<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Climate youth activists target the Capitol Power Plant]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by dwalters http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 02:19:03 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/1 coal?

You know that the plant is dual fuel now, burns natural gas most of the time, right?

David Walters

]]> coal?

You know that the plant is dual fuel now, burns natural gas most of the time, right?

David Walters

]]> Comment #2 by Ted Nace http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 07:26:29 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/2 Your sources?

Thanks for the comment. Yes - the plant is dual fuel. But I'd love to know your source on the relative amounts of natural gas versus coal. Also your source that natural gas is burned most of the time rather than coal.

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.

]]> Your sources?

Thanks for the comment. Yes - the plant is dual fuel. But I'd love to know your source on the relative amounts of natural gas versus coal. Also your source that natural gas is burned most of the time rather than coal.

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.

]]> Comment #3 by dwalters http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:10:37 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/3 A friend of mine works there.

But the coal particulate is a regulated amount based on air quality board filings so i don't dispute it should be closed down or put on natural gas 100% of the time.

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

]]> A friend of mine works there.

But the coal particulate is a regulated amount based on air quality board filings so i don't dispute it should be closed down or put on natural gas 100% of the time.

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

]]> Comment #4 by dwalters http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:16:29 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/4 On differences in particulate

It's all how the coal is burned. There are different technologies and the older the technology the more particulate. About 30,000 people die a year from this stuff and it's nasty, no matter where it comes from.

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

]]> On differences in particulate

It's all how the coal is burned. There are different technologies and the older the technology the more particulate. About 30,000 people die a year from this stuff and it's nasty, no matter where it comes from.

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

]]> Comment #5 by dwalters http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:19:11 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/5 Lastly...

Jim Hansen and others are increasingly showing that nuclear power is going to be part of the answer. I think the climate change community is going to have to embrace this.

The two plants going up by FPL in Florida will directly contribute shutting down two coal plants. Think about it.

David

]]> Lastly...

Jim Hansen and others are increasingly showing that nuclear power is going to be part of the answer. I think the climate change community is going to have to embrace this.

The two plants going up by FPL in Florida will directly contribute shutting down two coal plants. Think about it.

David

]]> Comment #6 by Atomicrod http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:02:30 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/Mean-old-and-dirty/6 Drive-by observation

Ted:

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?

]]> Drive-by observation

Ted:

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?

]]>