Power Plants
Sources of power in the US in 2006:
- 49% Coal
- 19% Nuclear
- 20% Natural Gas
- 7% Hydro
- 2% Oil
- 2% Non-hydro Renewable
Steam Power Plants
(coal, nuclear, natural gas &, oil)
A power station with a combined cycle in which a burning material is first used to drive a gas turbine and then also uses cogeneration in which the residual steam is used for heating can use about 90% of the energy produced by burning fuel - be about 90% efficient. Only 10% of the energy produced by the combustion of the fuel goes wasted into the environment.
Compare power-plants to gasoline engines in vehicles which are, at best, only 15 to 20% efficient. At 20% to 90% if a vehicle were as efficient, as any steam power-plant, instead of getting, for example, 25mpg, it would be getting 112mpg. 25 mpg is pitiful. Conversely, an electric motor is about 85% efficient, and an electric motor is much smaller and lighter than a comparable gasoline or diesel engine. Add to that, the incredible fact that an electric motor has only 1 moving part and it becomes clear that it is the future.
Dirty Coal-Fired Power Plants and Air Pollution - Poison
over 150 new coal-fired power-plants were recommended by the Bush administration
2/3 of them are being contested
Congress may halt all of them and production of any other new coal-fired power-plants, because ...
Power plants are a major source of air pollution, with coal-fired power plants spewing 59% of total U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and 18% of total nitrogen oxides every year. Coal-fired power plants are also the largest polluter of toxic mercury pollution, largest contributor of all other hazardous air toxics, and release about 50% of particle pollution. Additionally, power plants release over 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, a prime contributor to global warming. (transportation being most of the 60% majority)
In 2004, coal was responsible for 1.94 billion tons of C02 emissions -- nearly 40 percent of the U.S.'s total C02 emissions, 5.877 billion metric tons in 2006 The greenhouse gases emitted from just one new typical coal-fired power plant are equal to those that would be released by one million new cars on our roads. With more than 150 new plants slated for construction in the U.S alone, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions will skyrocket.
In August 2007, coal took a heavy political hit when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who had been opposing three coal-fired power plants in his own state, announced that he was now against building coal-fired power plants anywhere in the world. Investment banks and political leaders are beginning to see what has been obvious for some time to climate scientists, such as NASA's James Hansen who says that it makes no sense to build coal-fired power plants when we will have to bulldoze them in a few years.
In early November 2007, Representative Henry Waxman of California announced his intention to "introduce legislation that establishes a moratorium on the approval of new coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act until EPA finalizes regulations to address the greenhouse gas emissions from these sources." If a national moratorium is passed by Congress, it will mark the beginning of the end for coal-fired power in the United States.
Coal's future is also suffering as Wall Street turns its back on the industry. In July 2007, Citigroup downgraded coal company stocks across the board and recommended that its clients switch to other energy stocks. In January 2008, Merrill Lynch also downgraded coal stocks. In early February 2008, investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi, and J.P. Morgan Chase announced that any future lending for coal-fired power would be contingent on the utilities demonstrating that the plants would be economically viable with the higher costs associated with future federal restrictions on carbon emissions. On February 13, Bank of America announced it would follow suit.
TENNESSEE
Coal-fired power plants are the single largest stationary source of air pollution in Tennessee. Currently seven coal-fired power plants are located in the state: Allen, Bull Run, Cumberland, Gallatin, John Sevier, Johnsonville, and Kingston.
All of Tennessee's 4 largest cities (Memphis, Knoxville, Chattanooga, and Nashville) rank in the top 25 most ozone polluted cities. Tennessee ranks #3 nationwide in toxins released into our air. In 1997, Tennessee experienced an estimated 1,440 deaths, 910 hospitalizations, and 27,100 asthma attacks attributed to power plant pollution.
One of the main obstacles to cleaning up coal-fired power plants is a series of legal loopholes exempting old, dirty plants from using modern pollution control technologies to meet clean air standards. Prior to recent Bush administration policy changes, old power plants were required to update their facilities only when expanding or significantly altering the facilities. This "New Source Review" loophole made it possible for old power plants to continue spewing out toxins year after year, despite the ready availability of cleaner technologies. The Bush administration's plan, however, makes the situation even worse. Under the new policy, updating facilities so they comply with Clean Air Act standards is strictly voluntary. Old and heavily polluting power plants are under no requirement to clean up their power generation processes.
