Archives

...but this is not the BCS College Football rankings. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19000614/) (poll question in thread)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Coal_Burning_Power_Plant_Smoke_Stacks.jpgAP - June 2, 2007

WASHINGTON - America may spew more greenhouse gases than any other country, but some states are astonishingly more prolific polluters than others — and it’s not always the ones you might expect.

The Associated Press analyzed state-by-state emissions of carbon dioxide from 2003, the latest U.S. Energy Department numbers available. The review shows startling differences in states’ contribution to climate change.

The biggest reason? The burning of high-carbon coal to produce cheap electricity.


Wyoming’s coal-fired power plants produce more carbon dioxide in just eight hours than the power generators of more populous Vermont do in a year.
Texas, the leader in emitting this greenhouse gas, cranks out more than the next two biggest producers combined, California and Pennsylvania, which together have twice Texas’ population.
In sparsely populated Alaska, the carbon dioxide produced per person by all the flying and driving is six times the per capita amount generated by travelers in New York state. … http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19000614/

I could not resist using a picture that matched the University of Texas' school colors of burned orange.

mparrish will probably come back and blame it on the arch-rival Aggies. :D

I knew Texas had to be #1. Simply driving along SH 35 & 36 from Corpus Christi Bay past Galveston Bay to Port Arthur will take you past so many refineries that you'll lose count. Each of those plants is spewing smoke and water waste, and entire swaths of land near them are either totally dead or have only hardy grasses and shrubs hanging on as hard as they can.

You can also find many plants inland, near Corpus Christi. Reynolds Aluminum, Hoescht Celanese, etc. Hoescht Celanese had a big Toluene leak from a pressure rail car back in the mid-90's that killed a few folks and required a multi-million dollar cleanup and reclamation. It was so bad that I was soon sent as a representative of my company (I was a Paramedic at the time) to attend a "free" day-long course provided by several companies, but fronted by Union Pacific, regarding how to work around rail cars carrying hazardous materials.

I'll take the unpopular view here. The study just seemed to identify the states that extracted and processed energy resources for others. Residents of other states need to take responsibility for their own wasteful consumption and not blame others when they relocate the dirty bits to somebody else's backyard.

It's true that the numbers were skewed, but stats are ALWAYS skewed. California used up way more coal than Wyoming ever did according to the article, but because it's in Wyoming it counts for them, that's lame. It should count towards whoever is actually using it. That'd be like saying the US is emissions free if we get all our energy from Canada, who would probably emit the most emissions if this happened. By that means it's all Canada's fault even if they only used 1% of the actual power.

Anyways, I love how they kept switching between per capita, per person, and overall usage. Like that's not confusing as hell unless you know all the number.

I don't care who they blame. Just fixem!

Gee... The state that gave us "Dubya" Bush is the most polluting state? Say it ain't so!

This causes me to start having mild concern that as
complacency about cheap gas starts to fade as prices go up
it may start to be replaced with complacency about cheap
electricity, which the PHEV aficionados are pretty much
counting on. That may have merit, but nobody should sit
there and expect the cost of electricity to not go up either!
.
_H*

Gee... The state that gave us "Dubya" Bush is the most polluting state? Say it ain't so!

While I don't care for Bush he did make it possible for the state to become the largest producer of wind power!. Also I bet the picture is mostly STEAM coming out of the stacks. The reason I say that is the one stack at our plant that has a wet scrubber on it. As we maintain 145 - 160 F on the stack steam is emitted. The new scrubbers beiing put on the other 3 units will be dry scrubbers so no steam should be produced. kevin

Texas leading the US on CO2 emissions is only partially deserved - explain.

Texas and Lousiana have refineries that is for consumption largely out of state. Texas has the largest population after California. The average commute in Texas has to be above average, and the need for A/C is too.

Having said all that, more of an effort could be made - esp. with the coal-fired plants that were put on the fast track, but apparently scrapped.

recent EPA mandates to meet clean fuel specifications require additional hydrotreating capacity to remove sulfur from diesel and gasoline. This mandate alone increased GHG emissions by 20-30% above pre-existing refinery levels.

From:http://www.valero.com/Environment/EnvironmentalStewardship.htm

Once again, there's no Free Lunch. I'd expect this to overall be a step forward, though. It is easier to contain emissions in one central location than in a million cars with weight, efficiency, and safety requirements. It's a similar situation to converting to electric - good IF the emissions at the plant are lower than all the cars combined. For example, if the new fuel reduces tailpipe emissions by 50% compared to the 20-30% quoted above, then we're ahead. It's just the problem is concentrated into that one area, which is exactly what the article is pointing out.