The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is set to release
new rules on March 15th regarding mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Many expect the EPA will allow power plants to trade emissions credits to achieve mercury reductions. Critics say that approach puts the interests of industry before the health of people and the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is set to release new rules on March 15th
regarding mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Many expect the EPA will
allow power plants to trade emissions credits to achieve mercury reductions. Critics say
that approach puts the interests of industry before the health of people and the
environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Environmental groups are expecting the EPA will announce a cap-and-trade program.
Pollution trading might not make every power plant cleaner, but nationwide mercury
pollution would be reduced.
John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council says the government should
instead require plants to install technology that cuts mercury emissions. Walke says a
cap-and-trade program would delay clean-up for much longer.
“The Bush Administration through the EPA has absolutely bowed to the wishes of power
plants who want to continue to pollute at dangerous levels without spending the money
on the pollution controls that will protect the public from mercury poisoning.”
The EPA has said a trading program would achieve a 70% reduction in mercury
emissions by 2018. But further analysis by an agency within the Department of Energy
shows those reductions would not actually be achieved until some time after 2025.
So far, coal-burning power plants have been a dominant source of electricity for the U.S. They've also been known to be bad for the environment. New technology makes coal a cleaner source of fuel, but some environmentalists have their doubts. (Photo by Lester Graham)
A new kind of cleaner, coal-fired power plant will soon be built somewhere in the Midwest. American Electric Power, the nation’s largest producer of electricity, says the new plant will be more efficient and pollute less than traditional coal plants. But critics say if utilities were doing more to promote energy efficiency, they wouldn’t need to build new power plants that burn fossil fuels. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner
reports:
Transcript
A new kind of cleaner, coal-fired power plant will soon be
built somewhere in the Midwest. American Electric Power, the nation’s
largest producer of electricity, says the new plant will be more efficient
and pollute less than traditional coal plants. But critics say if utilities
were doing more to promote energy efficiency, they wouldn’t need to build
new power plants that burn fossil fuels. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Erin Toner reports:
Coal-fired power plants are blamed for contributing to air pollution and global warming and aggravating health problems such as asthma. In the 1970s, Congress passed the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution. But since many coal plants were built before the Clean Air Act, they’ve been exempt from pollution control updates.
So there are a lot of older, dirtier power plants out there. At the same time, demand for electricity is increasing. To meet demand, many utilities, including Ohio-based American Electric Power, are looking at building new plants, or adding on to their old ones. American Electric Power spokesperson Melissa McHenry says the company needs a new plant that will last at least 30 years.
“As we looked forward, you’re looking at increasingly stringent air quality regulations, so we wanted to ensure we would have a plant that would have improved environmental performance.”
And McHenry says the cleanest, and most efficient coal-burning process, is something practically brand-new to the industry. It’s called Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle, or IGCC. It converts coal to gas, and then removes pollutants from the gas before it’s burned. The process results in almost zero emissions of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, nitrogen oxides, which cause smog, and mercury, which is toxic to people and animals. There’s also much less carbon dioxide pollution, which is believed to contribute to global warming. And gasification is said to be twice as efficient as traditional coal plants.
There are a couple of IGCC plants in the US, but they’re small – only about a quarter of the size of a traditional coal plant. American Electric Power’s IGCC plant would be the biggest one to date – a full-size plant that would serve the power needs of more than a million homes in the Midwest. American Electric Power Spokesperson Melissa McHenry says this plant be only the first of its kind.
“We’re stepping up to build the first one and we think there will be more as we need additional generation capacity. And we think other utilities, you know, obviously other utilities have announced plans to look at this since we have announced ours. The U.S. has significant reserves of coal available, and we think it’s very important that we are able to use this domestic fuel source in a more environmentally responsible way going forward.”
Most environmentalists agree that IGCC is a much improved way to make power. But they say it’s not the best way, since it still depends on a non-renewable energy source – coal. Environmental groups say relying on coal is not a long-term solution to growing energy needs. Although, the coal industry says there is at least a 200-year supply. Marty Kushler is with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. He says utilities should consider ways to reduce the need to build new power plants.
“There are a number of other resource options available that can be achieved at a lower cost than building and fueling and operating a new power plant, such as energy efficiency. Energy efficiency can save electricity at a cost that is less than half the cost of building, fueling and operating a new power plant.”
But getting people to use less power isn’t that easy. Kushler says more states should implement power bill surcharges to fund programs to encourage the public to use more energy efficient appliances and cut electricity use.
