Coal-Fired Power Plants Produce Insignificant Mercury (This will open your eyes)

[bripat9643]

More proof that the war against coal has nothing to do with Mercury emmisions. It's purely a plank in the radical agenda of the AGW kooks.

Coal-Fired Power Plants Produce Insignificant Mercury (This will open your eyes)

Back in December, I wrote about the absurdity of the EPA claim that coal-fired power plants produced significant mercury which necessitated drastic reductions at any cost. I was then puzzled that the EPA did not produce maps of the mercury concentrations that would show the mercury was found in higher concentrations downwind of coal-fired power plants. It turns out that maps of the concentrations of mercury do exist and can be examined. The National Atmospheric Deposition Program produces annual maps of the mercury concentrations across the USA here. Note that the mercury high concentration areas changed somewhat between 2009 and 2010, but coal-fired power plants do not have giant chicken legs to rise up and walk to a new location. But, the highest mercury concentrations are in the Southern Rocky Mountains and in the plains states just to the west of those southern Rocky Mountains.​

 

[bripat9643]

Bump.

 

[OnePercenter]

And natural gas continues to be cheaper than coal. My solar continues to be cheaper than both.

 

[healthmyths]

And natural gas continues to be cheaper than coal. My solar continues to be cheaper than both.

And the USA landscape absorbs ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15%!
As the Forest Service SAYS... our landscape can absorb MORE CO2 then the USA emits!!!.
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

 

[bripat9643]

And natural gas continues to be cheaper than coal. My solar continues to be cheaper than both.

Your point? Coal will always be one of the cheapest energy sources.

How much did you pay for your solar system? I doubt it's cheaper when you count all the costs involved.

 

[Mustang]

And natural gas continues to be cheaper than coal. My solar continues to be cheaper than both.

Yeah, despite all the talk about Obama's so-called 'war on coal,' the simple economics of cheaper natural gas (not to mention the fact that it's cheaper and easier to transport) is killing the coal industry.

 

[bripat9643]

And natural gas continues to be cheaper than coal. My solar continues to be cheaper than both.

Yeah, despite all the talk about Obama's so-called 'war on coal,' the simple economics of cheaper natural gas (not to mention the fact that it's cheaper and easier to transport) is killing the coal industry.

No public utility would be shutting down perfectly serviceable coal fired power plants if the Obama regime wasn't forcing them to. Obama is killing the coal industry.

 

[Mr. H.]

And natural gas continues to be cheaper than coal. My solar continues to be cheaper than both.

And the USA landscape absorbs ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15%!
As the Forest Service SAYS... our landscape can absorb MORE CO2 then the USA emits!!!.
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

And just think of the benefits if the U.S. replaced the 39 million acres of ethanol-bound corn with.... TREES!

 

[Mustang]

And natural gas continues to be cheaper than coal. My solar continues to be cheaper than both.

Yeah, despite all the talk about Obama's so-called 'war on coal,' the simple economics of cheaper natural gas (not to mention the fact that it's cheaper and easier to transport) is killing the coal industry.

Now public utility would be shutting down perfectly serviceable coal fired power plants if the Obama regime wasn't forcing them to. Obama is killing the coal industry.

When any power plant is built in this country, it has an estimated life span, just like any manufactured product which is continuously used like airplanes, and cars, and refrigerators etc. They eventually get old, and the technology gets antiquated (and more expensive to operate). And there comes a time when they need to be retired from service.

But sometimes, a very expensive and complicated piece of technology like a power plant can have its life extended by seeking a license extension from the gov't which licenses them to operate. Many coal fired power plants have been kept in service LONG past their estimated operation dates. I think many of them have received legislative exemptions from being retired.

The fact that they're old, and the technology is old means that they're a LOT dirtier to operate then newer, more efficient plants. It's long since past the time that most of them should have been taken off line much like an old car that should no longer be on the road.

 

[Imran520]

It is very good for economy of US.

 

[Political Junky]

Oh my, Free Republic.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, despite all the talk about Obama's so-called 'war on coal,' the simple economics of cheaper natural gas (not to mention the fact that it's cheaper and easier to transport) is killing the coal industry.

Now public utility would be shutting down perfectly serviceable coal fired power plants if the Obama regime wasn't forcing them to. Obama is killing the coal industry.

When any power plant is built in this country, it has an estimated life span, just like any manufactured product which is continuously used like airplanes, and cars, and refrigerators etc. They eventually get old, and the technology gets antiquated (and more expensive to operate). And there comes a time when they need to be retired from service.

But sometimes, a very expensive and complicated piece of technology like a power plant can have its life extended by seeking a license extension from the gov't which licenses them to operate. Many coal fired power plants have been kept in service LONG past their estimated operation dates. I think many of them have received legislative exemptions from being retired.

The fact that they're old, and the technology is old means that they're a LOT dirtier to operate then newer, more efficient plants. It's long since past the time that most of them should have been taken off line much like an old car that should no longer be on the road.

They're being shut down long before they are anywhere near being obsolete or have reached their useful lifespan. They are being shutdown because the EPA is forcing them to shut down. If you don't know that, then you're an ignoramus or a propagandist.

 

[bripat9643]

It is very good for economy of US.

Another ignoramus. How is more expensive electricity good for our economy?

 

[Jarlaxle]

And natural gas continues to be cheaper than coal. My solar continues to be cheaper than both.

Yeah, despite all the talk about Obama's so-called 'war on coal,' the simple economics of cheaper natural gas (not to mention the fact that it's cheaper and easier to transport) is killing the coal industry.

Unfortunately, the NIMBY and BANANA idiots are almost as terrified of NG as they are of nuclear power. It would be a much more practical fuel if they would allow more terminals to be built!

 

[Jarlaxle]

And natural gas continues to be cheaper than coal. My solar continues to be cheaper than both.

And the USA landscape absorbs ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15%!
As the Forest Service SAYS... our landscape can absorb MORE CO2 then the USA emits!!!.
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

And just think of the benefits if the U.S. replaced the 39 million acres of ethanol-bound corn with.... TREES!

You don't know a damn thing about the great plains, do you. Most of the farmland WASN'T forested...it was GRASSLAND!

 

[Mr. H.]

And the USA landscape absorbs ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15%!
As the Forest Service SAYS... our landscape can absorb MORE CO2 then the USA emits!!!.
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).

This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

And just think of the benefits if the U.S. replaced the 39 million acres of ethanol-bound corn with.... TREES!

You don't know a damn thing about the great plains, do you. Most of the farmland WASN'T forested...it was GRASSLAND!

I've lived on the plains of Illinois most my life.

So re-plant those acres in grasses, I don't give a shit. Let them return to marshes and swamps. Anything but that worthless fucking ethanol corn.

 

[Mustang]

Now public utility would be shutting down perfectly serviceable coal fired power plants if the Obama regime wasn't forcing them to. Obama is killing the coal industry.

When any power plant is built in this country, it has an estimated life span, just like any manufactured product which is continuously used like airplanes, and cars, and refrigerators etc. They eventually get old, and the technology gets antiquated (and more expensive to operate). And there comes a time when they need to be retired from service.

But sometimes, a very expensive and complicated piece of technology like a power plant can have its life extended by seeking a license extension from the gov't which licenses them to operate. Many coal fired power plants have been kept in service LONG past their estimated operation dates. I think many of them have received legislative exemptions from being retired.

The fact that they're old, and the technology is old means that they're a LOT dirtier to operate then newer, more efficient plants. It's long since past the time that most of them should have been taken off line much like an old car that should no longer be on the road.

They're being shut down long before they are anywhere near being obsolete or have reached their useful lifespan. They are being shutdown because the EPA is forcing them to shut down. If you don't know that, then you're an ignoramus or a propagandist.

