PMB Ventures

Chronicling US & Global Infrastructure re-building effort

Coal

And You Thought Radiation Was a Problem for Nuclear Plants?

And You Thought Radiation Was a Problem for Nuclear Plants?
Basin Electric Power Cooperative The Laramie River Station coal plant in Wyoming.

A power plant has overexposed its workers to radiation, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing a fine. The plant, though, is not a reactor; it runs on coal.

The commission said on Monday that it was proposing a fine of $24,700 against the Basin Electric Power Cooperative, which exposed 17 workers, six of them above regulatory limits, at a three-unit coal plant in Laramie near Wheatland, Wyo.

The workers were exposed to a radioactive element, cesium 137, that is common in nuclear plants because it is produced when uranium atoms are split. The Laramie River Station, completed in the early 1980s, does not split atoms, but it does use cesium, as many coal plants do.

Cesium 137 emits gamma rays. In coal plants and other industrial plants, the amount of radiation that passes through the material being measured gives an indication of its content, just as an X-ray gives an indication of what is inside a human body. Typically, the coal plants are measuring ash and moisture content of the fuel they burn, and the quantity passing through a coal chute.

 

Laramie River Station has 216 monitors that use radiation, some of them in the pollution control system. Daryl Hill, a spokesman for the co-op, said the monitor in question measures the flow from a coal bunker down to a feeder, which spits the coal into a boiler. “If the flow stops, it detects there’s no fuel and sends a signal to the control room,’’ he said.

The gauge has a shutter mechanism, akin to the shutter on a camera, and it was supposed to be closed and locked before the workers — welders — were sent into the area. But the shutter was left open.

Unlike workers at a nuclear plant, the welders did not have equipment to measure the amount of radiation they were exposed to. The calculated dose was 647 millirems, about what the average American receives in two years from natural sources. That amount would not be a violation in a nuclear plant, although inadvertently exposing workers there would have been a problem. For non-nuclear workers, considered members of the general public, the limit is 100 millirems.

The commission said the violation was significant because the workers could easily have been sent there for a longer period and could have absorbed a bigger dose.

The exposures occurred in September 2009, and managers say they have made a variety of changes to prevent a repetition. The co-op has until Sept. 24 to decide whether to contest the fine, Mr. Hill said.

August 30, 2010, 5:39 pm

 

UPDATE 1-US awards $1 bln for clean coal power plant project

* Project could help retrofit 594 coal-fired power plants

* Seeks to capture 90 pct of a plant's CO2 emissions

(adds details of the project)

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON, Aug 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Energy Department on Thursday awarded $1 billion for the FutureGen clean coal power program and carbon dioxide storage network in Illinois, aiming to cut emissions of greenhouse gases from coal-fired electric generating plants.

"This investment in the world's first, commercial-scale, oxy-combustion power plant will help to open up the over $300 billion market for coal unit repowering and position the country as a leader in an important part of the global clean energy economy," said U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Oxy-combustion burns coal with a mixture of oxygen and carbon dioxide (CO2) instead of air to produce a concentrated CO2 stream for safe, permanent, storage. The oxy-combustion technology creates a near-zero emissions plant by eliminating almost all of the mercury, SOx, NOx, and particulate pollutants from plant emissions.

The FutureGen project will show utilities how to retrofit their coal-fired power plants to capture and store global warming emissions. The project aims to capture 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions.

"We're going to learn as we go," said Illinois Senator Richard Durbin. "The heart of this is a research effort." 

The project could eventually help retrofit 594 coal-fired power plants across the United States and perhaps thousands more globally, he said.

The companies involved in the project are privately-held Ameren Energy Resources, Babcock & Wilcox BWC.N, Air Liquide's (AIRP.PA: Quote) Houston-based subsidiary Air Liquide Process & Construction, Inc. and the FutureGen Alliance.

The nine member companies of the Alliance are: Alpha Natural Resources, Anglo American Llc, BHP Billiton (BLT.L: Quote), China Huaneng Group, CONSOL Energy Inc (CNX.N: Quote), E.ON U.S., Peabody Energy (BTU.N: Quote), Rio Tinto Energy America and Xstrata Coal Pty Limited.

The total cost for the project is $1.2 billion and construction will begin next year, according to Durbin.

 

(Reporting by Tom Doggett; Editing by David Gregorio and Sofina Mirza-Reid)


Aug 5, 2010

A Cheaper Way to Catch CO2

A Cheaper Way to Catch CO2

Genetically engineered enzymes are the key to a new carbon-capture method.