But even with those kinds of programs, almost everyone agrees coal will be a part of the American energy mix for some time. And people in the energy industry say gasification is the future of coal power.
Jim Childress is with the Gasification Technologies Council. He says the only drawbacks right now are money. IGCC is about 20 percent more expensive than traditional coal power production. And he says there are a lot of bugs to work out in engineering one of these plants.
“The base technology is set. The question mark is based upon marrying that technology with about three, four, five major components and getting the darn thing to run right.”
Childress says the tough part is getting technology that’s working now on a small scale to work in a full-size coal plant.
American Electric Power says its Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle plant will cost 2 billion dollars, and should be online by 2010. The company is expected to announce a site for the new plant by summer.
A new study suggests that air pollution has a significant effect on developing babies. (Photo by Lester Graham)
A recent study indicates expectant mothers who are exposed to air pollution see damage to the genetic make up of their newborns. That might increase the babies’ risk of contracting cancer later in life. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A recent study indicates expectant mothers who are exposed to
air pollution see damage to the genetic make up of their newborns.
That might increase the babies’ risk of contracting cancer later in
life. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The expectant mothers were asked to carry air monitors in backpacks to see how much they were exposed to air pollutants. The Columbia University researchers chose 60 mothers in low-income neighborhoods. Dr. Frederica Perera is chief author of the study.
“All of our mothers in the study were non-smokers. So, the primary source of these pollutants in air would be things like motor vehicles, emissions from residential heating units, burning fossil fuel and also from power plants located even fairly far away.”
It’s the fist study to make a connection between air pollutants causing genetic changes in the womb that could increase cancer risk. Earlier studies by the researchers already revealed greater prenatal exposure to air pollution caused lower birth weights and smaller heads in newborns.
Smokestacks, diesel engines, and a number of other things cause particulate emissions, which can create some negative health effects, and aggravate existing health problems. (Photo by Kenn Kiser)
In the summer, local weather forecasts often
include information about dangerous ozone levels.
But scientists are learning more and more about
another type of pollution that can reach harmful
levels even in the winter months. And as the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports… we
might be hearing more about this type of pollution in
our daily weather reports:
Transcript
In the summer, local weather forecasts often include information about dangerous ozone levels. But scientists are learning more and more about another type of pollution that can reach harmful levels even in the winter months. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, we might be hearing more about this type of pollution in our daily weather reports:
Parts of the region recently reached “code red” for poor air quality. And
that had some people perplexed. Warnings about dangerous levels of ozone are
frequent on hot summer days, especially in urban areas. But this was the
middle of winter.
The warnings were for high levels of tiny particles that federal regulators
only recently began monitoring. They’re spewn from diesel engines,
factories, power plants, and fireplaces. Air monitors in Michigan,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Indiana recently registered unhealthy levels of
these particles – some of them for a few days straight.
Jim Haywood says the problem was an unusual weather event for this time of
year. Haywood is a meteorologist with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality. He says a high pressure system moved very slowly over
the Great Lakes region for several days. When you get high pressure, the air
below sinks, generating a layer of warm air that acts like a lid.
“So that warm air that was sinking effectively stops at a few hundred feet
from the surface of the ground. It acts like a cap. It does not let any of
the pollutants that are released at the surface pop up through that cap.”
So all the pollutants that would have gotten picked up and diluted by the
wind instead just hung out for days – building up, and reflecting sunlight
to create haze.
Eventually, a cold front pushed the high pressure system out of the way, and
took the pollution with it. But what about those few days when the Environmental Protection Agency was warning about unhealthy levels of particulate pollution? For people with
heart or lung disease, agency health officials say short-term episodes can
lead to asthma attacks or even heart attacks. And they say healthy children
and adults can experience throat and lung irritation.
Susan Stone is an environmental health scientist with EPA. She says
particle pollution warnings could soon become a staple of the daily weather
report – much like the familiar summer ozone warnings.
“With ozone, we have the network in place to be able to deliver those
forcasts, people are used to hearing that on TV, and we are working to
provide that same level of coverage for particle pollution.”
Stone says EPA is rolling out a new program called Enviro-Flash
nationwide. It sends real-time air quality information to people’s email
accounts or pagers. EPA is offering the service through state
environmental agencies. And beginning in 2010, areas that register
unacceptable levels of particle pollution will be required to clean up their
air.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
Ethanol often is made from corn, and one of the by-products, distillers grains, can be eaten by cows (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)
From cows come dairy products and beef, the by-products of the cow - manure - can be anaerobically "digested," and the by-products of that process can be used to carbonate soft drinks. It might seem like an environmental and economic dream, but some are not supportive of this idea. (Photo by Bram Dejonckheere)
It’s rare when a factory and a mega-farm can help reduce pollution. But a project planned in the Midwest promises just that. The project would produce a fuel additive that is thought to reduce air pollution; provide a market for farm goods; create scores of jobs… all while not harming the environment. The Ohio project is getting millions of dollars of help from the state and federal governments. But some people doubt the project will accomplish all it promises. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamara Keith
reports:
Transcript
It’s rare when a factory and a mega-farm can help reduce pollution. But a project planned in the Midwest promises just that. The project would produce a fuel additive that is thought to reduces air pollution, provide a market for farm goods, create scores of jobs – all while not harming the environment. The Ohio project is getting millions of dollars of help from the state and federal governments. But some people doubt the project will accomplish all it promises. Tamara Keith reports:
The project is called Harrison Ethanol. It will include an ethanol factory, using millions of bushels of corn to produce the gasoline additive. At the same location, thousands of dairy and beef cattle will live in fully enclosed barns. And then there’s the small power plant, which will be fueled by manure produced by the cattle. Wendel Dreve is the project’s director.
“I think the nicest way of describing our project is it’s a vertically-integrated, agriculturally-based industrial development.”
Dreve began working on the project nearly 4 years ago. He’s retired from the oil and gas industry and built a home in eastern Ohio farm country. His neighbors approached him about starting up a corn-powered ethanol factory – something that has not existed in Ohio in a decade.
“I told them that I didn’t think we could build a ethanol plant in Ohio because there are no state subsidies, so we had to figure out a way to raise the revenue streams internally and the only way we could figure out to do that was to employ animals.”
The 12-thousand cattle housed on site, will eat the main byproduct of ethanol production, a corn mush called distillers grains. The cattle will generate money too, from sales of milk and meat. But the cattle will create manure… lots of manure… about 50 million gallons of it a year. Dreve has a solution for that, too: a power-generating anaerobic digester.
“It eliminates nearly all of the odor, it processes all of the wastes from the entire facility. So it’s like an industrial waste treatment plant on site.”
60 times a day, manure will be flushed out of the animal barns and into the digester. A large, cement structure, where the manure is broken down by microbes.
“And at the other end, you get water and methane and carbon dioxide and some solids.”
The methane will run power generators, creating “green energy,” which can be sold at a premium. The carbon dioxide from the manure will be sold to make carbonated sodas. This would be the first anaerobic digester powered by cattle manure in Ohio, and one of only a handful nationwide. Dreve says his digester will be much better for the environment than open-air manure lagoons, the cheaper method most commonly used by farmers.
But not everyone agrees. Bill Weida is an economist and director of the Grace Factory Farm Project which opposes large concentrated animal farms. Weida says most anaerobic digesters are paid for with some kind of government assistance. Harrison Ethanol is no exception. The project received a 500-thousand-dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help pay for the digester.
“No one in their right mind who is looking for an economic investment would build a digester. The only reason you’d build one is if you had some sort of a government subsidy that would help pay for it.”
Harrison Ethanol also is receiving seventy-million dollars in financing assistance from the state of Ohio. In fact, the company indicates it got some very good legal and accounting help, to find the perfect location for the project to take advantage of state and federal tax credits. Add to that federal ethanol subsidies and federal subsidies for corn production, and Harrison Ethanol is getting plenty of help from taxpayers.
Ken Cook is executive director of the Environmental Working Group. He says ethanol might reduce air pollution and reliance on foreign oil, but it is not economically viable without those huge taxpayer subsidies.
“The worry is that what we’re really doing is bailing out failed agriculture policy with heavily subsidized energy policy. We’re going into the corn industry with another set of subsidies to basically turn corn, that would have been exported at a loss, into corn that is used to make fuel at a loss to taxpayers.”
That’s not how state officials see it. Bill Teets is a spokesman for the Department of Development which has been working to bring several ethanol plants to Ohio.
“We think that this is a great project because you help farmers, you create manufacturing, you have something that helps benefit the environment and it seems to be a good type of project that we can really benefit from.”
And if everything goes as planned, Wendel Dreve will build 2 more ethanol and cattle operations in Ohio. He’s already secured tax dollars from state and federal sources for those plants.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tamara Keith.
