No price too high for appeasing climate alarmists

November 6, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Friends, neighbours, offspring,

Yesterday I had a bit of a problem with this blog and the associated website.  In retrospect, it is laughable and embarrassing that it occurred, but I won’t bore you with the details, other than that, while I was busy writing about what follows in this posting,  I copied and pasted the piece a number of times in trying to fix the problem I had been trying to cope with.  Every time I did that, I also thought of a better title for the piece.  The last two candidates I rejected in favor of the one I chose were these.

Constructing the global thermostat, a billion dollars a project

Blowing CO2 up Mother Earth’s derriere

If you can think of a better one, let me know, but it’s too late for this posting.  Large newspapers have headline writers who do that sort of thing for a living.

A few concerns emerged through correspondence from Shell, through a phone call from Integrity Land Inc. and through the discussions I had with Shell personnel I met at Shell’s open house in Bruderheim, Nov. 3, 2010, in connection with their proposed CO2 project and pipe line.

Although in my case I have grave concerns about lost-opportunity-costs due to land-use restrictions (which restrictions will also affect all other land owners near the proposed CO2 pipe line), my concerns are not just my own but apply to all land owners whose properties are located on or near the CO2 pipe line.  Furthermore, I have concerns about the lack of wisdom driving the project.  It is a make-work project with non-existent, at best questionable benefits that will not ever justify the expense of the project.

Shell’s CO2 project will not even come remotely close to paying back what the taxpayers must pay into it: at the very least close to a billion dollars, about $270 for every man, woman and child in Alberta — and that is just for the first billion dollars in expenditures for such useless catering to people who well know that their intentions are futile., and I don’t mean the poor people at Shell who for all intents and purposes are being forced to construct “their” CO2 capture and storage project  (they did not tell me that, but that is the way it is).  The project is a waste of good money, the taxpayers’ money.

Regulating atmospheric CO2 content is not possible.  Attempts at controlling man-made CO2 emissions will not affect total atmospheric CO2 contents by one Iota.  It is not possible to construct such a project and to see it put to use as a thermostat that will regulate the global climate.  After all, man-made CO2 contributions comprise no more than 4 percent of total atmospheric CO2, a trace gas.  The other 96 percent of atmospheric CO2 result from natural processes over whom mankind has not the slightest control.  Besides, CO2 is a vital life-giving gas without which no life as we know it would exist on Earth.

We must find ways to stop insanities like this that amount to nothing more than expensive sacrifices by taxpayers to political expediency through catering to alarmist hype and hysteria.

Together, and with the help of others who cannot or don’t want to shell out useless environmental head-taxes of $270 a shot, we will be able to do it.

The following will explain some of the details of what it is all about.

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:	CO2 pipe line: concerns
Date:	Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:58:02 -0600
From:	Walter H. Schneider
To:	Ian Silk [at Shell]
CC:	Margit Phillips[at Shell]

Hello Ian,

It was a pleasure meeting you at Shell’s Nov. 3, 2010 Bruderheim open house, where I had promised to send you a copy of a letter, dated October 18, 2010, that had been send by Shell to me.  (Copy appended; two files, one each for page 1 & 2 of the letter).

Obviously I did not remember key issues correctly when I told you about the letter at the open house, such as the changes in pipe diameter and operating pressure.  It is good that I was wrong.  That will simplify things, but I still have grave concerns.

As I had mentioned, someone from Integrity Land called the other day (I believe it was Ken, on Nov. 1st or 2nd) to tell us on Shell’s behalf that the letter we had received had been sent in error and should not have been sent.

Looking now at the letter again, I wonder whether it truly had been sent in error and whether it is Integrity Land or Shell that is a bit mistaken.  Of course, if the contents of the letter that was allegedly sent in error that I hold now in my hands contains erroneous information, I may not need to worry about much, but I wonder.

I will explain what I conclude on the face of the evidence.

Shell envisions that my land at NW2-57-20-W4 will be encroached by an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) that extends to a distance of 450m from your proposed CO2 pipe line.  That is an encroachment which does not presently exist but will occur if your proposed CO2 pipe line goes into operation.

