02 Aug. 2006
The U.S. Coal Rush - An Anglers Perspective

I feel fortunate to live in a state where its citizens and policy makers do more than just talk about keeping our air and water clean - we have acted on improving it. In the 2001 Minnesota legislative session our policy makers created incentives for power generating companies to make voluntary emission reductions. The Metro Emission Reduction Project (MERP) was then initiated. The plan would convert two of the Twin Cities dirtiest coal burning power plants to natural gas and install “best available technology” to a third coal power plant. The plan was accepted by the Minnesota Public Utility Commission (PUC) in December 2003.

In May 2006, Minnesota legislators passed one of the most stringent mercury reduction laws in the nation. It will reduce mercury emissions by 90% on three of the largest emitting coal burning power plants by 2012. Many other states including Wisconsin have taken initiatives to reduce mercury emissions ahead of the lenient federal standards of 70% reductions by 2017.

Unfortunately, there are proposals to build well over 100 new coal burning power plants. This will negate efforts that were made since the last “Coal Rush” of the 1970’s to reduce the ill effects of this highly polluting energy source. One power plant proposal in particular will have a dramatic effect on our Midwest fisheries. The proposed Big Stone II expansion is directly upwind from our Midwest region and will produce three emissions that should concern anglers. There are other issues that might be of concern, such as the incredible amount of water that will be taken out of Big Stone Lake to cool the additional boiler and the added tax burden to upgrade the rail infrastructure to transport the more than doubled amount of coal to be burned. This will be the task of someone else to investigate. For now let’s look at three effects of coal burning power plants that should concern anglers.

Mercury Contamination

In Minnesota, as well as many other states, we have a state-wide fish consumption advisory due to mercury contamination and we realize that dramatic reductions of mercury emissions are required to reverse the situation. The existing Big Stone plant currently emits approximately 189 pounds of mercury each year. It is proposing to add mercury reduction technology so it will only emit the same quantity from both the existing and new plants combined. This might not sound like a substantial amount, but consider that it takes less than a teaspoon of mercury to contaminate a 60 acre lake. The proposed emissions will not even come close to complying with the lenient EPA’s mercury ruling of a 70% reduction. The Big Stone plant will need to use the “Cap & Trade” ruling which allows them to receive “credits” from power plants that exceed the federal standards. This will take advantage of the efforts that states like Minnesota and Wisconsin have made to reverse the trends of fish consumption advisories. We make great strides in solving a problem through great initiatives and now we are at risk to negate these strides. It is a silly sight to see a dog futilely chasing its tail, but this is precisely what we will be doing if we allow the construction of Big Stone II.

Acid Deposition

Most of us are aware that acid rain can have dramatic effects in sensitive areas such as the Adirondack Mountains in New York. The Atlantic Salmon Federation often writes articles about the effects of acid rain on salmon populations in areas of Eastern Canada. Their articles reveal that coal burning power plants are the largest contributor to acid rain. This issue has not received much attention lately, but the problem has not gone away. A pH of 5.5 hinders reproduction of Atlantic salmon and a pH of 5.0 is toxic. 14 once fabled rivers in Nova Scotia now have a pH of less than 4.7 and salmon have become extinct. Studies have also shown that acidic water leaches elements such as aluminum which can be toxic. Aluminum is normally bound to soil particles and is not available to fish, but is mobilized in water of low pH.

Closer to our Midwest region, the Wisconsin DNR has reported that 2% of its lakes are acid and its Surface Water Resources Data Base also states that 10% of the state’s lakes are “extremely sensitive” with an additional 25% considered “moderately sensitive” to acid deposition. Their research has also found that waters that have low pH enhance the conversion of mercury to methyl mercury which is a potent neurotoxin.

Electric utilities boast about the 50% reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions since the “New Source Review” was added to the Clean Air Act in the late 1970’s. If we drastically increase the use of coal, which will happen if over 100 proposed coal burning projects are approved, what does that do to our 50% reduction? Once again we are chasing our tail.

Climate change

This is also becoming a concern for the angling community. TroutUnlimited printed the article “Weathering the Change” in their summer 2005 issue of Trout magazine. The article mostly offered suggestions on what we can do to reduce the impact from this phenomenon but it also showed how researchers verified how it has been scientifically proven that carbon dioxide (CO 2) gases emitted into the air get trapped in the atmosphere and radiate heat. Whether you agree that this is a serious problem or not is up to you, however it is inevitable that sooner or later there will be addition costs to our electricity bills because of it. Most European countries already have an average surcharge of 20 US dollars per metric ton, and with all of the scientific reports that have been published recently, it will not be long before there are penalties for big emitters. Coal –fired power plants emit approximately one third of the greenhouse gases and coal industry officials do not offer any reasonable way of eliminating this problem.

In Closing

We have seen incredible advances recently in energy technology. Hybrid cars are becoming quite common, plug-in hybrids will be available in the near future and fuel cell buses are used in some cities. The automotive industry has learned that energy efficiency is the future. Why do we want to commit ourselves to inefficient old technology, especially technology that creates so many environmental problems, by expanding the use of coal?

The time is now to change the path on which we are traveling. We need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, especially on the worst polluting of all- coal. We need to take a new route of renewable resources such as wind and biomass. If fossil fuels are to be used, we need to implement more efficient methods such as Excel Energy’s conversion of one of their coal burning to a “combined-cycle” natural gas system. We need to put the health of our fisheries and our children ahead of an energy source which is cheap to produce in the short run but tremendously expensive in the long run when we have the wisdom to consider all the truly expensive external costs associated with its production.

One reason to protect our waters...