Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: The Washington PostAbout 30 years ago dioxins from coal combustion were identified as a significant health problem. Under the Hazardous Air Pollution Title of the Clean Air Act, EPA promulgated rules to reduce dioxin. We now know that the measures worked, that dioxin emissions were reduced by 90% and are no longer a significant health problem. Good work to all involved.
Industry groups has blocked publication of the study for more than a decade fearing unfavorable results.
What happens to the dioxins? Are they fated for a slurry lagoon along with whatever else the scrubbers remove? And what of the other numerous toxic products of coal combustion? We're up to our gills in mercury already (pun intended). Coal will never be clean. The toxins will just travel a different and equally dangerous and infinitely more concentrated waste stream. Anybody remember the Tennessee slurry lagoon collapse?
#1 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:22 AM ESTHowdy CJcold -- good question to ask. The dioxins are about 65% destroyed by heat. They key to reducing airborne dioxin emissions is adequate dwell time (2 seconds) at high temperature and adequate turbulence. We can do better now. The balance of the dioxins are in the coal ash, which is buried in land fills in areas either lined with clay or a polymer barrier. Rules under consideration now at EPA will require more stringent treatment. It seems likely, however, that within a decade or so, coal ash will be mined as a mineral. It has a very high aluminum content and substantial quantities of titanium and the lanthanides.
As to mercury -- your concern is spot on. Forthcoming new rules should address that as well; unless, of course, we elect a Republican president and he puts in a new EPA Administrator who is lax about enforcing the law. George W Bush (not H.W.) and Reagan did this. The key to mercury removal is enhanced oxidation. A test two months ago showed 90%+ removal at modest cost from a very high concentration lignite.
As to cleaning up coal -- with the right laws we could actually achieve a ZERO emissions coal plant, converting the CO2 to syngas through hydrogenation. I would come off the bench to build that one. There are still very serious issues with extraction, however, and as a kid who grew up in the coal fields, I will never advocate for coal use until jerks like Massey Energy and Don Blankenship are gone from the business, and preferably off my planet.
As to mercury
Did you owe your soul to the company store?
I never met a lagoon I liked. Whether CAFO manure or coal slurry, they are just an accident waiting to happen.
As Heinlein said, TANSTAAFL (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch). We use fossil fuels; we and all ecosystems suffer one way or another.
Your company store comment is offensive.
The environment has been my life's work --all day, every day for 40 years going back to the first clean air act in 1971. The air quality of the US is 90% better now than in 1971 because scientists and engineers (me included) have put aside doctrine and solved problems. Many people are alive today because of the hard work by the guys in the trenches.
I would genuinely love to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and we will. I have personally deployed wind generators, pv, low-head hydro, and high-head low-flow hydro. I have multiple patents in the space going back to the 1970s and have been an early and ardent advocate of renewable energy. That said, the world is going to be burning coal for another century -- that is a simple fact. I am proud of the work I have done to help make it cleaner. My work has saved lives.
BTW -- the dioxin is in the coal ash, not the slurry.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