Coal-Burning Power Plants
February 14, 2008
Last year, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Secretary Roderick Bremby, denied permits for 2 plants because of concerns about the effect of carbon dioxide emissions. If built, the plants would emit 11 million tons of carbon dioxide a year (!) making it one of the cleanest coal-burning plants in the nation ! Ouch!
The plants are opposed by numerous environmental groups, the attorneys general of eight states, and the Lawrence City Commission (near where one would be built).
"The attorneys general of California, Wisconsin, New York, and several other northeastern states wrote to Kansas health officials urging them to deny permits for two new coal power plants."
( see Old Coal Power Plants are Dirtier below )
Nov 15th 2007
NO UTILITY with any respect for its shareholders' money, says Michael Morris, the boss of the biggest utility in America, AEP, would build a heavily polluting coal-burning power station in America these days, for fear that it would become a liability if the government moved to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Europe already has a cap on emissions, which is designed precisely to discourage dirty fuels such as coal. So why is it that utilities in both places are running their coal-fired plants at full throttle, have several new ones under construction and would like to build even more?
Using coal to generate electricity produces more greenhouse gases per resulting watt than using oil or natural gas, but coal is cheap. In countries where there are no limits on emissions and where demand for power is growing rapidly, such as India and China, coal is booming. Energy lore has it that in China a new coal-burning plant is fired up every week. What is certain is that China has become a net importer of coal for the first time this year. India's imports have been growing steadily for the past 20 years. The International Energy Agency, an energy watchdog for rich countries, projects that demand for coal will grow by 2.2% a year until 2030 - faster than demand for oil or natural gas. Coal-mining firms in Indonesia and Australia, the biggest exporters, are digging as fast as they can but are still struggling to cope with the surge in orders. Freighters are literally queuing up off Newcastle, Australia, the world's busiest coal port.
But poor and fast-growing places are not the only ones with a hunger for coal. In America, more coal-fired generation is being built than at any time in the past seven years, despite the threat of emissions caps, according to the Department of Energy. In Europe, several power companies are building new coal-fired plants, even though every tonne of carbon dioxide that they emit will require an expensive permit. For example, RWE, a German utility, plans to spend $9.1 billion dollars on three new coal-fired plants by 2012. One of them is already under construction.
All this has helped to push the price of coal steadily upwards in the past few years. Nonetheless, it has risen less quickly than that of oil or natural gas. Coal is now by far the cheapest of the common fuels for power stations relative to the amount of heat it generates when burnt. At the very least that is encouraging utilities to run their existing coal-fired plants flat out. But it is also prompting some to convert oil-fired plants to run on coal instead. Enel, Italy's former electricity monopoly, has already performed one such refurbishment, and has two more under way, at a cost of [3.8 billion]. Leonardo Arrighi, who supervises the firm's investments in generation, says it would like to build "more and more" coal-fired plants.
In theory, the carbon price (in Europe) and the threat of one (in America) should dent this enthusiasm for coal. But in practice many utilities are betting that the disparity in fuel prices will outweigh the cost of extra permits to pollute. At the moment such permits cost pennies in Europe, because governments handed out too many of them. Although there should be more of a shortage starting next year, the futures price would have to rise from the current [22] per tonne of carbon to over [30] per tonne to prompt a significant switch away from coal over the next two years, according to Henrik Hasselknippe of Point Carbon, a consultancy.
To be fair, many of the coal-fired power stations under construction in Europe and America are very efficient, and so emit less carbon per watt of output than existing plants. RWE and Enel both claim that their new plants will be among the most efficient in Europe. AEP is building a similar plant in America, which will remain profitable at carbon prices of up to $20 a tonne, according to Mr Morris. Meanwhile, many American firms are cancelling or delaying plans to build grubbier coal-fired plants until they have a clearer idea of future carbon prices.
Politicians in both Europe and America talk of carbon prices eventually being so high that coal-fired plants will be viable only if they capture their emissions and store them underground. But no such plants yet exist. Most of those under construction are not even "capture-ready", as the industry jargon has it, since utilities do not consider the extra expense worthwhile. Even in Europe, with its steadily tightening emissions cap, much higher carbon prices or stricter regulation will be required to get utilities to build capture-ready plants, says John Krenicki, the head of the energy division at General Electric.
In fact, governments are sending out conflicting signals. Germany, for example, is making it easier to build new coal plants by granting them free emissions permits, even though it aims to reduce emissions to 40% below the 1990 level by 2020. Enel hopes to persuade the governments of Bulgaria and Romania to do the same. In America, the most prominent proposals for regulations to reduce emissions all involve generous hand-outs to the coal industry. For a supposedly dying breed, the coal industry still seems to have plenty of clout with Europe's and America's politicians.
