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.
Sandy says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:45 am
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. The enviros are once again crediting themselves for fixing imaginary problems. Just like the ozone hole. I can’t wait until they announce they’ve fixed the GW issue.
Interesting article, however I have one question. Was generator output the same for the two periods? If so, then the decrease in SO2 is impressive.
One can look in near real time to see where the SO2 is in the atmosphere. For example, I find this handy for keeping track of volcanic eruptions:
http://satepsanone.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/OMI/OMISO2/blowup_drag_ME.html (takes a while to load, be patient)
You will see a fairly decent “smudge” in Africa, that is Nyamuragira which has been putting on quite a show recently and has been emitting a fairly large amount of SO2 right at the equator since November 6 or so. You’ll also notice a plume from Mexico, that’s Popocatepetl. Then there’s a plume in the Columbia/Ecuador region. Those are Tungurahua and Galeras which are both erupting. You can see a bit of a burp in Hawaii and there is a rather large plume that has been going on for months and months Northeast of Australia at Vanuatu.
…but let’s shut down and bankrupt the coal industry anyway, because screw you, America! -BHO and the EPA.
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. ”
What exactly is the problem with CO2? Even the IPCC admits that it will be beneficial until at least 2050 because of its wonderful effects at increasing plant growth rates, better water utilization, and longer growing seasons. And given that the earth’s actual average temperature is tracking substantially below the best case predictions that extends the benefits right on through the end of economically recoverable fossil fuels 200 years from now.
By far the most insidious disinformation is that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are actually helping make the world a greener place. Anyone actually concerned about greening of the earth knows that green things barely manage to survive seasonal ice and snow and they sure as hell don’t prosper from freezing weather.
Mike from Canmore says:
December 3, 2011 at 8:46 am
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I had several similar experiences 20 plus years ago including one where a client was prohibited from discharging sewage into a lake … until we discovered that the sewage was actually of significantly better quality than the existing lake water and would actually improve the quality of water for aquatic life forms. Sometimes things are not what they appear on first glance.
It is estimated that between 20-30 million tons of coal is burned each year in coal seam fires that have started both naturally and sparked by man. Lewis and Clark reported natural coal seam fires burning in Wyoming. One fire in China that over 50 years consumed an estimated 12.43 million tons of coal and prevented another 651 million tons from being mined was only recently put out.
We are basically talking about the entire annual coal production of West Virginia going up in smoke every year without any “scrubbing”. Much of this is very dirty high sulfur coal. The pollution emitted by these fires is roughly equal to all of the pollution emitted by transportation related fossil fuel burning in the entire world. In other words, putting these fires out would be equal to eliminating the pollution from every car, truck, and train from the face of the earth.
Then lets begin to talk about natural gas and oil seeps. In the Gulf of Mexico alone the equivalent of two Exxon Valdez loads of oil naturally seeps into the Gulf every year. The amount of oil that naturally seeps into the environment per year is greater than the amount spilled from all human drilling activity over the entire decade of the 1990’s.
People simply have no sense of scale of how much natural pollution goes on and tend to inflate their own impacts.
many power plants in the United States have installed desulfurization devices and taken other steps that limit the release of sulfur dioxide.
The funny thing is, that the simplest way to control SO2 emissions is to neutralize those emissions with “milk of lime”…but, to obtain it you need “burnt lime”, by burning CaCO3 with fuel so as to decompose it in CaO + CO2 🙂
Yes, Steve. Also, someone at NOAA needs to be fired and the Geophysical Research Letters need to be shunned. Who were the reviewers? We need to know and we also need to do something about these Canadian researchers who are committing crimes agains humanity!
There is an alternative way:
Reaction 1: SO2+CuO = SO3+ Cu
Reaction 2: Cu+ Air(O)+ Heat = CuO
Reaction 3: SO3+ H2O =H2SO4
Hugh Pepper~ If CO2 begins to drop substantially, you will Need to be excited. Shivering will (slightly) offset the increasing Cold you will be feeling.
So, no more “Death Trains” from Dr. Hansen??
Up until about 20-25 years ago the application of sulphur-rich fertilizers was unknown in England. The land received sufficient sulphur from dissolved gasses in rainfall. Since the environmentalist’s mandated “clean-up” farmers now have to spread far less efficient sulphur-rich fertilizers on their crop-land but it would appear that a lot of the sulphur so applied is leached from the soil before the plants can make use of it. This results in sulphur pollution of water courses which is detrimental to aquatic life. This is a relatively new phenomenon to most, but one which Rothamsted has been measuring for about 150 years!
“Annual applications of >50 kg S ha-1 as sulphate for more than 150 years in the Broadbalk Experiment have not resulted in an accumulation of S in the soil.”
http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/corporate/annualreport/2000/7-Sulphur.pdf
We’re supposed to trust glorified weathermen…..
