Six months--how they go by in a flash! Well, I may have taken a break from blogging, but the world is still moving. Happily, today's news indicates we're moving a step forward into the 21st century. The EPA just released NEW proposed rules for carbon limits for NEW power plants. This is good news. These rules would make it extremely difficult to get a new coal-fired plant approved, due to the amount of CO2 released from the burning of coal. Natural gas facilities, and of course renewables (wind, solar, etc) would have a much easier time passing the standards. The new rule caps CO2 emissions at 1100 lbs of CO2 emitted for each megawatt hour of electricity produced.
Why pick on coal? Simply put: coal is responsible for more CO2 emissions than other sources. In 2012, coal fired plants accounted for 18% of the energy consumed nationwide, but were responsible for 31% of energy related carbon emissions.
Anyone who watches television has seen ads for "clean coal technology." (Also known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or CCS). Unfortunately, CCS is an idea that hasn't really left the drawing board--yet. The problem with capturing and storing CO2 on a large scale is that it is currently unfeasible for two major reasons. First, from a logistical standpoint we lack the infrastructure to capture, transport, and store, significant amounts of CO2. Further, the energy required to do so negates most of the energy generated in the first place. It makes little economic sense.
Could that change in the future? Certainly. A few new coal-fired plants are being built in the U.S. and Canada that may be able to capitalize on technological advances. Interestingly the coal industry that promotes clean coal technology is fighting the new EPA rules--because even the coal industry cannot say if these new plants will actually be successful.
The EPA is doing what it can to limit the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and it is going after one of the biggest sources of CO2 with these new regulations. The next step will be tightening the regulations on existing power plants, especially the handful of oldest, dirtiest plants that are responsible for such a disproportionate amount of the CO2 emitted in the US.
Showing posts with label Clean Air. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clean Air. Show all posts
Friday, September 20, 2013
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Roll Mercury?
Living in Alabama for several years, I discovered just how much college football means to the population. With Alabama and Auburn sharing an incredible run of overall success and National Championships, there is no doubt that college football is king right now in "The Heart of Dixie." Even as I write this #2 Alabama is preparing to face #1 Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl for the right to be #1 again.
However, there's another #2 ranking that Alabama should not be so proud of: Shelby, AL, is home to the #2 largest source of mercury pollution in the United States, the Gaston Steam Plant. This power plant dumped 1244 lbs of mercury into Alabama's water and air in 2011, second only to the Martin Lake Steam Electric Station & Lignite Mine in Rusk County, TX, at 1501 lbs of mercury emitted.
Mercury is a heavy metal that can be toxic in high doses, and typically causes damage to the brain, kidneys, or lungs. Frequently you may hear that mercury is prevalent in fish, which is true. However, mercury is also present in grasses, insects, and livestock. It bioaccumulates, meaning that is becomes concentrated at ever-higher amounts as you move up the food chain. Fishing is off-limits in many rivers and lakes in the U.S., including Alabama, due to mercury contamination.
Humans are the source of approximately 50% of mercury releases worldwide, primarily from the burning of coal. The 10 "dirtiest" coal-fired plants in the United States account for approximately 18% of all U.S. based mercury emissions. Note: the other 4 of the top 5 dirtiest mercury-emitting plants in the U.S. are all located in Texas, and operated by Luminant Generation.
The technology exists to eliminate mercury emissions from coal fired plants by over 90%, yet often nothing is done because of the incremental increase in the cost of energy to consumers. I wonder though--what is the cost of illness and lost productivity? What is the off-set gain in the creation of jobs to retrofit the plants with cleaner technologies? Don't these costs and benefits also factor into the overall picture when deciding whether or not to clean up a "dirty" plant? If not, shouldn't they? Essentially the energy companies are externalizing their operating costs on the public at large, maximizing their own profitability.
It is common knowledge that Alabama consistently ranks near the bottom of all U.S. states whether considering education, health, poverty, income, or many other indicators of overall well-being. (As the saying in Alabama goes, "Thank God for Mississippi!)" It's great to have a college football team challenging for the National Title, and it gives many people something to cheer for. However, whether or not the Crimson Tide ends its season #1 or #2, I'm more concerned about the long-term consequences of that other #2: emitting mercury that we all may end up breathing or ingesting.
However, there's another #2 ranking that Alabama should not be so proud of: Shelby, AL, is home to the #2 largest source of mercury pollution in the United States, the Gaston Steam Plant. This power plant dumped 1244 lbs of mercury into Alabama's water and air in 2011, second only to the Martin Lake Steam Electric Station & Lignite Mine in Rusk County, TX, at 1501 lbs of mercury emitted.
