Mercury: a reality check
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Dave Houston on June 13, 2007, 8:32 pm
Please log in for more thread options http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htm "Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent." BTW, existing law calls for a 70% reduction in mercury emissions from US power plants over the next few years which means that mercury emissions from US coal-fired power plants will be about 0.03% of the total. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Dave Houston on June 14, 2007, 7:26 am
Please log in for more thread options I misplaced the decimal. That should read 0.3%. One shouldn't do figuring in one's head late at night. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Marc_F_Hult on June 14, 2007, 10:52 am
Please log in for more thread options On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:26:57 GMT, nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote in
>nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:
> >>BTW, existing law calls for a 70% reduction in mercury emissions from US
from
>>power plants over the next few years which means that mercury emissions >>US coal-fired power plants will be about 0.03% of the total.
>
>I misplaced the decimal. That should read 0.3%. One shouldn't do figuring in >one's head late at night. It is misleading and off-topic even as amended. Some folks think that you shouldn't be egging BobbyG on at any time of day or night no matter how transparent the motive. ... Marc Marc_F_Hult www.ECOntrol.org | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Marc_F_Hult on June 14, 2007, 11:46 am
Please log in for more thread options On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:32:41 GMT, nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote in
>From the EPA at...
> >http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htm > >"Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, >which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are >the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the >United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. >Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources >-- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 >tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account >for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants >are estimated to account for only about 1 percent." Dave Houston *starts* yet another off-topic thread on mercury/CFLs. Comp.home.automation has devolved into the Fox News of groups, forums and boards on the internet dealing with home automation. Reality check indeed. Dave searches for a quote on the internet that can be misinterpreted to mean that mercury from coal fired plants are a small problem in the US. The global surface area is 510065600 km^2 The US surface area is 9161923 km^2 So the US is less than 2% of the land mass. But according to the quote, US human sources _alone_ account for 3% Global _total_ which includes human and natural. So the total US emissions ( human + natural) is greater than 3% (but we can't know how much greater from the numbers provided). Even with what we are provided, we know that US is _still_ a mercury hotspot despite the misleading statistics presented to make the US look good because US > 2% of area.
The real "reality check" is that 40% of mercury emissions and most of the current biologically mobile mercury released into the environment in the US today comes from coal. And that there were 3,221 fish advisories in 2004 including the entire state of Kentucky where Dave lives. Globally there are important sources of anthropogenic mercury that are not tolerated in North America. For example, mercury is boiled off in vast amounts for gold refining in South America. So the global total is not what matters to US children (to use BobbyG's point of concern). >BTW, existing law calls for a 70% reduction in mercury emissions from US
>power plants over the next few years which means that mercury emissions from >US coal-fired power plants will be about 0.03% of the total. "BTW", USEPA under the Clinton administration determined that mercury emissions had to be reduced and was to issue *final* regulations by Dec 2004. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ac27bf9339f1c28525701c005e2edf /cd30963685856f30852569b5005ee740!OpenDocument The regs were scuttled by the Shrub administration. And they would and will take years to put in place now under the best of circumstances. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dave Houston *starts* yet another off-topic thread on mercury/CFLs. Comp.home.automation has devolved into the Fox News of groups, forums and boards on the internet dealing with home automation. ... Marc Marc_F_Hult www.ECOntrol.org | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by D&SW on June 14, 2007, 9:16 pm
Please log in for more thread options Ye gads I get tired of this constant "The sky is falling" crap.
> From the EPA at...
http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htm
> > >
> "Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, > which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants > are > the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the > United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. > Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources > -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 > tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to > account > for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power > plants > are estimated to account for only about 1 percent." > > BTW, existing law calls for a 70% reduction in mercury emissions from US > power plants over the next few years which means that mercury emissions > from > US coal-fired power plants will be about 0.03% of the total. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Mercury: a reality check | June 13, 2007, 8:32 pm |
| Check out this site | October 4, 2005, 2:50 pm |
| Smartlabs...check it out! | January 10, 2006, 7:01 pm |
| Home online ...check out | October 5, 2005, 5:21 am |
>power plants over the next few years which means that mercury emissions from
>US coal-fired power plants will be about 0.03% of the total.