Re-Using Power Plant Pollutant

Coal fired power plants use chemical scrubbers in their
smokestacks to reduce pollution. Now researchers are working on
ways to re-use what’s scrubbed out of the stacks. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight has more:

Transcript

Coal fired power plants use chemical scrubbers in their smokestacks to
reduce pollution. Now researchers are working on ways to re-use what’s
scrubbed out of the stacks. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight
has more:


Warren Dick is a soil scientist at Ohio State University. He’s been
studying synthetic gypsum, which comes from coal-fired power plants that
use scrubbers to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. While nobody wants sulfur
in the air we breathe, Dick says it is often needed by farmers for some of
their crops.


“Sulfur is one of five or six major plant nutrients that are required for good
plant growth, and our soils are becoming deficient in sulfur. We’re not
getting it out of the atmosphere as much anymore.”


Dick’s research shows crops do better using synthetic gypsum as a sulfur
fertilizer. Coal is burned to generate more than half of the electricity in
the U.S., but it results in approximately 120 million tons of waste
each year, and Dick says the tonnage is likely to increase as
additional clean air measures are imposed.


For the GLRC, I’m Fred Kight.

Related Links

New Power Plants to Dry Up Water Supplies?

  • The Kaskaskia River has been low lately because of lack of rain. But nearby power plants also draw a lot of water from the river... making residents who depend on the river nervous. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

The U.S. will need more electricity in the next few decades. To keep pace with demand, companies plan to build more power plants. Battles over power generation usually involve air quality or even how much fossil fuel is used to generate electricity. But one community’s facing a fight over how much water a new power plant might use. It’s a debate more of us might face in the future. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

The U.S. will need more electricity in the next few decades. To keep pace with demand, companies plan to build more power plants. Battles over power generation usually involve air quality or even how much fossil fuel is used to generate electricity. But one community’s facing a fight over how much water a new power plant might use. It’s a debate more of us might face in the future. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:


(sound of boat motor starting up)


A bearded guy by the name of Smitty is helping fisherman heave off from his riverside marina. On this sweltering afternoon, the marina’s hosting a big fishing tournament. The tournament’s bringing in lots of business, but Smitty’s got a problem. The area’s been hard up for rain recently, and the water’s pretty shallow.


“It makes quite a bit of difference. A lot of the access areas, the small river channels that lead into here aren’t accessible when the water gets low. It’d affect our business, mean a lot less people being able to use it.”


Smitty wonders whether there’s something else keeping this river, the Kaskaskia, shallow. Lately, he’s been asking whether a coal-fired power plant has been using too much river water. The Baldwin power plant, just east of the St. Louis metro area, is owned by Dynegy – a big power company.


Baldwin cools its generators with water from the Kaskaskia. Now another company, Peabody, is building its own power plant nearby. And that new plant will need river water to cool its generators, too.


Several environmental groups and local activists oppose the project. They say the Kaskaskia doesn’t have enough water for a new power plant. They say wildlife, boaters, and city drinking supplies already use the Kaskaskia. The Peabody Company says the plant won’t endanger the river’s water levels. The company will use the latest technology to conserve water.


But, even with hi-tech equipment, Peabody wanted to pump about 30 million gallons each day from the Kaskaskia. State regulators said no, and restricted the plant to 13 million gallons a day. That’s still about as much water as a town of 85,000 people uses, and only 10 percent of the water is ever returned to the river, the rest just evaporates.


Kathy Andria is with a local Sierra Club chapter. She says the project’s water needs are surprising, and worrisome.


“They have water battles out in the West. We haven’t had it before here, but this is really showing what’s in the future for us.”


Andria’s fears could apply not just to this river, but everywhere. The power industry’s already the biggest user of water in the United States, but it’s likely to need even more water soon. In the next few decades, electric companies plan to build at least 100 power plants that will need lots of water.


Right now, no one’s sure what will happen when they start drawing water from lakes, rivers and underground wells. In the meantime, the power industry is looking at ways to better use water.


Robert Goldstein is with the Electrical Power Research Institute, an industry research group. He says the industry’s improving systems that use no water at all, but those are very expensive. In the meantime, though, demands on water continue to rise. And Goldstein says the industry is aware that it has to compete for water.


“It’s not a question of how much water is there. It’s a question of how much water is there, versus what all the various stakeholders want to do with that water, what their aggregate demand is.”


He says even in regions that seem to have a lot of water, communities need to look closely at their future water needs. Goldstein says everyone, not just the power industry, will need to plan water use better.


People outside the industry are also watching how much water power plants use. Dr. Benedykt Dziegielewski is finishing a federal study on the subject. He worries about situations where several power plants draw from the same river or other water source at the same time.


“If you locate another plant, more water will be diverted from the system and at some point it will pre-empt other uses in the future from that same source.”


He says many areas could see more of these kinds of fights over water. Until we know more about demands for water, Dziegielewski says the industry should be as efficient as possible.


“As we go into the future, there is a need to control or reduce the amount of fresh water that is used for electricity generation.”


Environmentalists say that’s the least that can be done. They’re asking why coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants have been allowed to use so much water already. But not all power sources do.


Wind power and other alternatives use little, if any, water. A U.S. Department of Energy report recently made that point.


But given the political clout of the fossil fuel industry, it’s still easier and cheaper to generate power that needs lots of water.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

New Coal Fired Power Plant on Lakeshore?

