Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

redlightnetherlands t1_ir2sf5f wrote

Reply to comment by SeeisforComedy in North Carolina Lake Sediments Show Decades of Coal Ash Contamination: An analysis of sediments from five North Carolina lakes near coal-burning power plants has found that coal ash pollution of surface waters has been more persistent and widespread than was previously known. by thinkB4WeSpeak

Burning coal produces ash with low-level radiation, however, almost every coal plant in the US in the past 15 years was forced to retrofit to capture ash and the only things emitted are water vapor and CO2.

Most of the contamination in the study is from previous decades.

I'm not suggesting we should keep burning coal, just clarifying.

−4

Uptown-Dog t1_ir3eslx wrote

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/coal/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants/ says:

"One factor in improving air quality has been the pollution-control technologies used by coal-fired power plants. Today’s coal-fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NOx by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls [xv]."

So... we're still getting 14% of the NOx, 2% of the SO2, and 0.2 percent of the particulates. Those are obviously much better, but not zero, especially when one considers just the volumes involved: even a small percentage of a huge amount can still end up a very bad quantity.

13