The U.S. coal-fired power plant fleet is filled with geezers. Out of 1,522 existing generating units, 600 were running during the Nixon-Kennedy debates. Nearly 10 percent were built in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.
Still, it would be hard to find a coal plant that has seen more history than the Capitol Power Plant in Washington, D.C. It was commissioned by an act of Congress in 1904 and completed in 1910. That year, Teddy Roosevelt was the first U.S. President to ride in an airplane. The plant was eight years old when the doughboys came home from France. When it was ten, women won the right to vote.
You get the picture: this is one geriatric coal plant.
But don’t mistake aged for feeble. Though the Capitol Power Plant hasn’t produced a watt of electricity since 1952—just steam and refrigeration for the Capitol Complex—the old horse still delivers a chest-crunching, asthma-inducing kick, literally killing people in surrounding neighborhoods. A 2004 study by the Clean Air Task (PDF) estimated that 515 people die annually in the D.C. metropolitan area due to power plant emissions—fifth among all cities. In 2002, the Capitol Power Plant was responsible for 65 percent of the PM2.5 particulate pollution produced by all point sources in the District of Columbia. The consequent toll of premature deaths falls disproportionately on an impoverished, largely African American population.
With leadership from the Capitol architect and Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives last year initiated an effort to replace coal with natural gas for the portion of the Capitol Power Plant that serves the House of Representatives.
On the Senate side, things don’t look as good. Since 2000, two Senate leaders, Mitch McConnell (R-Va.) and Robert Byrd (D-WV), with a combined tenure of 73 years, have blocked the Senate from eliminating coal at the plant. In May 2007, CNN reported that two companies, International Resources Inc. and the Kanawha Eagle mine, have a contract to supply a combined 40,000 tons of coal to the plant over the next two years. The companies gave $26,300 to the McConnell and Byrd campaigns during the 2006 election cycle.
When you combine the death toll, the dirty money, and the climate impacts, you’ve got a pretty good microcosm of what’s wrong with U.S. coal policy.
Fortunately, PowerShift is bringing 10,000 young climate activists to D.C. in late February, and people are fired up for action. Organizers from over 20 groups are making plans for what looks to be the largest single protest against coal in the nation’s history, a peaceful sit-in scheduled for March 2 at the Capitol Power Plant.
Matt Leonard of Greenpeace, one of the organizers, writes:
We aim to create an action framework
that is accessible to all—from students, to elderly, to parents, to
notable public figures and beyond. We envision a structured event that
includes agreed-upon action guidelines, extensive training on
non-violence, and a respectful tone that participants would be asked to
abide by. We will have a legal team organized to support participants
and will have prior discussion with authorities as to our non-violent
intentions.
Around the world, direct action protests against coal have risen dramatically in the past year. A partial list compiled on the CoalSwarm wiki shows 11 such actions from 2004-2006, 17 in 2007, and 42 so far in 2008.
Several prominent individuals, including Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, NASA climate director James Hansen, author Wendell Berry, and NRDC cofounder Gus Speth, have argued that the climate crisis has reached such a level of urgency that non-violent direct action is now called for. In September, Hansen traveled to England to testify at the trial of the "Kingsnorth Six,” all of whom won acquittal.
On the website for the action, the organizers write:
We
can determine the fate of our generation. We know there is a climate
crisis and we know we have to stop it. We’ve
organized, we’ve lobbied, we’ve passed policies, we’ve educated, we’ve
agitated, and still our government has not recognized the scope and
urgency of global warming. We know we have the capacity to transform
our society. What we lack is the political will.
But now there is a new administration and a new
Congress, which gives us another chance. We have a window, but we must
open it. Together.
Like the movements that have come before us, we
have an opportunity to send a powerful message of urgency through
peaceful civil disobedience. There has never been an American tradition
more noble, and it is needed now more than ever.
Details on the Capitol Power Plant protest can be found here.
Is “we’re going to burn the coal anyway” an argument for carbon sequestration?
Fourteen Democratic senators stick up for coal
Big Coal and child victims
Comments
View as Flat
dwalters Posted 2:19 am
26 Dec 2008
David Walters
Permalink
Ted Nace Posted 7:26 am
26 Dec 2008
The information on emissions in this article came from data posted on the website of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' figures for 2002 and 2009. According to that data, the Capitol Power Plant produced 82.513 tons of PM2.5 particulates in 2002 and is projected to produce 98.59 tons of PM2.5 under both the "uncontrolled" and the "controlled" projections for 2009. One thing that would be helpful to understand is why the output of PM2.5 going up. NOX and SO2 emissions are also projected to be higher in 2009 than in 2002.
What's really shocking is that the Capitol Power Plant produces 4-5 times as much PM2.5 as units 15 and 16 of the Pepco Benning Road Generating Station in D.C., which is a 580 megawatt power plant.
Judging by the amount of coal it burns, the Capitol Power Plant is not that large. But judging by the particulate emissions, it's a monster. What's the explanation?
Help build CoalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.
Permalink
dwalters Posted 2:10 pm
26 Dec 2008
I'm all for closing coal burning plants. And even though I note that it could go on to gas...probably producing about 100 tons of PM 5 and 10 per year, gas is not an answer either.
David
Permalink
dwalters Posted 2:16 pm
26 Dec 2008
Fluidized bed coal plants which break up the coal into a micron sized particle...i think it's about 50 microns in size...essentially turns the coal into a liquid so it's 'sprayed' into the furnace. This is the latest technology and is used wildly as it burns more of the coal, and consequently less ash (see the accident in Tennessee) but doesn't really do anything for the particulate. Heavier particulate generally has only two advantages: they fall out of the sky faster (bad if you live near the plant) and the larger particulate generally can cause less respiratory problems (computer models only) because the 10 - 30 micron size can't get into the lungs alveli quite so easy as 2.5 and 5PM.
It's all nasty and should be phased out.
David
Permalink
dwalters Posted 2:19 pm
26 Dec 2008
The two plants going up by FPL in Florida will directly contribute shutting down two coal plants. Think about it.
David
Permalink
Atomicrod Posted 4:02 pm
26 Dec 2008
Though I do not have an inside source like David, I drive by the Capitol Power Plant almost every day and have for several years. Since traffic on the Southeast-Southwest freeway is often moving quite slowly, and since I was in a car pool for much of that time, I have watched the plant morph a bit during the past couple of years.
It used to be possible to actually see the coal being loaded up the conveyor that is clearly visible from the highway, but that seems to be decommissioned in place these days. I have not seen any of the black stuff moving in at least 8-12 months.
There was also a fairly extensive modification of the cooling system with several compact new towers added on the west side of the plant.
In the past couple of weeks, when the temperature dropped down into the teens, the plant was pouring out a lot of steam from the cooling towers and white clouds from the stacks. Since it is mostly a heating and refrigeration plant, the increased rate of visible steam from the plant during a cold snap is not surprising.
There is a brief mention of the project in The Hill (http://tinyurl.com/aywogd) that does not indicate that the conversion to gas was limited to the portion of the fuel attributed to the House of Representatives.
What is the date of the projection of 2009 emissions that you quoted? Was it before the approval of the conversion project - which was apparently sometime in the last quarter of FY2007?
Permalink