Mercury Emmissions and Coal Burning Power Plants - Our World

already a serious problem in New Englad. So, many local ponds and lakes have warning signs telling people not to eat the fish becuause of dangerous mercury levels.

True Linda! I see such signs in many places, which is a shame because I do enjoy fresh caught fish.

China is building new coal-burning power plants at a prodigious rate. This problem is going to get worse. The Bushies let the power companies off the hook on stack scrubbers...only new plants are required to have them. Old ones are exempted. How dumb is that?

You don't mention in here if there s a difference in the mercury produced from low sulphur (Wyoming- Powder River Basin) coal, and the more polluting high sulphur (Eastern states, and others) coal. Does it make a difference? I wonder.

good article

Thanks for this informative and important article, David.

If we don't stop burning stuff, we might as well commit suicide now.

Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.

Here is the full article about how radioactive coal plants really are.

Coal ash is composed primarily of oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, titanium, sodium, potassium, arsenic, mercury, and sulfur plus small quantities of uranium and thorium. Fly ash is primarily composed of non-combustible silicon compounds (glass) melted during combustion. Tiny glass spheres form the bulk of the fly ash.

For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium.

Important information -- thanks for sharing.

Here in Colorado, the utilities are trying to build what will be the largest coal burning facility in the State. I know that the technology exists to make burning coal cleaner, but it isn't clean. In Colorado, the sun and wind could generate enough electricity for all of us. There are huge "wind farms" across the northeastern part of the state, but we need more of that.

Bert - One of the dangers of a "cap and trade system" is that while some work to solve the problem others kick back and do nothing aside pay to pollute.

Bruce - Very interesting facts! Thanks.

Ron - Good question. I have not read anything indicating this to be the case, but I can't say for sure.

Susan - Valid point. "Clean coal power plants" still pollute, they just do so do a lesser degree than the old ones.

NYS has joined the suit against the EPA for not enforcing the emissions standards they set. We live in a crazy world. We've taken the mercury out of our thermometers but can't get it out of our air!

Spartan, I understand that swordfish are definitely also in the category of fairly high mercury content. I understand that EPA will let you eat it a couple times a year- but when I hear that, I say, no thank you, I will pass.

In the bigger picture, even if they can figure a way to burn coal with zero mercury emissions, there will still be massive emissions of CO2- the chief greenhouse gas. Coal plants are driving the global warming process, it's a simple as that.

oh my gosh! you talk about mercury....when I was in school we were allowed to play with mercury in science class...no gloves and no safety issues....sad, to say but several of my classmates have had lung problems. I wonder if science class added to their pain?!?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169513,00.html

"Most global mercury emissions are natural in origin (ocean out-gassing (search) and terrestrial flux (search) are primary sources) and most of the human-caused emissions are from Asia and Europe.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has studied mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, concluding that "regional transport of mercury emission from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. is responsible for very little of the mercury in U.S. waters."
The EPA estimates that, "Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent."
So if we are to worry about mercury, it appears that U.S. power plants are not a terribly worthwhile starting point.
But should we be so worried about mercury emissions to the environment in the first place?
There's no question that mercury can be toxic to humans and wildlife – but only at sufficiently high doses. A fundamental tenet of modern toxicology is that "the dose makes the poison." Mere exposure to any level of mercury isn't necessarily harmful."


Ron,
"You don't mention in here if there s a difference in the mercury produced from low sulphur (Wyoming- Powder River Basin) coal, and the more polluting high sulphur (Eastern states, and others) coal. Does it make a difference? I wonder."

I don't know if this answers your question but.
Mercury Content;
Central Appalachian--------0.09 ppm
Pittsburgh A, in PA--------0.15 ppm
Pratt/Utley in AL----------0.29 ppm
Illinois #6 in IL----------0.12 ppm
Lower Kittanning in PA------0.44 ppm
Kentucky #11 in KY---------0.15 ppm


Even though it appears that the amount of mercury being expelled by out coal powered power plants is not enough to cause concern, they still produce a lot of C02 and we need to find an alternative to them.

Susan,
"In Colorado, the sun and wind could generate enough electricity for all of us. There are huge "wind farms" across the northeastern part of the state, but we need more of that."

We need more alternatives but the problem with alternatives is, the sun doesn't shine at night and the wind is often intermittent, they can go a long way in helping our society in being "green" but we need a reliable backup power source.

There are things coming down the pipe, but most of the acceptable solutions are just now in their infancy.
Some look towards hydrogen but again we are looking at decades before it will be available to the public.

We do have one clean safe source of energy available to us which would serve as a perfect backup to alternatives, and that energy source is nuclear.

If you are not one of those people who has fallen lock stock and barrel to the anti-nuclear propaganda (or even if you have) go read my article it provides facts on how safe this economical and clean source of energy really is.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977175197

We should tax emissions and use the proceeds to support local supply of better alternatives. I said this back in April, in the article Global Warming - cap and trade or tax?

Thanks.....very interesting article, David....

WOW! This is a very interesting and enlightening article. Thank you for sharing it with us.

The fact is that coal will be still be a major source of electricity for the next 50+ years, and clean(er) coal technology will be important to limit the damage that these power plants produce. IGCC (coal gasification) is currently the cleanest way to burn coal, reducing mercury and sulfur dioxide to almost trivial amounts while significantly reducing NOx emissions, solid waste production, and water constumption. It is also more efficient than traditional coal power plants, and is the only technology that allows for economical carbon sequestring (storing carbon dioxide underground).

I think that coal gasification technology should be required for all coal power plants after ~2012. Although without carbon caps coal gasification is more expensive (which one the plus side would make alternatives more economical), it is significantly less expesive if there are tighter emissions standards, sequestering mandates, or carbon taxes/cap and trade systems are made, alongside the beneifit of lower emissions.

Interesting and informative article, David. Texas is currently courting the idea of newer and bigger coal plants rather than persuing the developement of wind ranches and solar energy. There is plenty of flat, wind swept land here as well as our coastal areas which also receive a lot of wind. I do think Nuclear energy plants, when built to the highest safety standards, would be a good alternative as Texas has few rivers to generate Hydro Electric power which is also a cleaner source of energy than coal.

Whenever I say investment in nuclear is the superior alternative by far in almost every dimension all I get is attacked by the nucleophobes ... so I won't even say it.

Happy Thanksgiving all!

I am not in favor of "cap and trade" systems in general, David. They just allow the wealthy to pollute. I think the proponents of this view it as a way to introduce some limits that has some chance of enactment, whereas explicit limits will be fought off and defeated by the well-heeled polluters.

I guess Spartan could offer some contradictory information to challenge the FOX new report but we all know he won't.
It's kinda hard to contradict facts with information that doesn't exist.
Right Spart!

Fox? Facts? Aren't those mutually exclusive?

Bert,
"Fox? Facts? Aren't those mutually exclusive?"
No they aren't Bert. But you're just trying to be funny aren't you?
But I love it, the first major news station that isn't in the pocket of the liberals, you're attacks are a validation to the value this station holds to our society.
Fox commentators are admittedly right of center but their news casting is "fair and balanced", it's just all of the rest are so left leaning that none of you can determine where the center is anymore, either that or you all are such brain dead liberals that it doesn't matter where center is anymore.

But Dan! If everyone doesný fall in line with liberal orthodoxy ... well, people might start to believe that they aren't omniscient!

There are about 30% of people who are far-left, and about 30% of the people who are far-right. Then there are the thinking 30% in the middle who have to constantly hear this boring bullshit of the other moronic 60% fighting and calling each other names 24x7x365 ... I am soooooo tiiiireeeedddd of this ccccrrrraaapppp!!!!!

The two battling idiotic 30%'s never change each other's minds, they just work themselves up because they are too stupid to have a life so they setttle for constant fighting and dragging everyone around them into it.

Why don't the USELESS far left and the far right just shut up and save their energy, and maybe listen to some intelligent conversation from moderates who end up making the difference anyway????

Feel better now?

Dan E. -

Not sure if you actually read the article but I did note that the bulk of mercury emissions are coming from Asia. You call Fox's coverage "fair and balanced" yet they do not exactly place the EPA's research into proper context.

According to the EPA:

"Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent."

A few obvious facts that can be derived from this EPA statement:

1. That FOX News report should have noted that the 3 percent figure is based upon total global mercury emissions caused by man and NATURE. That means the U.S. contribution to global mercury emissions caused by human activity would higher than 3 3 percent.

2. Coal burning power plants account for 1/3 of the United State's total man-made mercury emissions each year.

What FOX has done here is engaged in selective fact finding. Sure, the rest of the world needs to do its share to reduce the level of mercury being emitted globally by human activity each year. But so does the U.S.

The current law in the U.S. does not require coal burning power plants to do everything they could to reduce mercury emissions. The technology is available, but the law is not ensuring that it is in use universally.