Old Coal Power Plants are Dirtier
When the Clean Air Act of the 1970s was passed, Congress included a "grandfathering" loophole that allowed older power plants to avoid meeting the modern pollution control standards that new facilities had to adapt. At the time, Congress allowed the loophole because it expected that these "grandfathered" plants would soon retire and be replaced by cleaner, new plants. However, many of these older coal-fired power plants have sidestepped the new source review provision and have illegally avoided installing modern pollution controls.2 As a result, today most existing power plants are between 30-50 years old and are up to 10 times dirtier than new power plants.3 We are now faced with a disproportionate amount of pollution coming from these old, dirty, under-controlled plants.
Smog and Ozone
Power plants are second only to automobiles as the greatest source of NOx emissions.9 When nitrogen oxide (NOx) reacts with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sunlight, smog (ground level ozone) forms. Of the six major criteria air pollutants regulated by the EPA, NOx emissions have historically been the hardest to control. One of the contributing factors is that NOx emissions from huge dirty coal plants in one region can easily pollute areas hundreds of miles downwind. The American Lung Association estimates that almost half-48% or 140.5 million- of Americans live in areas with unhealthy levels of smog.10
When inhaled, smog can cause a wide range of health problems, including immediate symptoms like shortness of breath, chest pains, wheezing, and increased susceptibility to respiratory problems.11 Smog can also cause many more serious problems like increased risk of asthma attacks and lung inflammation. Recently, scientists concluded that exposure to smog can be deadly. Smog affects everyone, but is especially dangerous for children, the elderly, and those with respiratory problems.
Even our national parks have not escaped the smog and ozone pollution caused by coal-fired power plants. Many parks already experience unhealthy air days, and the problem is getting worse.12 Smog concentrations have increased at 22 of 31 National Park Service monitoring sites since 1990. This persistent ozone pollution can harm plants and vegetation by damaging leaves and disrupting growth.13 Along with other pollutants, nitrous oxides can also chemically alter soil and water, leading to acidification and other serious problems that harm plants and animals.
Particle Pollution and Soot
Coal-fired power plants are also the largest single source of sulfur dioxide (SO2), releasing about 2/3 of the total SO2 pollution each year.14 Sulfur dioxide, which can travel long distances in the atmosphere before falling down to the land, can cause problems on its own as well as when it combines with other pollution to form other dangerous compounds.15 In addition to acid rain (see below), SO2 can combine with nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other particles to form particulate matter, which is sometimes called soot. Particulate matter, which can also be released directly from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants, is often divided into categories based on the size of the particles-coarse, fine, and ultrafine-but all three are hazardous to your health and the environment.16
Particle pollution is one of the most dangerous air pollutants, and over 64 million Americans are estimated to breathe air that has so much particle pollution that it puts their health at risk.17 Particle pollution can trigger heart attacks and strokes, lead to cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), cause respiratory irritation, and worsen asthma. Both short-term and long-term exposure can cause premature death. In fact, particle pollution from power plants in the U.S. leads to over 30,000 deaths each year-a shocking figure when compared to the 17,000 homicides committed each year.18 Cutting power plant emissions by 75% could avoid more than 18,000 of the deaths caused by particle pollution.
