Content area
Full Text
MATS compliance now, with flexibility for the future.
Many in the power generation industry are still scratching their heads one year into the glide path for compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) issued in February 2012. With only two (or three) years remaining, most utility executives are still trying to figure out how to comply, rather than deploying solutions. Whether they view MATS as a target on the industry's back or an opportunity to save the environment for future generations, it's an industry reality. So how does the industry balance this reality with its responsibility to serve consumers and earn a profit for investors?
Emission control technologies have been helping the power generation industry reduce its pollution output since the Clean Air Act of 1990. The myriad methods and technologies applied to date have significantly reduced plant emissions, with a 27 percent decrease in particulate matter (PM) 2.5 between 2000 and 2010, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, MATS puts power plants on a strict three-year timeline to reduce emissions of heavy metals (including mercury, arsenic, chromium, and nickel) and acid gases; and EPA updates to the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules require power plants to periodically revisit their control strategies.
This compliance burden falls primarily on a handful of industries and their customers. Among those affected are the many energy producers and industrial producers of cement, steel, and aluminum that rely on the aging coal-based technology responsible for about 80 percent of total U.S. emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The MATS ruling will force these industries to identify and implement alternatives in a very short timeframe, while facing the ongoing challenge of remaining competitive in the face of current and and future requirements for emissions reductions.
Targeting Mercury
While many options for removing mercury are commercially available, technical challenges remain that could create delays in meeting the MATS deadline. Different types of coal release different amounts of mercury. Mercury capture in electric generating units that burn medium- or high-sulfur coal remains prohibitively expense in some cases.
During Augusts MEGA Symposium in Baltimore, several presenters attempted to tackle the best ways to remove mercury to meet MATS. While most of the strategies...