
Middletown, Pennsylvania
Middletown, Pennsylvania
There have been many close calls with nuclear plants over the years in the United States, the most significant example of which occurred at the Three Mile Island plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Considered the worst nuclear incident in U.S. history, this event came about when a pressure valve in the cooling reactor failed to close when it was supposed to, resulting in a chain of events that led to the partial meltdown of the plant’s Unit 2 reactor and the escape of a large amount of radioactive steam and radiation. Thankfully, only workers who were in the plant at the time were exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation; though the fallout spread to at least 2 million people in the surrounding area, the actual amount of radiation that these people were exposed to was very small and caused no adverse health effects. Miraculously, no deaths were caused by the accident, and nothing outside the plant itself, including the people and environment, was ever negatively affected by the radiation it released (History.com Editors, 2023). Nonetheless, the incident still greatly eroded the public’s faith in nuclear power, contributing a lot to the negative associations it still has today.
Seabrook, New Hampshire
Seabrook, New Hampshire
One place where this erosion of faith was significantly felt was at the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire. This nuclear plant sparked controversy even before it was built, with local antinuclear activists attempting many different times to prevent its construction. When this ultimately didn’t work, the activists organized into the Clamshell Alliance and carried out a series of nonviolent protests from August 1976 to June 1989 in order to halt construction and prevent the plant from going online, the largest of which consisted of over 120,000 people. The meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 only encouraged this, bringing safety concerns of the industry to the forefront and swelling protest numbers nationally. Though the Clamshell Alliance was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the plant from going online, they were able to delay the plant’s operation by over a dozen years, reduce the plan for the plant in scope, and even bankrupt the major utility owner of the project (Turner, 2011). The Seabrook plant was involved in controversy once again in 2022, when the triggering of a false alarm caused a panic that lasted for several days and disrupted several nearby communities. Local police departments reported receiving hundreds of calls from concerned residents, and the New Hampshire Homeland Security ended up having to send out a public safety alert to quell the panic and let the public know that there was no emergency (Staff Report, 2022). Thankfully, this sort of thing is a rare occurrence.
Scriba, New York
Scriba, New York
While there are some communities that have negatively impacted by the addition of nuclear plants, there are many more who have fully embraced them. One of these aforementioned communities is Scriba, New York. The town, which is home to two nuclear plants, had one of them, the James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant, be announced to be shutting down in November of 2015. This decision was met with much backlash however, as much of the town’s economy and business, including motels, schools, bars, and hair salons, rely heavily upon the communal traffic generated by the plants. Without them, the town could lose an incredible amount of revenue, causing many of its inhabitants to close down their stores or move away (McGeehan, 2015). The plant was thankfully able to remain open thanks to intervention from Governor Andrew Cuomo, but it just goes to show that while there is reason to fear nuclear energy, the potential dangers are sometimes outweighed by the amount of good that it can end up bringing to the communities that embrace it.
"James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant" by Nuclear Regulatory Commission is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
"Oil Wells", John Ciccarelli, BLM, CCO
Oil and Natural Gas
Oil and Natural Gas
Since the first fracking started in the 1860s, crude oil and natural gas have been the go to for energy production in the United States. Natural gas has one of the highest energy efficiency rates among fossil fuels with 92% efficiency between the well and electrical output (Caldwell, 2022). Additionally, a single well can provide more than 1,000 barrels of crude oil a day for the first year after drilling (Caldwell, 2022). With this being said, natural gas and crude oil have major setbacks. After that first year, wells tend to slow production to less than 100 barrels a day before they completely dry up after 20 to 30 years (Caldwell, 2022). This means that new wells must be drilled in new locations, which not only poses environmental risks to local communities but leaves towns that relied on the well for jobs and income with a major hole in their economy. It turns out that not only are natural gas and oil not sustainable for the environment, but they are not sustainable for the communities that live around them.