The building of power plants represents a major capital investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, years of construction, licenses, and all kinds of red tape. They're not just going to be shut down for that reason alone not to mention the fact that the surrounding communities rely on them for power generation, and a shutdown is going to negatively impact probably hundreds of thousands of people.

What's MORE likely is that the plants will be converted to a different power source.

Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary that relatively new power plants are simply being shut down, how about supplying some specific plant closings for review by everyone here?

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=11651

Mercury contamination of fish is a widespread problem in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Health advises people to limit consumption of some fish species from all lakes and rivers in Minnesota. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s waters listed as “impaired” under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act are on the list due to mercury.

The mercury that contaminates Minnesota’s fish comes almost entirely from atmospheric deposition. Rain and snow transport mercury to the state’s land, lakes and rivers, and mercury can also fall from the atmosphere as dry deposition. About 30 percent of the mercury that is deposited from the air comes from natural sources, such as volcanoes and the weathering of rock.

But 70 percent of the deposited mercury results from human activities that release mercury from the
geological materials in which it had been locked up. These activities include the mining of mercury ores,
using mercury in products and manufacturing, and the release of trace concentrations of mercury naturally present in coal, crude oil and metallic ores.

 

[bripat9643]

When any power plant is built in this country, it has an estimated life span, just like any manufactured product which is continuously used like airplanes, and cars, and refrigerators etc. They eventually get old, and the technology gets antiquated (and more expensive to operate). And there comes a time when they need to be retired from service.

But sometimes, a very expensive and complicated piece of technology like a power plant can have its life extended by seeking a license extension from the gov't which licenses them to operate. Many coal fired power plants have been kept in service LONG past their estimated operation dates. I think many of them have received legislative exemptions from being retired.

The fact that they're old, and the technology is old means that they're a LOT dirtier to operate then newer, more efficient plants. It's long since past the time that most of them should have been taken off line much like an old car that should no longer be on the road.

They're being shut down long before they are anywhere near being obsolete or have reached their useful lifespan. They are being shutdown because the EPA is forcing them to shut down. If you don't know that, then you're an ignoramus or a propagandist.

The building of power plants represents a major capital investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, years of construction, licenses, and all kinds of red tape. They're not just going to be shut down for that reason alone not to mention the fact that the surrounding communities rely on them for power generation, and a shutdown is going to negatively impact probably hundreds of thousands of people.

What's MORE likely is that the plants will be converted to a different power source.

Of course, if you have evidence to the contrary that relatively new power plants are simply being shut down, how about supplying some specific plant closings for review by everyone here?

They will shut down if the government gives them no other choice, and that is what it has done. What makes you think a coal fired plant can be converted to use natural gas?

 

[bripat9643]

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=11651

Mercury contamination of fish is a widespread problem in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Health advises people to limit consumption of some fish species from all lakes and rivers in Minnesota. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s waters listed as “impaired” under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act are on the list due to mercury.

The mercury that contaminates Minnesota’s fish comes almost entirely from atmospheric deposition. Rain and snow transport mercury to the state’s land, lakes and rivers, and mercury can also fall from the atmosphere as dry deposition. About 30 percent of the mercury that is deposited from the air comes from natural sources, such as volcanoes and the weathering of rock.

But 70 percent of the deposited mercury results from human activities that release mercury from the
geological materials in which it had been locked up. These activities include the mining of mercury ores,
using mercury in products and manufacturing, and the release of trace concentrations of mercury naturally present in coal, crude oil and metallic ores.

The bottom line is that very little of it comes from coal fired power plants.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3937

"How do America’s coal-burning power plants fit into the picture? They emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. But U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons; Chinese power plants eject 400 tons; and volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year.

All these emissions enter the global atmospheric system and become part of the U.S. air mass. Since our power plants account for less than 0.5% of all the mercury in the air we breathe, eliminating every milligram of it will do nothing about the other 99.5% in our atmosphere.​

"