Tag: coal-burning power plants

Green Travel Series: Airlines

  • Airplane manufacturers such as Boeing are working on improving the fuel efficiency of planes. But it might take some airline companies a while to upgrade their fleets. (Photo courtesy of The Boeing Company)

Getting somewhere by airplane used to be a luxury. Now many of us wouldn’t know life without it. As air travel gets more and more popular, there’s been more concern about the environmental impacts of our flying habits. Rebecca Williams takes a look at what’s happening in the skies:

Transcript

Getting somewhere by airplane used to be a luxury. Now many of us
wouldn’t know life without it. As air travel gets more and more
popular, there’s been more concern about the environmental impacts of
our flying habits. Rebecca Williams takes a look at what’s happening
in the skies:


Air travel still takes a backseat to car travel as a way to get around.
But it’s growing by about 5 percent a year. There are more low cost
carriers these days, and plane tickets are cheaper, in real dollars,
than they used to be.


Airplanes have gotten a lot more efficient, but they’re not off the
hook, either. They burn fossil fuels, so they emit carbon dioxide.
CO2 is almost universally agreed to be the main culprit of global
warming.


Planes are responsible for about 3% of man-made CO2 emissions.
Compared to cars and coal-burning power plants, that looks like a
pretty small percentage.


But there’s something else unique to planes that has scientists
concerned.


Gidon Eshel is a climate scientist at Bard College at Simon’s Rock. He
says planes also emit nitrous oxide and water vapor. That’s the
contrail you see. Both of those gasses can trap heat in Earth’s
atmosphere:


“The emissions associated with aviation are very important – roughly
twice as important as CO2 alone because they occur in such high reaches
of the atmosphere.”


Eshel says the effects of nitrous oxide and water vapor are stronger
than when they’re released near the ground.


There’s not much planes can do about flying so high up. But the
airline industry says it’s hard at work to make its planes more fuel
efficient.


Bill Glover directs environmental strategy for Boeing Commercial
Airplanes:


“The distance we could fly on a gallon of gas 50 years ago, we can now
do on less than a quart of gas. What we have ahead of us is more
improvements in materials, engines, aerodynamics, all of those are
going to contribute to fuel efficiency.”


Both Boeing and Airbus have unveiled shiny new planes that get more
miles to the gallon. So airlines should rush out and get the latest
models, right?


Well, it’s not that simple.


For starters, there’s the price tag: anywhere from about 14 million all
the way up to 300 million dollars.


Gueric Dechavanne is an airline industry analyst with OAGback Aviation
Solutions. He says it’s definitely in the airlines’ best interest to
upgrade their fleets. He says the cost of fuel has risen dramatically
over the past couple of years. But Dechavanne says even if airlines
can afford the newest model, it’ll be a long time before they can get
it:


“It’s not as easy as placing the order and getting the airplane today.
From the standpoint of the 787, the latest and greatest, 2014 or 2015
is the earliest delivery you can get it if you place an order today.”


Generally, the younger the airline company, the more fuel efficient
their fleet will be. Dechavanne says that means newer low cost
carriers such as JetBlue, Skybus and Spirit have the newest planes.


He says the so-called legacy airlines – such as Northwest and American
Airlines – have older fleets because they’ve been around for a while.
They have a much harder time upgrading their fleets. Dechavanne says
airlines don’t want to retire a plane before they’ve squeezed a full
life out of it:


“For the majority of U.S. carriers the fleet is still fairly young;
it’s tough for them to replace all of the inefficient airplanes just
because of the fact that fuel has gotten out of control.”


Dechavanne says, instead, some carriers are looking at less expensive
fixes – such as adding winglets to the plane to make it more
aerodynamic.


The experts have advice for travelers, too: Try to avoid connecting
flights.


Climate scientist Gidon Eshel says direct flights are better than
flights with several stops. And although it sounds counterintuitive,
it’s more efficient to take one really long flight a year than a bunch
of shorter flights.


That’s because airplanes have an ideal cruising height – about 30,000
feet up:


“To get there they need to climb a whole lot which makes short flights
relatively inefficient, sometimes very inefficient compared to long
flights.”


Another thing the experts recommend is lightening the load: pack light
and leave the hardcover books at home.


And as much as we all hate jam-packed planes, putting a lot of people
on one flight is actually better for the environment than having extra
legroom.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Overloaded Power Grids

Parts of the Midwest have reached record high temperatures on some days
this summer. That means more people are cranking their air
conditioners to full blast. Rebecca Williams reports the electric
industry says more needs to be done to handle increasing energy
demands:

Transcript

Parts of the Midwest have reached record high temperatures on some days
this summer. That means more people are cranking their air
conditioners to full blast. Rebecca Williams reports the electric
industry says more needs to be done to handle increasing energy
demands:


Hot summer days test the limits of our electric system.


Ed Legge is a spokesperson for the Edison Electric Institute, a power
company industry group. He says transmission systems in three parts of
the country are overburdened: the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic and
southern California.


“They’re very congested, they’re very similar to a highway system
that’s got way more traffic on it than it was designed to have on it.”


