Skip to main content

EPA Program Successfully Reduces Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

Image
By Janice
A report released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency shows improved air quality for more than 100 million people in 21 eastern states and the District of Columbia in 2004.
Under this program, the report shows that power industry summertime NOx emissions have dropped significantly in 2004. Total ozone season NOx emissions from power plants and other large combustion sources were 30 percent lower than in 2003, and 50 percent lower than in 2000. The NOx reductions, when combined with other control programs have reduced ozone season NOx emissions from sources in 19 eastern states and the District of Columbia, by 70 percent below 1990 levels.

Continued NOx emission reductions are anticipated under the NOx SIP call and the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR. CAIR, issued March 10, 2005, will permanently cap power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. In 2015, CAIR, the NOx SIP Call and other programs in the East will reduce ozone season NOx emissions by about 50 percent and annual NOx emissions by about 60 percent from 2003 levels.
The Washington Post goes into further detail:
Under rules that took effect last year, 21 eastern states and the District of Columbia must reduce regional nitrogen oxide emissions by 1 million tons between May 1 and Sept. 30. On hot, sunny days nitrogen oxides combine with pollutants called volatile organic compounds and form ozone smog, which has been linked to asthma and premature death.

... Environmentalists also hailed the findings, saying they show that industry can operate more cleanly once the government demands it. Under the new program, known as "state implementation plan call," states have to meet an overall pollution cap but individual plants can trade emissions, so a cleaner facility can sell its "credits" to a dirtier one.
As we reported earlier this year, the Washington metropolitan area (D.C. and Maryland suburbs) gets 30% of its electricity from nuclear energy -- 10% higher than the national average. And without nuclear energy, there's no doubt the air wouldn't be as clean.

Technorati tags:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more