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.
Non sequitur.
At least some of the decrease is likey due to the downturn in the economy.
Re: CFL lights and mercury. Whenever somebody breaks a CFL (not rare at my place) the mercury goes into their home (air, carpet, clothes, lungs, food, etc.) with pretty much no dilution. When coal plants (or waste dumps) release it, it gets mighty dilute before it gets to me.
The effects of coal should be evaluated with the best science available, and the shouting (meaning the political silly twaddle) should be a minimum. A good reason to dial back on coal is it, along with petroleum, is too valuable to just burn. It can be used in pharmaceuticals, plastics, paints, etc. We may be wanting it more for those things in the not too distant future.
But the dial back shold not be done with fire-sale panic. All that will do is tank the economy and under cut the very research that will let us solve our problems.
This is easy to resolve all we need to do is pass a law ensuring that noboby anywhere on the planet burns anything for the next decade.
At the end of the decade our betters will be able to relate the outcome of the experiment, that is providing they are still alive and capable of speech.
This is great news!
Now they can measure the SO2 emissions anywhere!
So….
Could we please get that satellite taking a few snaps of China?
The last refuge of the warmists seems to be that all those new coal powered plants in China are emitting aerosols that are “masking” the warming from CO2. Personally I doubt it. To do that, they’d have to build coal fired power plants to standards even lower than what we built in the 1940’s… let alone today’s standards. My guess is that their plants are just as clean or cleaner than our plants of the same vintage.
But why guess when you can measure? So c’mon warmists…. pony up some bucks… let’s go measure. What have you got to lose? Other than the last teeny bit of credibility that you still have?
Decreased SO2 from coal plants in the 70’s due to scrubbers might have been a contributuor to warming, has anyone done any research into it?
Sandy says:
Interesting that on a website populated by self-proclaimed “skeptics”, none of the 50+ posts following this one have expressed any skepticism about its claims, while two posters have cheered it with the same word: “Exactly.”
Well, not exactly! It turns out that the total US output of SO2 in one or two years (see here: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewInd&lv=list.listbyalpha&r=219694&subtop=341 ) … not 300 years … is about 20 millions tons of SO2, i.e., the same as what was apparently put out by Mt. Pinatubo.
Also, the Mt. Pinatubo eruption is hardly one of nature’s smaller belches, being the second largest eruption of the 20th century according to the list here: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/platetec/topten.htm ). Admittedly, there have been much larger eruptions in the geologic past, but I don’t think they are too relevant for discussing modern contributions of SO2 emissions into the atmosphere.
Joel Shore;
Interesting that on a website populated by self-proclaimed “skeptics”, none of the 50+ posts following this one have expressed any skepticism about its claims, while two posters have cheered it with the same word: “Exactly.”>>>
Interesting that on RC if someone were to interject with a contrary opinion backed up by measurements and links, the comment would never see the light of day. Thanks for making the point Joel.
How do anthropogenic sources over all compare with natural sources over all? Hint; don’t forget to include the ocean.
Oh goody, more data to manipulate!
Joel Shore says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:26 pm
The link you show gives the following response:
Repeated tries gave the same result. Is the link good as far as you know?
Joel Shore;
Please ignore my previous re your link not working. The site is up now and available.
Dear All,
My apologies for the ‘off topic’ nature of this request.
I am looking for an explanation or reply to the comment that ‘Australians must do something about reducing carbon dioxide emissions because they are the largest ‘per capita’ emitters in the world’
Is there a succinct demolition of this arguement , i.e. why not to use ‘per capita’ references/data?
Thanks, William Martin
From Joel Shore on December 3, 2011 at 7:26 pm:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Your source (graph here) uses customary US short tons. 2005 (most recent year) shows 15 million short tons US SO₂ emissions, which is about 13.6 million tonnes, round to 14 Mmt.
If you’re going to take the time to verify the numerical values, you might as well make sure you’re using the same physical units.
😉
‘Australians must do something about reducing carbon dioxide emissions because they are the largest ‘per capita’ emitters in the world’
That’s because Australia doesn’t have nuclear power and very little hydro-electric, unlike comparable countries like Canada and the USA.
75% of Canada’s electricity comes from hydroelectric and nuclear. In Australia, it’s less than 1%.
SO2 is easy to remove from flue gasses leaving water vapour and CO2 neither of which are pollutants. So there you have it— Clean Coal
The parallels between CO2 and SO2 are getting kind of ‘uncanny’ and even as just a ‘cow farmer’ growing grass forage for my animals, I’ve discovered the benefits of extra sulphur in the fertilizer I buy. Sulphur is an essential plant (and animal) nutrient (is it used to make protein?)
