# How cleanly can they burn coal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 13, 2007, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844 "2007-12-13T13:16:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/21 "2007-12-15T05:13:23Z")
Jesus **Una** , _relax_, will ya? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/22 "2007-12-15T05:16:20Z")
[QUOTE=treis] None of which challenges or disputes what **A Monkey With a Gun** says. Somehow I am guessing if that these systems resulted in a massive savings of money instead of environmental savings that companies would find a way to get them up and running. [/QUOTE] It certainly does. “Loophole” is a charged word that implies that the reason we don’t have SCR+FGD+ACI+whatever on every coal plant in the US was because the industry got a special shady deal. And it didn’t - there were practical logistical, technology, engineering, and economic reasons for it. Remember, the CAA Amendments of 1990 are what we’re talking about. NOW, it is much more practical to expand the cleanup, and the cleanup could (and IMO should) accelerate, especially with the GHG NOx emissions. Hell, I’m all for it. I’ve been working on coal plants all over the world for more than 15 years, at every level from grubbing with plant maintenance workers in the ash pits to dinner with a utility exec richer than Donald Trump, and all of them want to have a cleaner power plant. Or I guess they’re all liars. But few are going to unilaterally clean up their plant while their competition (where it exists) doesn’t. The execs I talk to say they _want_ new legislation, provided it’s applied evenly across the board, without special exceptions for Senator X’s State or Congresswoman Y’s district, or DoE staffer Z’s company in which he holds stock… Second, who said they would save money? Emissions controls or emissions improvements (with some noted exceptions I won’t bore people with, such as boiler tuning/neural networks/O&M improvements) don’t save money - they cost money. They decrease plant efficiency (thus increasing GHG emissions, ironically) and have huge capital and O&M costs associated with them. True, O&M costs have greatly declined as expertise has been gained and technology has improved - in some cases, designs have improved so much industry economic models are now obsolete for FGD studies. ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/23 "2007-12-15T05:22:46Z")
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun] Jesus **Una** , _relax_, will ya? [/QUOTE] He’s the expert, this is GQ. He has a more contentious subject than, say, **Stranger on a Train** , but when people talk rockets, I shut up and listen to **Stranger**. When people talk coal, I shut up and listen to **Una** – he’s bound to be a little irritable with all the people out there swallowing the opposition’s propaganda without questioning it. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/24 "2007-12-15T05:28:56Z")
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun] Jesus **Una** , _relax_, will ya? [/QUOTE] _That’s_ your factual rebuttal when I explained with examples why what you said didn’t tell the whole story? I have to say, I think it needs…proofreading or something. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/25 "2007-12-15T05:29:56Z")
**Una** you can replace “loophole” with “grandfather clause”, if it makes you feel happy, but… [QUOTE=Una Persson] Emissions controls or emissions improvements (with some noted exceptions I won’t bore people with, such as boiler tuning/neural networks/O&M improvements) don’t save money - they cost money. They decrease plant efficiency (thus increasing GHG emissions, ironically) and have huge capital and O&M costs associated with them. [/QUOTE] This is pretty much my exact point. It’s expensive to retrofit, and they don’t legally have to, so they don’t. If you reread my original post you’ll realize we agree. No need to get all “Oh Yeah! What’s your experience?!!!” It’s environmental consulting, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/26 "2007-12-15T05:33:20Z")
[QUOTE=flurb] Currently, the Department of Energy is working on the [FutureGen](http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/) project to create a coal-based, zero-emission, power plant. The plant will employ coal gasification technology while capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, it’s just a demonstration project (and an expensive one) at this point. [/QUOTE] And sadly, other IGCC projects that had some real hope for clean coal technology (like Stanton B) got axed, or can’t get off the drawing board, so to speak. But great Goddess, someone actually wants me to bid on engineering analysis for an Oxyfuel plant - coal burned with (mostly) pure oxygen, coupled with a carbon sequestration system that doesn’t really exist yet. It has no chance of going forward, but maybe someday… ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/27 "2007-12-15T05:51:07Z")
[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun] No need to get all “Oh Yeah! What’s your experience?!!!” [/QUOTE] Now that’s just not nice. I said exactly this: > [@](#): > > OK, what’s your expertise in this field? …so I knew exactly what depth we needed to explore this. You’ve been around for a while but to my embarrassment, I do not/did not have any idea what your expertise as demonstrated on this board was. In the past I’ve slogged through Circuit Court rulings and the CFR - or talked about the fine details of, say, a tower scrubber versus a jet bubbling reactor scrubber, to debate points with folks, only to find out they really didn’t understand what I was talking about and I was wasting my own and everyone’s time while everyone edged slowly away from the thread. And I’m nitpicking on the other poster because they’re making some sweeping statements that only tell half the story. Sure Midwestern coal plants are dumping acid rain on the Northeast, but it’s less than before, and the local coal plants are causing quite a bit of havoc on their own. Sure coal plants are doing a lot but ignoring cars and NOx from them is not very factually correct, etc. And with the entire SDMB almost turned into a giant liberal anger blog, we really don’t need any more “it’s teh evil Bush” snipes in GQ, do we? So sure, I’m being direct on some points. But I’m quite “relaxed” actually. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/28 "2007-12-15T05:53:57Z")
[QUOTE=Una Persson] It certainly does. “Loophole” is a charged word that implies that the reason we don’t have SCR+FGD+ACI+whatever on every coal plant in the US was because the industry got a special shady deal. And it didn’t - there were practical logistical, technology, engineering, and economic reasons for it. Remember, the CAA Amendments of 1990 are what we’re talking about. NOW, it is much more practical to expand the cleanup, and the cleanup could (and IMO should) accelerate, especially with the GHG NOx emissions. Hell, I’m all for it. I’ve been working on coal plants all over the world for more than 15 years, at every level from grubbing with plant maintenance workers in the ash pits to dinner with a utility exec richer than Donald Trump, and all of them want to have a cleaner power plant. Or I guess they’re all liars. But few are going to unilaterally clean up their plant while their competition (where it exists) doesn’t. The execs I talk to say they _want_ new legislation, provided it’s applied evenly across the board, without special exceptions for Senator X’s State or Congresswoman Y’s district, or DoE staffer Z’s company in which he holds stock… [/quote] Where do you think exceptions for Congresswoman Y’s district come from? Some power company gives to her campaign, and boom, they get a nice exception to the rule. You’re talking like emissions control is something being denied to the power companies instead of something being forced upon them. No, power companies have been fighting tooth and nail against emissions regulations because it hurts their bottom line. I don’t know if the people you are talking to are liars or the people that don’t make the decisions, but I don’t see any push coming from the power companies to reduce their emissions. [QUOTE=Una Persson] Second, who said they would save money? Emissions controls or emissions improvements (with some noted exceptions I won’t bore people with, such as boiler tuning/neural networks/O&M improvements) don’t save money - they cost money. They decrease plant efficiency (thus increasing GHG emissions, ironically) and have huge capital and O&M costs associated with them. True, O&M costs have greatly declined as expertise has been gained and technology has improved - in some cases, designs have improved so much industry economic models are now obsolete for FGD studies. [/QUOTE] Yeah, that’s my point. It costs a lot of money to reduce the emissions, and that’s why it’s taking so long for it to happen. If these things saved the companies money you can bet your sweet bippy that they would have been implemented across the board by now. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/29 "2007-12-15T06:11:51Z")
[QUOTE=treis] Where do you think exceptions for Congresswoman Y’s district come from? Some power company gives to her campaign, and boom, they get a nice exception to the rule. [/QUOTE] My point. If they didn’t have to worry about every other company getting an unfair advantage, then they wouldn’t worry about emissions controls as much. And in a (mostly) regulated electric utility structure, does the utility company really “lose” money, or do they pretty much pass the costs directly on to their ratepayers? (Answer: the second one) > [@](#): > > I don’t know if the people you are talking to are liars or the people that don’t make the decisions, but I don’t see any push coming from the power companies to reduce their emissions. Power companies are spending, collectively, hundreds of millions per year to do studies, tests, test burns, tuning, and everything in between to reduce their emissions, often without legislation forcing them to do such. They hire me and my co-workers to do these things for them every day, very often without any actual legislative hammer to force them. Maybe half to 3/4 of all my projects are pure R&D to see how much they can do to bring emissions down for the purpose of banking allowances (economics, ultimately), for PR, for being prepared for the future, or, in some cases, to be a good corporate citizen. I’m not going to write any more anecdotes. > [@](#): > > Yeah, that’s my point. It costs a lot of money to reduce the emissions, and that’s why it’s taking so long for it to happen. If these things saved the companies money you can bet your sweet bippy that they would have been implemented across the board by now. No, I do not bet that. There are certain logistical, engineering, staffing, etc. realities to this that seriously limit both the pace and scope of implementation. That is my opinion based on my direct contacts in the industry and with what I see myself. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/30 "2007-12-15T06:19:41Z")
Una may be a tad biased, but AFAIK, she’s also one of the worlds leading experts in this field. If she simply said “coal is good” then maybe you could :dubious: 😛 But when she starts with the facts and figures, then I have to beleive her. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/31 "2007-12-15T06:35:26Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Una may be a tad biased, but AFAIK, she’s also one of the worlds leading experts in this field. If she simply said “coal is good” then maybe you could :dubious: 😛 But when she starts with the facts and figures, then I have to beleive her. [/QUOTE] I haven’t presented much in the way of facts and figures here other than the estimates we use in our environmental retrofit or greenfield guarantees. Most of what I’ve presented in here is opinion, but I have made similar citation-backed posts in the past. My discussion with **treis** is largely opinion-based, however. Folks should look into the topic themselves and not trust just anyone, outside of Cecil, to give them the Straight Dope. While I like the praise for a reputation, it’s not something that should be used to win any argument. I’m guessing that by tomorrow morning **Fir na tine** will have some stiff replies to me; let me temper them by explaining. My problem with **Fir na tine’s** posts really were twofold - I thought that the generalizations were unfair and missed critical points that outline the problem, and the political jab was not correct and did not belong here. My intent was to illustrate my counter-opinions. It’s clear I was too blunt, although my post really was meant to be in a…well, it wasn’t meant to be in the tone in which it was; it was intended to be directly challenging but also bantering good-humouredly. I apologize, **Fir na tine** , for my tone. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/32 "2007-12-15T06:45:49Z")
[QUOTE=Una Persson] My point. If they didn’t have to worry about every other company getting an unfair advantage, then they wouldn’t worry about emissions controls as much. [/quote] That doesn’t make sense. Power plants and coal miners have tremendous financial resources and lobbying power. They can get as tough of regulations as they want. If they go to Congress and say they want ‘X’ regulations, and ‘X’ is more stringent than what the public wants to impose than who is going to stop those regulations from passing. Who is fighting the power companies in Congress to get tough emissions regulations passed? [QUOTE=Una Persson] Power companies are spending, collectively, hundreds of millions per year to do studies, tests, test burns, tuning, and everything in between to reduce their emissions, often without legislation forcing them to do such. They hire me and my co-workers to do these things for them every day, very often without any actual legislative hammer to force them. Maybe half to 3/4 of all my projects are pure R&D to see how much they can do to bring emissions down for the purpose of banking allowances (economics, ultimately), for PR, for being prepared for the future, or, in some cases, to be a good corporate citizen. I’m not going to write any more anecdotes. [/quote] Call me cynical but I think they are doing this because they are scared shitless of tough regulations. Coal is by far the worst polluter in terms of producing electricity. If a tough cap and trade system, or something similar, ever came into effect it would affect the Coal industry the worst. To be frank, I see the coal industry doing their damnedest to prevent tough regulations and to extract the most possible money for emissions research. [QUOTE=Una Persson] No, I do not bet that. There are certain logistical, engineering, staffing, etc. realities to this that seriously limit both the pace and scope of implementation. That is my opinion based on my direct contacts in the industry and with what I see myself. [/QUOTE] I guess there is no way to prove anything here because we are dealing with “What Ifs”, but I guess I’ll just reiterate that I disagree. Look, for example, at a company like Google. It took them 10 years to go from founding to a 100 billion dollar company. If there was money to be made, say $50M per plant per year, in reducing emissions then I can’t possibly see how it would take 17 years to get the modifications implemented. Yes, there may be shortages of experts and whatnot, but it’s not like we are talking exotic processes here. It wouldn’t take that long to build up the capacity if the money was spent. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/33 "2007-12-15T06:53:01Z")
n/m ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/34 "2007-12-15T07:06:13Z")
[QUOTE=treis] That doesn’t make sense. Power plants and coal miners have tremendous financial resources and lobbying power. They can get as tough of regulations as they want. If they go to Congress and say they want ‘X’ regulations, and ‘X’ is more stringent than what the public wants to impose than who is going to stop those regulations from passing. Who is fighting the power companies in Congress to get tough emissions regulations passed? [/QUOTE] Your perception of the utility industry as a monolithic lobby is perhaps the error here. They are by no means such, in fact, they are often openly hostile to each each other, especially in terms of arguing over transaction billing and accounting for interties, arguing who’s going to hold up which part of the regional grid in which way, etc. They may have a common goal of wanting to meet emissions regulations by having a level playing field, but that doesn’t mean that they otherwise act in the most logical or sane manner. They are companies, after all. > [@](#): > > Look, for example, at a company like Google. It took them 10 years to go from founding to a 100 billion dollar company. Google’s 100B is mostly on paper, right? This is apples and watermelons here. I don’t understand where the