pstarr wrote:GHung wrote:pstarr wrote:Sane environmental law manages point-source pollution, that specifically damages human populations and regional ecosystems. Power plant emissions are by design airborne and disbursed far and wide. The resulting pollutants are reduced in concentration and therefore not bad.
In the final analysis, all made-made pollutants are originally from this very same planet earth. Essentially natural and a part of all life. And so the pollutants will eventually all degrade and dispurse, return to our mother. (Unless you are a linear no-threshold model (LNT) maniac then there is little hope sorry)
Always keep in mind Kub . . . the solution to pollution is dilution.
Good crop this year P? Maybe you can reimburse my family for the tons of lime we've had to apply to our fields and pastures almost every year to counter soil acidification; the direct result of acid rain and sulfur dioxide coming into the southern Appalachians from coal plants in the Tennessee Valley. Not to mention the very high ground level ozone we get every summer from the west; this in a supposedly 'pristine' county of about 10,000 people in rural Appalachia.
And I don't buy any of your nasty coal-sourced electricity. Haven't for 20 years.
Could it simply be farming practices?Causes of soil acidity
Soil acidification is a natural process accelerated by agriculture. Soil acidifies because the concentration of hydrogen ions in the soil increases. The main cause of soil acidification is inefficient use of nitrogen, followed by the export of alkalinity in produce.
Ammonium based fertilisers are major contributors to soil acidification. Ammonium nitrogen is readily converted to nitrate and hydrogen ions in the soil. If nitrate is not taken-up by plants, it can leach away from the root zone leaving behind hydrogen ions thereby increasing soil acidity.
Most plant material is slightly alkaline and removal by grazing or harvest leaves residual hydrogen ions in the soil. Over time, as this process is repeated, the soil becomes acidic. Major contributors are hay, especially lucerne hay and legume crops. Alkalinity removed in animal products is low, however, concentration of dung in stock camps adds to the total alkalinity exported in animal production.
Soil acidification is the buildup of hydrogen cations, also called protons, reducing the soil pH. This happens when a proton donor gets added to the soil. The donor can be an acid, such as nitric acid and sulfuric acid (these acids are common components of acid rain). It can also be a compound such as aluminium sulfate, which reacts in the soil to release protons. Many nitrogen compounds, which are added as fertilizer, also acidify soil over the long term because they produce nitrous and nitric acid when oxidized in the process of nitrification.
Acidification also occurs when base cations such as calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium are leached from the soil. This leaching increases with increasing precipitation. Acid rain accelerates the leaching of bases. Plants take bases from the soil as they grow, donating a proton in exchange for each base cation. Where plant material is removed, as when a forest is logged or crops are harvested, the bases they have taken up are permanently lost from the soil.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution, which takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx): NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.
Particulate matter: Particulate matter (also referred to as soot or fly ash) can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plan emits 500 tons of small airborne particles each year. Baghouses installed inside coal plant smokestacks can capture as much as 99 percent of the particulates.
Mercury: Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year. Activated carbon injection technology can reduce mercury emissions by up to 90 percent when combined with baghouses. ACI technology is currently found on just 8 percent of the U.S. coal fleet.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal ... dKR_xdrzSc
ROCKMAN wrote:KJ - OK let's compare CO2 emissions per coal consumption for 2 of the biggest contributors: Texas and PA. All data from the EIA. For 2014:
Texas: coal burnt: 103 mm ston......CO2:150 mm tons
PA: coal burnt: 46 mm ston.............CO2: 98 mm tons
Or:
Texas: 1.47 ton of CO2/ton of coal consumed
PA: 2.13 ton of CO2/ton of coal consumed
Or PA coal plants produced 45% more CO2 then Texas coal plants for every ton of coal burned.
So maybe they should do a tad more scrubbing in PA. LOL. Also let's not forget Texas just built the largest CO2 sequestration project in the world taking it from the second largest GHG emitting plant in the US. Half the burners use NG and the other half use coal.
But I'm sure the PA politicians have convinced their voters they are doing their share to "save the planet". LOL. BTW the average electricity rate in PA is 20% higher then in Texas. Imagine how much higher it would be if they upgraded those plants to the same efficiency as those in Texas.
And since the subject is renewable energy: Texas more the 2X as much electricity from renewable sources then PA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... le_sources
ROCKMAN wrote:KJ - OK let's compare CO2 emissions per coal consumption for 2 of the biggest contributors: Texas and PA. All data from the EIA. For 2014:
Texas: coal burnt: 103 mm ston......CO2:150 mm tons
PA: coal burnt: 46 mm ston.............CO2: 98 mm tons
Or:
Texas: 1.47 ton of CO2/ton of coal consumed
PA: 2.13 ton of CO2/ton of coal consumed
Or PA coal plants produced 45% more CO2 then Texas coal plants for every ton of coal burned.
So maybe they should do a tad more scrubbing in PA. LOL. Also let's not forget Texas just built the largest CO2 sequestration project in the world taking it from the second largest GHG emitting plant in the US. Half the burners use NG and the other half use coal.
But I'm sure the PA politicians have convinced their voters they are doing their share to "save the planet". LOL. BTW the average electricity rate in PA is 20% higher then in Texas. Imagine how much higher it would be if they upgraded those plants to the same efficiency as those in Texas.
