Recently Austin's coal plant got it's "scrubbers." Mike Sloan, Texas energy consultant and founder of PowerSmack.org says, "Completion of the scrubbers at the Fayette coal plant is good news and bad news."
Article Summary:
CO2 emissions are still VERY high
Significant costs of new scrubbers will impede city's climate protection efforts
Though somewhat cleaner, the plant still spews record levels of pollutants, harming children, adults, food chain, etc.
Read more about "record pollutants": http://www.austineconetwork.co...
###
Mike elaborates:
"GOOD - in that these scrubbers lessen emissions of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) by 95 percent & mercury by 20 percent for operation of the coal plant." About SO2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
"BAD - the extra scrubber equipment makes the plant a little less efficient (like adding a catalytic converter to a car drops gas mileage performance), which means the coal plant will have a little more water use, fuel use, and higher CO2 emissions.
"ALSO BAD - Cost to produce a unit of energy ($ per Megawatt) is distinctly higher. In addition to the decreased performance, there are increased operating costs for extra workers and maintenance of the scrubbers and substantial capital costs ($400+ million) that have been incurred. My understanding is that Austin Energy financed their contribution over 30 years..." Note, the whole plant (three coal-fired generating units) is owned by Austin Energy and the LCRA. The is managing partner of the facility. This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_WG1h5LFk0&feature=youtu.be) from the LCRA sites total costs at $445 million, of which Austin Energy customers will cover about $220 million.
Mike continues:
"BADDEST - For those wanting to lower CO2 emissions, the scrubbers are a major utility investment that represent a major step in extending the life of the coal plant 30 years. A lot of people involved with the decision to invrest in the scrubbers will likely want this coal plant to run for several decades to justify the big investment (and the scrubbers don't reduce CO2)."
A 2004 study by Public Citizen lists Austin's coal plant as the 34th worst CO2 polluter in the USA (contact me for a copy of that report) and AUSTIN ENERGY readily admits the coal plant is responsible for more than 70 percent of the utility's total CO2 emissions. (Solution? The author of this article thinks Austin should plant more trees.)
WORST - "In contrast, perhaps 1/3 of coal plants in the USA are (now) scheduled to shut down for economic reasons alone over the next 10 years (for example, TVA just made a big announcement: http://timesfreepress.com/news...
ALSO - In San Antonio, CPS "recently announced that rather than spend half a billion on scrubbers to extend the life of their oldest coal plant, they expect to shut the coal plant down earlier and accelerate their investment in solar power. LCRA & Austin made the decision to fix up their coal plant when natural gas prices were high (around 2005). If (Austinites) knew what natural gas price forecasts would be today, they too may have decided to shut Fayette down rather than invest in the scrubbers. But now that they have made the investment, LCRA & Austin Energy will likely want to keep the coal plant running for a very long time. If (Austinites) knew what natural gas price forecasts would be today, they too may have decided to shut Fayette down rather than invest in the scrubbers."
And finally:
INSULT TO INJURY - "The sulfur/mercury/etc waste slurry that comes from the [scubbers] is largely turned into building materials. If it was not, I believe if would have to go into a special landfill for hazardous waste."
Not to mention, a coalition of Texas enviro groups recently filed suit against LCRA & Austin Energy for "thousands of violations of the Clean Air Act" at the plant.
Links below.
|
