News, thoughts and updates from industry leaders and real people living on America’s Power.
Check out the Behind the plug Blog- Subscribe: Rss
- Get Updates
Pages
In a US Senate confirmation hearing yesterday, Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s pick to lead the EPA, told a Senate panel on Thursday that coal will remain important in the U.S. energy mix and that if confirmed that she will be flexible in applying new pollution rules for coal-fueled power plants.
“Coal has been and will continue to be a significant source of energy in the United States, and I take my job seriously when developing those standards to provide flexibility in the rules,” McCarthy said.
According to a story from Reuters, “Republican Senators John Barrasso of Wyoming and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, among others, quizzed McCarthy about the economic impact of its rules on states that rely on coal as a primary energy source, and about her feelings toward job losses when coal plants close.”
Barrasso said rules that prevent new coal plants from being built and would potentially shut down existing coal plants are already causing “chronic unemployment” in Wyoming.
“I haven’t heard yet any plain statements from EPA –hopefully we will today from this nominee – about the negative health impacts and lives lost from chronic unemployment caused by the EPA policies,” he said. “This is a serious health epidemic and it seems to go unnoticed by the EPA. How many more times will an EPA administrator pull the regulatory lever that will allow another mining family to fall through the EPA’s trap door of joblessness, poverty and poor health,” he said. “Are coal miners no longer heroes to the nominee and the EPA? These people are heroes and they deserve better than they’re getting from the EPA,” Barrasso said.
Coal is mined in 25 U.S. states and is responsible for more than 760,000 jobs in the United States. Wyoming is the largest coal-producing state, followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
In an article from yesterday’s Power Magazine, the magazine states that the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that coal generation will gain in 2013 due to the rising price of natural gas.
According to the article: “The increasing cost of natural gas relative to coal is expected to increase coal’s share of total generation from 37.4% in 2012 to 39.9% in 2013, according to the EIA April release of its Short-Term Energy Outlook.
Though that would leave coal’s percentage below its 42.3% share in 2011, it indicates that gas may not be on an inevitable path to overtake a significantly greater share of the generation pie.”
Just today, a dedication ceremony was held for the John W. Turk Plant in Arkansas. The 600-megawatt coal-fueled plant began commercial operations in December 2012 and is one of the cleanest, most efficient coal-fueled plants in the United States, and the first of its kind in operation in the United States.
EIA figures also show that coal consumption will increase both domestically and internationally to meet rising electricity demand during the next several decades, providing the U.S. and other countries with indigenous energy resources.
E&E News reported this afternoon that 36 states are striking back against a U.S. EPA plan to force them to rewrite rules that suspend emissions standards for pollution sources during startup, shutdown and malfunction periods, calling it an infringement on states’ rights.
According to E&E: “EPA in February announced that it would work with 36 states to amend their implementation plans for the so-called SSM periods. Environmentalists have said that exempting power plants from pollution standards during those periods is a massive loophole that EPA needs to close.
But states have struck back against the decision, saying it’s an overreach by EPA. In a request sent last month, 18 state attorneys general say the proposal ‘impermissibly seeks to intrude on the states’ clear authority to determine the means to achieve attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”
To read the rest of the article click here, E&E is a subscrption-based news service.
In this tough economy, Colorado’s electricity must be produced at a price that families and small businesses can afford. Which is why SB 13-252, being considered by the Colorado State Legislature, is a step in the wrong direction. The bill would require some utilities to increase energy from renewable sources by 150%, which would result in higher electricity costs.
Interestingly, SB 13-252 was introduced without consulting the consumers that will pay for this mandate, and the cost of compliance would be hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars—having a potentially devastating effect on many Colorado communities.
According to the Pueblo Chieftain: “Colorado’s rural electric cooperatives are currently required, by the year 2020, to provide 10% of their power using select renewable resources – a reasonable standard these not-for-profit, consumer-owned utilities agreed to in 2007. With co-ops aggressively adding new renewable resources in an effort to meet and even exceed this standard, new mandates are neither fair nor necessary.
And yet Senate Bill 13-252, sponsored by Colorado Springs Senator John Morse – along with Senator Gail Schwartz from Pitkin County – would increase the standard to 25% – more than doubling the current requirement while keeping the 2020 deadline for compliance in place.”
As we learned last year during a visit to western Colorado, in two small towns, cutting even 150 jobs would be devastating. Just ask the residents of Nucla and Naturita, Colorado. These towns rely heavily on the jobs from a nearby coal mine and coal-fueled power plant for their livelihood.
If you live in Colorado, click here to ask your legislator to support affordable and reliable electricity and tell them that government should not mandate higher electricity costs without considering economic impacts this bill would have on Colorado families and small businesses.
Over the last several decades, the coal-based electricity industry has invested billions to clean the air. The result is that emissions of major pollutants from coal-fueled power plants have been reduced by nearly 88 percent per unit of electricity generated. And not only that, the coal-based electricity industry has invested $110 billion through the end of 2012 to achieve these emission reductions.
Show your support for clean coal technology by “Liking” America’s Power on Facebook today. We always welcome a healthy discussion and debate regarding clean coal and the related technologies, but more importantly, we encourage fans to share their thoughts on a wide array of topics. Don’t forget to take a stand for coal by joining here.
Dry scrubbers are a post-combustion technology that utilize a chemical reaction to trap emissions. Currently, utilities are increasingly turning to dry scrubbers as a way to meet emissions standards.
Unlike wet scrubbers, which use a lot of water, dry scrubbers use limestone which is blown into the stack dry or with a bit of moisture. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) reacts with the particles of limestone, which trap the sulfur dioxide. The hot gas then flows through a filter. The limestone particles with their trapped sulfur are too big to get through the filter, as are the particles of dust.
Power Engineering magazine says that modern dry scrubbers are a third generation of flue gas desulfurization processes. According to the Department of Energy and the EPA, between 1987 and 2000 electrical utility SO2 emissions dropped, despite a increase in net generation and continue to fall.
Learn more about how dry scrubbers offer a solution to cleaner power by reading this article.
Clean coal technology enjoys majority support among California voters. It is especially interesting that this support is broad-based, encompassing majorities of Republican, Democratic and voters declining to state a party affiliation. Given that the most important issues to California voters are “jobs and the economy”, voter sentiment that the state’s energy policies have made it less competitive should be a red flag to Sacramento legislators.
In a recent survey of California voters, nearly 57% answered yes when they were asked “Do you support or oppose developing new clean coal power plants in California?”
When asked the question, “Do you think that California’s energy policies have made the state more or less competitive?”, more than 43% answered yes. And particularly telling is the fact that nearly one-quarter of California voters (24.7%) feel that the state’s energy policies have made the state far less competitive.
These numbers are in stark contrast to comments recently made by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa when he announced that the city will become the only city in America that won’t get any electricity from coal by the year 2025.
Recently, Jack Humphreville, president of the Department of Water and Power (DWP) advocacy committee said, “Over the next five years, our rates are supposed to increase 36 percent according to DWP projections, and according to other documents from DWP they’re going to double over the next 10 years.” Humphreville also said that the higher cost to buy electricity from other sources will be passed along to rate payers.
According to KABC, right now electricity from the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona and the Intermountain Power Project in Utah make up 39% of the energy purchased by the DWP. Under the plan, the city will sell its share in the Navajo plant and convert the plant in Utah to natural gas.
“The problem that I have is that nobody has told us what this is going to cost,” said Humphreville. “In the past, DWP numbers indicated that the early phase out of Navajo was going to cost us $800 million, and the early phase out of the Utah facility was going to cost us $1 billion.”
That’s why affordable, stable electricity from coal remains essential to this country. We need this natural resource—there is more than two centuries of coal in the U.S.—to keep the doors open at small businesses, power our hospitals and keep assembly lines running at manufacturing plants across the country.
Coal-based electricity is one of the least expensive, most reliable means of producing electricity, and it’s a central part of the American energy portfolio. Not only that, coal has a long history of providing energy to Americans.
America has depended on the reliable and abundant coal that comes from our land and powers our lives for more than a century. With the energy in America’s coal reserves being roughly equal to the world’s known oil reserves, it’s clear that coal should continue to be a reliable source of electricity for all of us.
Coal provides the economic foundation for millions of Americans across the country – whether it’s through employment or low energy prices. When times are tough, it doesn’t make sense to add unreasonable regulations that cause jobs to be lost and energy prices to increase for families and businesses.
The coal-based electricity industry is directly responsible for more than 550,000 America jobs: it gives peace-of-mind to small businesses that are struggling and high tech job opportunities for future graduates. Americans need to continue to take advantage of this domestic resource so we can to pull out of these hard economic times.
The choices that we make now directly affect Americans. Keep in mind that coal is the abundant, affordable resource that powers America. Learn more and get involved by clicking here.
More than 371,000 fans of clean coal technology already have liked us on Facebook. Have you? Our Facebook page is an informative space to discuss developments in clean coal technology along with domestic and international progress in energy policy.
We always welcome a healthy discussion and debate regarding clean coal and the related technologies, but more importantly, we encourage fans to share their thoughts on a wide array of topics. Topics include everything from current news regarding clean coal technology to updates about real people showing their support for coal-based electricity from all across the country.
If you are a regular reader of Behind the Plug, we look forward to you becoming a new fan of America’s Power on Facebook today.
Dry Sorbent Injection (DRI) achieves between 40 to 75% removal of Sulfur Dioxide and acid gases and is one of the numerous clean coal technologies that impact our daily lives. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, DSI systems remove hydrogen chloride (HCl) and other acid gases through two basic steps:
- Step one. A powdered sorbent is injected into the flue gas—combustion exhaust gas exiting a power plant—where it reacts with the HCl. The sorbents most commonly associated with DSI are trona (sodium sesquicarbonate, a naturally occurring mineral mined in Wyoming), sodium bicarbonate, and hydrated lime.
- Step two. The compound is removed by a downstream particulate matter control device such as an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or a fabric filter (FF), also referred to as a baghouse. Fabric filters are generally more effective (when combined with DSI) than ESPs, with respect to overall HCl reduction. For modeling purposes, EPA estimate a DSI system with a fabric filter is expected to achieve 90% removal of HCl, while an ESP only achieves 60% removal, although actual performance will vary by individual plant.
