New Coal Plants on the Drawing Board

  • Members of Dooda Desert Rock. From left, Alice Gilmore, Elouise Brown, her son JC, her brother-in-law and her grandfather, Julius Gilmore. Her grandparents Alice and Julius lived their whole lives just down the hill from here. They would have to be relocated if the power plant is built. (Photo by Daniel Kraker)

To meet the country’s growing demand for
energy, there are about 150 new
coal-burning power plants on the drawing board.
But not everyone is thrilled about relying on
coal as a future energy source. Daniel Kraker
takes us to a place where people have
lived next to these power plants for decades.
And now they’re fighting plans to build another
one:

Transcript

There’s been a lot of talk about developing clean energy sources, like wind and solar
power. But coal is still king. And to meet the country’s growing energy demand there are
about 150 new coal fired power plants on the drawing board. But not everyone is thrilled
about relying on coal as a significant future energy source. Daniel Kraker takes us to a
place where people have lived next to these power plants for decades. And now they’re
fighting plans to build another one:


In northwest New Mexico, the Navajo Indian reservation is a spectacular other-worldly
landscape of mesas and giant sandstone rock formations jutting out of the red earth.
Underneath the ground are huge reserves of coal. This is where the Navajo government
and a company called Sithe Global Power want to build a 1500-megawatt power plant
called Desert Rock, and it’s here where a small group of Navajos who oppose the project
have set up their base of resistance.


“It’s called Dooda Desert Rock, Dooda means ‘no’ in Navajo.”


That’s Elouise Brown. She’s president of a group of Navajos who live near the proposed
construction site. They’ve been camped out there since December, in a small plywood
shack attached to a trailer. Brown says she’s quit her day job to protest the project full-time:


“I think this whole coal plant is just, people are just looking at dollar signs. They don’t
care about their people, they don’t care about their mother earth, global warming…And I
think it’s about time that we be heard, we’re going to stand here and stay here until
somebody listens to us.”


Brown walks outside the shack with her son and grandfather, Julius Gilmore. He points
out in Navajo where the power plant would go.


“You see the drill down there? It’s just northeast of there…”


“And that’s your grandfather’s house right there?”


“Yes.”


Her grandparents have spent their entire life there. They’ll have to be relocated if the plant
is built.


From the protestors’ camp the tips of two giant smokestacks are visible. The Four Corners
and San Juan Generating Stations were built in the 1970s during the last big construction
wave of coal fired plants. Desert Rock would be the third power plant in this area. Frank
Maisano is a spokesman for Desert Rock:


“Already in the region there is 2300 megawatts of new requests for power, and that is just to
satisfy massive growth in the region right now. Those who say that, ‘Oh we just won’t use
coal.’ They’re not looking at the larger picture, which says we really do have to have a
balanced approach, not just that we don’t like this one little carbon dioxide emission that
comes from this plant.”


Maisano says Desert Rock would be one of the cleanest coal fired plants in the country.
He says scrubbers would remove many of the harmful chemicals that can lead to health
problems and smog. And it would cough up less carbon dioxide than the older generation
of coal-fired plants.


“It’s a higher heat rate so that the coal is heated up so it combusts more completely,
basically what you’re doing is, you’re getting more efficiency, you’re getting more
megawatts out of less coal.”


Still, Desert Rock would emit about 10 million tons of CO2 every year. That’s only about
15% less than older plants. There are 150 coal fired plants like this one on the
drawing board across the country, and 40 of those are likely to start up in the next five
years.


Many environmentalists worry if Desert Rock and other coal plants are built, we’ll be
saddling the country with growing greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come.
Roger Clark is Air and Energy Director with the Grand Canyon Trust:


“As a nation we should consider a ban on all new coal plants. We’re at a point now where
we need to start reversing the amount of greenhouse gasses that we’re putting into the
atmosphere. It’s 19th century technology here in the 21st century that is something that we
don’t need.”


The country’s population is growing, and our thirst for energy is growing right along with
it. Roger Clark and others believe we can meet that growing demand through energy
efficiency improvements, combined with investments in renewables.