miscommunication is - I’m saying that folks are saying “we need a dry FGD for a 500MW plant” and they’re being told “maybe in 2 years we can get to you.” We’re not talking about a dot-com, we’re talking about the real world. And I said that the pace could now be increased, and should be. > [@](#): > > If there was money to be made, say $50M per plant per year, in reducing emissions then I can’t possibly see how it would take 17 years to get the modifications implemented. Yes, there may be shortages of experts and whatnot, but it’s not like we are talking exotic processes here. It wouldn’t take that long to build up the capacity if the money was spent. I’m sorry, I don’t know how to argue this because it’s an impossibility. There _isn’t_ any sort of investment driving it, you have the opposite. I can’t speculate on this. It’s almost like saying “If batteries were free, then electric cars would take off.” Of course they would, but it’s not reality. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/35 "2007-12-15T07:51:01Z")
[QUOTE=Una Persson] Your perception of the utility industry as a monolithic lobby is perhaps the error here. They are by no means such, in fact, they are often openly hostile to each each other, especially in terms of arguing over transaction billing and accounting for interties, arguing who’s going to hold up which part of the regional grid in which way, etc. They may have a common goal of wanting to meet emissions regulations by having a level playing field, but that doesn’t mean that they otherwise act in the most logical or sane manner. They are companies, after all. [/quote] _shrug_ Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don’t really think so. There has been a pretty well coordinated lobbying effort to combat tougher emission standards. For example, [this article](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/business/29coal.html) doesn’t lead me to believe that there is a fractured coal lobby. [QUOTE=Una Persson] Google’s 100B is mostly on paper, right? This is apples and watermelons here. I don’t understand where the miscommunication is - I’m saying that folks are saying “we need a dry FGD for a 500MW plant” and they’re being told “maybe in 2 years we can get to you.” We’re not talking about a dot-com, we’re talking about the real world. [/quote] Well, Google made a couple billion dollars last year so it’s not all smoke and mirrors. [QUOTE=Una Persson] And I said that the pace could now be increased, and should be. I’m sorry, I don’t know how to argue this because it’s an impossibility. There _isn’t_ any sort of investment driving it, you have the opposite. [/QUOTE] I know, that’s my point. If there were money to be made these “logistical, engineering, staffing, etc” problems would be solved lickity split. Which means that the difficulty isn’t with the technical challenges. Rather it lies with insufficient will/money to implement these technologies. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/36 "2007-12-15T15:32:56Z")
Let me try again. [QUOTE=Fir na tine] He’s dead wrong. [/QUOTE] But the OP asked about the **future** , not the **past** , so your authoritative statement of being “dead wrong” is not valid. The restrictions for new coal power plants are very strict, and the permitting and approval process is so lengthy and needs so many sign-offs that it’s not really possible for a new coal plant to violate emissions laws. Here is where I challenge anyone to provide a cite of a new coal plant under construction or in planning in the US which will violate the Clean Air Act Acid Rain regulations. > [@](#): > > Most of New England is experiencing severe problems with acid rain. The acid is caused by the massive coal plants in the middle of the country. Prevailing winds push the various by products of combustion to the Northeast where they mix with water vapor and fall as acid rain. In the last 20 to 30 years building facades and stone monuments that have been in place for 100 to 200 years have been virtually eaten away by the rain. But this doesn’t tell the whole story. Here’s my point: acid rain is getting better, even in New England, and a lot of the problem in New England is from sources within those states. Acid rain emissions across the US are falling, and have been steadily: [http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.html](http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat5p1.html) NOx emissions have declined since 1999 over the Eastern US: [Nitrogen Oxide Pollutants Have Declined Over The Eastern United States Since 1999 | ScienceDaily](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061128083906.htm) [http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/acidrain/trends.html](http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/acidrain/trends.html) > [@](#): > > Data for 1993 through 1998 show no marked systematic trend of pollutants in precipitation for the New England sites. Sulfate deposition in 1995 showed a marked decline at every monitoring site in New England, except the Acadia NP site in Maine. The average 1995 sulfate deposition in New England was the lowest ever recorded during the 20 years of sulfate deposition monitoring. The 1996 data indicate that sulfate deposition increased in eight of the ten sites. Nonetheless, sulfate levels in 1996 were about 16% below historical averages (1979-1995). > > The 1996 data show similar increases occur for nitrate at most sites, and these increases appear to be further enhanced in 1997. In 1998, however, nitrate deposition decreased at each of the ten trend sites. Nitrate deposition during 1998 remained virtually the same as the historical average (1979-1998). In the years since 1998, the we have seen a trend toward less sulfate in precipitation in New England. Until about 2000, trends in nitrate remained fairly constant, but since 2000, even the nitrate deposition in New England has begun to decrease. > > The year to year variation that is recorded at the NADP sites can be attributed to differences in precipitation and prevailing wind patterns, as well as emission sources. This is characteristic of precipitation data and should be viewed as normal. Trends in pollutant deposition within New England, whether due to long-term changes in pollutants emitted to the atmosphere, or trends in climate, will be evident only after many years (10-20+ years). > > Lakes and streams have been slower to respond, but we have begun to see improvement. A report in “Nature” Magazine in 1998 showed some improvement in lakes in Maine, but not elsewhere in New England. In 2003, EPA compiled an assessment of the surface chemistry of lakes and streams in the northern and eastern United States. This assessment showed that the concentration of sulfate in New England lakes is decreasing. About 30% of the lakes in New England that were acidic are no longer considered acidic. In New England, the “Acid Neutralization Capacity” (ANC), the ability of the environment to neutralize acidic precipitation has not significantly improved, but this was observed in the Adirondacks and in other areas. The soil in New England is slower to react than that in the Adirondacks, so it will take longer for the ANC in New England to improve. > > The full recovery of New England’s aquatic ecosystems will take more time. In some cases, it will be decades before we see ecosystems fully restored to their pre-industrial condition. The point is that cleanup is happening. But if you want an easy to read table, try the September 2004 Acid Rain Progress Report published by the EPA, specifically page 13 figure 13. See also the graphics on Page 16, which have a nice plot of acid rain deposition across New England and the Midwest. [http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progress/arp04.html](http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progress/arp04.html) Further, the acid is not caused solely by coal power plants, although they are the largest contributor of SO2. From here: [http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html](http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html) “Roughly 2/3 the SO2 and 1/4 the NOx come from fossil power plants” What’s the main source of NOx emissions? Cars and the transportation sector. > [@](#): > > I don’t pretend to understand why the Bush regime wants to ignore it but the various state governments in the Northeast have filed suit against the EPA for failing to enforce standards that were adopted 20 to 30 years ago. And as far as the New England States suing the Bush Administration…well, my problem with that is it shows an ignorance of the history of this. From 1987: [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDB143BF937A25757C0A961948260](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDB143BF937A25757C0A961948260) > [@](#): > > Six Northeastern states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, said today that they would sue the Federal Government to force it to curb the air pollution that causes acid rain. > > Six Northeastern states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, said today that they would sue the Federal Government to force it to curb the air pollution that causes acid rain. > > The lawsuit, which is being joined by national environmental groups, is to charge that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has failed to carry out provisions of the Clean Air Act that require a reduction in pollution that impairs visibility in Federal parks and wilderness areas. > > The suit asserts that the pollutants that cause much of the reduced visibility in the Northeast are sulfates that come largely from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest. These sulfates are also believed to be a major source of the acid rain that has been found to have destroyed freshwater life in lakes in the United States and Canada. Widespread Forest Damage… And as far as the AEP lawsuit goes, that started in the Clinton Administration and was winding its way through the Courts, it’s important to note that under Bush the EPA continued to pursue it, until they won that recent $5B settlement. Ignoring that settlement, which happened as a result of the States and EPA under Bush continuing to fight for cleaner air, is not valid. [News Articles - FindArticles](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20071010/ai_n21033962) ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Dave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Great\_Dave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Dave)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/37 "2007-12-15T22:55:16Z")
[QUOTE=Una Persson] You are correct to a large extent, but in some cases logistics of low-sulfur coal delivery are the fault of homeowners, land owners, and towns who line up to file nuisance lawsuits and do everything that they can to block new rail lines to get cleaner coal through the US. And the Mississippi River is a huge choke-point, too. [/QUOTE] I understand that one bridge handles a huge proportion of the coal headed from Wyoming to the East. This is because western coal burns cleaner than Appalachian coal, wrt sulfur, but due to its lower energy content, releases more CO2. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/38 "2007-12-15T23:32:44Z")