I do not trust FOX News. Television news is in a sad state over all. But why should I trust FOX? I do not trust Rupert Murdoch, its founder. Nor do I trust any journalistic institution that puts someone like Bill O'Reilly on the air and calls it news. FOX News is just a money making scheme.

David,
"FOX News is just a money making scheme."
Well I can't disagree with you there, but we do live in a capitalistic society and if you can get news from a source that is not a "money making scheme" you be sure to let us know cause I don't think one exists.

"Nor do I trust any journalistic institution that puts someone like Bill O'Reilly on the air and calls it news."

I don't recall anyone suggesting Bill O'Reilly is anything but a news commentator, including Fox news.

"I do not trust Rupert Murdoch, its founder."

Great business man though,
Fox news is so successful due to their conservative commentators that even CNN has tossed a couple in their lineup.

So David what do you think of George Soros?

"That FOX News report should have noted that the 3 percent figure is based upon total global mercury emissions caused by man and NATURE."

That's how I read it David,

"That means the U.S. contribution to global mercury emissions caused by human activity would higher than 3 3 percent."

Oh I see David, Fox news didn't present the facts in the way you thought they should.

"What FOX has done here is engaged in selective fact finding."

Just like you selectively presented the facts you found, wouldn't that be called "selective fact finding" also?

Just like you selectively presented the facts you found, wouldn't that be called "selective fact finding" also?

Ah, but there is a small difference between an individual pointing out facts omitted from a "news" article, and a news organization that slants its views to a particular political point of view. Of course, all news media do this to some extent. Writers are human, after all. But Fox is a different animal. I find it amusing that you say their presentation is "balanced," Dan. Not many people, even conservatives, would try to claim that.

"I find it amusing that you say their presentation is "balanced," Dan. Not many people, even conservatives, would try to claim that."
Bert B., Nov 24, 2007, 7:47pm EST

I would say that all the people, from across the political spectrum, that have made them the number one rated news network would claim that.

Bert,
"But Fox is a different animal."
By that you of course are suggesting that since you believe fox news is biased towards the conservative side and NOT to the left as is the case with all of the rest of T.V. news you find it particularly objectionable.
I suggest that it is the liberal glasses from which you view the world and not Fox news content, that is the reason you say Fox news is biased.

"I find it amusing that you say their presentation is "balanced," Dan."
Actually Bert I said their news is fair and balanced and their commentary was primarily conservative.

But to put this into perspective, before Fox News I watched CNN and I see much more of the other side represented on Fox conservative commentators shows than I ever saw on CNN, even on their news.

I would say that all the people, from across the political spectrum, that have made them the number one rated news network would claim that.

There seems to be some disagreement about that.

Here's a bit more on Fox News bias.

Fox uses editing techniques and video production techniques to blur the line between news and editorial, not to mention biasing their presentation of news and also finding poor reprentatives of viewpoints they do not want to appear acceptable.

Interesting information - thanks for taking the time to inform us - really~

Dan E - While I'd love to debate the merits - or lack their of - of Fox News this article was about mercury and coal burning power plants. You seem to agree that mercury is a problem. What I have said is that there are things that can be done to reduce man-made mercury emissions. I have also said that this is a global problem, not one caused by the U.S alone. If you'd like to pin down exactly what you problem with the "facts" I have presented is perhaps I could address that problem.

My point above is that Fox News excluded relevant facts that are provided in the same paragraph as the facts they chose to cite in their "report". I write a column - clearly an opinion piece. I use facts to back up my own informed opinion. Fox pretends to create "unbiased" news.

Saying that 1/3 of the mercury produced by human activity in the U.S. comes from coal burning power plants is not reading the facts the way I want to see them. It is just a fact, as provided by the EPA.

I really do not trust CNN or the other cable news stations much more than Fox. In the interest of creating cheap content to fill air time these stations pack in the commentary. The consequence is that they do not provide the same quality substantive news reports as they might. Truly investigative reporting is a costly process.

The other thing that mercury released in coal burning by man does is that is it very widely broadcast and distributed all over the country and the world .. as in China's burning coal and pollution going across the Pacific to us here in California.

This is an important issue, David. Thanks for writing about it. I've had to give up tunafish altogether due to mercury poisoning. And that's a fact.

On a mission, can't talk now, Trying to give fifty points (at least) to all my connections for Christmas, or whatever:

Ten unsolicited points from the world's worst connection. Merry whatever you celebrate!