Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In the process of writing my piece about Lisa Jackson and the EPA, I got to reading about the EPA passing new mercury regulations. Their regulations are supposed to save the lives of some 11,000 people per year. So I figured I should learn something about mercury. It turned out to be quite surprising … here was my first surprise:
Figure 1. Natural and anthropogenic sources of atmospheric mercury emissions. About 7,500 tonnes of mercury are emitted into the atmosphere each year. Named countries show anthropogenic (human caused) emissions for that country.
My first surprise was that far and away the largest emitter of atmospheric mercury is the ocean. The ocean? I’d never have guessed that. Other huge emitters are various lightly vegetated land areas. In addition, forests, volcanoes, and geothermal vents are significant emitters … which is the reason for my new religious crusade:
So … what are the anthropogenic sources of mercury emissions, and how much of those are emitted from North America? Figure 2 shows those values:
Figure 2. North American emissions versus the rest of the world.
As you can see, North America is not doing well at all in the mercury emission sweepstakes. The rest of the world is busting our chops, easily out-emitting us in all categories. We’ve fallen way, way behind, the Chinese are kicking our emissionary fundament-als. Not only that, but the residence time for mercury in the atmosphere is about a year, so they get our mercury … but we also get theirs …
Now, the “stationary combustion” figures are what the EPA is targeting with their new restrictions. Those are mostly the coal-fired power plants. So let’s see how much of the global emissions are caused by US power plants:
Figure 3. US power plant mercury emissions, and emissions from all other sources.
As you can see, the US power plants emit less than 1% of the global mercury emissions. Even if the EPA could get rid of every US coal plant, it will not make a measurable difference in the atmospheric mercury.
Now, here comes the fun part. The new EPA regulations will not cut out all the mercury from US power plants. We’re already pretty efficient at removing mercury, and each additional reduction comes with more difficulty.
So let’s assume that the EPA regs will cut out 25 tonnes of mercury per year. This is supposed to save 11,000 lives every year. So that means if we could wave a magical wand and cut out all of the mercury, 100 percent of it, we should expect to save about 11,000 times 7500/25 = 11,000 times 300 = 3,300,000 lives saved every year … and if you believe that three million people die every year from mercury poisoning, you too could get a job with the EPA.
That’s the thing about facts. As Homer Simpson says,
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!
w.
All data from N. Pirrone et al., Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2010
For further reading, see Willie Soon’s excellent analysis of the EPA “science” on which they have based their mercury findings.
[UPDATE] To better illustrate the total natural and anthropogenic mercury emissions, here is a different version of the same data shown in Figure 1.
Natural sources account for about 70% of the world’s total mercury emissions.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks Willis.
Willis, how about a pie chart showing the emissions PER SQUARE KM? The oceans are huge, and on a normalized basis, they are actually relatively small contributors. Notice that the total emission from non-ocean natural sources are almost as great as the oceanic emissions, but the non-ocean area is less than half as big as the oceans.
Also, as other have suggested, the problem is mostly local. Thus, even if the emission per km^2 of land area are smaller for anthropogenic sources than for natural source, those emissions are concentrated, so a few areas will be MUCH higher than natural rates, while most areas will be pretty close to the natural rates.
tjfolkerts says:
April 1, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Thanks, tj. Certainly emissions from the ocean on a global average per-area value will be lower than those from the land. I just calculated it, though, and the ocean emissions are about 40% of the land emissions on a per square km basis … which is lower, but is still highly significant.
Well … that sounds reasonable, but I have a post in preparation that shows that it’s not necessarily true with regards to power plants. Stay tuned.
w.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/02/10/lawrence-solomon-the-fallout-of-the-nobel-scam-of-1946/
I am a biochemist with over 40 years experience in fields of metabolism, endocrinology, etc. I have come to understand that most metabolic diseases, including cancer, diabetes, and others, are diseases of deficiency, not insult. Many agents, especially trace metals, have opposite, or contradictory effects depending on concentration. Selenium, Boron, Copper, Zinc—the list goes on. Even hydrogen sulfide, the most toxic gas (more than hydrogen cyanide) has trace function in metaqbolism. The immune system is an amazing system, that runs on the most part in response to thresholding. This means that above certain levels something happens to induce a new set point. There may be three or more separate concentration levels for the same compound whereupon other systems come into play (feedback loops). Homeostasis is the metabolic condition that the body, under the control of certain stimuli, seeks to achieve a constant overall state. Homeorhesis happens, in response to a new stimulus or set of conditions, in which the body achieves a new set point, and a new homeostatic condition results.
I would not be surprised at all, in my experience, if mercury is found to be an essential element at low levels. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The EPA is an arrogant bunch of sons-of-guns that pretend they are wise.
1.) If you add up all of the EPA’s rules, it’s clear that they must save at least a planetful of people every single day! Then they have to destroy them so they’ll have a place to put the next batch.
2.) Haven’t we already had people who wanted to run the world in order to protect our precious and sacred bodily fluids? Doesn’t it seem like they had better clothes and better brains last time? Could the degeneration of our religious fanatics be a result of Mercury poisoning?
This paper (eec.ucdavis.edu/ACEEE/2008/data/papers/6_465.pdf) offers some numbers relating to mercury and CFLs. Summarizing, 4 mg of Hg is a modern average for each CFL; it’s expected to go down to 1-1.4 mg; by 2007 manufacturers had routinely reached 2-3.5 mg per CFL. Of the 4 mg, 0.44 mg is released when the CFL is landfilled. The net emission benefit of a CFL is 4.2mg. A 13 W CFL lasts 8,000 hours. It is equivalent to 8 (1000 rated hours) 60 Watt incandescents. The CFL will save 376 KWh, avoiding 4.2 mg of power plant mercury emissions.
Sorry, last line should read: The CFL will save 376 KWh, avoiding 4.6 mg of power plant mercury emissions.
Robert Brown says: April 1, 2012 at 10:22 am Re mercury and lead are obviously toxins.
For lead, the jury is out. See the failure to answer http://dnacih.com/SILVA.htm
For mercury, my fun-filled handling days in the lab were 40 years ago, but since then I’ve been in many a mining gold room where amalgam has been used to separate the gold. I’ve also had original teeth with Hg amalgam fillings since I lost my milk teeth about 1946.
In my time as a chemist I have seen almost every chemical known to man to be domonised, to be described as having no safe lower dose, stories of marine food chain accumulation. In 1970 I measured the mercury in the hair of the people in my lab and it correlated nicely with age. So what?
Unfortunately, Robert Brown, you are a victim of an enormous chemophobic propaganda machine whose devious statements you are prepared to accept without confirmation. Well, I’ve done actual research into these matters, like my friends Allen Christophers and Pam de Silva did for lead, for 40 years.
Here is the 2010 version of the USA official list of substances known to cause cancer. Mercury or lead anywhere? If not, why not?
4-Aminobiphenyl
Analgesic Mixtures Containing Phenacetin
Arsenic Compounds, Inorganic
Asbestos
Azathioprine
Benzene
Benzidine (See Benzidine and Dyes Metabolized to Benzidine)
Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds
1,3-Butadiene
1,4-Butanediol Dimethanesulfonate (Myleran®)
Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds
Chlorambucil
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (MeCCNU)
bis(Chloromethyl) Ether
Chromium Hexavalent Compounds
Coal Tar Pitches (See Coal Tars and Coal Tar Pitches)
Cyclophosphamide
Cyclosporin A
Diethylstilbestrol
Erionite
Estrogens, Steroidal
Ethylene Oxide
Melphalan
Methoxsalen with Ultraviolet A Therapy (PUVA)
Mineral Oils (Untreated and Mildly Treated)
Mustard Gas
2-Naphthylamine
Nickel Compounds (See Nickel Compounds and Metallic Nickel)
Radon (See Ionizing Radiation)
Silica, Crystalline (Respirable Size)
Strong Inorganic Acid Mists Containing Sulfuric Acid
Tamoxifen
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD); “Dioxin”
Thiotepa 249
Vinyl Chloride
Wood Dust
Charlie,
Thanks for the link to the paper!
EPA made the assumption that 0.012 mg of mercury per kWh is emitted from US electricity generation. A made a study of this (see link on my name) and concluded that the emission was about 0.009 mg Hg per kWh. Clearly, there is a decreasing trend as a consequence of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). In 2006, coal-fired power plants emitted about 50 tons of mercury into the air. In 2010 the co-benefits of CAIR were estimated to reduce mercury emissions to 34.5 metric tonnes. The specific requirements of CAMR (the Clean Air Mercury Rule) will further reduce mercury emissions to 13.6 tonnes by 2020. (UNEP, Report presenting the costs and benefits for each of the strategic objectives. Addendum. 14 July 2008)
The trick of EPA is to use the old number of mercury emission in order to push up artificially the gains by CFLs.
Another trick is to minimize the mercury pollution in landfills. A recent collaborative study by
researchers at EPA and other environmental consulting firms estimated 10% of the mercury
contained in a fluorescent lamp is released as air emissions, 1% is released to water, and 89% is
held in soil (contained in landfills) (Cain et al. 2007). As if by magic, 89% of the mercury content has disappeared! That the soil is contaminated with a mercury solution seems not be a problem for EPA. Other studies do not agree. However, when a CFL bulb breaks in a landfill, there is much less dissipation and bacteria convert metallic mercury into methyl-mercury which is 100 times more soluble in fat. (Commission Staff Working Document, Accompanying document to the Commission Regulation implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirement for non-directional household lamps, 18-3-2009, p.79)
Let us make the calculation again with the right numbers.
We compare a CFL 13W 8000 h (104 kWh use) with an incandescent 60W 8000 h (= 8 bulbs) (480 kWh use). Now we accept a national mercury emission of 0.009 mg/kWh and factor in 100% mercury from the lamps.
Hg emission from electricity use by the CFL: 0.94 mg (instead of 1.25 mg)
Hg emission from electricity use by the incandescent: 4.32 mg (instead of 5.76 mg).
Hg emissions from landfilling by the CFL: 4 mg (instead of 0.4 mg)
Total Hg (CFL): 4.94 mg (instead of 1.65 mg)
Total Hg (incandescent): 4.32 mg (instead of 5.76 mg)
Conclusion: Regarding the environmental impact, the incandescent lamp is a better choice than de CFL!
Assuming all 290 million CFLs sold in 2007 are landfilled, they will contribute to supplementary mercury emission of 180 kg ((4.94 – 4.32 mg) * 290 million)! By banning all CFLs the emission of mercury would be reduced a lot. In future, by further reducing the mercury emission by power plants, the CFLs will become still more obsolete.
Great information. The comparison of anthropogenic to natural sources is particularly useful. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
Ookay. But … wotif the pollution (= human contribution above b/g) is virtually indetectable noise in the natural environmental cycling? IMO that means that virtually EVERY cent spent on other than local on-site hotspot controls is wasted, and probably counter-productive on any sane CBA basis.
Brian H says:
April 2, 2012 at 7:50 am
Anthropogenic mercury is about 30% of the total, and is easily detectable.
w.
@Willis
“Fascinating, thanks for that, Crispin. Rather than some airborne biological factor that removes mercury from the air, my guess would be that there is a biological pump in the ocean that puts the mercury in the air in the first place … but that’s just a guess.”
I have discussed this with Prof Harold Annegarn of the Univ of Johannesburg who is an airborne particulate specialist and remote sensing guru. He has nothing to offer either. Prof Lodoysamba of the National University of Mongolia (Ulaanbaatar) was in attendance and was very interested in the finding. Both are nuclear physicists who have gone into particles and airborne pollution, with a good understanding of particle chemistry, and it is stumping them. Your second article offers nothing on this either. The assumption is the atmosphere is pretty constant. Maybe it is, over land.
As the data should be available on line perhaps someone can postulate how a seawater-based mechanism could vary the concentration based on the frequency and duration. If it is something in the water, it means the atmosphere holds onto the elemental mercury for only a matter of hours, at the most, at sea level – a very short cycle. Looks like something eats mercury.
Crispin in Muizenberg says:
April 3, 2012 at 3:11 pm
If you find the data please post a link.
Regarding a mechanism, I would suggest that one possibility would be a biological mechanism. As this would likely be driven by solar energy it could only function in daylight. And of course the organisms would need to be there.
Another possibility that strikes me is that it is related to wind. When the wind gets high enough you start to have bubbles and spray and foam. When the bubbles pop or the spray evaporates in midair, seems like you’d get more Hg in the air.
In any case, the attraction of both of those hypotheses is that production is local and time-limited
Here’s some more info.
Hahahaha Americans. Always putting business before health and the environment. The EPA must be evil. In fact, the EPA is so evil they could play a villain in the next Bond film. Here’s a plot for you: “James Bond is the only thing standing in the way between the EPA and the success of their plan to reduce the release of harmful substances into the environment.” Stop comparing yourselves to China and India. In those countries human life is cheap – meaning the Government does not care about the effects of hazardous substances released into the environment. If the US reaches the point of being like India and China, i.e. pursuing industry with zero regulation, then the US will truly be a third world country – putting the interests of big business before the health of the individual. For a country that makes a big deal out of its constitution and indivdual liberty, it sure has no problem stepping on those individual liberties where a corporation believes money is to be made or saved. Just look at groundwater contamination in the pursuit of natural gas. Time to wake up USA. Stop comparing the dangerous and unethical business practices of third world countries to your own practices and crying poor. It’s funny how US pundits talk about China and India having greater industrial freedoms to release greenhouse gasses as unfair, and yet the same pundits completely ignore the record graduation levels in science and engineering in the same countries. It seems that the only time pundits are upset with their own country is when their neighbour is busy destroying their environment, but when China and India are graduating more Phds than the US the pundits are nowhere to be heard. Lobbyists and big business are lining the pockets of your talking heads and opinion makers, whose only allegiance is their network executives and their own bank account. God help us all.
Jumbo says:
April 16, 2012 at 12:02 am
Actually, I’ve looked and looked for groundwater contamination from fracking, and I haven’t found any. Neither has the EPA. However, the urban legend has lots of folks that believe it, like yourself …
So how about you come up with some science that shows such contamination. Not some newspaper article, but some science?
w.