In addition to its health impacts, particle pollution is also the number one cause for haze, or reduced visibility, in the U.S., including in our National Parks.19 Regional haze from airborne pollutants has reduced annual average visibility in the U.S. from natural conditions to about one-half in the west and to one-third in the east.20
Acid Rain
Acid rain, or acid deposition, occurs when sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) react with water and oxygen in the atmosphere to form acidic compounds, most commonly sulfuric and nitric acid.21 These acidic compounds then either mix with natural precipitation and fall to the earth as acid rain, or remain dry and then settle to the ground. In the U.S., coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of SO2 pollution (66%)22 and the second largest source of NOx pollution.23
Acid rain destroys ecosystems, including streams and lakes, by changing their delicate pH balance making them unable to support life. Acid rain can destroy forests, devastate plant and animal life, and eat away at man-made monuments and buildings to effectively destroy our natural and historical treasures.24 Already, numerous lakes and streams in the Adirondack Mountains in upstate New York are too acidic to support fish life, and long-term acidification continues to threaten the Chesapeake Bay.25
Air Toxics and Mercury
Coal-fired power plants are the largest single man-made source of mercury pollution in the U.S.26, and are the largest contributor of hazardous air pollutants.27 In smokestack tests, coal-fired power plants were found to release 67 air toxics, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens and neurotoxins that can cause development problems, respiratory problems, and aggravate asthma.28
Of these air toxics, one of the most dangerous is mercury. Mercury from coal-fired power plants is released into the air through the exhaust system when coal is burned. The primary exposure for Americans occurs when this mercury falls to the earth and runs into our lakes, rivers, and streams and contaminates the fish.29 Humans can be contaminated when they eat these fish and shellfish. In 2004, 47 states and territories had fish consumption advisories for mercury for at least some of their waters.30
Mercury is a developmental toxin, primarily affecting fetal development.31 In unborn children, it can cause brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, and many other problems. Infants are also exposed to these dangers through contaminated breast milk. While the dangers of mercury are most often associated with women and children, eating fish high in mercury has also been found to put middle-aged men at a greater risk for coronary heart disease.32
Global Warming
Burning fossil fuels such as coal releases carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution, making energy use the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S. and the world.33 Currently there is 30% more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and we are well on the way to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere during this century. Although the US has only four percent of the world's population it emits about 25% of global warming pollution.34,35
Power plants emit 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide pollution, the primary global warming pollutant.36 Although coal-fired power plants account for just over half of the electricity produced in the U.S. each year, they have been responsible for over 83% of the CO2 pollution since 1990.37 Coal-fired power plants have the highest output rate of CO2 per unit of electricity among all fossil fuels.38
The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases reached a new high in the 1990s, the hottest decade on record.39 Average global temperatures have risen already by one degree Fahrenheit, and projections indicate an increase of two to ten degrees within this century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that global warming threatens human populations and the world's ecosystems with worsening heat waves, floods, drought, extreme weather, and by spreading infectious diseases. Unfortunately, global warming problems continue to grow as more greenhouse gases are spewed into our atmosphere.
Challenges and Solutions
The facts are in: coal-fired power plants and the pollution they release every day are a major threat to human health and our environment. We need to act now to clean up dirty coal power through pollution reductions that can protect our families now, not in two decades. We also need to reduce our dependence on dirty coal by retiring and replacing these plants with clean energy alternatives like wind, solar, and improvements in energy efficiency.
We have the technology today to implement real energy solutions that will move our country forward into a brighter energy future. These solutions can curb global warming and cut air pollution, while at the same time building a clean, sustainable economy that lowers energy bills and creates thousands of new jobs. To learn more about what we're doing and how you can be a part of it, click here.
Citations
1. U.S. Department of Energy, "Coal website." Accessed August 8, 2006.
2. , Joel A., "'Treading Water': A Preliminary Assessment of EPA Enforcement During the Bush II Administration." October 2004. 34 Environmental Law Reporter: 10933-10953.
3. Clean Air Task Force, "No Escape: Can You Really Ever Get Away From the Smog." 1999.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report." 2003. Appendix A.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet, "EPA to Regulate Mercury and Other Air Toxics Emissions from Coal- and Oil-Fired Power Plants." December 14, 2000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf
6. Clean Air Task Force, "Children at Risk: How Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of America's Children." May 2002. Available at http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Children_at_Risk.pdf
7. Ibid.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005," April 2007. Based on calculation of CO2 emissions from tables 3-1 and 3-3. Available here.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "NOx: How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe." September 1998. EPA-456/F-98-005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/noxfldr.pdf
10. American Lung Association, "State of the Air: 2006." 2006.
11. American Lung Association, "State of the Air: 2006." 2006.
12. U.S. National Park Service, "Air Quality in the National Parks, Second Edition." September 2002. Available at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/pubs/aqnps.cfm
13. U.S. National Park Service, "Effects of Air Pollution on Ecological Resources." Accessed August 7, 2006 at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/AQBasics/ecologic.cfm
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report." 2003. Appendix A.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "SO2 - How Sulfur Dioxide Affects the Way We Live & Breathe." November 2000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/index.html
16. American Lung Association, "State of the Air: 2006." 2006.
17. American Lung Association, "State of the Air: 2006." 2006.
18. Clean Air Task Force, "Death, Disease and Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Disease Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants." October 2000. Available at http://www.cleartheair.org/fact/mortality/mortalitylowres.pdf
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Particulate Matter Website." Accessed August 10, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/index.html
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "How Air Pollution Affects the View." April 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/visibility/pdfs/haze_brochure_20060426.pdf
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Acid Rain Website." Accessed August 9, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acidrain/index.html
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report." 2003. Appendix A.
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "NOx: How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe." September 1998. EPA-456/F-98-005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/noxfldr.pdf
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "NOx: How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe." September 1998. EPA-456/F-98-005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/noxfldr.pdf
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effects of Acid Rain: Lakes & Streams." Accessed August 9, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acidrain/effects/surfacewater.html
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA to Regulate Mercury and Other Air Toxics Emissions from Coal- and Oil-Fired Power Plants." December 14, 2000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf
27. Clean Air Task Force, "Children at Risk: How Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of America's Children." May 2002. Available at http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Children_at_Risk.pdf
28. Ibid.
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Mercury Human Exposure Website." Accessed August 10, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/exposure.htm
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, "2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories," September 2005. EPA-823-F-05-004.
31. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "ToxFAQs for Mercury." April 1999.
32. American Heart Association, "Mercury, Fish Oils, and Risk of Acute Coronary Events and Cardiovascular Disease, Coronary Heart Disease, and All-Cause Mortality in Men in Eastern Finland." November 11, 2004.
33. Energy Information Administration, "Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004." December 2005. Report #: DOE/EIA-0573(2004)
34. Population Reference Bureau, "2005 World Population Data Sheet." 2005.
35. Energy Information Administration, "Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004." December 2005. Report #: DOE/EIA-0573(2004)
36. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States." July 2000. Available here.
37. Environmental Information Administration, "U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Sources 2005 Flash Estimate." June 2006. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/pdf/flash.pdf
38. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States." July 2000. Available here.
39. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers." 2001.
A few old, the dirtiest, coal power-plants are cleaning up
June 5, 2003
PORT EVERGLADES - Air quality in South Florida will be significantly cleaner as a result of a statewide effort by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to reduce emissions from older power plants. The Department is requiring the Florida Power & Light Company's (FPL) aging Port Everglades power plant to install modern anti-pollution equipment to reduce fine particulate matter emissions by more than 70 percent.
DEP is requiring FPL to install pollution technology that will improve operations and cut emissions of fine particulate matter far beyond current federal air permit requirements. The equipment upgrade, the first of its kind to be installed on a Florida oil-fired power plant in two decades, represents a major upgrade by a regulated utility. Highlights of the FPL plan include:
* Removal of FPL's 1960s-era mechanical dust collectors.
* Installation of electrostatic precipitators and flue gas temperature controls on all four fossil-fueled steam boilers that trap and remove fine particles.
* A 70 percent reduction in allowable particulate matter emissions.
* Significant reductions in visible smokestack emissions.
* Meeting lower limits for particulate emissions equivalent to federal New Source Performance Standards for new gas turbines.
* Pollution reductions that will help the region maintain compliance with federal clean air standards for fine particulate matter, known as PM 2.5."Florida is one of only two states east of the Mississippi to meet and maintain all federal public health standards for clean air, said Secretary Struhs. "This administration's ongoing commitment to reduce emissions has resulted in the largest reduction of air pollution in Florida's history."
A recent agreement between DEP and FPL will reduce smog-contributing nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 40 percent during peak operation at the FPL Manatee Plant in the Tampa Bay region.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Aging Port Everglades power plant tries to
clean up its act, spewing fewer pollutants
From The South Florida Sun Sentinel
FORT LAUDERDALE - With its towering smokestacks and whirring machinery, the power plant at Port Everglades is an incongruous neighbor to the beaches and cruise ship terminals of southern Fort Lauderdale.Begun during the Eisenhower administration, it is an agglomeration of metal stairways, girders, pipes, catwalks and steel-enclosed boilers. Workers in hard hats wear earplugs to block out the racket of steam, water pumps and air blowers.
But if the plant is the portrait of old-fashioned, smoke-belching industry, it is belching less smoke than before.
From 2005 to 2006, the plant cut emissions of nitrogen oxides, the main ingredients of smog, by 27 percent, according to data that Florida Power & Light Co. provided to state and county environmental agencies. It cut sulfur dioxide, which can aggravate heart and lung problems, by 55 percent. And it cut particulate matter, tiny particles that can lodge deep in the lungs, by 61 percent.
Newer, cleaner power plants came on line in the past two years, allowing FPL to reduce operations at comparatively expensive older plants such as the one at Port Everglades. And last month the plant completed installation of four massive air filters that dramatically reduced emissions of particulate matter, or soot.
contact Obama! 