Mercury is a heavy metal that can be toxic in high doses, and typically causes damage to the brain, kidneys, or lungs. Frequently you may hear that mercury is prevalent in fish, which is true. However, mercury is also present in grasses, insects, and livestock. It bioaccumulates, meaning that is becomes concentrated at ever-higher amounts as you move up the food chain. Fishing is off-limits in many rivers and lakes in the U.S., including Alabama, due to mercury contamination.
Humans are the source of approximately 50% of mercury releases worldwide, primarily from the burning of coal. The 10 "dirtiest" coal-fired plants in the United States account for approximately 18% of all U.S. based mercury emissions. Note: the other 4 of the top 5 dirtiest mercury-emitting plants in the U.S. are all located in Texas, and operated by Luminant Generation.
The technology exists to eliminate mercury emissions from coal fired plants by over 90%, yet often nothing is done because of the incremental increase in the cost of energy to consumers. I wonder though--what is the cost of illness and lost productivity? What is the off-set gain in the creation of jobs to retrofit the plants with cleaner technologies? Don't these costs and benefits also factor into the overall picture when deciding whether or not to clean up a "dirty" plant? If not, shouldn't they? Essentially the energy companies are externalizing their operating costs on the public at large, maximizing their own profitability.
It is common knowledge that Alabama consistently ranks near the bottom of all U.S. states whether considering education, health, poverty, income, or many other indicators of overall well-being. (As the saying in Alabama goes, "Thank God for Mississippi!)" It's great to have a college football team challenging for the National Title, and it gives many people something to cheer for. However, whether or not the Crimson Tide ends its season #1 or #2, I'm more concerned about the long-term consequences of that other #2: emitting mercury that we all may end up breathing or ingesting.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
SMART Use of Transportation Dollars
Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990. One of the goals of these amendments was to attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by reducing vehicle tailpipe emissions. It was determined that one of the best ways to reduce these emissions was to link air quality and transportation planning. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) was implemented to support projects that simultaneously relieved transportation congestion and improved air quality.
CMAQ is a potential source of funding not only for light-rail projects, but also other alternative transportation projects, such as bicycle lanes, pedestrian walking, hiking, or running trails, etc. Often CMAQ funds are one of the only sources that proponents of these pedestrian or bicycle based projects have available to them.
Recently, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) awarded the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit (SMART) $6.6M in CMAQ funds to purchase additional rail cars. While this is consistent with the type of projects usually funded by CMAQ, there has been some minor controversy. The heart of the issue appears to be how quickly the funding request was railroaded through the approval process. Other regional groups (such as the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition) also dependent upon CMAQ funds for their projects were not given much warning or opportunity to prepare their objections, suggestions, or alternatives.
Proponents of the deal say that the rush was necessary because there were $10M in overall funds that would have been lost if SMART had not acted before the end of the year. The rail cars needed to be ordered, and if they had not acted quickly the window of opportunity would have been pushed back several years.
No one benefits if potential funding is lost because of a failure to act. Overall, light rail projects and other pedestrian or cycling projects work best when developed together. While it is a shame that this had to be pushed through at the last minute, to me it still seems smarter to act than to miss the opportunity entirely. Hopefully both groups will learn from this, and will plan ahead better to develop their mutual interests. With ever-tightening budgets and limited money available, groups like this need to maximize every dollar.
CMAQ is a potential source of funding not only for light-rail projects, but also other alternative transportation projects, such as bicycle lanes, pedestrian walking, hiking, or running trails, etc. Often CMAQ funds are one of the only sources that proponents of these pedestrian or bicycle based projects have available to them.
Recently, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) awarded the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit (SMART) $6.6M in CMAQ funds to purchase additional rail cars. While this is consistent with the type of projects usually funded by CMAQ, there has been some minor controversy. The heart of the issue appears to be how quickly the funding request was railroaded through the approval process. Other regional groups (such as the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition) also dependent upon CMAQ funds for their projects were not given much warning or opportunity to prepare their objections, suggestions, or alternatives.
Proponents of the deal say that the rush was necessary because there were $10M in overall funds that would have been lost if SMART had not acted before the end of the year. The rail cars needed to be ordered, and if they had not acted quickly the window of opportunity would have been pushed back several years.
No one benefits if potential funding is lost because of a failure to act. Overall, light rail projects and other pedestrian or cycling projects work best when developed together. While it is a shame that this had to be pushed through at the last minute, to me it still seems smarter to act than to miss the opportunity entirely. Hopefully both groups will learn from this, and will plan ahead better to develop their mutual interests. With ever-tightening budgets and limited money available, groups like this need to maximize every dollar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)