…..when we can’t even get batteries right?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/green/chevy-volt-fires-have-some-asking-are-electric-vehicle-batteries-safe/19541
At least one of the dots on that map — Zimmer, in south western Ohio — was SUPPOSED to be nuclear, and thus emit zero SO3. But the environMENTALists “won” that crusade.
The irony here is that SO2 reductions may well be a significant cause of ‘global warming’ due to SO2’s cloud seeding.
Less SO2 = fewer clouds = more solar insolation = warmer surface temps
sulfur dioxide
emissions has been constructed spanning the period 1850–
2005 using a bottom-up mass balance method, calibrated to
country-level inventory data. Global emissions peaked in
the early 1970s and decreased until 2000, with an increase
in recent years due to increased emissions in China, inter-
national shipping, and developing countries in general.
The timeline certainly fits much better than CO2.
You can add,
Less SO2 = more water vapour = increased greenhouse effect = warmer surface temps
500 kW-hrs generated means another ton of CO2
Shutting down those power plants IS their main goal,
not merely an unfortunate side effect.
Unplug the EPA from the grid
and make them pedal generators at their desks.
Dear Stephen Brown @ur momisugly December 3, 2011 at 1:40 pm
You are on target regarding sulfur depletion of the soils. Indeed when I was with the TVA’s National Fertilizer Development Center (NFDC) we developed sulfur coated urea specifically to address this problem (as well as to improve nitrogen utilization).
The problem is especially acute in non-developed countries where the average farmer struggles to afford fertilizers and may not be aware of the sulfur depletion issue.
Regards, Kforestcat
Werent SO2 scrubbers mandated in the 70’s? Perhaps there was a slight artificial cooling from the SO2 up to that point, which was removed, causing a slight warming?
Anyone know if someone has looked into this, could late 20th century warming be caused by a reduction the daily amount of SO2 being emitted into the atmosphere?
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
December 3, 2011 at 9:11 am
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.
###
Next you are going to be trying to tell us that the change in fish population was caused by the introduction of piscivorouse game fishes!
Interstellar Bill @ur momisugly 2.29
Pfffttt…
That is called ‘work at home’ (or work at second employment or activist venture) while still controlling the masses.
Regulation, based in selective selection of ‘samples’ and attendant ‘data’ input has extended to even more to the activities and industry of the bush.
The saga of Matt and Janet Thompson reported by WUWT and Jo Nova is an eg of that.
The workers and family business have been there with pedal and succeeded in educating their kids.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5714/picture/24026/
and http://www.wilmap.com.au/people/traeger.html
just to let you know how widespread the technology became.
Jason Miller said on December 3, 2011 at 9:03 am:
All what mercury?
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview_mercurycontrols.html (bold added):
Now compare that to this April 07, 2011 newspaper account of a growing Hg contamination issue:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/business/la-fi-lightbulb-mercury-20110407
I continually find this issue obfuscated by claims that the energy savings lead to reduced demand on coal-fired electric plants yielding less Hg emissions at those plants. To wit:
Some claims are even more extreme:
http://www.helplightnj.com/about/do-your-part-recycle-spent-cfl-bulbs/
Strangely enough, this claim does not factor in the Hg emissions from any coal-fired energy sources for the energy used in manufacturing and recycling CFL’s, let alone the Hg emissions from obtaining the Hg and manufacturing process releases. The 70% can be figured by a Nov 2010 EPA document (fine print says it’s a “living document” subject to change):
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
Which makes an amazing claim:
This allows them to significantly downgrade their estimate of Hg released. And they are also not mentioning the Hg emissions related to manufacturing, and recycling including recovering the Hg from the toxic glass, if possible. Since the EPA thinks 89% of the Hg will stay forever bound to the glass in a landfill, it must take a lot of energy to liberate the Hg when recycling. Looks like there may be even more Hg released by recycling than just chucking them into a landfill.
So the EPA wants to regulate out of existence the coal-fired power plants that release only a relatively tiny bit of worldwide Hg emissions. But they want us to use CFL’s while being less than precise about the Hg emissions involved. And if you’re really worried about those coal-fired power plant emissions, ask yourself this: Which gives you a more severe exposure to Hg, those plant emissions spread out across the map, or a single CFL broken in your house? With EPA recommendations of ventilating a room for several hours with outdoor air after breaking a CFL, the answer should be obvious.
Isn’t that beautiful?
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.
I think, that was the time, the CAGW hype started.
Lesser SO2 means lesser cloud condensation nuclei -> temperature increase.
So much for a “man-made” warming…
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.
SO2 from coal burning certainly does cause more acidic rain and more acidic rivers and lakes.
The natural PH of rivers and lakes varies greatly. Whether one lake or river is more or less acidic than another river or lake is irrelevant to whether SO2 emissions cause acid rain and more acidic lakes and rivers.