  • A new power plant on Lake Michigan has some environmentalists worried. (Photo courtesy of Wisconsin USGS)

Construction is expected to start soon on what could become one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the Midwest. Some worry that more coal plants are likely to follow. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Construction is expected to start soon on what could become one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the Midwest. Some worry that more coal plants are likely to follow. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently overturned one of the legal challenges to a power plant expansion along Lake Michigan south of Milwaukee. The company WE Energies wants to build two new coal-fired plants producing more than twelve hundred megawatts of electricity.


Sierra Club attorney Bruce Nilles says many other coal-fired
plants are on the drawing board around the Upper Midwest. He says
regulators can either embrace old and dirty technology or
move toward a more innovative system.


“That we know is available today, whether it’s burning
coal, natural gas, or the opportunity to build new wind farms across
the Upper Midwest, those are the choices we’re facing.”


The owners of the Wisconsin power plant say they will use modern
technology to hold down certain types of air pollution and minimize
the harm to aquatic life in Lake Michigan.


Environmental groups are still challenging some of the plant’s air and water permits.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

A Cleaner Coal-Fired Power Plant

  • 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.


For the GLRC, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

Wind Turbines Stir Up Neighbors (Part 2)

Most people think renewable energy is a good idea. It’s better
than burning fossil fuel to create electricity. But “green energy”
alternatives
can be controversial. Windmill farms are springing up all across the
nation.
Some people think the windmills are eyesores. But others say windmill farms
can help preserve the agricultural landscape by supplementing the income of
farmers. In the second of a two-part series on wind energy, the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:

Transcript

Most people think renewable energy is a good idea. It’s better than burning fossil
fuel to create
electricity. But “green energy” alternatives can be controversial. Windmill farms
are springing
up all across the nation. Some people think the windmills are eyesores. But others
say windmill
farms can help preserve the agricultural landscape by supplementing the income of
farmers.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:


For 30 years, Matt Mauer raised crops and livestock on his farm about 10 miles from
the Lake
Michigan shoreline. Today, he’s in his backyard looking at the land now farmed by
his daughter
and son-in-law. Standing there, he feels a crop they’re not harvesting.


“The good Lord makes it windy all the time for us, so let’s use it, you know.
Because I’m like
everybody else. When I get up in the morning, I want lights.”


Mauer’s hoping to put four wind turbines on his family’s farm near Ludington,
Michigan. That
would power about 24-hundred homes. Nearby, a renewable energy company’s working with
other farmers to build a hundred turbines in the area. Mauer says many of his
neighbors want in
on the deal because they think wind energy could help save their farms.


“It’s hard to make a living just farming right now. And I consider the wind one of
the crops that
we could harvest. It will help keep farmers on the land. Like if, in this place, if
we could get
seven–thousand dollars a year, six-thousand dollars a year for four of them, that’d
make it a hell
of a lot easier to keep the people here and farm.”


The state government’s backing similar projects. It’s training financial advisors
to show farmers
how they can turn a profit with windmills.


But not everyone likes the idea. Some people who live in the area around the
planned windmills
say they’re worried the towers would destroy the region’s charm. That’s linked to
property values
and to tourism. And they don’t like the size of the proposed windmills. Each one
would be four-
hundred feet tall. The blades would have a diameter nearly as long as a football
field.


It’s a story that’s heard in many places. Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the prairies of
Illinois, and
around the Great Lakes. For example, a Michigan couple who wanted large-scale
turbines on
their property ended up losing a court-battle against local government that opposed
the plan. And
two turbines already in place in Mackinaw City – between Lake Michigan and Lake
Huron –
have some unhappy neighbors as well.


Thomas and Virginia Alexander’s home is about 15-hundred feet away from the windmills.
They’re in their eighties and they both wear hearing aids… but even without them,
they say the
windmills are loud…


Tom Alexander: “There’s things about it we don’t appreciate, at times the noise –
not always –
depending upon the wind and the direction.
Virginia Alexander: “Yesterday. Very noisy yesterday. The wind was high and they,
you could
really hear them.”
Tom Alexander: “Just a continual swish, swish, swish, swish, swish.”


Windmill developers say the sound is no louder than normal speech. But this noise is
different. It
goes beyond the frequencies of normal speech. The sound can travel long distances
through both
the ground and the air. They keep Virginia Alexander awake some nights.


Tom and Virginia Alexander’s son Kelly lives next door with his family. He calls
himself a
windmill victim. He has this advice for others:


“Don’t let them go in your backyard. There are places they can go. You don’t just
put those in
somebody’s backyard. I don’t think it’s right.”


A lot of people agree with the Alexanders. Even wind energy boosters concede that
location is
key to successful projects. David Johnson heads up the program for the state of
Michigan that’s
encouraging farmers to allow windmills on their land. He says turbines should be
constructed
where there’s lots of wind and few neighbors. But he says when people say ‘no’ to
windmills,
they should consider the alternative.


“So, does that mean that you should build another big coal-fired plant? Is that the
preferable way
of doing it with the global warming impacts and the mercury pollution and so on that
go with
that? Is that the choice that the public wants to make?


States across the nation are struggling to find the right balance between clean
energy and the
beauty of an uncluttered landscape. Few regulations are in place right now. More
and more,
communities will be facing the decision of whether clean energy and keeping farmers
on the land
is worth the price of adding wind turbines to the scenery.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Linda Stephan.

Related Links

Report: Big Mercury Reductions Are Affordable

  • 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.

Related Links