Erie, Colorado
Erie, Colorado
Colorado is the state with the second highest number of fracking wells, with roughly 15,000 individual wells (Caldwell, 2022). Starting in the mid 1970s, oil began to be extracted in Colorado’s Wattenberg gas field located between Denver and Greeley (Caldwell, 2022). However, over the decades these fields have begun to dry up, resulting in more wells being drilled closer and closer to populated areas. One of these areas is Erie, a town located just 25 miles North of Denver. In Erie, oil companies started fracking just outside its borders in September of 2020 (Tory, 2022). Less than a year later, residents like Sandra Duggan, who bought property in Erie for its affordability and rural location, began complaining of more frequent asthma attacks, coughs, migraines, and brain fog. With fracking, as opposed to traditional drilling, rock and sediment deep underground is horizontally removed with high pressure water, which makes it more likely for gas to leak into the soil and water supply (Tory, 2022). As a result, air quality tests conducted in Erie in June of 2022 reported methane concentrations five times higher than normal, as well as periodic spikes in benzene, butane, and toluene levels (Tory, 2022). New regulation in Colorado has increased residential setbacks of oil wells from 500 feet to 2,000 feet to combat these kinds of exposures (Tory, 2022). However, companies that had already received permitting for wells inside the new setback were grandfathered in, leaving people like Sarah Duggan in potentially dangerous proximity to the fracking operation. Leaving her home is not a viable option either since she and her husband cannot afford to move elsewhere. In other words, the Duggans, along with the residents of Erie, are being painted into a corner.
Port Arthur, Texas
Port Arthur, Texas
Aside from Colorado, Texas has the highest number of fracking wells in the country with over 130,000 separate wells in the state (Caldwell, 2022). The state is advantageous for extracting crude oil and natural gas since it sits atop multiple underground oil basins and provides shipping access through the Gulf of Mexico. Oil is brought from these wells to refineries on the coast where the crude oil is transformed into burnable products. One town called Port Arthur, Texas is home to many major oil refineries, including facilities owned by ExxonMobil and Sempra (Ahmed, 2022). Here, fracked crude oil and natural gas is piped in primarily from the West Texas Permian Basin and refined into petroleum. Through this process, chemical fumes are released from exhaust stacks which locals say can cover the sky with smog and burn their nostrils with chemical fumes. One man named John Beard, who grew up in Port Arthur, advocates for the city's health and argues that the oil companies see his predominantly black and hispanic community as expendable. In one instance, Beard filed a case against Port Arthur LNG which allowed citizens to legally contest the expansion of the oil exporter’s operations (Ahmed, 2022). Beard cited multiple reports that demonstrated how the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) approved permits that adhered to outdated clean air standards and that LNG would need to implement new technology to reduce their emissions (Ahmed, 2022). In response to this, LNG claimed that lowering emission levels would be too difficult to achieve financially. So instead of terminating the project, the original TCEQ permits were approved and the emission levels were allowed to increase in Port Arthur. In this case, the very real health and safety risks that the LNG refinery posed were ignored in favor of easing the financial burden of constructing a safer plant.
