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 necessary as 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
1
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 $500 billion in health
care 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
2
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 reaffirmed that 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 lessdense 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
3
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” highspeed 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 highspeed 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 highspeed 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 18,200 megawatts (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.
4
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 thenbiggest 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 Desert would 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).
5
The Facts
The Cape Wind Project plans 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.
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).
Regarding the price of the electricity produced by the project, National Grid, the electricity
provider seeking to buy part of Cape Wind’s output, requested to pay Cape Wind between 17 and
21 cents per kWh. Assuming that National Grid would mark up that price to some extent, then the
electricity provided by Cape Wind very well could cost close to 24 cents per kWh. National Grid
currently charges 8.265 cents per kWh. If National Grid passes the costs of Cape Wind to
consumers who choose to use renewable energy, or if it only charges homes and businesses that will
actually receive power from Cape Wind, then those people will face a near-tripling of their
electricity bills. If, instead, National Grid spreads the costs of the Cape Wind electricity to all of its
users (the more likely possibility), then the cost to consumers will rise, but not nearly as much as
opponents claim. It is unclear how National Grid will spread the costs. For example, another
source suggested that Cape Wind would be selling the electricity to consumers for 18.7 cents per
kWh, and it contrasted that to electricity being generated for 41 percent less by TransCanada’s wind
project in Maine. In another proposed wind project, off the coast of Rhode Island, the investors
6
requested a price of 24.4 cents per kWh with 3.5 percent annual increases for 20 years, but that
proposal was rejected by the Rhode Island state government.
It is noteworthy that one of the driving factors inducing National Grid to purchase the
electricity from Cape Wind, even at an expensive rate, is Massachusetts’s requirement that 20
percent of all electricity must be derived from renewable sources by 2025.
Supporters of Cape Wind also claim that the price of Cape Wind electricity actually might
cost less than electricity could cost in the future, but this argument is premised on the possibility
that fossil fuel prices will sky-rocket in a few years. Others suggest that the state-mandated 6-cent
surcharge (for electricity produced from fossil fuels) would offset some of the difference between
the price of electricity from traditional and renewable sources.
The Determination
Although I was unable to find an actual percentage figure for how much of the Cape Cod
fishery would be destroyed by the Cape Wind project, that project clearly would disrupt Nantucket
Sound both ecologically and aesthetically. Forty-storey wind turbines—which must be anchored in
the seabed and connected to each other and to a master cable to relay electricity—will not come
without an environmental (to fisheries) and economic (to fishermen) cost. Moreover, National Grid
acknowledges that it will be paying a significant price for the electricity it purchases from Cape
Wind. Again, while Mr. Kennedy might have gotten his facts convoluted, his premise that Cape
Wind is expensive and disruptive, perhaps unnecessarily so, is correct and meritorious. Again,
however, his argument could be fortified by a more conservative adherence to well-published and
equally potent facts.
CONCLUSION
All in all, Mr. Kennedy’s claims generally are on point. But every one of them would
benefit from more specificity, less estimation, and less dramatization. His points would be effective
even if he said “500 mountain tops have been removed in four states” instead of “500 of West
Virginia’s biggest mountains have been destroyed.” His suggestion that 60,000 people die as a
result of coal particulates, as opposed to the more verifiable 13,000- or 34,000-number, misses the
point: any of these numbers is a shockingly high toll for the number of people who die as the result
of our use of dirty fossil fuels to supply our electricity.
This admonition goes to a larger point: one can quibble with Mr. Kennedy’s claims and
statistics, but that doesn’t change the reality that we are at an energy crossroads concerning law and
policy. Coal is cheap and abundant in America, but it is not a sustainable long-term energy source.
We must find, develop, and advance the technologies that will allow us to harness our endless,
renewable resources such as the sun and the wind. So Mr. Kennedy is right when he points out that
coal presents a massive public health threat, or when he extols the virtue of massive new
investments in solar energy, or when he decries the tenuous pro-environment claims made by
supporters of wind turbines in a significant fishery. We must invest in solar, wind, and other
renewable energy sources, and we must wean ourselves off of coal and other fossil fuels. The truth
underlying these arguments is strong enough to overcome any opposition. And the more people
think they are hearing the truth, the more likely they are to believe the threats we face and act to
make the changes we need to make.
7