Here in the southwest, the Navajo Nation is in the early stages of developing a wind farm.
But that would only produce 200 megawatts of electricity; Desert Rock would be seven
times that size.


The tribe’s primary focus in this debate isn’t CO2 emissions, or climate change, it’s
revenue. Desert Rock would generate an estimated 50 million dollars annually for the
impoverished tribe. If the plant gets its final environmental approvals, and it isn’t taken to
court, that money could start flowing as early as 2012.


For the Environment Report, I’m Daniel Kraker

Related Links

An Alternative to Waste Incinerators

  • A new process called alkaline hydrolysis is forecasted to be a cheaper, safer way to dispose of animal carcasses. (Photo by Dr. Beth Williams, University of Wyoming, courtesy of CWD Alliance)

Animal research labs usually get rid of carcasses by burning them in incinerators. Now, a new more environmentally friendly technology is being used to dispose of the diseased dead animals and the lab supplies they contaminate. The new method has worked well enough that hospitals are considering it as a way to dispose of medical waste. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert reports:

Transcript

Animal research labs usually get rid of carcasses by burning them in incinerators. Now, a new more environmentally friendly technology is being used to dispose of the diseased dead animals and the lab supplies they contaminate. The new method has worked well enough that hospitals are considering it as a way to dispose of medical waste. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert reports:


Until recently, the only safe way to destroy diseased tissue and other infectious waste was to burn it in an incinerator. But dangerous chemicals such as dioxins spew from the incinerator smokestacks, and burning leaves behind a toxic ash.


(sound of machine whirring)


Now, there’s an alternative to burning. Dr. Gordon Kaye stands in a spotless room beside one of the units manufactured at a company he helped found, WR Squared, in Indianapolis, Indiana. The unit will eventually be used to dispose of 5,000 pounds of dead animals – about the equivalent of five large cows – that were used for veterinary research.


But there will be no smoke. There’ll be no fire.


Kaye’s idea for a new type of disposal technology began 12 years ago when he was a pathology professor at Albany Medical College. He was frustrated with how much it cost to dispose of dead research animals. So, he started experimenting with a new technology. And alkaline hydrolysis was born.


“Well, there are no air emissions from it. It’s a sealed system. It takes place in a hermetically sealed pressure vessel. No dangerous products are produced in it because of the temperature which it takes place.”


Alkaline hydrolysis works like this: infectious waste goes into a tightly sealed vessel, along with strong alkalis which are very caustic. The waste is then cooked at temperatures well above boiling. A chemical reaction causes the waste to break down. The infectious components are neutralized. When it’s over, you end up with two products: a sterile, water-like solution, that can head to a sanitary sewer system, and sterile crushed bones, the consistency of powder, that can be used as fertilizer. Because the end products are clean, they don’t require complicated disposal, so the process is cheaper than incineration.


WR squared now has 60 units in 15 states, primarily at research facilities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has purchased several of them. New York was the first state to allow use of the technology. Ira Salkin directed that state’s medical waste program when it approved WR squared’s process.


“It has less potential problems than is being found with incineration and the use of incineration in the U.S. is decreasing and therefore their system holds great promise. As the numbers of incinerators decrease, one finds they have this alternative to be used to treat pathologic material.”


Environmentalists agree with Salkin that the technology is sound. Horhay Emmanuel is with Health Care Without Harm. He notes that it’s especially effective for one troublesome type of waste, cattle dead from Mad Cow disease.


“Not only does it destroy infectious agents, but it also destroys prion-contaminated waste. And prions are what are believed to cause things like Mad Cow disease, which are difficult to destroy, even by incineration, so WR squared has been shown to destroy these prions in the contaminated waste.”


Last April, The Environmental Protection Agency approved alkaline hydrolysis, along with incineration, as a way to treat Mad Cow diseased waste. And WR Squared’s Gordon Kaye sees that as a big future market.