It is not clear from either that letter or from the information I observed at the open house with respect to the proposed CO2 pipe line right-of-way, how wide the EPZ will be, that is, whether the proposed CO2 pipe line will run along the centre-line of a 450m EPZ or whether the EPZ will extend 450m in either direction from the proposed CO2 pipe line.  I would appreciate having you provide a map that will clear that up and show whether and which portions of my land at NW2-57-20-W4 will be affected by the EPZ.  That should remove or confirm all of our doubts relating to that.

When Integrity Land called, they told me that I should not have received the letter, and the caller apologized on Shell’s behalf for the fact that I did.  Shell’s October 18, 2010 letter informs me that Shell understands (sic, implying that Shell does not know with certainty) that I am “located further” (sic, I assume what was meant was “farther”) than 450m from the proposed CO2 pipe line and that I am “no longer located in the EPZ.”  I truly wonder which of those truly confusing contradictions would stand up in court, but there is more.

Logically, I never was and never will be located in the EPZ, given that I reside in Bruderheim and would find myself in the EPZ only if I were to visit or work within it.  However, some of my land would be, and any of its occupants could be, located within the EPZ, contrary to Shell’s assertions that imply that no portion of my land is within 450m of the proposed CO2 pipe line.  After all, If I were to walk 450m in a westerly direction from the location of the proposed CO2 pipeline east from our quarter-section of land, I would find myself on our land and not quite a quarter mile away from the residence located there.

Is that why Integrity Land called me to say that the letter is wrong?  Are portions of my land located within the EPZ?  If so, which portions are they?  A map that shows the EPZ superimposed on my land would make that perfectly clear.  Therefore I request that you provide such a map to me.

Still, it seems to me that I am not the only one who errs now and then.  Shell’s letter dated October 18, 2010 indicates that, “These changes [that is, the reduced outside diameter of 12″], combined with a reduced operating pressure, still being calculated [as you also confirmed at the open house], will also result in a reduced Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of approximately 450m.”  Perhaps the letter should have stated as well that the precise extent of the EPZ cannot be determined until those calculations have been completed.  I expect to be informed by Shell of what the precise extent of the EPZ will be.

I cannot escape the conclusion that portions of my land at NW2-57-20-W4 will be impacted by land-usage restrictions on account of being located within the EPZ.  For example, it may be that nothing is permitted to be constructed on land being put at risk.

Regardless of what the risk would be to any individual who finds himself within the EPZ during a however-unlikely catastrophic failure of the pipe line, land-use restrictions will apply because of the perception of that risk, for which reason the concept of an EPZ exists.  Therefore the term EPZ is a euphemism for the more precise term “activity exclusion zone”.

It is such perceptions that determine the market value of real estate.  The “precautionary principle” (which you so beautifully mentioned in rationalizing the need for Shell’s CO2 project) kicks into action when land transactions take place.  The precautionary principle in this case, regardless of what I personally or any of my descendants may wish for, will materialize in the form of lost-opportunity-costs, through a considerable reduction in the potential sales price for the land of concern.  At land prices that Shell is only too well aware it had to pay in the recent past, the lost-opportunity-costs in the case of our land could easily be in the order of $2 million or more within the foreseeable future.

I had explained that particular concern to you at your November 3rd Bruderheim open house.  You offered to send documentation (in digital form) that will explain in more detail what the specific land-use restrictions in an EPZ are according to applicable legislation.  I look forward to receiving that from you as well.

As things stand, Shell informed me in writing that neither I nor my land will be endangered by Shell’s CO2 pipe line, while I received verbal instructions by one of Shell’s contractors that I should disregard that written statement.  Yet, the facts pertaining to the location of the CO2 pipe line indicate that I must be prepared for  substantial lost-opportunity-costs, while other risk to life, health and property on our land remains undetermined.  I think that Shell needs to do better.  I am not a lawyer, but I know that a lawyer could make a lot out of what Shell informed me off as of now.  It seems like misrepresentation to me.  Shell needs to clarify how things stand.  Am I correct about me being not the only land owner who should be concerned about that compendium of confusion?

Further in our discussions about your proposed CO2 capture and storage project (mislabelled by Shell as “Carbon Capture and Storage Project”, as it is not carbon but CO2 that is involved), I expressed my well-founded concern that Shell’s CCS project, requiring a one-billion-dollar expenditure of taxpayers money, is a wasteful scheme that is not based on settled science.  It is a make-work project that you are being forced to launch to comply with a government-bureaucracy-perceived solution to imaginary problems the perception of which is driven by irrational climate fears, hype and hysteria.

This letter to you is already lengthy enough.  I will therefore continue with addressing that aspect of our discussion through posting at http://lce.folc.ca information that presents rational views and objective facts relating to those irrational fears.

Still, I must add more right now, so as to complete the summary of the impressions I gained at the open house.  My wife and I observed with dismay that some of Shell’s representatives at the Bruderheim open house did not have sufficient scientific education and accreditation to enable them to offer more than unsubstantiated opinions as to the merits of Shell’s CCS project.  They presented what are in essence articles of faith as allegedly indisputable scientific facts.  Most of them had not even any idea that at the most-often visited science blog in the world the latest study reports by prominent climate scientists relating to the role of CO2 in our climate are being presented and discussed.

To the credit of those presenters and upon my insistence, they referred me to someone better qualified to discuss the scientific facts of the impact of CO2 on climate trends.  However, there is no doubt in my mind that many of the visitors to your open houses will fail to perceive such problems and will leave quite satisfied, happy in the knowledge that little tokens like flashlights, plastic shopping bags, memory sticks (containing the slick presentation CCS101.ca — permeated with weasel words), pens and so on (all products from China) are generous gifts, while being totally unaware that they, and only they, will pay the price of an estimated billion dollars (amounting to a cost of at least $270 for every man, woman and child in Alberta for every $ billion so spent) for an enterprise that will do nothing to alleviate an imaginary problem whose science is not settled.  They may as well employ you in the pursuit of a project to lengthen the daylight hours during the winter by having you hire chain-gangs of taxpayers to shovel light into barrels in the summer for release in January.  That at least would be totally safe for the environment and no environmental impact assessment would be required for that, although our government-bureaucrats would probably still insist that one be done for that, too.

It is too bad that our governments cater more to the political expediencies of alarmist climate fears than to the necessities of our lives.  A billion dollars, with more billions to follow, for funding such hare-brained schemes surely would be more appropriately spent in solving a large portion of what is wrong with things that we truly should be spending money on to fix, except that the truly important things that we should do are being neglected on account of government-revenue-shortfalls caused by reckless government-spending.  That needs to be stopped.

Sincerely,

Walter H. Schneider
Bruderheim

P.S. I have a bit of a problem with my regular e-mail account.  Please be so good and respond to walt@folc.ca

Cc: Lamont Leader, some of our descendants, Bruderheim and area residents, http://lce.folc.ca

2 Attachments

— End of quoted letter to Shell —

Friends, if you have come this far with reading about this billion-dollar Alberta CO2 scam, then you may also have some ideas on what to do about it.  I will gladly help with searching for facts, mailing, operating the blog on the Lamont County Environment and such things, but I can no longer be as involved as I was with the opposition to the Hazco Sulphur Project (a project for which we now pay through the nose but on which the bubble is burst, perhaps until someone, about 30 years down the line, begins to blow another bubble).

The interesting aspect of the CO2 capture and storage project is that, although it will do nothing to affect the global climate, once it is in operation, it is estimated that it will add a whopping four percent of nitrogen oxides to the atmospheric nitrogen oxides background levels that already exist in the Fort Saskatchewan area air-shed.

This issue requires someone younger, and I am going the other way.  Please, let me have a bit of rest, just not too much peace and quiet.

Write to me, preferably at http://lce.folc.ca [about this or any other related issue], where others can read what you have to say.  By the way, if I happen to be your father or grandfather, you don’t have to mention it.  Let’s just do what the politicians seems to be incapable of doing, use common sense.