And since the subject is renewable energy: Texas more the 2X as much electricity from renewable sources then PA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... le_sources
Indeed. Illinois and everything east of it has high rates of deaths from power plants(comparatively speaking). Meanwhile Texas, Florida, and the western half of the United States have low amounts of deaths from power plants.ROCKMAN wrote:k - "...the Clean Air Act, passed in 1970, only applied to new power plants built. It had little effect on existing coal power plants." Which may explain what I read long ago: Texas has the most efficient/less polluting coal plants in the country because they much newer. Which also may explain the very striking anomaly I point out on that map depicting coal burning deaths per state: Texas, the largest coal burning state, shows very few deaths compared to northeast.
Coal plant retirements
US Coal Plant Closures Likely To Eliminate 30 Million Tons Of Annual Coal DemandThe United States is closing 46 coal-fired generating units at 25 electricity plants across 16 states over the next few years, transitioning to natural gas or intentionally closing them, and a new report shows that this will likely result in eliminating about 30 million tons of annual coal demand by the end of 2018.
By the end of 2018, the plant closures detailed in this report will amount to a net capacity (by 2016 figures) of 16 gigawatts (GW), or approximately 5.7% of the total coal-fired US electricity generation capacity. These closures represent what the IEEFA believes is a long-term trend that will only likely continue. “Indeed, the transformative shift in electricity generation across the U.S. is likely to continue as intense cost competition from renewables and natural gas continues a trend toward more coal-fired plant closures and has even led to some nuclear plant retirements over the past few years.”
The numbers have already been adjusted to reflect population density. The figures are not for gross deaths but deaths per 100,000. For example, West Virginia is one of the deadliest states in the country for power plant deaths. However it ranks in the bottom half of states for population density.KaiserJeep wrote:I believe that the deathprints reflect nothing more than the population density and the proximity of those people to power plant emissions. No other factors are discernable or should be inferred. The Eastern US has a greater population density and a higher number of coal plants to generate power for these people, and thus the people suffer more coal-related deaths and illnesses.
Texas Fleet: State of the Art & Worth Fighting ForThe Texas coal fleet is the youngest and cleanest in America. Texas power providers have taken proactive steps to ensure that this young coal fleet is maintained and upgraded with state-of-the-art pollution control equipment. Due to its youth and the installation of more than $17.4 billion present-day dollars in state-of-the-art environmental controls, Texas coal-fired power plants have some of the lowest emissions rates of any fleet in the country, including emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, nitrogen oxide, and carbon dioxide. In addition, Texas’ coal-fueled power plants have reduced PM-related emissions by 43 percent and emissions of nitrogen oxides by 55 percent since 1999. The Texas coal fleet also has one of the lowest NOx emissions rate of any coal fleet in the nation, far lower than the national average.
I was just reading about this project. It won praise not only for being the largest CO2 sequestration project, but for doing it on time and on budget. Despite the large slew of unexpected problems that often crop up with large projects: prospective partners suddenly breaking off communications, flooding, first time anything of this scale was attempted, etc. I was surprised a Japanese company partnered for this project and it was based on technology from another Japanese company. It was also interesting how they spent so much extra time doing the engineering to catch problems early on instead of finding out during assembly: "Oops. These pipes don't match up." Like what happened with the Airbus 380: "Oops. These wires are too short." Part of the reason the A380 was delayed for 2 years and several billion dollars over budget. When I first read about CO2 sequestration years ago I came to the conclusion: "It's too expensive and too energy intensive. No one is going to do this just for environmental reasons". Well the company behind this project came to the same conclusion and used the CO2 to drive enhanced oil recovery at a nearby oil field, generating extra cash to pay for the project. A win-win. And as for the energy needs, they build a cogeneration power plant to provide some of the electricity and heat they need at much higher efficiency rates than the coal power plant they are getting CO2 from.ROCKMAN wrote:Harris County (aka Houston) with a pop of more then 5 million sits less the 50 miles down wind of the second largest producer of GHG in the entire US. A power plant that has 3 NG burners and 3 coal burners. And we've lost that 2nd place ranking since that plant is now sending CO2 to the largest sequestration project on the planet.
Capturing Carbon and Seizing Innovation: Petra Nova Is POWER’s Plant of the YearHilcorp expects that the captured CO2 could increase oil production at West Ranch from about 300 barrels a day to a peak volume of up to 15,000 barrels a day. What sets Petra Nova apart from several other projects is its unique business model. “Oil revenues pay for the entire project,” NRG spokesperson David Knox told POWER. This is a pivotal winning attribute of the project, considering that several carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects have been scrapped or postponed because they are economically unfeasible or have become too expensive for rate recovery.
Yet another interesting facet of the project is how it tackles parasitic load. As Greeson explained, technologies that capture CO2 are energy-intensive. “If you had a 1,000-MW coal plant, in order to capture all the CO2 off of that plant, you would need 300 MW of steam and power. So, it effectively becomes a 700-MW net output plant.” But because power consumed by the capture system would be unsold power—negatively impacting the pro forma—NRG determined that the project would benefit from a purpose-built 70-MW gas-fired cogeneration system. That installation features a GE 7EA gas turbine that is “converting fossil fuels at an efficiency of 55%, instead of the host coal unit, which is converting fossil fuels at an efficiency of 33.34%.
Today, the project continues to garner interest far and wide. NRG has so far hosted eight foreign delegations on tours of the facility and expects interest to ramp up as operations continue, said Greeson. One reason for this is that the project shows that advanced post-combustion capture technology is both available and scalable.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests