Re: [Fwd: Air & Water Quality]
Tyler Bell (bell@say.acnatsci.org)
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:55:56 -0800
Folks:
For those of you interested in the Washington Post article that Jack
Leighty posted to the group, here's a follow up. Dr. Cindy Gilmour is
well known in the field of mercury cycling by bacteria in relation to
sulfate reduction. There is a direct correlation between acid rain and
mercury and methyl-mercury pollution caused by coal fired power plants.
BTW, Hg = mercury, S = sulfur & SOx = SO3 or SO4
--
Good Birding! ...and all this science,
Tyler Bell I don't understand, It's
mailto:bell@say.acnatsci.org just my job five days a week.
California, MD Elton John (Rocket Man)
http://www.acnatsci.org/erd/berc/
Cynthia C. Gilmour wrote:
>
> Tyler Bell wrote:
> >
> > Cindy:
> >
> > You may have seen this in the Post since you get the daily paper. Does
> > the amount of SOx have any correlation with the amount of mercury in the
> > coal? Or is it just that there's more acid and more sulfate for the bugs
> > leading to increased rates of methylation?
> >
> > Tyler
> >
> I have heard and read that the Hg content of coal is related to the S
> content of coal. It makes some sense geochemically - Hg sticks to S, and
> they might co-deposit in coal. Conversely, S is in vast excess to Hg in
> sediments, and other factors (like the local Hg deposition rate) might
> have controlled Hg in coal. I have also heard and read that Hg and S are
> NOT correlated in coal. This info in general is obscured by power
> companies, no suprise. So, there's no clear answer on whether using
> higher S coal will lead to higher Hg emmissions. Certainly PEPCO isn't
> planning on adding scrubbers to get rid of that extra S they're talking
> about burning, so there's no mechanism for Hg removal from stacks,
> either.
> Cindy
> --
> *************************
> Cynthia C. Gilmour
> Associate Curator
> The Academy of Natural Sciences
> Estuarine Research Center
> 10545 Mackall Road
> St. Leonard MD 20657
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Air & Water Quality
> > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:43:09 -0500 (EST)
> > From: "Jack C. Leighty/Susan J. Noble" <jleighty@chesapeake.net>
> > To: "Bell-Tyler" <bell@say.acnatsci.org>
> >
> > Tyler:
> > Cindy Gilmore probably saw this. Deregulation that erobes air
> > quality standards locally has national implications - right?
> > Jack Leighty
> >
> > Pepco Might Use Higher-Sulfur Coal
> > Change in Standard Raises Air-Quality Questions
> > By Martha M. Hamilton
> > Washington Post Staff Writer
> > Friday, February 6, 1998; Page G01
> > Potomac Electric Power Co. has changed its requirements for coal,
> > opening the possibility that it may begin using cheaper,
> > higher-sulfur coal to produce electricity for the Washington area.
> > The move by Pepco to change bid specifications for coal -- which
> > accounts for about 90 percent of the fuel the utility uses to
> > generate power -- has touched off concerns among environmentalists
> > that increased competition in the utility industry could result in
> > dirtier air.
[snip]