Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Finishline42

(1,161 posts)

4. Trace amounts of those elements

Reply to mopinko (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 23, 2014, 11:00 AM

Apr 2014

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Duke - Removing Coal Ash Dumps From Watersheds Would Cost $10 Billion, Take Decades; Guess Who Pays? [View all] hatrack Apr 2014 OP

It's wrong OLDMDDEM Apr 2014 #1

Please don't over react... Finishline42 Apr 2014 #2

Oh look ... another Rip Van Winkle supporting fossil fuels ... Nihil Apr 2014 #6

Nope - I only post under Finishline42 Finishline42 Apr 2014 #7

imma keep asking this till someone can explain it like i am 2. mopinko Apr 2014 #3

Trace amounts of those elements Finishline42 Apr 2014 #4

and? mopinko Apr 2014 #5

one of those "externalities" conveniently not included in the price of coal. Bill USA Apr 2014 #8