"Valero refinery in Port Arthur", Carol M. Highsmith, The Lyda Hill Texas Collection, CCO
Corpus Christi, Texas
Corpus Christi, Texas
Another Texas city, Corpus Christi, features the densest area of oil refineries in the nation with six separate facilities in the town alone. Most of this is due to its strategic location along the Texas coast on the Gulf of Mexico. In the first half of 2022, the Corpus Christi Port exported an average of 1.8 million barrels of crude oil per day, the most of any port in the United States (Michael, 2017). The port is slated to expand operation further as well, with new pipelines and canal projects expected to triple oil exports by 2024 (Michael, 2017). Just adjacent to all of this though is the neighborhood of Hillcrest. The neighborhood once offered convenient housing for generations of oil workers, but emissions, leaks, and even explosions at the refineries over the years have turned the air in Hillcrest sour. In one 2007 federal case, the oil company Citgo was found guilty of violating the EPA’s Clean Air Act at their refinery in Corpus Christi (Michael, 2017). However, in 2015 an appeals court managed to overturn the charge claiming that the jury had been botched in the original trial (Michael, 2017). This meant no changes were required to be made to Citgo’s operations and the people of Hillcrest continued to breathe in air that had already been deemed dangerous by the EPA’s standards. Later in 2016, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry linked the emissions from the refineries in Corpus Christi to an increased risk of cancer in Hillcrest (Michael, 2017). This left a primarily low income community with dangerous property that no outsider would knowingly purchase from them should they wish to move, financially stranding the people of Hillcrest. Fortunately, these complaints were heard and in 2015, the state of Texas offered Hillcrest residents voluntary buyouts to leave their homes in exchange for comparably sized ones in cleaner neighborhoods, even if they cost more than their existing home (Michael, 2017). While this relocation program offered residents a way to escape the hardship that the Corpus Christi refineries had created, it does not change the fact that oil companies were permitted to essentially drive out an active community by berating them with unmonitored air pollution.
"Corpus Chrsti Port c.1993", Phil Slattery, Own Work, CCO
Corporate Influence
Corporate Influence
In summary, the oil and natural gas industry is the driving force behind the United States energy grid. A multi trillion dollar industry has emerged from the collection and sale of these products around the world. With this being said, these company’s financial interests have plagued the communities and individuals that live near their operations. When pollution levels were deemed unhealthy in these communities, policies have been overturned in favor of the oil companies. In their wake, towns and neighborhoods with poor air quality are stripped of property value, stranding low income residents in unsafe homes or worse; dissolving the community entirely.
"Brown Coal, Bucket Wheel Excavators", Michal Pech, Pexels, CCO
Coal Power
Coal Power
To begin any conversation about the impacts of coal-burning in the United States, the process must first be understood through a common lens. As a leading producer of energy in the United States and many countries abroad, it is critical to understand this fossil fuel’s consequences, and to do so requires a knowledge of the resource. Just like all other fossil fuels, coal is formed from deceased organisms from the Carboniferous period. Over the 300 million years since then, the organisms were trapped in water brought by floods and slowly compressed with newer organisms and ecosystems. With the higher pressure and temperature experienced as they sink deeper, the organisms continue to decompose with mostly carbon remaining. The remaining coal seams are then extracted to begin processing. The extraction process takes three forms. Depending on the deposits, coal is mined in strips, in quarries, or from mountaintops (Coal, 2023). It is here that the consequences begin to show.
Air and Water Pollution from Coal Processing
Air and Water Pollution from Coal Processing
The mining of coal pollutes and destroys waterways and habitats with toxic chemicals. Called “tailings”, these minerals, separated from coal, are displaced in the process, allowing them to travel down valleys, connect with water systems, and invade ecosystems. The lasting impact of such spillage is harmful to both humans and wildlife. Those in neighboring areas suffer from pollution of drinking water, while organisms may die from loss of shelter, food, or safe water (Coal, 2023).
Turning to the processing of coal, the consequences continue. Around the world, coal-fired power plants dominate the production of electricity. In these plants, water in boilers is heated by the combustion of coal. Boiling water generates steam, turning a turbine. This powers a generator, then producing electricity (Where the United States Gets Its Coal, 2022). In this sequence, problems arise with the combustion of coal.
