IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> NIPSCO named a nations biggest polluter
Southsider2k12
post Nov 26 2009, 01:21 PM
Post #1


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,409
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



http://www.post-trib.com/news/1903944,powe...nt-1125.article

QUOTE
NIPSCO plant makes dubious national list
Four area plants named in report on CO2 emissions
Comments

November 25, 2009
BY GITTE LAASBY, (219) 648-2183

Northern Indiana Public Service Co.'s R.M. Schahfer Generating Station in Wheatfield is the 43rd-dirtiest power plant in the nation in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report released Tuesday.

The report also states that Indiana power plants emitted the fourth-most carbon dioxide pollution in the nation in 2007.
» Click to enlarge image
The R.M. Schahfer Generating Station, located just north of Wheatfield, ranked as the 43rd-dirtiest power plant in the nation, according to a new report.
(Stephanie Dowell/ Post-Tribune, file)


Area plants on the list

* R.M. Schahfer Generating Station

Built: 1976

Tons of CO2 emitted in 2007: 12,289,294

National dirty rank: 43

* Michigan City Generating Station

Built: 1970

Tons of CO2 emitted in 2007: 2,895,808

National dirty rank: 260

* Bailly Generating Station, Chesterton

Built: 1962

Tons of CO2 emitted in 2007: 2,891,039

National dirty rank: 261

* Whiting Clean Energy Inc.

Built: 2001

Tons of CO2 emitted in 2007: 873,434

National dirty rank: 510

SOURCE: Environment America 2009/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Acid Rain Program.

* To see for yourself, read the report HERE.

Four of Northwest Indiana's power plants are mentioned in the report by Environment America, "America's Biggest Polluters: Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in 2007": The R.M. Schahfer Generating Station, Michigan City Generating Station, Bailly Generating Station and Whiting Clean Energy. Combined, they emitted more than 18.9 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2007. That's the equivalent of more than 3.3 million cars.

Power plants are the single-largest source of the country's carbon dioxide emissions, according to the report. The emission numbers come from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's acid rain program, which requires power plants to report certain emissions.

"America's fleet of coal-fired power plants emitted more than 80 percent of CO2 pollution from U.S. power plants in 2007 and 36 percent of the total U.S. CO2 pollution, as well as disproportionate amounts of smog- and soot-forming pollutants, toxic mercury, and other toxic air pollutants," the report says.

Gabriel Filippelli, chairman of the Department of Earth Sciences at Indiana University-Purdue University-Purdue at Indianapolis, said cutting emissions is key to avoiding the most dangerous effects of global warming, but would also reduce soot pollution, which can lead to asthma, and mercury pollution, which can damage the nervous system.

About half of the country's electricity comes from coal, which has the highest carbon content of any fossil fuel per unit of energy, according to the report.

"We should be moving to clean, renewable energy like wind and solar. At least, old and new plants should be required to meet the same modern standards for global warming pollution. No plants currently have to meet standards for global warming pollution, making them unchecked contributors to global warming," said Megan Severson, Midwest field organizer for Environment America.

The EPA has proposed requiring new and significantly modified power plants and industries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Within a few months, the U.S. Senate is expected to consider a cap-and-trade proposal to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Older plants pollute proportionally more than new plants. Plants built before 1980 produced 73 percent of America's carbon emissions although they represent less than half of the plants, the report said. For each year older a coal generator is on average, it creates an additional kilo of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity it produced.

Severson said older plants emit more carbon dioxide because newer plants burn natural gas while older ones mainly burn coal. She said efficiency may be another reason newer plants emit less than older ones, but couldn't elaborate.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Southsider2k12
post Dec 7 2009, 09:34 AM
Post #2


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,409
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



In conjunction with the prior story, this could be huge to us here in NWI.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html

QUOTE
Business Fumes Over Carbon Dioxide Rule

By JEFFREY BALL and CHARLES FORELLE

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.

An "endangerment" finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions -- even if Congress doesn't pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.

Many business groups are opposed to EPA efforts to curb a gas as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide.

An EPA endangerment finding "could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement. "The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don't stifle our economic recovery," he said, noting that the group supports federal legislation.

EPA action won't do much to combat climate change, and "is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy," said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry.

Dan Riedinger, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a power-industry trade group, said the EPA would be less likely than Congress to come up with an "economywide approach" to regulating emissions. The power industry prefers such an approach because it would spread the burden of emission cuts to other industries as well.

Electricity generation, transportation and industry represent the three largest sources of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.

An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment Sunday on when the agency might finalize its proposed endangerment finding. Congressional Republicans have called on the EPA to withdraw it, saying recently disclosed emails written by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia and their peers call into question the scientific rationale for regulation.

The spokeswoman said that the EPA is confident the basis for its decision will be "very strong," and that when it is published, "we invite the public to review the extensive scientific analysis informing" the decision.

EPA action would give President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.
[Climate]

The vast majority of increased greenhouse-gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries such as China and India, not from rich countries like the U.S. But developing countries have made it clear that their willingness to reduce growth in emissions will depend on what rich countries do first. That puts a geopolitical spotlight on the U.S.

At the heart of the fight over whether U.S. emission constraints should come from the EPA or Congress is a high-stakes issue: which industries will have to foot the bill for a climate cleanup. A similar theme will play out in Copenhagen as rich countries wrangle over how much they should have to pay to help the developing world shift to cleaner technologies.

"There is no agreement without money," says Rosário Bento Pais, a top climate negotiator for the European Commission, the European Union's executive arm. "That is clear."

An endangerment finding would allow the EPA to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, which are produced whenever fossil fuel is burned. Under that law, the EPA could require emitters of as little as 250 tons of carbon dioxide per year to install new technology to curb their emissions starting as soon as 2012.

A man climbed on a globe that is part of an installation in downtown Copenhagen.

The EPA has said it will only require permits from big emitters -- facilities that put out 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. But that effort to tailor the regulations to avoid slamming small businesses with new costs is expected to be challenged in court.

Legislators are aware that polls show the public appetite for action that would raise energy prices to protect the environment has fallen precipitously amid the recession.

Congressional legislation also faces plenty of U.S. industry opposition. Under the legislation, which has been passed by the House but is now stuck in the Senate, the federal government would set a cap on the amount of greenhouse gas the economy could emit every year. The government would distribute a set number of emission permits to various industries. Companies that wanted to be able to emit more than their quota could buy extra permits from those that had figured out how to emit less.

Proponents of the cap-and-trade approach say emission-permit trading will encourage industries to find the least-expensive ways to curb greenhouse-gas output. But opponents say it will saddle key industries with high costs not borne by rivals in China or India, and potentially cost the U.S. jobs.

An official prepares the Danish flag in the large Copenhagen meeting hall that will host the United Nation's summit on climate change beginning Monday. The conference ends Dec. 18.

The oil industry has warned that climate legislation could force some U.S. refineries to shut down, because importing gasoline from countries without emission caps could be cheaper than making the gasoline on domestic soil.

Legislators "have decided that coal and electric users don't bear the burden" of emissions constraints for many years, said John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group. "Early in the program, oil users are the ones who are hammered."

The Iron and Steel Institute, which represents more than 75% of steel made in the U.S., said that successful climate policy -- whether through the EPA or Congress -- must "reduce emissions without altering the competitiveness of American steelmakers."


The issue of how curbing emissions would affect jobs in developed countries is likely to erupt in Copenhagen in the battle over how much rich countries should pony up for cleaner technologies in developing nations.

Estimates of the cost for reducing emissions in developing countries vary widely, but the European Commission said in September that the bill could reach $150 billion annually by 2020. Leaders of the EU's 27 nations have said only that the EU would pay its "fair share" of the total, without committing to an amount.

Yet EU industry lobbies are weighing in against that proposal. It is "not realistic," said Axel Eggert, spokesman for Eurofer, the trade group for European steelmakers. Steelmakers want to "make sure that the financing is not a subsidy for our competitors," he said.

-- Ian Talley and Stephen Power contributed to this article.

Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com and Charles Forelle at charles.forelle@wsj.com
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A1

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Southsider2k12
post Dec 7 2009, 02:37 PM
Post #3


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,409
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...ArticleID=27484

QUOTE
Indiana among worst for cO2 emissions
State ranks fourth behind Texas, Ohio and Florida

Alicia Ebaugh
Staff Writer

MICHIGAN CITY - The tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year by NIPSCO's three coal-fired power plants in Northwest Indiana equal the amount created by roughly 3 million cars, according to a report on America's biggest polluters.

Indiana ranks fourth in the nation for carbon dioxide emissions from mostly aging power plants, and they contribute to global warming, said the report by the Washington, D.C.-based Environment America group, releasing about 132 million tons of carbon dioxide. The report ranked Indiana behind Texas, Ohio and Florida. The study was based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data for 2007, the latest year for which final data were available.

The study found 73 percent of emissions came from older coal-burning power plants built before 1980, which the Bailly, Michigan City and R.M. Schahfer generating stations all are.

"It's time for the oldest and dirtiest power plants to clean up their act," said Megan Severson, the group's Midwest field organizer. "In order to stop global warming and reap all the benefits of clean energy, we must require old clunker power plants to meet modern standards for global warming pollution."

The R.M. Schahfer plant was named the 43rd dirtiest power plant in the nation in the report. The Michigan City and Bailly plants were named 260th and 261st dirtiest, respectively. There are nearly 500 coal-fired plants nationwide.

NIPSCO spokesman Nick Meyer said calling their plants "dirty" is misleading, since technology that would limit carbon dioxide emissions is still developing.

"There's no way for us to limit it right now," he said. "But significant headway has been achieved in terms of other toxins. We have installed scrubbers that have created a 70 percent reduction in nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide."

NIPSCO spent $330 million on the scrubbers, Meyer said. Any carbon dioxide removal efforts would likely be even more expensive.

Indiana gets about 95 percent of its electricity from coal-fired power plants. One reason for that is because coal is the cheapest form of electric generation outside of renewable sources, Meyer said.

"We are trying to provide more electrical options for our customers," he said. "We have two hydroelectric plants, and one natural gas plant. We also purchase wind power out-of-state."

Nationwide, power plants released 2.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide, or about the amount produced by 449 million cars, the group said. That accounted for 42 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States in 2007.

Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis scientist Gabriel Filippelli said global warming is already affecting rainfall patterns in Indiana. A global temperature rise of 2 degrees Fahrenheit since pre-industrial times has caused a shift to heavier springtime rains, causing flooding and complicating agriculture, said Filippelli.

Severson urged Indiana Sens. Richard Lugar, a Republican, and Evan Bayh, a Democrat, to support a climate bill now working its way through Congress. The bill calls for greenhouse gases to be cut by 20 percent by 2020, a target scaled back to 17 percent in the House after opposition from coal-state Democrats.

Bayh has expressed reservations about costs of carbon cap-and-trade legislation, and said progress on the issue is unlikely without participation by countries such as China and India.

Lugar has said the United States must try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but that the bill in the Senate and a version in the House would be a drag on economic growth.

Environment America also said the EPA should finalize a proposal to require coal-burning plants and other smokestack industries to meet updated standards when new plants are built or old plants are upgraded.

The group also urged a shift to renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar power.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
southyards
post Dec 7 2009, 06:03 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 188
Joined: 10-April 08
Member No.: 783




MICHIGAN CITY - The tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year by NIPSCO's three coal-fired power plants in Northwest Indiana equal the amount created by roughly 3 million cars, according to a report on America's biggest polluters.


Now here's a blurb from NISPCO's website:

NIPSCO views protection of the environment as a key aspect of every employee's job. To effect meaningful change, NIPSCO is venturing well beyond "regulatory compliance" in protecting the environment through its proactive focus on sustainability, restorative measures and wise use of resources.


Seems like they certainly are "venturing well beyond regulatory compliance". . . . . . . .
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Southsider2k12
post Dec 7 2009, 09:43 PM
Post #5


Spends WAY too much time at CBTL
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 16,409
Joined: 8-December 06
From: Michigan City, IN
Member No.: 2



QUOTE(southyards @ Dec 7 2009, 06:03 PM) *

MICHIGAN CITY - The tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere each year by NIPSCO's three coal-fired power plants in Northwest Indiana equal the amount created by roughly 3 million cars, according to a report on America's biggest polluters.
Now here's a blurb from NISPCO's website:

NIPSCO views protection of the environment as a key aspect of every employee's job. To effect meaningful change, NIPSCO is venturing well beyond "regulatory compliance" in protecting the environment through its proactive focus on sustainability, restorative measures and wise use of resources.
Seems like they certainly are "venturing well beyond regulatory compliance". . . . . . . .


Just wait until they have to pay a Carbon tax on their emissions. You will love your NIPSCO bill then...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 04:06 AM

Skin Designed By: neo at www.neonetweb.com