Why did no-one listen to this report, especially for anyone who has read Lomborg’s book.
In the light of those, de-sulphurisation is a triumph of the ‘digging holes to fill them back in again’ ethic – that is exactly what happens in the UK. Huge holes are being dug to get the required limestone, power plant efficiency is chopped by at least 5%, mountains of unwanted gypsum are created to go back into the holes they’ve dug and extra (unnecessary) expense is added to everyone’s cost of living for those most basic of requirements, food and power.
Quite quite mad, the lot of them.
The EPA calculation concerning the environmental impacts of an incandescent lamp versus a CFL falls short on many aspects.
1. EPA compares an incandescent lamp of 60W with a CFL of 13W. According to a VITO-study (Final Report. Domestic lighting, 2009, p. 112-113) it should be better to use the equivalence of 4:1. So, a 60W incandescent lamp should be replaced by a 15W CFL. This requirement compensates for the lower real life performance of the CFLi compared to GLS [incandescent lamp: ‘General Lighting Service lamp’] due to lower LLMF (ageing factor, (…)), temperature effects, potential influence from lamp position and a compensation for the low start performance due to warm-up time.
2. EPA asserts that the CFL has a lifetime of 8000 hours. According to several consumers’ organizations, the tested lifetime of the CFL does not always match the promised lifetime. One of the most common complaints of customers is premature failure after only a few hours, days, weeks or years, way short of the life rate stated on the package. The New York Times brought attention to this problem: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/business/energy-environment/28bulbs.html?_r=1 .
3. According to EPA, the national average of mercury emissions (mg/kWh) due to the electricity production, is 0.012 mg. With the study “Dirty Kilowatts. America’s Top Fifty Power Plant Mercury Polluters, March 2010” in hand, one can conclude that, for the year 2008, the mentioned mercury emission was about 0.009 mg/kWh. For more details, see my paper “Mercury in fluorescent lighting”.(http://www.mijnbestand.nl/Bestand-YLBHPNAA6ADP.pdf) Remark that the emission must be large to justify the use of CFL! The introduction of CFLs and the ban of incandescents can only be justified by EPA if the mercury emission by coal-fired power plants remains high!! With a low or no mercury emission, the CFLs would become obsolete. Then only these lamps should cause mercury pollution.
4. As already has been mentioned by “kadaka (KD Knoebel)” in her/his excellent comment, EPA uses a trick to minimize the impact of mercury in a landfill. The content of 4 mg mercury in the CFl has been reduced to only 0.44 mg!! As if by magic, 89% of the mercury content has disappeared! It is known that landfill mercury is converted to methyl mercury by microbial action. (See presentation by Kevan Shaw: http://savethebulb.org/document-downloads ) More information can be found in my paper.
5. The mentioned EPA calculation does not factor in the power factor. For lamps operating on a ballast or electronics such as CFLi’s, this power factor can go down to 0,50; the lower the power factor, the higher the electrical current that is needed to result in the same real power. This higher current causes 5% more losses in the electrical grid that feeds the lamp. Therefore a correction factor ‘Lamp Wattage Factor LWFp’ is introduced. (VITO-study, 2009, p. 131) Therefore, the lamp wattage factor of the CFL lamp should be determined at 1.05 instead of 1, i.e. 13.65 W instead of 13 W or better (see remark 1) 15.75 W instead of 15 W.
6. EPA makes only a comparison between two lamps: an incandescent lamp and a CFL. Meanwhile, a new lamp is on the market: the halogen bulb. This lamp has the light quality of an incandescent bulb and saves up to 30% energy. They are not expensive. In comparison with the CFL and the incandescent bulb, this lamp is the best choice. The consequence is far-reaching: CFLs are just needless and very noxious, because alternatives are available under various forms and technologies.
7. As stated by “kadaka (KD Knoebel)”: “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.” According to The Times on line, dated May 3, 2009: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6211261.ece )
Large numbers of Chinese workers have been poisoned by mercury, which forms part of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs. A surge in foreign demand, set off by a European Union directive making these bulbs compulsory within three years, has also led to the reopening of mercury mines that have ruined the environment.
I hope that this arguments will put pressure on the EPA to lift the ban on incandescent bulbs and even to ban the CFLs.
1.
Latitude says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:24 am
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/
________________________________________-
Someone a few days ago referred to that from a newer article. However the picture had changed and showed the EU and parts of the USA were deep red and the commenter was blaming the USA, Canada and the EU for producing CO2 using the article for evidents.
So THAT is what happen to the report.
Here is the article it is #1 on the google listings (SURPRIZE) http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html
It is rather interesting because this image: http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width/hash/70/31/70319ba7fa0b483c5892e7f9b3a9f7f7.jpg
was captured February 17, 2010 12:31 am ET by the Examiner with the title Worldwide data about CO2 and Methane levels taken from a Japanese satellite opening to the public. and CREDIT: image:NIES press release
http://www.examiner.com/japan-headlines-in-national/co2-and-methane-worldwide-data-from-japanese-satellite-to-be-opened-to-public
There is a link to https://data.gosat.nies.go.jp/GosatUserInterfaceGateway/guig/GuigPage/open.do
Another link to Joshua Williams who looks at the news from Japan for the examiner. Perhaps he can shed some light on WUWT http://www.examiner.com/japan-headlines-in-national/joshua-williams (Hint to Anthony)
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. When you cite research which shows these levels falling, I will get really excited.
________________________________
OH?
So you admit you are a Malthusian and get a kick out of babies starving to death and old folks freezing to dead.
Beware what you wish for because it is not what you think and you will live to regret it.
As a college student in the 1960’s I wished people would appreciate nature more. Now I find that wish has turned into my worst nightmare. It has been used as the excuse to wipe my civilization and my country off the map.
*****
crosspatch says:
December 3, 2011 at 9:23 am
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.
*****
As Marvin Martian said, “That makes me very angry. Very angry indeed!”
I know the US doesn’t have anywhere close to 28 GW of idle reserve. So what exactly will happen when these EPA proclamations from holy-high come down? Just shut off the plants? Brownouts would begin when just a few of the largest ones were shut off.
This is exactly the atmosphere of fear & uncertainty that the EPA, NGOs & leftists-greenies (and our present Obamanation-in-Chief) desire so they can continue gnawing away at the foundations of the US. I’m not kidding.
In Reply to kadaka (KD Knoebel) says @ur momisugly December 3, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Regarding your comments on utility Hg emissions. Your right on target. This is precisely why the EPA’s own cost figures show the proposed Utility MACT rule (renamed the HAPs Toxic Rule) shows that for a 9 billion dollar investment the health benefit of removing the mercury is a measly 2.5 million. It’s also the reason the EPA added fake PM 2.5 “health benefits” the to HAPs rule. Bluntly put, EPA had to beef up the health claims to justify Hg regulation.
Kforestcat
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….
________________________________________
I agree with you and our lab produced a lot of data to prove it.
The De-izoning unit was turning out very acidic water. The batch had to have a pH of 8.1 We went nuts trying to come up with a constant amount of KOH to add to the batches and ended up having to titrate the water for every batch.
The analysis by the manufacturers of the DI equipment showed the problem was long chain organic acids from the low level of the Merrimack River due to a drought. This was back in 1985ish
Joel Shore,
Good point. In fact I was doing the web research and getting ready to post similar to yours.
Pinutabo put out about 1.5 years of US emissions (based on 2005 emissions).
One of the Iceland volcanos puts out about 1 million tons per year (3000 tons daily).
Don’t be so skeptical about skeptical web sites (lest we label you a skeptical web site denier)
I have a PhD in Biophysical Chemistry and thus have a good grasp of all 3 major branches of science. I just want the real uncertainties to be admitted and used in all discussions and for this settled science nonsense to be exposed. Most real scientists (including most AGW climatologists) don’t say the science is settled.
kadaka says:
My “one or two years” comment purposely gave a range since:
(1) the amount of SO2 that Mt. Pinatubo emitted is presumably not known to a great degree of precision.
(2) U.S. SO2 emissions have been steadily declining over time due to environmental regulations, so it was not clear what number should be used. (If the author of the original post was trying to imply that SO2 should never have been regulated, the number to use would presumably be what was emitted before regulations cut the value back. If the author was trying to imply that SO2 no longer needs to be regulated, the number to use would presumably be what was emitted before regulations cut the value back.)
In the light of the above uncertainties and the fact that I incorporated them by saying “one or two years”, the small correction due to the difference between short tons and metric tonnes is irrelevant.
davidmhoffer says:
I don’t know, do you have any references that show the ocean is a significant emitter of SO2…and, if so, are you talking about gross emissions or net emissions? Clearly, it would not be honest to look at only one side of the ledger. (I did a quick google search and didn’t find anything.)
[I almost think that your comment might have been meant to refer more to CO2, in which case my question above is not relevant but the second question (gross vs net) clearly is.]