"White and Black Ship on Sea Under White Clouds", Chris LeBoutillier, Unsplash, CC NC
Consequences of Pollution from Coal Combustion
Consequences of Pollution from Coal Combustion
Despite coal’s advantageous combustion efficiency, a byproduct of coal-burning is carbon dioxide. With the extremely high quantities of coal burned in the United States, it is responsible for about 909 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that were produced in 2021. Coal energy production on its own contributed to 59% of all carbon dioxide emissions from the energy generation sector (How Much of U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Associated with Electricity Generation?, 2022). This huge addition to emissions takes part in the advancing climate crisis and warming oceans. The biggest sink for carbon dioxide in the air is the ocean. It continually uptakes carbon dioxide to be stored in ocean depths and used by organisms much slower than it is absorbed. With the rising content of carbon dioxide in the ocean, acidity increases. This occurrence drives the endangerment of underwater life in hazardous or destroyed ecosystems. Organisms struggle to adapt to higher temperatures, lower pH, and the multitude of consequences from coal-burning (Carbon Cycle, 2019). Regarding human conditions, coal poses another threat. Not only is carbon dioxide released, but sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates also arise from our usage of coal. These all contribute to increases in asthmatic cases, respiratory diseases, and lung disease, especially in regions near to power plants (Coal and the Environment, 2022).
Coal in Context
Coal in Context
Considered through all scientific perspectives, coal is a complex facet of our society. On one hand, combustion of coal is responsible for the majority of electricity generation on the planet. It is a powerful release of energy that we have commandeered and refined. Despite this success, the environmental devastation from all stages of its manipulation cannot go unnoticed. Humans, animals, plants, and ocean life all suffer from extensive emissions of carbon dioxide. Although accompanied by a multitude of activities responsible, coal burning is an exceptional driver propelling the immediate and long-lasting ramifications of our actions.
Given the remarkable negative effects of coal power generation, one might consider the equality of burdens faced. If faced equally, by all humans, it seems likely that concerns about the declining conditions of the planet would be pervasive and urgent; people would be terrified of the consequences of late and those to come. Although opposition grows, that is certainly not the status quo for all. Since that is so, everyone must not experience the negatives of coal burning with equal weight. In this established inequality, who bears the greatest burden of pollution?
The Intersection of Race and Economic Status with Coal
The Intersection of Race and Economic Status with Coal
In the current state of entanglement of racist policies with institutions across the country, the coal energy sector is no exception to those perpetuating inequality. Evidence of the generated disparity based on economic class and race is seen in the placement of coal power plants and destruction during extraction. According to data from the Environmental Protection Agency, 61% of all power plants exist in areas where the percentile of low income residents is 50th or higher (Power Plants and Neighboring Communities Mapping Tool, 2021). Thus, a striking majority of coal processing facilities were chosen to occupy communities with higher poverty rates and overall economic struggles. As a result, those of lower socioeconomic class suffer at greater rates from the consequences that coal processing poses.
“Thick. Black. Toxic. Photos of the Coal Slurry Spill”, Foo Conner, Jekko, CC BY
Consequences in The Gulf Coast
Consequences in The Gulf Coast
More specifically, a study of End Stage Renal Disease, otherwise known as Balkan Endemic Nephropathy, found statistically significant ties to families below the poverty line and African-American populations. The location of the study included the Gulf Coast Region of the United States, where residents rely most heavily on aquifers for drinking-water. Most important to this discovery is its cause. In this observed area, lignite deposits are extracted for later energy generation. Such disturbance of the ground permits leakage of the toxic organic matter into ground-water and therefore contaminates a basic necessity for inhabitants (Oneida, Widener Aston, Philp, 2018). The uncovered, conscious choice to extract coal from areas with more people of color and those in a lower economic class is a direct link to a lethal disease. Similar results in Texas result from the inappropriate disposal of coal ash, a by-product of the process. With the current lack of EPA regulation on disposal, detention ponds and pits are part of the hazardous discarding sites. Consequently, the Environmental Integrity project found leakage of arsenic, lead, and mercury into groundwater across the state of Texas. While no significant efforts of clean-up are present in this area, North Carolina’s Duke Energy company removed 80 million tons of coal ash slurry. Despite this movement, they collected an estimated half of the ash produced by companies in one year. Because of the lack of regulation on disposal and the placement of power-plants, the ash disproportionately harms the chosen communities (Douglas 2020). Choice of mining sites is approached with discriminatory considerations that leave groups with higher risk of injury, illness, and death.
Air Pollution and Health Implications
Air Pollution and Health Implications
In another study on the coal-power sector, the emissions of fine particulate matter were assessed according to groups divided upon race and class. The analysis concluded that the heaviest burden of consequences from these emissions fell upon the intersection of below-poverty and non-white subgroups (Rochmond-Bryant, Mikati, Benson, Luben, Sacks, 2020). Thus demonstrating again that coal processing repercussions are pushed onto vulnerable populations. More specifically, the concentration of PM2.5 (dangerous emissions responsible for a host of respiratory and heart illnesses) in 2016 was found to be 13.7% higher for Black populations than white populations (Jbaily, Zhou, Liu, Lee, Kamareddine, Verguet, Dominici, 2022). Responsible for this is the organization of communities in our divided country. African-Americans are 75% more likely to live in “fence-line” communities where emissions from the energy industry are centered. One crucial effect from inequitable exposure to air pollution is asthma rates, especially in children. About 13.4% of African American children, compared to 7.3% of white children, are diagnosed with asthma (Patnaik, Son, Feng, Ade, 2020). The discriminatory choice of location places unequal physical and environmental threats on those without power to oppose.
"Smog in Central London in 2011", Leon Neal, Tanguy Griffon, CC BY NC SA
Concluding Thoughts
Concluding Thoughts
Despite the fact that nuclear, oil, and coal are three of the largest means of energy production in the world, their impact on the communities in which they are produced is generally negative. Though one of the cleanest sources of energy production, nuclear energy is still widely feared and distrusted, meaning that construction of nuclear plants within communities is met with much apprehension and backlash. The jobs and economics associated with these plants are usually ignored in favor of ongoing paranoia and health concerns. The oil and natural gas industry not only has contributed to the ongoing effects of climate change, but its power over communities who fight for cleaner emissions standards remains seemingly unchecked. When legal suits are filed and even won, companies utilize legal loop-holes and overturn rulings to circumvent any emissions policy that would be financially unfavorable. In the coal-burning sector, the choice of extraction and power plant locations places greater risks upon classes of people. Those closer to the poverty line or persons of color are targeted and experience a multitude of health risks at greater rates than the general population of the United States. The pollution of both air and drinking-water, as well as the destruction of ecosystems all tax affected communities. Whether it be fear, industry, or pollution, neighboring communities around these energy sources continue to experience hardship on a daily basis.
Authors
Authors
Hogan Cain, Architecture, 2025
Elizabeth Duquette, Architecture, 2026
Grant Soedler, Creative Writing, 2025
References
References
Advantages and Challenges of Nuclear Energy. (2021, March 29). Department of Energy. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy
Ahmed, A. (2022, November 3). Port Arthur pollution fight shows how Texas blocks citizen protests. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://www.texastribune.org/2022/11/03/texas-port-arthur-lng-terminals-citizen-tceq/
Caldwell, N. (2022, March 17). Pa. on list of states where fracking is most prevalent. ABC27. Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://www.abc27.com/pennsylvania/12-states-where-fracking-is-most-prevalent-where-does-pa-stand/
Douglas, E. (2020, December 29). Texas' move to control coal ash pollution could shield industry from tougher rules under Biden-led EPA. Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/29/texas-environment-coal-ash-epa-biden/
Energy Information Administration. (2022, October). Where the United States Gets Its Coal. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/where-our-coal-comes-from.php
Energy Information Administration. (2022, November 16). Coal and the Environment. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php#:~:text=Several%20principal%20emissions%20result%20from%20coal%20combustion%3A%201,fuels%20%28coal%2C%20oil%2C%20and%20natural%20gas%29%20More%20items
Energy Information Administration. (2022, December 23). How Much of U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Associated with Electricity Generation? https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=77&t=2
Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Power Plants and Neighboring Communities Mapping Tool. ArcGIS. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/2e3610d731cb4cfcbcec9e2dcb83fc94?views=Map-Tools
Harman, S. (2021, March 29). NUCLEAR 101: How Does a Nuclear Reactor Work? Department of Energy. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-101-how-does-nuclear-reactor-work
History.com Editors. (2023, March 28). Three Mile Island disaster. History.com. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nuclear-accident-at-three-mile-island
Jbaily, A., Zhou, X., Liu, J., Lee, T.-H., Kamareddine, L., Verguet, S., & Dominici, F. (2022, January 12). Air pollution exposure disparities across US population and income groups. Harvard School of Public Health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/racial-ethnic-minorities-low-income-groups-u-s-air-pollution/
Kelly, S. (2022, July 19). Explainer: Can U.S. port infrastructure handle more crude exports? Reuters. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/can-us-port-infrastructure-handle-more-crude-exports-2022-07-20/
McGeehan, P. (2015, November 16). Plan to Close Nuclear Plant in Upstate New York Rattles Its Neighbors (Published 2015). The New York Times. Retrieved March 29, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/nyregion/plan-to-close-nuclear-plant-in-upstate-new-york-rattles-its-neighbors.html?searchResultPosition=1
Michael, L. (2017, October 21). In the shadows of Refinery Row, a parable of redevelopment and race. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/10/21/in-the-shadows-of-refinery-row-a-parable-of-redevelopment-and-race/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2019, February 1). Carbon Cycle. https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/carbon-cycle
Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs. (2022, August). World Nuclear Association. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx
Oneida, A. S., Widener, J., Aston, C. E., & Philp, R. R. (2018). ESRD and ESRD-DM associated with lignite-containing aquifers in the U.S. Gulf Coast region of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29886105/
Patnaik, A., Son, J., Feng, A., & Ade, C. (2020, August 15). Racial Disparities and Climate Change. Princeton Student Climate Initiative. https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/8/15/racial-disparities-and-climate-change
Richardson, D. B. (2004). Occupational health risks in nuclear power. In C. J. Cleveland, Encyclopedia of energy. Elsevier Science & Technology. Credo Reference: https://rwulib.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/estenergy/occupational_health_risks_in_nuclear_power/0?institutionId=1882
Richmond-Bryant, J., Mikati, I., Benson, A. F., Luben, T. J., & Sacks, J. D. (2020). Disparities in Distribution of Particulate Matter Emissions from US Coal-Fired Power Plants by Race and Poverty Status After Accounting for Reductions in Operations Between 2015 and 2017. American Journal of Public Health. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32191524/
Ritchie, H. (2020, February 10). What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy? Our World in Data. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Saad, L. (2022, May 20). Americans Divided on Nuclear Energy. Gallup.com. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/392831/americans-divided-nuclear-energy.aspx
Staff Report. (2022, July 12). False alarm sounds from Seabrook Station nuclear power plant in NH. Seacoastonline.com. Retrieved March 29, 2023, from https://www.seacoastonline.com/story/news/local/2022/07/12/seabrook-station-nuclear-power-plant-emergency-alarm/10037862002/
Tory, S. (2022, October 5). Colorado Towns are Taking Air Quality Monitoring into Their Own Hands - Collective Colorado. Collective Colorado. Retrieved March 28, 2023, from https://collective.coloradotrust.org/stories/colorado-towns-are-taking-air-quality-monitoring-into-their-own-hands/
Turgeon, A., & Morse, E. (2023, March 2). Coal. National Geographic. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/coal/
Turner, M. (2011, September 26). Clamshell Alliance campaigns against Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, New Hampshire, 1976-1989. Global Nonviolent Action Database. Retrieved April 13, 2023, from https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/clamshell-alliance-campaigns-against-seabrook-nuclear-power-plant-new-hampshire-1976-1989
Winograd, C., & Winograd. (2010). Chernobyl. In D. Mulvaney (Ed.), Green energy: an A-to-Z guide. Sage Publications. Credo Reference: https://rwulib.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/greenenergy/chernobyl/0?institutionId=1882
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse