Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumDuke - Removing Coal Ash Dumps From Watersheds Would Cost $10 Billion, Take Decades; Guess Who Pays?
RALEIGH, N.C. Duke Energy told North Carolina lawmakers Tuesday that removing all of the company's coal ash away from the state's rivers and lakes would take decades and cost up to $10 billion, with its electricity customers likely footing nearly all the bill.
In a presentation to a state legislative committee, Duke's North Carolina president Paul Newton suggested the company needs flexibility to consider more cost-efficient options. The company's proposal is to remove the coal ash from unlined dumps at four of its power plants, but then leave much of what is stored at 10 other sites in place after covering it with plastic and soil. Environmental groups are calling for new legislation requiring Duke to move all of its coal ash to lined landfills away from waterways following the massive Feb. 2 spill from a collapsed pipe in Eden that coated 70 miles of the Dan River in gray sludge.
State officials say all of Duke's 33 unlined dumps at 14 coal-fired power plants scattered across the state are oozing out contaminants into groundwater. All told, Duke has more than 100 million tons of the ash, which contains potentially harmful chemicals including arsenic, lead, mercury and chromium.
Newton made no mention of that ongoing pollution as part of his presentation, which included photos of pine trees, waterfowl and deer living at some of the company's older ash dumps closed in the 1970s. He also emphasized recent testing that shows the high levels of toxic chemicals present in the Dan River immediately after the spill have dropped back to within state safety limits.
EDIT
http://www.startribune.com/nation/256264571.html?src=news-stmp
OLDMDDEM
(1,569 posts)This should be treated as criminal and Duke should have to foot the bill thru non-deductible fines and other penalties. This was not the fault of their customers or the taxpayers.
Finishline42
(1,091 posts)The coal ash dumps all over the country (more than 400) are the unfunded liability to coal generation of electricity. Instead of an emotional reaction (however justified), use this as evidence for the true cost of burning coal for electricity.
I think it's one of the factors that the utilities are closing old coal fired power plants and converting them to natural gas, gas being cheaper is the main factor but the fact that it burns cleaner also helps.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)We seem to have an infestation of sleeper trolls
Finishline42:
> Account status: Active
> Member since: Thu Feb 28, 2008, 01:49 PM
> Number of posts: 197
> Number of posts, last 90 days: 4
> Favorite group: Environment & Energy, 4 posts in the last 90 days (100% of total posts)
demoncrat:
> Account status: Posting privileges revoked
> Member since: Sat Jul 10, 2010, 03:56 PM
> Number of posts: 8
> Number of posts, last 90 days: 5
> Favorite forum: General Discussion, 2 posts in the last 90 days (40% of total posts)
> Favorite group: Environment & Energy, 2 posts in the last 90 days (40% of total posts)
mybuddy:
> Account status: Active
> Member since: Fri Mar 18, 2011, 01:56 PM
> Number of posts: 14
> Number of posts, last 90 days: 1
> Favorite group: Environment & Energy, 1 posts in the last 90 days (100% of total posts)
All of them pushing the "Clean Gas" meme ...
Finishline42
(1,091 posts)NatGas is better than coal - easily.
Gasland 2 was a real eye opener - with regards to fracking. I once thought that fracking could be safely done if it was by other than fly by night operators. Not so sure now. Especially when considering keeping our water clean enough to drink.
Better than Natgas I think solar is the way to go. Instead of having utilities providing centralized power plants - all in a cost plus model, solar panels on houses and buildings makes more sense for a lot of reasons.
mopinko
(70,021 posts)extractive industries turn mountain into dust to get many of the pollutants in this ash.
cadmium, mercury, and what all else is in there, have uses, and even high prices.
now, this slurry is sitting there. already dust.
why can it not be fed through whatever process is used to extract this stuff from ground up rocks?
am i stupid?
Finishline42
(1,091 posts)Those pollutants compose a very small amount of the coal, but in the process of removing the main pollutants - I think this started to combat 'acid rain', which was mainly sulfur - they are also removing mercury, cadmium and other heavy metals from the exhaust of the power plants. The problem is that a 500 megawatt power plant burns around 1.4 million tons of coal a year. So those trace amounts then become concentrated in the coal containment ponds.
it should be more concentrated than in many ores.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)RECOMMENDED!!!