States are competing to have FutureGen, a power plant that claims to be pollution-free, built in their state. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy)
Coal-burning power plants from Great Lakes states are often blamed for much of the pollution that hits the East Coast. But now, the federal government is proposing a massive research project that they say could eventually perfect a way to burn high-sulfur coal without sparking pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen has this report:
Transcript
Coal-burning power plants from Great Lakes states are often blamed for much of the pollution that hits the East Coast. But now, the federal government is proposing a massive research project that they say could eventually perfect a way to burn high-sulfur coal without sparking pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen has this report:
The feds are proposing a massive one-billion-dollar plant that’s billed as the world’s first non-polluting, coal-burning power plant. About twenty states say they’ll compete for it. Ohio is one of them. Mark Shanahan of the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority says the plant will first turn coal into gas. And then either recycle or safely store the by-products.
“And when it turns to gas, it’s able to pull out the pollutants much more efficiently and economically. It will pull off hydrogen for fuel cells and it will also test the ability to put carbon dioxide into very deep geology to basically bind it up forever deep in the earth.”
The U.S. Energy Department will pay for most of the plant, but it will be several years before it’s actually online.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Cohen in Columbus.
The National Wildlife Federation says that "for the price of one cup of coffee per household per month," mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants could be dramatically reduced. (photo by Kenn Kiser)
According to a report by the National Wildlife Federation, steep reductions in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in the Great Lakes region can be achieved without sharp increases on household utility bills. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett has more:
Transcript
According to a report by the National Wildlife Federation, steep reductions in mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest/Great Lakes region can be achieved
without sharp increases on household utility bills. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett has more:
The report looked at coal-fired plants in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
It says 90 percent of mercury could be stripped from power plant emissions using available
technology, at a minimal cost. Zoe Lipman is with the National Wildlife Federation. She says
the benefits to public health would be quickly realized.
“When you cut mercury emissions, you see reductions in mercury in water and fish in a matter
of years, not decades.”
The National Wildlife Federation report looked at the cost of outfitting power plants with
a technology that uses carbon powder to capture mercury, and catch it in a fabric filter.
Utility companies say there’s no proven technology that strips mercury completely. They say
the technologies they’ve reviewed are more costly than what’s laid out in the report.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
The Environmental Protection Agency is accused of ignoring the disappearance each year of tons of mercury at several processing plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection agency is accused of ignoring the disappearance each year of tons
of mercury at several processing plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:
The plants make chlorine. Part of the process at these older plants involves putting an electric
current through big vats of mercury. Every year the plants buy tons more mercury, but don’t
report that it escapes as emissions. Three environmental groups have sued the EPA, saying the
agency isn’t protecting the public’s health when it allows that much mercury to just disappear.
Jim Pew is a lawyer with one of the groups, Earthjustice.
“The very simple question that came up is, ‘Gosh, where is all this mercury going?'”
“And nobody seems to be able to answer that?”
“No. The Environmental Protection Agency gave it a little bit of thought and then declared that –
and this is a quote, “…somewhat of an enigma.”
Mercury can cause neurological damage to humans. Fetuses and young children are especially at
risk. The environmental organizations want the EPA to find out what happens to all that mercury
and require the older plants to modernize to a process that doesn’t need mercury to make
chlorine.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
As many as eight new nuclear reactors might be built over the next twenty years if recommendations are acted on north of the border. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports… dwindling energy supplies have put Ontario’s new government in a corner, and political leaders say there may be little choice but to build more nuclear plants:
Transcript
As many as eight new nuclear reactors might be built over the next twenty years if
recommendations are acted on north of the border. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan
Karpenchuk reports, dwindling energy supplies have put Ontario’s new government in a corner,
and political leaders say there may be little choice but to build more nuclear plants:
Dwight Duncan is Ontario’s new Energy Minister.
And in a recent speech to business leaders in Toronto, he said his biggest challenge is to rebuild
the province’s capacity to provide power over the next twenty years.
His government has promised to close coal burning generating stations by 2007. In addition, all
of the province’s nuclear plants will reach the end of their natural lives by about 2020 unless
they’re refurbished. Government officials predict a huge energy shortfall unless decisions are
made soon.
And Duncan says that could mean more nuclear plants, despite opposition from
environmentalists.
“Absolutely, there’s a body of opinion in this province that I imagine would oppose any nuclear,
and that will be a debate if we go down that route, we will all have to engage in.”
Atomic Energy of Canada, a federal government corporation, is pushing a 12-billion dollar
proposal to build four pairs of new nuclear reactors in Ontario over the next twenty years. Those
plants would produce energy at a cost cheaper than natural gas fired plants or wind energy. The
problem is that they represent a new generation of reactors that use more enriched uranium than
their predecessors.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.
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.
