Last week I had the opportunity to travel to a conference on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulations. I learned a lot, and I will share some of the more interesting tidbits here over several posts. For starters, I will not waste your time laying out too much of the background science, arguing about whether or not GHG's are accumulating in the atmosphere, or whether this is having an effect on the planet. They are, it is. Concentrations of CO2 have reached 400 ppm, the highest level in hundreds of thousands of years. Even if humans stop emitting all CO2 today, we have already made significant, long lasting changes in our atmosphere, in the Earth's natural cycles. The planet has warmed, it will warm further, and the consequences of this are far-reaching. Comment if you like to argue these points if need be, but this isn't about what you might choose to believe--it is about science, facts.
I'm going to assume that if you are reading this you're already know at least a little about this topic, so I may skip over some of the most basic elements. This piece is an overall introduction, and I'll also write several more specific posts. California has some of the most progressive laws in the country regulating GHGs. AB32 (CA Global Warming Solutions Act, 2006) and SB375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, 2008) are the two primary laws in CA that address the issues. The brief summary is that these laws are designed to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and they do so by targeting many of the different sources of GHG emissions.
In California, the vast majority of GHGs are generated by 3 primary sources: the transportation sector (primarily cars & trucks), industry, and the electrical generation. Further, although there are several different GHGs, the primary concern centers on CO2 emissions, as they account for most of the GHGs. By regulating these three areas, California can do a lot of curb CO2 emissions.
California has therefore created a "cap and trade" system that limits the amount of CO2 various industries, electrical generators, etc. can emit per year. The goal is first to "cap" the total amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. Then, set a dollar value as to what a ton of CO2 is worth to an emitter. Emitting CO2 is tied to economic activity--the production of electricity, goods, services. Therefore, anyone electing to emit CO2 can price this into their economic model. By allowing would-be emitters to buy/trade these CO2 credits on an open market, cleaner/more efficient companies can elect to sell their credits to another company that is struggling to comply with the restrictions.
These restrictions get progressively tighter with time, forcing companies to adopt new cleaner technologies, pay more for the right to pollute, or ultimately go out of business if they cannot adapt. You can imagine that a power utility would turn away from coal, or even natural gas, in favor of cleaner sources of energy such as wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc. Cities can contribute as well, by redesigning streets to improve traffic flow, building more public transit, siting goods and services in retail hubs that may be walking distance from high density housing or public transportation, etc.
In the next few days I'll go deeper into the laws California has put in place to try and mitigate this harm as much as it can. Of course California is only one state, and California cannot solve this problem on its own. However California can help lead the nation, the world, in solving this problem.
Showing posts with label power plants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label power plants. Show all posts
Thursday, October 16, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)