Walter

Posted in Taxes, Deficits and Debts, Shell CCS Project, Propaganda debunked, Alarmist Insanity, Nitrogen-Oxides, Corruption & Fraud, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

Where are the bodies?

March 21, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

National Post

March 17, 2010
Ross McKitrick, Air pollution, University of Guelph

Models that predict thousands of smog-related hospitalizations in Toronto don’t hold up

By Ross McKitrick

For many years we have heard that air pollution in Canada is responsible for thousands of annual deaths and hospitalizations. In 2004 Toronto Public Health claimed that 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospitalizations occur each year in Toronto alone, due to air pollution. The Ontario Medical Association, provincial and federal governments, lung associations and other groups regularly cite these kinds of figures in support of calls for new regulatory initiatives. These death and hospitalization rates are astonishing. It is like suffering a 9/11-sized terrorist attack every 10 months.

But is it really true?….(Full Story)

_____________
Note: At the end of the National Post Article is a link to a file that is supposed to contain the full study report on which Dr. McKitrick’s article is based.  The link does not function and returns a 404 error.  Here is a functioning link to the study report at Dr. McKitricks web page.

Posted in Community & Industry, Pollution: Health Issues, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

Alter NRG Corp. finalized purchase of Erco Site, in Lamont County, east of and adjacent to Bruderheim

September 17, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Alter NRG Corp. announces the finalization of the plant siting for the first Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power facility in Canada.

TSXV - NRG CALGARY, Sept. 15 /CNW/ - Alter NRG Corp. (”Alter NRG” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce that it has closed the previously announced acquisition of a project site in Bruderheim, Alberta (approximately 60 kilometers northeast of Edmonton) for $3.1 million, including $0.6 million in costs related to settlement of existing transmission commitments. The Company plans to use the site to develop Canada’s first IGCC facility with the first phase to be operational as early as 2010. On commencement of operations, the facility is expected to be capable of producing approximately 120 megawatts (MW) of electric power using a blend of natural gas as well as synthesis gas (syngas) produced using Alter NRG’s proprietary plasma gasification technology. The facility will be designed for carbon capture and storage (CCS) with approximately 600,000 tonnes per year of captured CO2 to be injected into nearby geological formations or used at nearby oilfields in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects….(Full Story)
_____________
Comments by folc.ca : It is obvious that lawyers had a heavy hand in wording the long list of exceptions and cautionary notes stated at the end of the Alter NRG news release, under the heading, Advisory Respecting Forward-Looking Statements. The list of exemptions shown there is very long. In combination with that list, the following key statements contained in the Advisory loom large and heavy:

The forward-looking information and statements included in this news release are not guarantees of future performance and should not be unduly relied upon….

The Company cautions that the foregoing list of assumptions, risks and uncertainties is not exhaustive. The forward-looking information and statements contained in this news release speak only as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise them to reflect new events or circumstances, except as may be required pursuant to applicable securities laws.

Translating the legalese into English for normal mortals and in the process condensing it into something that is more useful, what that means then is that, quite possibly, none of the information in the news release by Alter NRG is necessarily final or subsequently true after having been published.

The news release contains information that should worry people living close to the proposed Alter NRG power generating plant, some within less than half a mile, with the eastern boundary of Bruderheim being as close as half a mile to the plant.

The following identifies a few of the statements contained in the news release and also some of the concerns relating to them.

1. On commencement of operations, the facility is expected to be capable of producing approximately 120 megawatts (MW) of electric power using a blend of natural gas as well as synthesis gas (syngas) produced using Alter NRG’s proprietary plasma gasification technology.

Comment by folc.ca: Natural gas is a natural resource that is the primary fuel for home heating in Alberta. Alberta’s natural gas is also a resource that is rapidly being depleted, as a result of which the price of natural gas is escalating.  The production of electric energy from natural gas and its substitute, syngas, is wasteful and will increase the demand for natural gas and syngas. That will cause increases in prices for gas used for home heating.

