Effect of gas on acid rain

[pcray1231]

The gas boom has led to an energy boom, resulting in the balance of power generation shifting heavily towards natural gas over coal. This started way back in the 80's but has accelerated especially from 2008 and on. It has allowed the shutdown of older coal plants without inducing brownouts, both under natural economic forces as well as spurred by more stringent EPA regulations that were made possible by the existence of a viable alternative. The shutdowns to date have numbered approximately 50 plants in the Ohio Valley where most of our acid rain comes from, and were of the oldest and dirtiest, with only newer or upgraded plants with the latest scrubbing systems still operating.

I was interested in how this affects acid rain. The following are measurements on rainfall taken over time. Given is pH (higher is less acidic). You can also easily click on other contaminants, such as SO4 (most others, lower is better). These are the older sites, with data starting prior to 2005. There are a lot of PA testing sites that came online more recently, and are ok for comparison of rainfall in different areas, but have too little data over too short a time period to discern an actual trend. So I excluded those.

State College: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/data/ntn/plots/ntntrends.html?siteID=PA15

Young Woman's Creek: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/data/ntn/plots/ntntrends.html?siteID=PA18

Kane: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/data/ntn/plots/ntntrends.html?siteID=PA29

Huntingdon: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/data/ntn/plots/ntntrends.html?siteID=PA42

Milford: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/data/ntn/plots/ntntrends.html?siteID=PA72

Millersville: http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/data/ntn/plots/ntntrends.html?siteID=PA47

This is the good side (environmentally speaking) of natural gas.

 

[troutbert]

Rising pH of rainfall is good.

I wonder if we'll see actual results of this out on the streams.

Specifically, brook trout moving further upstream into the headwaters, in infertile areas.

 

[pcray1231]

I suspect the effect on soils, and thus, groundwater chemistry will occur, but be much slower. How much slower I dunno. And again, even freestoners are mostly spring flows, it's just shallower groundwater and thus smaller, more numerous springs.

The surface of rock is already devoid of calcium after years of acid rain, and the soils remain fairly acidic as a result, with high aluminum concentrations already existing. You need time to flush out the aluminum and weather away rock to expose areas which contain more calcium to buffer rainfall. It'll happen, and it probably has already started, but it'll be a slow process.

But, it's still a good trend. And I'd guess the effects are more immediate on true runoff events, which is when your pH is normally at it's lowest. I'd assume the acid deposition is likewise improved even in the absence of precipitation. So your snowcover would be considerably less acidic as well, and the spring runoff not nearly as damaging.

Aside from brookies reaching further into headwaters, I'd suspect you'll have improved macro populations in areas where brookies already exist, and thus improved sizes there. As for populations, maybe, but often I think the limiting factor on # of fish is more often temperature or suitable breeding/holding habitat rather than food availability. Another, perhaps negative, effect would be brown trout intruding farther upstream in greater numbers as well.

 

[pcray1231]

And, FWIW, "natural" rainfall (meaning non affected by human activities) is between 5.0 and 6.0 (depends on location, and varies considerably on a number of factors, including how long since the last rain!)

Many of these stations were at 4.1-4.2ish in the 80's are now at 4.9ish and heading up. That's very good.

 

[FarmerDave]

As a side note...

link

 

[pcray1231]

Yes, economically speaking, some areas are hurting, others are booming. It's a switch. And the winners and losers change in all switches.

Railroads certainly get hurt since gas ships by pipeline and not train.

This thread, though, is more about the environmental impact than the economic one.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
Yes, economically speaking, some areas are hurting, others are booming. It's a switch. And the winners and losers change in all switches.

Railroads certainly get hurt since gas ships by pipeline and not train.

This thread, though, is more about the environmental impact than the economic one.

Question: In my previous post which contained 4 words and three dots, followed by a link to an article... where did you get the idea that I thought the closure of that coal dock was a bad thing?

I only posted it in support of your OP.

Coal demand is still dropping, and in Canada as well.

IMO, that is a good thing.

 

[pcray1231]

Sorry to read too much into your supporting post...

 

[pcray1231]

This graph makes it pretty clear what's happening. The data in the original post generally goes back to the 80's and 90's. See below. Coal and hydro falling. Gas rising.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
Sorry to read too much into your supporting post...

Honest mistake, but you know I prefer nat gas over coal.

I do feel bad for the few people losing jobs over this, but I have MANY reasons why I think closing the coal docs is a good thing in the long term. I just don't feel up to splaning all of it right now. The big thing is the potential that property has for other things that would generate many more jobs than the 21 lost. But it is likely wishful thinking, since I am familiar with the Government there. I will leave it at that.

That city used to be a beautiful vibrant city, but has been in decline for a long time.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

This is germane to the OP question and to the health of our fisheries. Please read and consider this when voting.

I know the environment is only one issue, but I think it's high on the list of everyone who enjoys outdoor pursuits.

As such, here is the opposing candidate's record.

Whatever you choice in November, make it an informed one, not an emotional one!

 

[pcray1231]

My own political views on energy don't really fit either party.

An honest environmentalist is neither for nor against coal, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, geo, hydro, etc. Rather, their focus should be on what contaminants (to air or water or both) are most damaging, and tightening limits on those contaminants. From there, let the market sort it out.

In regards to regulation, I support stiff regulation. But it's way too specific, getting down to the detail of how various items must be designed and what materials they have to be made of.

Technology moves fast. Better materials are made everyday, better processes are invented, and general improvements are made. And government regulation is specifying best practices of 20 and 30 years ago. As such, it's quite common that safety and environmental regulations actually prevent changes that would improve safety and environment!

And to be honest, the reason for those specific regs is often driven by industry itself! The big status quo companies face danger from the little guy who figured out a better way, so they lobby Congress to pass said regulation to prevent the better way from being allowed, thus ensuring the process they are "pot committed" to remains the leading practice into the future. It's how they squash competition.

That just ain't right. Regulation should never specify designs and processes, it should merely provide limits on specific types of pollution, monitor compliance, and punish non-compliance in a severe enough way as to be an effective deterrent. An example is Obama's reg on coal plant scrubbers. In no way, shape, or form should a reg ever specify what technology has to be on the stack. Instead, it should simply limit how much bad stuff comes out of that stack. Whether per plant, or per kilowatt hour, or whatever. And the same limits should be in place for coal plants as for natural gas plants and for the plant that manufactures solar panels. I'm not saying that this specific reg didn't work. It did, as the data presented in the OP shows. But if some coal company comes up with a different way that's even better, they won't be able to implement it. And it's pretty likely that will happen at some point in the future!

And environmentalists should never be advocates for or against power sources. Rather, they should be examining what contaminants are most damaging and lobbying for decreasing regulatory limits on those contaminants. Coal is historically dirty, but if they are able to clean themselves up enough to meet the same tight regulations as every other power source, and still be economically viable, good for them! If coal can't be improved to meet that, then coal should die. It's that simple.

 

[NPflychucker]

I find this topic pretty relevant to me currently as im sitting in a job trailer in VA at a Power Plant. The plant is fired by natural gas but It used to be coal. that's why were here currently, there are 4 large coal ash ponds that they are draining. As in running the water through an extensive treatment plant, testing it every hour to ensure all contaminants fall within acceptable levels, then discharging into the Potomac.

Anyways back to the topic at hand. Since I work in the environmental field, im a big supporter of Natural Gas seeing as when they are drilling/putting pipes in, im working. There is no doubt that shifting from coal to nautral gas will reduce emissions from power plants and in turn, reduce the effects of acid rain on our region. Which is a big plus for our fisheries in the long run.

Another aspect of this though is the long term impacts that the mining of coal has on the environment such as AMD that in turn can ad to the overall pH levels in a given watershed.

Our biggest threats from natural gas production are more short term such as water withdraws from streams for fracking and siltation caused by the construction of pads and gas line ROW's. Though neither of these things are good and can have big impacts on stream health, the lasting effects of both can be minimal.

The regulating agencies are far more strict with the natural gas industry than they are with coal and that's a good thing. In my eyes, a shift towards natural gas as our main fossil fuel for power generation is a step in the right direction for our environment. Not only will our fisheries benefit from it from lowered emissions on the generation side, they will also benefit from less environmental impacts on the production side. Really a win win.

 

[pcray1231]

The regulating agencies are far more strict with the natural gas industry than they are with coal and that's a good thing.

See, that's where I disagree. It should be the same for both. The same being pretty strict. But the same nonetheless.

If natural gas is better environmentally and economically (and given current practices, it is better on both fronts), then being more strict with natural gas and less strict with coal does nothing but slow the adoption of natural gas and prolong the use of coal. Which is counter productive both environmentally and economically.

You refrain from letting regs specify "how", and keep them to specifying "how much". Should be the same for coal or gas or a solar panel manufacturing plant. You place limits on each type of pollution. You don't give subsidies to solar, or oil, or anyone else. Likewise, you don't protect any of them. The rest is up to the market.

You let the market know that you fully intend to tighten the limits at some point in the future, when you are able to get away with it without inducing brownouts or making the price skyrocket. That way nobody builds a new plant that "barely" meets the current limit. Investment favors the methods that are safest to stricter regs. No surprises. It's more risky to invest in dirtier practices which could become outdated quickly.

When you can get away with it, you tighten the limits as promised. If that changes the market balance, so be it. Let the market adjust.

 

[NPflychucker]

pcray, I completely agree that regulations should be the same for all fossil fuel production. What I meant by it being good that the agencies are more strict with natural gas is that its a good thing that they don't give them the same freedom as they do coal. If natural gas had the same freedoms as the coal companies do as far as environmental impacts go, we would be in a work of hurt.

The issue with coal is that as far as mining goes, they have a lot of leeway because of practices that have been grandfathered in. This is mainly due to the coal industry being around in this country as long as it has (loooonnnggg before any kind of environmental regulation agency was around) and the fact that it has been the standard for power generation for such a long time.

Not that the natural gas industry hasn't been around a long time, but with the recent booms from the shale gas deposits around the country, all of the agencies want their piece of the pie. So they get run through the gamut of permits and other regulations, which all cost time and money. But it all works out in the end, the gas company gets their line in, and its put in under strict environmental guidelines, and the agencies get their cut.

I still think even with coal getting a pass on a lot of things we will still continue to see a shift towards natural gas and this is mainly due to emission regulations for power generation. We continue to see old coal fired plants get shut down or converted to be fired from natural gas because the cost involved to update these plants to still burn coal and meet the strict emissions regulations actually outweigh the cost to just build a new plant in the long run.

 

[pcray1231]

What I meant by it being good that the agencies are more strict with natural gas is that its a good thing that they don't give them the same freedom as they do coal. If natural gas had the same freedoms as the coal companies do as far as environmental impacts go, we would be in a work of hurt.

Right, but the right decision here is to take away the freedoms from coal. Forget this grandfather crap.

Look, even if you let gas get away with more than we do (and I don't suggest this), it would still be better than the status quo on coal. It would favor more gas over coal. Coal would die a quicker death, and the implementation of natural gas would be quicker and more complete. And environmentally, that would be GOOD, not bad.

But what I do suggest is getting rid of the grandfather stuff. A better mousetrap has come out. This allows us to tighten pollution regulations without doubling the price of energy. And we should. For every industry. To as tight as reasonable without making the price of energy skyrocket.

Coal either has to improve itself to meet the new reg, or die. If it can improve itself, great, we all win. If it can't, the death should be as quick and complete as possible. What you don't want to do is tell them that they can continue operating as they are with an inferior product, and we'll protect them and punish their superior competition with regulation.

 

[NPflychucker]

Again I completely agree with what you are saying! Coal shouldn't be afforded the freedoms that it is and it should be held to the same standards as gas. Im not suggesting that its ok that coal gets away with these things because they are grandfathered in, I was just stating that that currently that is what we are dealing with. And with emission regulations as they are currently, coal is struggling to compete, which again is GOOD. Trust me ive done work for gas companies where they have a line running across large tracts of coal company land and the coal company is never real happy to see us, they hate the gas companies because they know they cant compete. Gas is cheap, burns cleaner and is more efficient than coal.

In a perfect world, renewables like wind solar and hydro would be our best options, but lets face the facts, fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. At least not any time soon. And as far as fossil fuels go gas is by far the best option and it is the direction that our energy industry is going. Slower than I would like but it is getting there.

The reign of coal as king is coming to and end and gas is ready to take the crown.

 

[pcray1231]

In a perfect world, renewables like wind solar and hydro would be our best options, but lets face the facts, fossil fuels aren't going anywhere. At least not any time soon. And as far as fossil fuels go gas is by far the best option and it is the direction that our energy industry is going.

Well, that's kind of what I was saying. You don't say "in a perfect world we would have X source". Because, yes, in some cases solar and wind and hydro are better than gas. In some cases, no, they're not. It takes lots of energy to produce solar panels, and wind turbines, etc. It takes more to transport them and install them. They're also land intensive and not everywhere has the land to do it. They're intermittent and thus require a larger base capacity. They're widely spaced so they require more infrastructure to support. And if you put them in a crappy location, they don't even make as much energy as it took to manufacture them. And you can't just put them anywhere and transport the energy, as the farther the distance from source to usage, the more energy you lose during transmission.

Unfortunately, we do that, because there are subsidies and tax rewards for installing them. We actually have solar farms and wind farms where there's a negative net energy equation going on. It's just dumb.

But that makes it sound like I'm anti-solar or anti-wind. Which isn't true at all. I support them where they make sense. And they do make sense in some places. Solar in the desert southwest, where there's tons of sun and land? Abso-freakin-lutely. And, in such places, they're capable of standing on their own economically, without needing all of those subsidies.

I do think renewables will gain in importance. Especially wind. But it takes time. And the population is growing too. So it's not to say that we don't need more fossils as well. The answer to the energy question is "all of the above, the preferred options vary by location".

Nuclear is one I think we mess up pretty bad. From a scientific/engineering perspective, we should use far more of it. From a pollution perspective, it's far better than ANY of the others. From an economic perspective, it could be better as well, but it's not because of the red tape we impose on it. And 50 year old 1st generation plants, which produce high amounts of waste, are inefficient, and dangerous from a safety perspective, are still running because they're grandfathered. Meanwhile we have plans for 4th generation plants which produce zero waste and zero pollution, make electricity more efficiently, and more safely. The result would be huge improvements in environmental and safety concerns. And we can't shut down the old crappy plants and replace them with modern versions because..... Environmental and safety regs!!!!

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Pat,

If I understand your position, I think i agree with you: We should set up "rails" for the energy industry to run in such that the playing field is level. That should pertain to manufacture, extraction, and generation. In this scenario, no individual or group of energy producers would benefit or be punished unfairly.

That makes sense.

In the short term, we should minimize impact regardless of which method is being used.

In the long term, we should encourage R&D, innovation that trends towards increased efficiency and reduced impact.

The devil is in the details: Who will determine the definition of "impact" at each stage?

The one thing you and NPflychucker haven't mentioned (and it can be very impact) is reducing demand for energy. Or, perhaps more practical, flattening the demand curve.

So....back to the election, my purpose for posting the platforms was to provide info on the candidates' environmental stands. I dislike emotional rhetoric. Hopefully, environmental platforms have some place in the decision making of voters. There are myriad issues. But, IMO, this is a big one.

 

[JackM]

Exploit the gas it is cleaner than coal, ?? I am dead.