Adding carbon-capture technology to a conventional coal plant can nearly double the price of the electricity it produces. This fact represents one of the big obstacles to passing legislation to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions. Now researchers at Codexis, based in Redwood City, CA, are using genetically engineered enzymes to make carbon-dioxide capture less expensive--their method could increase electricity costs by less than a third.

Gene machine: A Codexis researcher operates a high-volume liquid-handling system used to make gene variants--part of a process for engineering new enzymes.
Credit: Codexis

The new enzymes increase the efficiency, by a factor of 100, of a solvent used to capture carbon dioxide. This promises to decrease the energy needed to capture and store the greenhouse gas. The researchers developed new ways to engineer enzymes that can operate at the high temperatures inside a coal plant's smokestack.

The standard way to capture CO2 is to use a solvent called monoethanolamine (MEA). Carbon dioxide is absorbed by the solvent, which separates it from the other flue gases. To store the carbon dioxide it has to be freed by applying heat--this produces a pure stream of carbon dioxide that can be compressed and permanently sequestered. The energy required to do this decreases the power output of a coal plant by about 30 percent. Combined with the extra equipment and materials needed to capture the CO2, this increases the cost of the electricity produced by roughly 80 percent. Codexis's approach could limit this cost increase to 35 percent or less, says James Lalonde, the company's vice president of biochemistry and engineering R&D.

Researchers at Codexis genetically modified an enzyme, called carbonic anhydrase, involved with respiration in many organisms, including humans. Carbonic anhydrase helps a solvent called methyl diethanolamine (MDEA) bind with carbon dioxide. The most challenging problem was altering the enzymes so they could survive at the high temperatures found in smokestacks. The enzymes can survive at temperatures around 25 °C, but quickly stop working at temperatures higher than 55 °C to 65 °C.

Codexis's early results show that its modified enzymes can survive at temperatures above 85 °C for half an hour. This is high enough for the enzyme to survive in smokestacks, but not at the temperatures needed for freeing the carbon dioxide for storage (130 °C). Lalonde says the company has seen large improvements since these initial results were disclosed, but the company hasn't released the new figures yet.

The company has successfully engineered enzymes for drug development in the past. It has won two "green technology" awards from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for developing enzymes for making two drugs--atorvastatin, the active ingredient in the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor, and sitagliptin, the active ingredient in the diabetes drug Januvia. The enzymes simplified drug synthesis and reduced waste.

Codexis uses a proprietary version of directed evolution. In its simplest form, directed evolution involves making random changes to existing genes. These mutations alter one amino acid in the enzyme at a time. The genes that work best are then selected and changed to further increase performance. Codexis's researchers have developed a faster version of the process that involves swapping relatively large segments of the gene sequence--making multiple changes to amino acids each time. They've also developed computational techniques that allow them to determine what parts of the gene are most likely to lead to improvements in performance if they are modified. The changes make the process more efficient, and lead to big changes in performance in a relatively short amount of time.

"Codexis's technology has certainly proven itself quite powerful," says Stefan Lutz, associate professor of biomolecular chemistry at Emory University. He cautions that it may be more difficult to work with carbon dioxide than with pharmaceuticals. "If they do succeed, it would be a huge deal," he says.

By Kevin Bullis Technology Review 7/23/2010

Enviro Groups to Sue Coal Plant Touted by Texas as Permitting Success

Enviro Groups to Sue Coal Plant Touted by Texas as Permitting Success

In the wake of U.S. EPA's rejection of a Texas program that permits the state's largest air pollution sources, environmental groups have challenged a coal-fired power plant that Gov. Rick Perry (R) had hailed as a symbol of the value of the state's "flexible" permitting program.

When federal regulators rejected the Texas permitting program on June 30, it raised the pitch of an already unusually noisy fight between state and federal regulators. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) sued EPA last month over the agency's rejection of one air permitting program, and with the publication of the agency's final decision (pdf) on the "flexible" permitting program in today's Federal Register, the door is open for another legal challenge from the Lone Star State.

Environmentalists are trying to drive home their point, as well. Three advocacy groups -- the Environmental Integrity Project, the Texas Campaign for the Environment, and Environment Texas -- warned one of Texas' largest power plants today that they intend to file suit over about 10,000 alleged violations of federal air regulations.

The notice (pdf) was sent to the Lower Colorado River Authority, a publicly owned utility that runs the 1,641-megawatt Fayette Power Project near La Grange, Texas.

"In Texas, air pollution permits are flexible alright -- flexible enough to allow coal-fired power plants like the Fayette plant to avoid tougher federal emission limits, violate the weaker substitute standards offered by the Texas regulators, and short-change Texas taxpayers by failing to pay fees that are supposed to be used to improve air quality," said Ilan Levin, a senior attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project, in a statement today.

Clara Tuma, a spokeswoman for the LCRA, said the utility was reviewing the potential lawsuit but could not comment by deadline.

The power plant had been held up as a model for the 16-year-old flexible permitting program, which sets a single facilitywide cap on air pollution rather than limit emissions from each individual source. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) honored the facility's air quality efforts last year, making it the most decorated coal-fired plant in the Clean Texas program.

Upon the rejection of the flexible permitting program last month, Gov. Perry said EPA's actions would "undermine environmental gains" at facilities such as the Fayette plant, which is about 60 miles east of Austin.

"Blinded by its activist agenda, the EPA is even threatening a renewable-energy power plant and a manufacturer of energy efficient air conditioners," Perry said in a statement. "Texas will continue to fight this federal takeover of a successful state program, enacted under Gov. Ann Richards (D) and operated in full under President Clinton, which has cleaned Texas' air at the same time it contributed to the nation's strongest economy."

Environmentalists claim that flexible permitting violates the Clean Air Act and allows Texas plants to produce more emissions than are allowed in other states. Because the flexible program has not been approved by EPA, the plant lacks a federally approved air permit as required by the Clean Air Act, Levin said in an interview.

EPA recently unveiled a proposed program that would allow facilities with flexible permits to sidestep the dispute between state and federal regulators. The plants would undergo a third-party audit and agree to make any necessary emissions upgrades, in exchange for receiving a federal permit and a promise from EPA not to seek any civil penalties for prior violations (E&ENews PM, June 30).

"Companies that have relied on flexible permits have been operating in legal limbo at their own risk for many years, and they continue to do so," Levin said today.

The groups also intend to argue that the LCRA made a major modification to the Fayette plant without upgrading controls for emissions of particulate matter, that the plant exceeded pollution limits in its Texas-issued permit thousands of times and that the utility avoided paying $500,000 in air quality fees by underreporting its emissions in annual reports to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Industry groups have argued that Texas' program has freed them from meeting source-by-source emission limits, Levin said, "but as a matter of federal law, you can't just make those limits disappear."

Click here (pdf) to read the notice of intent to sue.

Click here (pdf) to read the Federal Register notice.

Published: July 15, 2010

Project’s Fate May Predict the Future of Mining

Project’s Fate May Predict the Future of Mining
Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Jimmy Weekley, who lives in Pigeonroost Hollow, W.Va., has been fighting the Spruce 1 coal project for years. More Photos »

BLAIR, W.Va. — Federal officials are considering whether to veto mountaintop mining above a little Appalachian valley called Pigeonroost Hollow, a step that could be a turning point for one of the country’s most contentious environmental disputes.

Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Above is an existing mining operation, adjacent to the Spruce 1 site, which is to the upper left of the cleared areas. More Photos »

The New York Times

The population of Blair, near the Spruce 1 site, has dwindled to 60. More Photos »

The Army Corps of Engineers approved a permit in 2007 to blast 400 feet off the hilltops here to expose the rich coal seams, disposing of the debris in the upper reaches of six valleys, including Pigeonroost Hollow.

But the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration, in a break with President George W. Bush’s more coal-friendly approach, has threatened to halt or sharply scale back the project known as Spruce 1. The agency asserts that the project would irrevocably damage streams and wildlife and violate the Clean Water Act.

Because it is one of the largest mountaintop mining projects ever and because it has been hotly disputed for a dozen years, Spruce 1 is seen as a bellwether by conservation groups and the coal industry.

The fate of the project could also have national reverberations, affecting Democratic Party prospects in coal states. While extensive research and public hearings on the plan have been completed, federal officials said that their final decision would not be announced until late this year — perhaps, conveniently, after the midterm elections.

Environmental groups say that approval of the project in anything like its current form would be a betrayal.

“Spruce 1 is a test of whether the E.P.A. is going to follow through with its promises,” said Bill Price, director of environmental justice with the Sierra Club in West Virginia.

“If the administration sticks to its guns,” Mr. Price predicted, “mountaintop removal is going to be severely curtailed.”

Coal companies say politics, not science, is threatening a practice vital to local economies and energy independence. “After years of study, with the company doing everything any agency asked, and three years after a permit was issued, the E.P.A. now wants to stop Spruce 1,” said Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association. “It’s political; the only thing that has changed is the administration.”

While the government does not collect statistics on mountaintop mining, data suggest that it may account for about 10 percent of American coal output, yielding 5 percent of the nation’s electricity. The method plays a bigger economic role in the two states where it is concentrated, Kentucky and West Virginia.

The proposal to strip a large area above the home of 70-year-old Jimmy Weekley, Pigeonroost Hollow’s last remaining inhabitant, was first made in 1997 by Arch Coal, Inc., of St. Louis. The legal ups and downs of Spruce 1 have come to symbolize the broader battle over a method that produces inexpensive coal while drastically altering the landscape.

Spruce 1 started as the largest single proposal ever for hilltop mining, in which mountains are carved off to expose coal seams and much of the debris, often leaking toxic substances, is placed in adjacent valleys.

After years of negotiations and a scaling back of the mining area to 2,278 acres, from its original 3,113 acres, the Spruce 1 permit was approved by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2007 and limited construction began. But this spring, the E.P.A. proposed halting the project.

The announcement caused an uproar in West Virginia. The E.P.A. held an emotional public hearing in May and stopped accepting written comments in June. Arch Coal has objected publicly, but did not respond to requests to comment for this article.

The Obama administration’s E.P.A. has already riled the coal companies by tightening procedures for issuing new mining permits and imposing stronger stream protections. But environmental groups were worried in June, when the agency approved a curtailed mountaintop plan in another site in Logan County, W.Va. Now, as negotiations between the E.P.A. and Arch Coal continue, the Spruce 1 battle is being closely watched as a sign of mountaintop mining’s future.

Feelings run high in the counties right around the project area.

“Spruce 1 is extremely important to all of southern West Virginia because if this permit is pulled back, every mine site is going to be vulnerable to having its permits pulled,” said James Milan, manager of Walker Machinery in Logan, which sells gargantuan Caterpillar equipment.

The loss of jobs, Mr. Milan said, would have devastating effects on struggling communities.

Maria Gunnoe, an organizer for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and a director of SouthWings, which organizes flights to document environmental damages, said that if Spruce 1 went forward, “it’s going to mean the permanent erasure of part of our land and our legacy.”

“We can’t keep blowing up mountains to keep the lights on,” said Ms. Gunnoe, a resident of nearby Boone County who has received death threats and travels with a 9 millimeter pistol.

Mr. Weekley, whose house is in sight of the project boundary, remembers the day in 1997 when he decided to fight it. Nearby mining under previous permits had filled his wooded valley with dust and noise.

“You couldn’t see out of this hollow,” he recalled. “I said, Something’s got to be done or we’re not going to have a community left.”

He and his late wife became plaintiffs in a 2008 suit claiming that the project violated environmental laws. A ruling in their favor was overturned, setting off litigation that continues.

Mr. Weekley said that he had rejected offers of close to $2 million for his eight acres and that he had seen the population of the nearby town of Blair dwindle to 60 from 600, with most residents bought out by Arch Coal.

A rail-thin man who enjoys sitting on his porch with a dog on his lap, Mr. Weekley uttered an expletive when told that coal industry representatives, including Mr. Raney in an interview, referred to the upper tributaries filled in by mining as “ditches” that can be rebuilt. In fact, some of the streams to be filled by Spruce 1 are intermittent, while others, including Pigeonroost Creek, flow year-round.

“I caught fish in that stream as a child, using a safety pin for a hook,” Mr. Weekley said. “If they get that permit, there won’t be a stream here.”

In documents issued in March, the E.P.A. said the project as approved would still smother seven miles of streambed.

Filling in headwaters damages the web of life downstream, from aquatic insects to salamanders to fish, and temporary channels and rebuilt streams are no substitute, the agency said. The pulverized rock can release toxic levels of selenium and other pollutants, it noted.

The effects of Spruce 1 would be added to those of 34 other past and present projects that together account for more than one-third of the area of the Spruce Fork watershed, the agency said.

The debate over Spruce 1 and other mountaintop mine permits has been a source of division and anguish among local residents.

Michael Fox, 39, of Gilbert, is a mine worker who like many other miners here thinks the objections are overblown. “I have three kids I want to send to college,” Mr. Fox said.

One former mountaintop miner who says he now regrets his involvement is Charles Bella, 60. He is one of the remaining residents on Blair’s main street, along the Spruce Fork, which is fed in turn by Pigeonroost Creek.

“I know it put bread on my table, but I hate destroying the mountains like that,” Mr. Bella said.

Page 1 of 9