[QUOTE=Great Dave] I understand that one bridge handles a huge proportion of the coal headed from Wyoming to the East. This is because western coal burns cleaner than Appalachian coal, wrt sulfur, but due to its lower energy content, releases more CO2. [/QUOTE] It does indeed. It also produces lower NOx emissions as well, sometimes 10-30% less. Mercury is a different kettle of fish due to differences in mercury speciation of PRB Wyoming coals versus other coals. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/39 "2007-12-17T18:25:07Z")
Una is certainly far more of an expert than I am on the details of coal combustion, and I am sure, on power plant pollution control technology and economics. In general, she seems to agree with the main conclusions of **beowulf** and\*\* Baracus\*\* (which would have been my reply): CO2 is very difficult to address, but for other pollutants clean new plants are possible at a price; currently existing older ones are fairly polluting. However, I strongly disagree with her implication that the Bush administration has done all it could to push cleaner coal plants (and on this I do not cede a greater expertise to her). The Bush administration severely gutted the main program for cleaning up old plants (called “New Source Review”), essentially extending the grandfathering of old dirty plants for much longer, and possibly indefinitely. Cite, since my anonymous and detailless testimony doesn’t count for much (but you can google “new source review” for more): [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/magazine/04BUSH.html?ex=1396414800&en=7ed0c603991e9be9&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/magazine/04BUSH.html?ex=1396414800&en=7ed0c603991e9be9&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND) ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844/40 "2007-12-17T19:57:55Z")
[QUOTE=Quercus] However, I strongly disagree with her implication that the Bush administration has done all it could to push cleaner coal plants (and on this I do not cede a greater expertise to her). [/QUOTE] Actually, I do not assert such. I only asserted that there are serious difficulties with implementing sweeping changes in emissions components to the enormous number of large power plants in the US, and that in the case of the AEP lawsuit, the Bush Administration EPA, instead of dropping it, kept on going with it and brought it to a conclusion. **No administration** , regardless of party, has done all it can to push for cleaner coal plants. We’ve talked about New Source Review on this site before, and I dug up scads of cites that supported my position that there was a firm argument for many of these plants to make modifications and not have it trigger NSR. The Bush Administration did not “gut” any program at all - hourly emissions increases were still illegal under the Bush plan. Nor did he extend indefinitely older plants - plants have always been allowed to make changes in-kind to continue running. The point at hand was one which was open to debate, which was: if a change allows a plant to continue running at a higher capacity factor, even if its instantaneous emissions stay the same or are reduced, then does it trigger NSR? To make a very close parallel - say that that you have a car that produces 1 pound of NOx per hour you drive it, and you only drive it about 100 hours a year. Now let’s say you take it into the shop and get it tuned up, and now it produces 0.8 pounds of NOx per hour - but at the same time, it runs so much better that you want to drive it 150 hours per year. Your net emissions of NOx go up, although your hourly rate does not. But the law was written to say you were limited to 1 pound of NOx per hour, not that you were limited to 100 pounds of NOx per year. However, the intent of the law was to reduce pollution overall, so from that standpoint one can argue that in the second case you are in violation. This was not a clear-cut argument, regardless of how folks love to scream about Bush and his evil ways. Bush could certainly have ordered the EPA to crack down hard and argue the “annual” case, and he didn’t. IMO that means he dragged his feet a bit, as opposed to gutting anything. However, no hourly emissions rates were slackened under Bush’s NSR policy, something the papers often conveniently don’t print. There are some good arguments about why NSR is confusing, contradictory, and sometimes results in worse pollution than before, which I’ve posted about and am loathe to rehash on here. So let’s set that aside for now. And due in part to this confusion, the courts were mixed on this issue - the Circuit Court ruled in favor of such folks as TVA who were sued for making improvements, for example. However, the US Supreme Court ruled in _Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation_ that the EPA could decide that you didn’t just have to use an hourly standard, you could use the annual standard. Sadly, the Court stopped short of specifying what exactly constitutes “routine repair and replacement”, and therefore we can expect court battles in the future, and possibly another trip to the USSC. And the NSR issue is far from laid to rest - see these cases - here’s where TVA wins yet again: [http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/nsr/2007/10/05/12](http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/nsr/2007/10/05/12) And Cinergy gets a break: [http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/nsr/2007/10/02/12](http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/nsr/2007/10/02/12) Edited to add: conflict of interest note - all companies named in this post are clients of mine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-cleanly-can-they-burn-coal/429844.md?page=3)