2. The facility will be designed for carbon capture and storage (CCS) with approximately 600,000 tonnes per year of captured CO2 to be injected into nearby geological formations or used at nearby oilfields in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects.

Comment by folc.ca: The news release states nothing about the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant. More importantly, the news release makes absolutely no mention of pollutants that the plant will produce and how those will be dealt with, so as to prevent their injection into the environment, for instance, nitrous oxides and sulphur dioxide, of which especially the latter has the potential of creating serious and very harmful degradation of the local and general environment.

Nevertheless, there are issues of great concern that directly relate to the scheme for CO2 capture, transport and disposal.

The process of CO2 capture and injection into nearby geological formations requires transportation of an average of 1,700 tonnes of CO2 each day.  How will that be done and by what means?  If the transporting is by trucks, that means that there will be an enormous increase in road traffic, in the order of an average of at least 280 trucks a day (assuming an average of six tonnes of CO2 carrying capacity per truck), about 12 trucks every hour (assuming that the trucks operate around the clock) and considerably more than that if the trucking operations cease during the night.

Furthermore, the logistics of the whole process seem daunting and are not likely to work without flaws or bottlenecks.  If CO2 capture, transporting and injection into the ground should at any time and for any reason be below the required average of 1,700 tonnes per day, will the power plant be shut down, or will it make use of as yet unidentified buffer storage on site?  That storage facility will have to be substantially large and be capable of containing CO2 under great pressure.

Nothing is perfect.  The storage and transporting of large volumes of CO2 present dangers to people and property in the vicinity of the plant and transportation routes.  Aside from the increased likelihood of vehicle accidents in Bruderheim and vicinity, what are any other dangers the scheme of CO2 capture, transporting and injection will pose to residents in the area?

3. The project is expected to be completed in two phases in order to take advantage of near-term capacity needs in the Alberta power market.

Comment by folc.ca: Alter NRG cannot be faulted for wanting to take advantage of the increasing market demand for electric energy. However, the escalating shortage of electric energy is a result of the Alberta government’s failure to create effective policies for the construction of large-scale power plants for the generation of electric energy. That massive problem will not be solved by increasing reliance on Band-Aid solutions, such as energy production through wind-turbine farms (of primary benefit only to the main producer of wind turbines in North America: General Electric) and through natural-gas-fired power plants.

Electric energy production from natural gas or syngas will add to demand for natural gas and for syngas. That will drive up the price for home-heating fuel and for fertilizer (the price for fertilizer is presently at about $2,000 a tonne).

4. NGCC facilities are the cleanest fossil fuel power generation technology available today.

Comment by folc.ca : That statement is true, but it is not all of the truth. Aside from increasing the demand for natural gas — with associated price increases, the demand for increased production of natural gas will also increase the production of sulphur. Especially new natural gas sources produce sour gas, meaning gas that must be stripped of its large content of hydrogen sulphide before it can be injected into the Alberta gas distribution system.

The inventory of Alberta’s waste sulphur is presently at about $11 million tonnes. Large-scale use of natural gas will escalate Alberta’s problems with issues arising from stockpiling waste sulphur.

Canada is one of only two nations in the world (the Russian Federation being the other one) that presently and unreservedly permit the stockpiling of waste sulphur. Large scale electric energy production from coal can without a doubt be made to be as clean as that from natural gas. The current technology for that is to store waste sulphur produced from coal-fired power plants in the form of relatively inert gypsum (much like the gypsum pile at the Agrium Fertilizer Plant south of Redwater).

5. The regulatory process is underway, as regulatory permitting is critical for early implementation of the first phase. The Company expects timely issuance of the required permits.

Comment by folc.ca : Whatever it may mean that the “regulatory process is underway,” that process has not yet progressed to the point where any of the residents who are concerned parties in the vicinity of the proposed power plant have been formally notified of any hearings or other aspects of the required “regulatory process” and environmental reviews.

6. The second phase of the project will use petroleum coke and oilfield waste, which are both available in the nearby area, to create syngas using the Alter NRG proprietary gasification system.

Comment by folc.ca : Neither that statement nor anything else in the Alter NRG news release mentions that petroleum coke and oilfield waste contain potentially very large portions of sulphur and other pollutants that need to be stripped from either those primary fuel sources or from the syngas produced from them or from the flue gases of the Alter NRG power generating plant, so as to meet environmental pollution parameters dictated by Alberta Environment.

What will Alter NRG do with the pollutants, such as waste sulphur, it would produce at its proposed power generating plant to be located just a few hundred meters east of Bruderheim?

7. The Bruderheim facility will capture up to 90% of the CO(2) produced by the plasma gasifier (up to 1,700 tonnes per day) which is expected to be sold to oilfield producers in the nearby area for EOR.

Comment by folc.ca : What that means is that ten and more percent (how much more is left unspecified) of the CO2 produced will not be captured.

Still, the fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant, and that no one should worry about it, except people like Al Gore (who makes a good living from the brokering of carbon credits and from promoting the fears required to make that carbon credit brokering a viable enterprise).

However, we must worry about the pollutants that the Alter NRG news release does not mention at all. It is worrysome in the extreme that the Alter NRG news release does not mention any pollutants other than the ostensibly polluting but in reality environmentally-beneficial CO2.

_________________

Without a doubt, benign and even environmentally-beneficial CO2 is a major component of the emissions of the power generating plant proposed by Alter NRG.  Still, another potentially benign and major component of the proposed power plant’s effluents, water (not mentioned by Alter NRG), will in all likelihood have a very detrimental impact on the environment in the immediate vicinity of the proposed power plant.

Water is a major by-product of the combustion of hydrocarbons. The water vapour that would come out of the flue stacks of the proposed power plant would be invisible for varying distances from the flue stacks. However, the distance of that invisibility varies with the weather — humidity and temperature.

In extremely cold weather, the water vapour turns into a large cloud that, depending on local weather conditions, lingers in the local environment and adds to the often and increasingly severe fogs that have become more and more prevalent in and around Bruderheim.

Given that the fog to be produced by the proposed power plant will contain sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides, the fog will be acidic. Alter NRG stated nothing about that. That is extremely worrying and needs to be addressed in the environmental review process for the plant, of which, so far, we have heard absolutely nothing.

SULFUR COMPOUNDS (SOx)

The primary reason sulfur compounds, or SOx, are classified as a pollutant is because they react with water vapor (in the flue gas and atmosphere) to form sulfuric acid mist. Airborne sulfuric acid has been found in fog, smog, acid rain, and snow. Sulfuric acid has also been found in lakes, rivers, and soil. The acid is extremely corrosive and harmful to the environment….

Historically, SOx pollution has been controlled by either dispersion or reduction. Dispersion involves the utilization of a tall stack, which enables the release of pollutants high above the ground and over any surrounding buildings, mountains, or hills, in order to limit ground level SOx emissions. Today, dispersion alone is not enough to meet more stringent SOx emission requirements; reduction methods must also be employed….

Flue gas desulfurization systems are classified as either non-regenerable or regenerable. Non-regenerable FGD systems, the most common type, result in a waste product that requires proper disposal. Regenerable FGD converts the waste by-product into a marketable product, such as sulfur or sulfuric acid. SOx emission reductions of 90-95% can be achieved through FGD. Fuel desulfurization and FGD are primarily used for reducing SOx emissions for large utility boilers. Generally the technology cannot be cost justified on industrial boilers.

Emissions Cleaver Brooks Package Boiler Systems 2002 08 17

Note: Given the escalating world sulphur glut, converting “the waste into a marketable product” requires solutions that have not yet been found to be practical or viable. Still, it is wrong or only partially correct to state that “Generally the technology cannot be cost justified on industrial boilers.”

The controlling factor is not cost justification (that would make it a discretionary option) but environmental regulation and is therefore mandatory, not an option. –Walter

–Walter Schneider
_______________

Related story:  Alter NRG powerplant east of Bruderheim put on ice (Oct, 22, 2008)

Posted in Community & Industry, Alternative Energy Sources, Town of Bruderheim, Explosions & Fires, Acid Rain, Hydrogen-Sulphide, Emission Incidents & Issues, Nitrogen-Oxides, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | 1 Comment »

Ship toxins kill 60,000 a year: Study

November 8, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Toronto Star

Environmental report says world’s fleet must switch to cleaner fuels and curb smokestack pollutants

Peter Gorrie
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

International shipping companies must curb smokestack emissions that kill up to 60,000 people a year, including 9,000 in North America, warns a study released yesterday.

Unless the world’s ocean fleet switches to cleaner fuels, the annual global toll of premature deaths will hit 84,000 within five years, says the study in the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science & Technology….

The damage comes from sulphur-laden Bunker C oil that powers the growing number of ships in trade and tourism. The sludgy fuel is “the dregs of the oil refining process,” and has nearly 3,000 times more sulphur than the diesel fuel burned in trucks in North America and Europe, Marshall said….

The annual number of premature deaths from all outdoor air pollution is estimated to be about 800,000, the study notes. Researchers estimated the marine pollution toll by measuring the emissions from the more than 55,000 ships, then, figuring out how much they add to the total pollution in the atmosphere. Finally, they calculate the expected number of deaths from that increase….

The solution, is simple, although expensive, Marshall said: Ships, too, should be required to burn low-sulphur fuel and install scrubbing devices. Emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide from new and existing ships must be cut by as much as 90 per cent, no later than 2015, the study states…. (Full Toronto Star Story)
_________________
Note by folc.ca

See also:

• Death from Shipping : New models estimate premature mortality from shipping emissions on a global scale. (Environmental Science & Technology, 2007 11 07)
• Related stories listed in the category Bunker Fuel at the LCE blog

Posted in Bunker Fuel, Pollution: Health Issues, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Eastman to Invest $200 Million to Reduce Air Emissions

November 8, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Eastman, 2007 11 08

Eastman Proposes to Invest $200 Million in Equipment to Reduce Air Emissions

Company’s Effort is Part of $1.3 Billion “Project Reinvest” Announced Earlier this Year

KINGSPORT, Tenn.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Eastman Chemical Company has proposed to install additional air pollution control equipment on five industrial boilers at its Tennessee operations in Kingsport, Tenn. The company is in the process of selecting an engineering firm and construction should take place during 2009 to 2013. The $200 million capital project is part of the $1.3 billion dollar reinvestment plan, called “Project Reinvest” announced earlier this year for the Kingsport site….

“This will be the largest single air pollution control project ever undertaken at Eastman’s Tennessee operations,” said Parker Smith, vice president and general manager of Worldwide Manufacturing Support for Eastman. “We estimate an overall 60 percent reduction in emissions of sulfur dioxide from our facility. We are hopeful this project will not only assist Tennessee in meeting its regional haze goals under the Clean Air Act, but will also help our area here in Northeast Tennessee stay ‘ahead of the curve’ and remain in attainment of all relevant air quality standards.

Eastman’s plans are to install technology that will remove an estimated 90 percent of the sulfur dioxide emitted as a by-product from the burning of coal in the five boilers. The technology includes installing spray dryer absorbers, along with replacing electrostatic precipitators with fabric filters. Spray dryer absorbers use hydrated lime to neutralize sulfur dioxide emissions. They are also effective in removing emissions of hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, sulfuric acid, and mercury…. (Full Story)

____________
Note by folc.ca: What will they do with all of that polluted gypsum that they will produce when neutralizing their emissions? Oh well, it’s better than putting all of the SO2 and the other pollutants into the air.

Posted in Heavy-Metal Poisoning & Pollution, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Related Construction Costs, Hydrogen-Sulphide, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

PPC fined one million euros for excessive emissions

September 25, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

ANA/MPA

Greece: PPC fined one million euros for excessive emissions

The state-run Public Power Corp. (PPC) was fined one million euros for exceeding atmospheric pollutants emission limits, the Greek environment, town planning and public works ministry announced on Monday. The fine was imposed following environmental inspections at several power plants operated by PPC throughout the country….

In a breakdown of the fines imposed, Souflias said power plants at Megalopoli, in the central Peloponnese, had been fined 400,000 euros for greatly exceeding hourly and daily limits for sulphur dioxide gas emissions considered safe for public health, while sulphur scrubbers at one Megalopoli plant had not operated for 31.1 per cent of the hours the plant was in operation in 2006, so it greatly exceeded sulphur dioxide emission limits.

The plant had also failed to monitor levels of sulphur dioxide, dust, nitrogen oxides and percentage oxygen at several of its units…. (Full Story)

Posted in Fines & Penalties, Pollution: Health Issues, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

U.S. Imposes Highest Acid Rain Fine Ever

September 20, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

yosemite.epa.gov

OpenDocument

(Washington, D.C. – Sept. 20, 2007) In a landmark settlement filed today, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, a coal-fired electric utility, has agreed to pay an $11.4 million penalty to resolve violations of the Clean Air Act’s acid rain program, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today….

“This settlement shows that when you violate the law, [the] EPA will be there to make you pay.”….

The government estimated that the utility’s Dale Generating Station emitted over 15,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 4,000 tons of nitrogen oxide without a permit from approximately 2000-2005. In addition, the government alleged the utility exceeded the federal annual emission rate for nitrogen oxides….

Coal-fired plants release sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides, which are a primary cause of acid rain that harms trees and lakes and impairs visibility. Nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides cause severe respiratory problems, contribute to childhood asthma, and contribute to smog and haze. Emissions from power plants can drift significant distances downwind and degrade air quality in nearby areas…. (Full Story)

Posted in Pollution: Health Issues, Fines & Penalties, Acid Rain, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Curbing ship emissions seen needing global rules

September 7, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Reuters

HELSINKI (Reuters) - The world’s shipping industry needs global regulations that are consistently enforced by the United Nations if it is to cut emissions, the chairman of the International Chamber of Shipping said on Friday.

Public pressure is building for ship owners to curb air pollution and take part in markets in permits to emit sulfur and greenhouse gases.

Shipping accounts for about 10 percent of world sulfur dioxide emissions, a cause of acid rain, and large amounts of toxic nitrous oxide and particulates such as soot…. (Full Story)

Posted in Pollution: Health Issues, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Ultra-Low-Sulphur Diesel, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Deerland Peaking Station

September 4, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

folc.ca

Deerland Peaking Station [North of Bruderheim]

By accident, I came across the following information:

MAXIM is proposing to construct and operate a 190 MW natural gas-fired power generation facility on a site immediately south of the existing Deerland high voltage substation in Bruderheim, Alberta. The company has obtained an option for the site and commenced a public consultation process on July 26, 2007. MAXIM anticipates that the first phase (95 MW) will be operational in 2009. The facility will use state-of-the-art combustion turbine technology.

Source: Maxim Power Corp. (”MAXIM”) Announces Second Quarter 2007 Results
Marketwire, 2007 08 09

Read the full story.

Posted in Community & Industry, Pollution: Health Issues, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

Substantial Reductions of Sulphur in Diesel Fuel

June 1, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Announces Substantial Reductions of Sulphur in Diesel Fuel for Non-Road Diesel EquipmentRefiners will begin producing low-sulfur diesel fuel for use in locomotives, ships, and nonroad equipment (those used in industries such as agriculture and construction). Low-sulfur diesel fuel must meet a 500 parts per million (ppm) sulfur maximum. This is the first step of EPA’s Nonroad Diesel Rule, with the eventual goal of reducing the sulfur level of fuel for these engines to meet an ultra-low standard (15 ppm) to enable new advanced emission-control technologies for engines used in locomotives, ships, and other non-road equipment….

These reductions in NOx [nitrogen oxides] and PM [particulate matter] emissions from non-road diesel engines will provide enormous public health benefits. EPA estimates that by 2030, controlling these emissions would annually prevent 12,000 premature deaths, 8,900 hospitalizations, and one million work days lost. (Full Story)

Posted in Pollution: Health Issues, Community & Industry, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Ultra-Low-Sulphur Diesel, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »