Oh Dear, It’s another Joe Romm head exploder. The improvement is verified by satellite data and the results are peer reviewed. Yet the EPA still insists on closing coal plants nationwide.
NASA Satellite Confirms Sharp Decline in Pollution from U.S. Coal Power Plants
A team of scientists have used the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA’s Aura satellite to confirm major reductions in the levels of a key air pollutant generated by coal power plants in the eastern United States. The pollutant, sulfur dioxide, contributes to the formation of acid rain and can cause serious health problems.
The scientists, led by an Environment Canada researcher, have shown that sulfur dioxide levels in the vicinity of major coal power plants have fallen by nearly half since 2005. The new findings, the first satellite observations of this type, confirm ground-based measurements of declining sulfur dioxide levels and demonstrate that scientists can potentially measure levels of harmful emissions throughout the world, even in places where ground monitoring is not extensive or does not exist. About two-thirds of sulfur dioxide pollution in American air comes from coal power plants. Geophysical Research Letters published details of the new research this month.
These maps show average sulfur dioxide levels measured by the Aura satellite for the periods 2005-2007 (top) and 2008-2010 (bottom) over a portion of the eastern United States. The black dots represent the locations of many of the nation’s top sulfur dioxide emissions sources. Larger dots indicate greater emissions. (Credit: NASA’s Earth Observatory)
The scientists attribute the decline in sulfur dioxide to the Clean Air Interstate Rule, a rule passed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 that called for deep cuts in sulfur dioxide emissions. In response to that rule, many power plants in the United States have installed desulfurization devices and taken other steps that limit the release of sulfur dioxide. The rule put a cap on emissions, but left it up to power companies to determine how to reduce emissions and allowed companies to trade pollution credits.
While scientists have used the Ozone Monitoring Instrument to observe sulfur dioxide levels within large plumes of volcanic ash and over heavily polluted parts of China in the past, this is the first time they have observed such subtle details over the United States, a region of the world that in comparison to fast-growing parts of Asia now has relatively modest sulfur dioxide emissions. Just a few decades ago, sulfur dioxide pollution was quite severe in the United States. Levels of the pollutant have dropped by about 75 percent since the 1980s due largely to the passage of the Clean Air Act.
Smokestacks from a coal power plant in Maryland jut into a hazy skyline. Credit: Jeff Stehr, University of Maryland
Artist’s concept of the Aura spacecraft. Credit: NASA
› Larger image Vitali Fioletov, a scientist based in Toronto at Environment Canada, and his colleagues developed a new mathematical approach that made the improved measurements a reality. The approach centers on averaging measurements within a 30 miles radius (50 km) of a sulfur dioxide source over several years. “Vitali has developed an extremely powerful technique that makes it possible to detect emissions even when levels of sulfur dioxide are about four times lower than what we could detect previously,” said Nickolay Krotkov, a researcher based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and a coauthor of the new paper.
The technique allowed Fioletov and his colleagues to pinpoint the sulfur dioxide signals from the 40 largest sulfur dioxide sources in the United States — generally coal power plants that emit more than 70 kilotons of sulfur dioxide per year. The scientists observed major declines in sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia by comparing levels of the pollutant for an average of the period 2005 to 2007 with another average from 2008 to 2010.
“What we’re seeing in these satellite observations represents a major environmental accomplishment,” said Bryan Bloomer, an Environmental Protection Agency scientist familiar with the new satellite observations. “This is a huge success story for the EPA and the Clean Air Interstate Rule,” he said.
The researchers focused their analysis on the United States to take advantage of the presence of a robust network of ground-based instruments that monitor sulfur dioxide emissions inside power plant smokestacks. The ground-based instruments have logged a 46 percent decline in sulfur dioxide levels since 2005 — a finding consistent with the 40 percent reduction observed by OMI.
“Now that we’ve confirmed that the technique works, the next step is to use it for other parts of the world that don’t have ground-based sensors,” said Krotkov. “The real beauty of using satellites is that we can apply the same technique to the entire globe in a consistent way.” In addition, the team plans to use a similar technique to monitor other important pollutants that coal power plants release, such as nitrogen dioxide, a precursor to ozone.
OMI, a Dutch and Finnish built instrument, was launched in 2004, as one of four instruments on the NASA Aura satellite, and can measure sulfur dioxide more accurately than any satellite instrument flown to date. Though OMI remains in very good condition and scientists expect it to continue producing high-quality data for many years, the researchers also hope to use data from an upcoming Dutch-built OMI follow-on instrument called TROPOMI that is expected to launch on a European Space Agency satellite in 2014.
On July 6, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), requiring 27 states to significantly reduce power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and fine particle pollution in other states. This rule replaces EPA’s 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). A December 2008 court decision kept the requirements of CAIR in place temporarily but directed EPA to issue a new rule to implement Clean Air Act requirements concerning the transport of air pollution across state boundaries. This action responds to the court’s concerns.
Speaking of satellites measuring….
….what in this world happened to this?……
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
Hmm, well it isn’t as if I spent time obsessing over SO2, and while its humorous to dig at our nutty obsessive friend, Romm, the benefits of coal far outweigh any imaginary harm pre or post this study.
Mt. Pinutabo injected 20 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. So 300 years of total US output in one of Nature’s smaller belches.
It’s great that the SO2 levels are falling, but the much bigger problem is CO2. When you cite research which shows these levels falling, I will get really excited.
Actually, I think sulfur deposition, in small amounts, is a good thing for the environment. As a plant hobbyist I know many plants need more acidic soil than they have and benefit from additional sulfur in the soil. It would be interesting to monitor crop-yields & tree-growth rates in the “high” sulfur areas, like the upper Ohio River valley, keeping in mind that sulfur-levels have decreased markedly in the last few decades.
Notice that any benefit from anything is not permissible in the CAGW propaganda.
NASA disappoints. – gavin
“The scientists, led by an Environment Canada researcher, have shown that sulfur dioxide levels in the vicinity of major coal power plants have fallen by nearly half since 2005.”
wOw! By half since 2005… And SO2 levels were severely curtailed when acid rain was first attacked as a problem. So I’m guessing that the levels of SO2 from a modern coal power plant are low enough that you could suck on the exhaust stack with little effect? No sarc; that’s pretty impressive results.
Besides all that, don’t we need the SO2 to counteract the warming effects of CO2?
Won’t somebody at the EPA make up ther mind?
So that’s why it is getting colder there.
Why ? So it will match the fact that temperatures are falling ?
Further to what H.R. was saying – Way back in the early 90’s. I was selling control systems to a company which designed and implemented incinerators. The president at the time showed me the results from the emissions from a hospital incinerator in Minneapolis they built. The particulate counts at the hospital’s front doors were higher than those coming out of the incinerator’s smokestack. The pollution controls were that good and that was at least 20 years ago.
Climate science is an absolute mess.
Regulation really worked fast cleaning up SO2. Now, could something finally be done about all that mercury?
Once and for all: “Acid rain” is not caused by SO2 from coal burning.
Acidification of lakes, thought to come from acid rain, is caused by rotting vegetation, mostly accrued from land clearing.
Please – everybody – get your facts straight. Coal burning has nothing to do with lake acidification. If it did, the lakes in Ohio would be more acidic than the lakes in Florida. However, the reverse is true.
I would be interest in seeing similar data regarding two West Coast plants. Specifically the Centralia Steam Plant in Western Washington and the Boardman Plant in Eastern Oregon.
Both plants are slated to be closed in the next 5 – 10 years, with no associated replacement of power to the regional power grid.
The EPA is set to shut down an amount of generating capacity equal to all of or nuclear power generation with no replacement power. 28 Gigawatts of generation is slated to be taken off the grid by EPA
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/10/07/ier-identifies-coal-fired-power-plants-likely-to-close-as-result-of-epa-regulations/
No replacement power is on the horizon to take its place.
Since the sulfate levels are dropping so fast we can expect it to be heating up in the area right? 😉
Data? I don’t need no stinkin data.
Hugh Pepper says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:55 am
It’s great that the SO2 levels are falling, but the much bigger problem is CO2.
=========================
Even the IPCC doesn’t think CO2 is a big problem…..
…..they let developing countries, the vast majority of countries, do nothing
After reading Willis’ latest contribution it becomes very clear as to the EPA’s motivation in closing coal plants. The life cycle costs of wind and solar are “sky” high compared to coal.
Beng is correct, be scared of zero sulphur, serious agricultural problems.
In England there is actual trouble and of course extra costs from having to apply this to crops.
Quick search, plenty to find
“Over the last decade, sulphur deficiency has increased sub-
stantially in many crops in the UK, and is predicted to
increase further because the decreasing trend in S emis-
sions is expected to continue. Sulphur is important not only
for crop yields but also for crop quality. Sulphur deficiency
can also result in greater losses of nitrogen to the environ-
ment. To predict where S deficiency is likely to occur and to
recommend optimised uses of S fertilisers requires a
detailed understanding of the S cycling in soil-crop sys-
tems. A better understanding of the molecular physiology
of crop S nutrition is imperative for improving S utilisation
efficiency and crop quality.”
http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/corporate/annualreport/2000/7-Sulphur.pdf
Always someone else’s money.
This shows I am paying for something that was not even needed in my region and should have been implemented on a site by site basis rather than requiring all coal plants to install the additional scrubbers.
When it comes to SO2 and particulates the coal emissions can and should be controlled. They can be too and what is needed are rational rules fairly applied. When one examines the situation those rules exist and are often fairly applied. What is difficult is separating the emotional hype and sophistry from all sides. I can not speak for other jurisdictions I can say our methods here in Alberta are reasonable, not perfect but reasonable. The big problem is often the difference between being able to measure something and understanding what that measurement means.
We certainly don’t want you getting more excited than you already are! Has it occurred to you that the reason we are not cooling faster is because of dropping sulfates. CO2 is so yesterday. GK
Gentlemen
Regards the EPA spokesman’s (Bryan Bloomer) statement:
“This is a huge success story for the EPA and the Clean Air Interstate Rule”
In my view, the EPA’s statement is a bad a joke. The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) rules were overturned by Federal Court in 2008 because the EPA failed to articulate how the regional CAIR rule it created matched the Clean Air Act’s requirement that the EPA must match its emission limitations to the actual impact of upwind States emissions on downwind states ). In short , using the CAIR rule, the EPA attempted to regulate virtually the entire Eastern United States without showing an actual state-to-state impacts. (CAIR remains in effect until the new CSARP rule is enacted).
When this attempt failed, the EPA then proceeded to redefine what constituted “significant impacts ” on downwind States in a manner which now requires even deeper emissions reductions than CAIR required. This was largely accomplished by claiming upwind States were impacting downwind States if a single monitor in an upwind state was out of compliance & any downwind State’s emissions were projected to enter a downwind State. The EPA new interpretation of “significant impact” was, developed by this current administration, what is the new CSAPR rule. These rules take into effect January 1, 2012.
There are three major problems with the approach used in CSAPR: 1) The EPA assumed , thru atmospheric modeling, that specific monitoring points in downwind states would be out of compliance. It did so even though it had actual data that showed the same downwind monitors were not out of compliance; 2) The EPA provided no evidence that the emissions from upwind state were actually contributing to (or would have contributed to) the failure of individual downwind air monitors to meet the compliance targets (i.e., they assumed that if even a minor amount of upwind States emissions might enter a downwind State that these theoretical emissions would impact all monitors in the downwind State), and 3) The monitoring sites the EPA based its rule on were located in counties with multiple monitors which were not out of compliance even with their modeling assumptions (thus indicating a clear local problem unrelated to interstate emissions from electric generating units).
In short, the EPA has ignored evidence that specific cities had (or might have) serious local problems with non-utility facilities like coke plants. Instead of addressing the local problems, the EPA used the process as a means of severely restricting the use of coal by electric utilities. The really galling part of this is that the EPA is deliberately sacrificing the health of citizens in those few areas of the country where real health issues exist.
Regards,
Kforestcat
@Sandy says:
Mt. Pinutabo injected 20 million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. So 300 years of total US output in one of Nature’s smaller belches.
++++
Exactly! What was the devastating local or downwind effect of ‘all that acid rain’ that should have been created by Mt. Pinatubo? Anything at all? Flattening of forests in an acid rain soup with the floating rotting bodies of endangered species of frog? If there was nothing because of high level dispersion, it supports the old argument that dilution is the solution to pollution.
Personally I like the desulphurisation approach as the byproduct (sulphur) is valuable. Anyone up for desulphurising a volcano? Might cost a bit. I accept cheques.