Horhay Emmanuel, with Health Care Without Harm, says while alkaline hydrolysis is generally good for the environment, there is one concern. The fluid that’s produced could overwhelm some small town’s sewer systems. The company says in communities with small sewer systems, the solution can be released more slowly or during off-peak hours.


So, alkaline hydrolysis process is cheaper, it pollutes less, government agencies like it, and environmentalists find little to criticize.
Now, the company is broadening its reach to treat hospital waste. Many hospitals are using smaller, not very efficient incinerators that pollute more.


WR Squared’s Gordon Kaye says he expects big growth with this new method to dispose of medical and infectious waste as labs and hospitals look for ways to replace their incinerators over the next several years.


For the GLRC, I’m Julie Halpert.

Related Links

Enviros Draw Attention to Ship Smog

A report by an environmental group says smokestacks on ships are becoming a larger source of air pollution in ports across the country. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports, the shipping industry says they’re in the process of cleaning things up:

Transcript

A report by an environmental group says the floating smokestacks on ships are becoming a larger
source of air pollution in ports across the country. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Mike Simonson reports, the shipping industry says they’re in the process of cleaning things up.


Environmental Defense says smog plagues big city ports…citing New York, Chicago, Detroit,
Cleveland and Toledo as having unhealthy levels. Jana Milford is a Senior Scientist with
Environmental Defense. She says diesel-operated ships don’t have as stringent regulation as
trucks; so while land-craft pollution is being reduced ship pollution remains the same. Milford says
in 25 years, ship smog will make up 28-percent of air pollution, four times higher than in 1996.


Glenn Neckvasil is with the Lake Carriers Association. He says ships are “green transportation”
compared to trucks and trains.


“On the U.S. side there are 65 U.S. flagged vessels working on the Lakes. They move about 125
million tons of cargo. I mean I don’t know how many thousands of locomotives and how many tens
of thousands of trucks are here in the region moving cargo.”


Neckvasil says ships are phasing in a new, low-sulfur fuel that will be required by 2010.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.

Related Links

Water Quality Data Collection Inefficient

A government report has found federal agencies collect a lot of data on water quality, but don’t always share the information in a way that can help the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A government report has found federal agencies collect a lot of data on water
quality, but don’t always share the information in a way that can help the
environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The investigative arm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, looked at how
federal agencies and state governments gather water quality data. It found the
different agencies are either not coordinating their efforts or have difficulty
doing that. That’s because: 1) agencies collect the same data for different
reasons; 2) they use different methods; 3) each agency is unaware what the
others are collecting; and 4) coordinating the information is just not a big
priority for them. The problem is collecting water quality data is expensive,
so duplication is a waste of taxpayer money.


The General Accounting Office is recommending Congress designate a lead agency
to coordinate the water quality data and establish clear standards so everyone
is measuring the same things in the same way.

For the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

States Contest Epa’s Particulate Standard

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a list of counties it says are out of compliance with new rules governing fine-particle pollution or soot. Dozens of the counties are in states in the Midwest, but many states are contesting the EPA’s list. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a list of counties it says
are out of compliance with new rules governing fine-particle pollution
or soot. Dozens of the counties are in states surrounding the Great
Lakes, but many states are contesting the EPA’s list. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports.


State environmental officials and the U.S. EPA agree about one thing:
fine-particle pollution, or soot, causes thousands of premature deaths
a year. But state officials say many of the counties on the EPA’s list
are actually complying with the new rules. Indiana says it only has
six counties out of compliance instead of 19. Southeast Michigan says
only two of its seven counties on the list are out of compliance.


Chuck Hersey is with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments,
which monitors air pollution. He says the EPA’s list could be both
costly and ineffective.


“Once the EPA puts a boundary around a larger area, you’re obliged to
put controls in that whole area even if they’re not necessary.”


EPA officials say they included many counties that they believe are
creating pollution that travels into nearby counties. That can be
because they have coal-fired power plants or lots of commuter traffic.
States have until September to convince the EPA to reconsider the list
before it becomes final.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m
Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Task Force Says Close Loopholes

Smokestack industries, such as coal-fired power plants and foundries, are using huge loopholes to continue to pollute at higher levels 25 years after Congress passed laws to reduce emissions. A government task force is recommending Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency make some major changes in the law to stop the polluters. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Smokestack industries, such as coal-fired power plants and foundries, are using huge loopholes to
continue to pollute at higher levels twenty-five years after Congress passed laws to reduce
emissions. A government task force is recommending Congress and the Environmental
Protection Agency make some major changes in the law to stop the polluters. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Congress and the EPA asked for the independent study by the National Academy of Public
Administration. The panel looked at loopholes in the Clean Air Act that exempted older
industrial plants from compliance until they were altered or updated, allowing only routine
maintenance. Much of the industry has taken full advantage of that loophole, defining “routine
maintenance” very broadly. The EPA says 80% of those older plants are under
investigation. Donald Kettl chaired the task force.


“When you’ve got a problem that’s been out there for 25 years and has really remained largely
unaddressed, it’s time for a fundamental, back-to-basics kind of look at the problem and the
creation of a new strategy to try to do what needs to be done much more efficiently, much more
effectively, and to do it in a way that produces much cleaner air.”


The task force recommends Congress close the loopholes completely and that the EPA get
tougher with the enforcement of the law.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Un Report Gives Region a Grade

The United Nation’s Environment Program says the Great Lakes are cleaner. But a new report says the U.S. and Canada need to do more to prevent problems due to urban growth, agricultural runoff and invasions of exotic species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The United Nation’s Environment Program says the Great Lakes are cleaner.
But a new report says the U.S. and Canada need to do more to prevent
problems due to urban growth, agricultural runoff and invasions of exotic
species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The U.N. report looks at what’s happened to the environment in the U.S. and
Canada for the last 30 years. It finds that there’s been significant progress
in protecting the ozone layer, reducing smokestack and auto emissions, and
slowing the loss of wetlands and other wildlife habitat.


The report in particular notes the progress made in cleaning up the Great Lakes. It
states that since 1972, the use, generation and release of several toxic
chemicals into the Great Lakes has been reduced by 71 percent. But, it also
finds that the two countries have not done a good job of stopping exotic
species such as the zebra mussel from damaging the environment of the lakes,
and it ticks off a list of toxic pollution problems from urban areas and
farms. The report concludes that North America’s global impact is disproportionately large compared to other countries in the world.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Meatpacker Pays for Pollution

The largest meatpacker in the world has agreed to pay millions of dollars in penalties because of pollution at its plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The largest meatpacker in the world has agreed to pay millions of dollars in penalties because of pollution at its plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Iowa Beef Packers, known as IBP Incorporated, has agreed to pay more than four million dollars in penalties and make ten million dollars in pollution prevention improvements at several of its plants. That agreement settles a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Among a number of violations at several plants, the EPA had charged that IBP was releasing large quantities of ammonia into the Missouri River and one of its plants emitted 19 times the maximum amount of the pollutant, hydrogen sulfide, from its smokestacks. Besides paying the penalties, IBP will upgrade its wastewater treatment facilities and install required air pollution control equipment. In a release, IBP states that it doesn’t “agree with the nature and extend to the claims made in the federal government’s lawsuit.” but it’s glad to put the matter behind it. IBP was recently acquired by Tyson Foods. Government officials say with the settlement, they hope IBP will now be a better neighbor. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Commentary – A New York State of Mind

Earlier this month (November), the U-S justice department filed the
latest in a string of lawsuits aimed at reducing pollution from coal
fired generating stations. As Great Lakes Radio Consortium
commentator Suzanne Elston points out, instead off wasting all their
time suing each other, the jurisdictions involved should follow the
example set by New York State:

Other States to Join New York Lawsuit

Air pollution has always ignored state boundaries. And now, New York’s
top lawyer is crossing state lines, as well. For the first time, an
attorney general in one state is threatening to sue power plants in
another. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, now
other states are considering joining the lawsuit: