There is considerable debate about the impact of Mercury and very little proof that, as emitted by power plants, it is dangerous. Regardless, significant Mercury reductions have been mandated by many states and will be required nationally shortly. In the forseeable future, Mercury from power plants will be a non-issue.

 

http://www.tva.com/environment/ecohealth/bearcreek.htm
So let's see, did something happen that might led to more mercury in Alabama watersheds:
http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/qbushplan.asp

There is a clear pattern that suggests support for more mercury emissions:
http://www.foxriverwatch.com/nrda/bush_record.html

Understand that I still prefer plug-in hybrids but today's higher more mercury emissions in North Alabama didn't take plug-in hybrids. All it took was weak EPA enforcement that started in 2001 and continues to this day. Plug-in hybrids won't change mercury emissions as much as EPA enforcement will.

Bob Wilson

 

I bet the folks at the EPA will be relieved/happy in Jan of next year when they can finally get back to doing their jobs instead of being re-lined out of the equation like the last 8 years...

 

Hey I got a great idea; if you like pollution move to China! they belch out pollution like no tomorrow.

 

If you follow the Bear Lake info links and actually read the advisory, it explains that high Mercury in lakes and reserviors is usually the result of past industrial discharges (prior to regulation). It is not power plant emissions. Power plants currently account for around 30% of US Mercury emissions because almost all other sources have been cleaned up.

Be very careful in reading the NRDC information. They are an advocacy group that is less than rigorous in the statements they make. They claim that the Clear Skies initiative would increase Mercury emissions by three times. That is just plain not true. Clear Skies would have reduced Mercury emissions by 70%. Some state specific regulations (that have not been enforced yet) would reduce emissions by 90%. It's true that a 70% reduction would result in a new level that is three times what would result from a 90% reduction but both cases are reductions.

The real argument is over whether Mercury should be regulated by allowance or by absolute limit. Clear Skies proposed a trading program where the overall emissions are reduced by applying new controls where it is most cost effective. The NRDC approach is to make every facility meet the limiit regardless of individual cost.

The reason this is all moot is that in early February a Federal court ruled for the states and against the EPA so the individual states can now enforce the more restrictive requirements and Clear Skies is effectively dead (at least the Mercury portion).

 

I'll keep an open mind on this and we'll see. There are several other watersheds and the prevailing winds don't flow from any obvious Mississippi/Louisiana coal fired plants (but I don't have a good map of them.) The TVA also reported having to breach the dam a couple of years ago and that might have led to higher stream currents digging into past sediment. What I'd like to see would be finding a mercury contaminated layer, the 'smoking gun'. But in the meanwhile, the only other likely source is air-borne. If we see a 'plume' of elevated mercury levels, it should point to the source.

I wonder if Doug might have some insights about how to approach this. For example, would isotope analysis (assuming there is enough to perform the test on) give a clue as to combustion versus industrial sources?

Bob Wilson

 

I googled Bear Creek and found it was on the Mississippi border. I'm sure there are a lot of good jokes about being downwind of Mississippi but Mississippi and Louisiana have very little coal fired generation. Maybe a municipal incinerator - these emit a lot mercury. I still think it's more likely old historical industrial facilities or a natural deposit.

 

Not so much pollution but I like responsible (not punitive) environmental policy.

Yes China does have a problem with pollution. But its also why the U.S.' manufacturing base has eroded and China is booming. China's competitive advantage is that they don't have the EPA.

As there are no limits on mercury there there are big problems. But if our limits were set in a responsible fashion (instead of just stating a ridiculously low level of 1ppb) then industry wouldn't be harmed nearly as much.

Look at the economic damage done by the asbestos fiasco, and compare that with the actual damage done to people. Was the scare really worth countless hundreds of billions of dollars? I don't think so.

 

Same goes for Global Warming. The harm does not justify spending trillions of dollars to fight it. I recently got criticized for saying this in another thread. Some people thought I was lying when I said it would cost each person $1 million dollars over a lifetime to cool the planet...it will!

 

There sure are a lot loaded coal cars that pass through Huntsville headed west and empties that pass back east. If I remember correctly, there may be a TVA coal fired plant in Tennessee just beyond the Alabama border, a bit north and west of Bear Creek. But I agree, we really need to know the Bear Creek mercury source. I'm just not ready to rule out anything at this point.

Bob Wilson