A massive blackout four years ago left about 50 million people in the
dark.


Legge says to avoid future blackouts, new transmission lines and more
power generating capacity are needed.


More than 150 new coal-burning power plants are proposed around the
country, but the power companies and some environmentalists say we
could avoid building some of those plants if we cut our energy use.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

States Sue Epa Over Mercury Contamination

The EPA recently finalized its mercury reduction plan for coal-burning power plants. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage developing children. Now 16 states are taking the EPA to court, saying the so-called “cap-and-trade” plan doesn’t go far enough. The GLRC’s Gregory Warner reports:

Transcript

The EPA recently finalized its mercury reduction plan for coal-burning power
plants. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage developing children. Now
16 states are taking the EPA to court saying
the so-called “cap-and-trade” plan doesn’t go far enough. The GLRC’s
Gregory Warner reports:


The coalition of states filed the suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
DC Circuit, challenging the cap-and-trade rule.


Cap-and-trade allows operators of older power plants to swap pollution
credits with newer plants instead of minimizing their own emissions.


EPA regulators say their program will cut mercury pollution by 70 percent over the
next 12 years. The states say mercury is too dangerous for a go-slow
approach. Emily Green is with the Sierra Club:


“Just a little bit can cause major problems for children’s health in
particular, so right now we have the technology to reduce mercury from coal
plants by 90 percent, that’s what we should do.”


In contrast to the EPA rule, more than 20 states have adopted or are moving
to adopt more stringent rules to reduce mercury emissions.


For the GLRC, I’m Gregory Warner.

Related Links

Utilities React to Air Pollution Case

A group of electric utilities hopes the EPA appeals a recent ruling in a major air pollution case. Coal-burning power plants, refineries and older factories are watching the case closely. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

A group of electric utilities hopes the EPA appeals a recent ruling in a major air
pollution case. Coal-burning power plants, refineries and older factories
are watching the case closely. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


A court in Washington D.C. recently ruled against the EPA’s plan to
make changes in the new source review portion of the federal Clean Air
Act. The Bush Administration had wanted to make it easier for utilities to
make major upgrades at power plants without having to install expensive
pollution controls. But fourteen states worried the plants would just get
bigger and pollute more…so they had sued the EPA.


The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council represents some power
companies across the U.S. Council Director Scott Segal says the federal
agency ought to appeal the new source ruling.


“Because they would not want this court case to stand as a principled
statement of environmental law.”


Environmentalists have cheered the recent court decision on new source
review, but said they expected it would be a while before utilities and the
EPA would accept the decision.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Epa Proposes New Air Pollution Rules

Environmentalists say the Bush administration is ignoring the government’s own scientists in new proposed air pollution rules. The rules reject advice to further restrict soot and other fine particle pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Environmentalists say the Bush administration is ignoring the
government’s own scientists in new proposed air pollution rules. The
rules reject advice to further restrict soot and other fine particle pollution.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Environmental Protection Agency’s own staff scientists and the
independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee both found the
EPA needed to issue more restrictive rules regarding fine particulate
matter, that’s soot emitted from sources such as diesel trucks and coal-
burning power plants.


After reviewing 2000 studies linking particulate matter to asthma, heart
attacks, and early death for people with heart and lung disease, the
scientists concluded that standards set by the Clinton administration in
1997 did not go far enough to help reduce health risks. Despite that, the
Bush EPA appointees basically plan to keep restrictions where they are.


The power plant industry indicates further restrictions would be a
financial burden to it, and provide only marginal public health benefits.


Environmentalists say the Bush administration’s proposed rules ignore
mountains of medical research showing this kind of air pollution causes
serious health problems.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Epa Asthma Ad Campaign Warns Parents

  • The EPA's public service announcement features a child who describes feeling like a fish with no water when he has an asthma attack. (Photo courtesy of the EPA)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is airing a public service campaign on television to get parents to do a better job of limiting their children’s exposure to asthma triggers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is airing a public service campaign on television to
get parents to do a better job of limiting their children’s exposure to asthma triggers. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The TV campaign is directed at people who have asthma, but who are not taking even the most
simple steps to avoid asthma triggers such as secondhand smoke, dust mites, and ground level
ozone. One of the ads depicts a tiny goldfish out of the water… flopping…


CHILD: “When I have an asthma attack, I feel scared. Sometimes my parents have to take me to
the hospital. I feel like a fish with no water. ANNOUNCER: You know how to react to their
asthma attacks. Here’s how to prevent them.”


The EPA is offering educational materials in how to avoid the triggers. But parents can’t avoid
all the asthma triggers. An EPA spokesperson conceded there are other factors… such as air
pollution from diesel vehicles and coal-burning power plants. The EPA says it’s making progress
on those problems.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Market-Based Approach to Mercury Reductions

For the first time, the U.S. government is preparing to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Part of the administration’s proposal is to use a market-based approach, called “cap-and-trade.” People in the energy business say “cap-and-trade” programs are proven tools to protect the environment at a lower cost. But some critics say a pollutant as toxic as mercury should have a more traditional and tougher regulatory program. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:

Transcript

For the first time, the U.S. government is preparing to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants. Part of the administration’s proposal is to use a market-based approach, called “cap-
and-trade.” People in the energy business say “cap-and-trade” programs are proven tools to protect
the environment at a lower cost. But some critics say a pollutant as toxic as mercury should have a
more traditional and tougher regulatory program. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner
reports:


Thirty-four years ago, the nation saw its first fish consumption advisory. The state of Michigan
warned people not to eat too much fish from Lake St. Clair, which sits between lakes Huron and
Erie, not too far from Detroit. Michigan environmental officials discovered high levels of mercury
in many kinds of fish. Dow Chemical was dumping 200 to a thousand pounds of mercury a day
through a pipe straight into the St. Clair River.


John Hesse worked for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources back them. Hesse and his
colleagues found that people who ate fish from the lake twice a week or more had unsafe levels of
mercury in their system.


Hesse says in the U.S., the biggest mercury danger is to unborn babies whose mothers eat
contaminated fish.


“In children exposed at an early stage, they have a slower developmental pattern, onset of
walking might be affected, learning disabilities. It might be very subtle, but still affecting the
child’s potential.”


The government has stopped a lot of that kind of pollution. But, mercury is still a big problem.
Today, coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury pollution. The Bush
administration is calling for a cap-and-trade program to regulate mercury emissions.


Here’s how cap-and-trade works. The “cap” part sets national goals for reducing pollution and it
doles out pollution credits to each power plant based on those goals.


The “trade” part of cap-and-trade lets industries buy, sell or bank pollution credits to stay under
federal limits. It’s a lot like trading commodities in the markets. For example, a company that
pollutes over the limit can buy credits from companies that pollute less. Every plant might not
become cleaner, but nationwide mercury pollution would still be reduced.


Such a program’s been in place since 1990 for sulfur dioxide, a main component of acid rain.
Ohio-based American Electric Power is the biggest player in the sulfur dioxide trading game. The
company’s Dale Heydlauff says emissions trading is good for industry and for the environment.


“There was actually an incentive for utilities to, very early in the program, overcomply –
reduce emissions more than the law required, bank those allowances or those credits and
then trade them either with other facilities within your own company, or with external
parties whose cost of control is higher.”


In fact, sulfur dioxide emissions trading has saved American Electric Power 20- to 30-percent of
what it would cost to retro-fit all of its plants.


Heydlauff and others in the energy business say the EPA’s cap-and-trade plan is the right way to
deal with mercury, too. They say it’s better than traditional programs that demand expensive
upgrades on every plant. Heydlauff says there’s no proven technology to reduce mercury
emissions that will work everywhere.


“So what the trading system does for mercury, is it allows us to innovate. It allows us to
achieve the environmental requirement at a lower cost, but also through a variety of
different means.”


There’s one major difference between a cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide and mercury –
mercury is toxic to people. Environmentalists and people who’ve studied mercury say there’s more
at stake here than just economic costs.


David Gard is with the Michigan Environmental Council. He says there is technology available
today to cut mercury emissions. Gard says municipal and medical waste incinerators have used it
to cut mercury pollution by 90 percent. But Gard says power companies won’t embrace that
because installing the equipment would cost more money. Gard calls the Bush administration’s less
restrictive cap-and-trade programs a gift to the energy industry.


“The percentage reductions that they’re proposing are well below what we know available
technology and near-term technology can deliver. And also, for one of their proposals, it
would delay reductions by almost a full decade, out to 2018, when really, we should be
expecting major reductions from these sources by 2010.”


Gard also worries that a cap-and-trade program could worsen mercury hot spots – places where
contamination is more concentrated. He says under cap-and-trade, companies could pick and
choose which plants in their system to upgrade. Gard says that could leave some communities with
dirty air and big health concerns.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

Administration Changes Mercury Rules

The new chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is introducing rules for reducing mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. But environmentalists and others say the rules actually rollback provisions in the Clean Air Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

The new chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is introducing rules for reducing
mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. But environmentalists and others say the
rules actually rollback provisions in the Clean Air Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Julie Grant reports:


Mercury is toxic. It can cause brain damage, especially in young children and fetuses. Forty-
percent of the mercury in air pollution comes from power plants, but it’s never been regulated as
a pollutant. The EPA had planned reductions of 90-percent by 2007. But now, the Bush
administration plans reductions of only 70-percent by 2018.


EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt praises the plan as good for the environment and the economy.
Environmentalists and others say it’s a complete deception. To implement the new program, they
say the administration has downgraded mercury from the “hazardous pollutant” category. Leavitt
denies that:


“We are not changing the status of mercury at all. It is a dangerous toxin and our objective is to
reduce it in the most aggressive way we possibly can.”


The new rules regulating mercury go into effect next December. For the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

State to Force Mercury Reductions?

Mercury emissions from more than 150 coal-burning power plants across the Great Lakes are coming under greater scrutiny this summer. Several states are considering ways to reduce those emissions. Wisconsin could become the first state in the nation to issue rules requiring large mercury reductions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach has the story: