Louisiana Generating to Install Pollu...

Louisiana Generating to Install Pollution Controls and Pay $14...

There are 56 comments on the Utility Products story from Nov 22, 2012, titled Louisiana Generating to Install Pollution Controls and Pay $14.... In it, Utility Products reports that:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice announced today that Louisiana Generating, an electric generating company owned by NRG Energy, Inc., agreed to a settlement at its Big Cajun II coal-fired power plant in New Roads, Louisiana, which will result in the elimination of over 27,300 tons of harmful emissions per year.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Utility Products.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
HChampagne

Opelousas, LA

#1 Nov 22, 2012
Marginal benefits and more expensive electricity.

“Resurected”

Since: Feb 10

Destin, Fl

#3 Nov 23, 2012
How is 54,600,000 pounds of pollution per year being reduced a bad thing? That affects everyone in the area.

“Resurected”

Since: Feb 10

Destin, Fl

#4 Nov 24, 2012
This is the question: why shouldn't a company be responsible for their byproducts? If McDonald's dumped all of their used fry-oil into False River, would you be happier because their food was a little cheaper?

Since: Jul 10

Ventress

#5 Nov 24, 2012
I was unaware of the severity of the situation until reading the article. The source is not your average daily news report.
I found DOJ's statement the most concerning.
"The Big Cajun II Power Plant is the largest source of illegal air pollution in Louisiana. This settlement will secure substantial reductions in harmful emissions from the plant which will have a beneficial impact on air quality for residents of Louisiana and downwind states, including low-income communities who have been historically overburdened with pollution," said Ignacia S. Moreno, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "Louisiana Generating will install modern air pollution controls that will significantly reduce harmful emissions and also will perform environmental projects that will conserve energy."
False River Native

Nokomis, FL

#6 Nov 24, 2012
Are you referring to total NOX and S02 emissions? How did you come up with those numbers?
Vigilandy wrote:
How is 54,600,000 pounds of pollution per year being reduced a bad thing? That affects everyone in the area.

Since: Jul 10

Ventress

#7 Nov 24, 2012
False River Native wrote:
Are you referring to total NOX and S02 emissions? How did you come up with those numbers?
<quoted text>
The figure was derived from the article's given number of 27,300 tons.
27,300 tons= 54,600,000 lbs.

“Resurected”

Since: Feb 10

Destin, Fl

#8 Nov 24, 2012
Woodsman_1 wrote:
<quoted text>The figure was derived from the article's given number of 27,300 tons.
27,300 tons= 54,600,000 lbs.
I love a man that can do math.

“Resurected”

Since: Feb 10

Destin, Fl

#9 Nov 24, 2012
But, regardless of the numbers, the question is more basic. Shouldn't a company be responsible for the byproducts of their operation?

Since: Jul 10

Ventress

#10 Nov 24, 2012
Vigilandy wrote:
But, regardless of the numbers, the question is more basic. Shouldn't a company be responsible for the byproducts of their operation?
I really don't think most people understand the dynamics of coal generation.
We really can't see the black plumes of the northeast!
Cajun ( NRG) used to use a specific propaganda of "clean" Wyoming coal. Yea, right!

The sad fact of the matter is entergy owns most of unit three. A trade-off from the
bad investments of the past.
A cleansing of sorts that will affect everyone.
reddog

Baton Rouge, LA

#11 Nov 24, 2012
I wonder if MONA THAT STREET WALKER THAT POST ON TOPIX LIGHTS STILL ON?
Not Enough Impact

Jarreau, LA

#12 Nov 24, 2012
Fired up about environmental impact? I agree that industry should reduce the byproduct of their production. But here is a fact you can research it. DEQ estimates industry "particulate" emissions by how much "haze" is visible looking at their stacks. Slight changes in the contrasting sky are enough suspicion to have a third party plug into their stack to verify compliance.
The Baton Rouge Advocate has an article claiming this is the largest source of illegal pollution in the state. I live close enough to the power plant to see their stacks and it still does not fill the sky with as much particulates as the "legal" burning of sugar cane. While the steps taken against NRG will reduce pollution, farmers are littering my property with cinders and I have to pay to remove soot smudges. Want to clean up my environment and make it healthier, advocate to stop burning sugar cane husks!!! Just Google cane burning photo's, it isn't an exaggeration.

“Resurected”

Since: Feb 10

Destin, Fl

#13 Nov 24, 2012
Not Enough Impact wrote:
Fired up about environmental impact? I agree that industry should reduce the byproduct of their production. But here is a fact you can research it. DEQ estimates industry "particulate" emissions by how much "haze" is visible looking at their stacks. Slight changes in the contrasting sky are enough suspicion to have a third party plug into their stack to verify compliance.
The Baton Rouge Advocate has an article claiming this is the largest source of illegal pollution in the state. I live close enough to the power plant to see their stacks and it still does not fill the sky with as much particulates as the "legal" burning of sugar cane. While the steps taken against NRG will reduce pollution, farmers are littering my property with cinders and I have to pay to remove soot smudges. Want to clean up my environment and make it healthier, advocate to stop burning sugar cane husks!!! Just Google cane burning photo's, it isn't an exaggeration.
I agree. All business should be responsible for all of their pollution. Cane farmers are no exception and I am horrified that they continue to burn the fields without any repercussion. I just can't believe that the public puts up with it.

However, visual isn't a very reliable gauge of pollution. Many of those chemicals may not show in the plant exhaust even though they are present.
False River Native

Nokomis, FL

#14 Nov 25, 2012
Power generation emissions are all measure by instrumentation. Particulate manner (ash) can be legally visually measured if the instrumentation is down for what ever reason and only by someone that has been certified to do so.

Everyone seems to be concerned about power generation emissions but really don't understand the cost of totally removing all harmful chemicals from emissions from plants that burn carbon based fuels.

I don't believe that Cajun Electric was illegally poluting the enviroment. They were given specific limits to follow regarding S02, NOX and particulate by the EPA. You better be careful what you demand of the generation business. Your every day comforts would be jepordized by the coasts of removing all emissions!

“Resurected”

Since: Feb 10

Destin, Fl

#15 Nov 25, 2012
False River Native wrote:
Power generation emissions are all measure by instrumentation. Particulate manner (ash) can be legally visually measured if the instrumentation is down for what ever reason and only by someone that has been certified to do so.

Everyone seems to be concerned about power generation emissions but really don't understand the cost of totally removing all harmful chemicals from emissions from plants that burn carbon based fuels.

I don't believe that Cajun Electric was illegally poluting the enviroment. They were given specific limits to follow regarding S02, NOX and particulate by the EPA. You better be careful what you demand of the generation business. Your every day comforts would be jepordized by the coasts of removing all emissions!
That still isn't the point. Why should some businesses be allowed to pollute simply because they use inferior technology? I'm betting the plant across the river isn't producing any Nox or SO2.

Why should we be allowing companies to pollute an entire area just to allow them to remain competitive and profitable? The only thing I'm hearing is because of cost of power, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of indirect costs, such as medical costs from high cancer rates and other associated health risks. What other businesses are allowed to socialize their costs while remaining profitable?
False River Native

Nokomis, FL

#16 Nov 25, 2012
Vigilandy wrote:
<quoted text>
I love a man that can do math.
There is no way that Cajun is producing over 6000lbs/hr of harmful emissions!

Burning coal produced approximately 13 lbs/mwh of S02 and 6 lbs/mwh of NOX!

Someone better explain there math!
False River Native

Nokomis, FL

#17 Nov 25, 2012
Vigilandy wrote:
<quoted text>
That still isn't the point. Why should some businesses be allowed to pollute simply because they use inferior technology? I'm betting the plant across the river isn't producing any Nox or SO2.
Why should we be allowing companies to pollute an entire area just to allow them to remain competitive and profitable? The only thing I'm hearing is because of cost of power, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of indirect costs, such as medical costs from high cancer rates and other associated health risks. What other businesses are allowed to socialize their costs while remaining profitable?
The cost of nucler power is much greater than the cost of coal generation and this is all due to the increased engineering cost required to REDUCE health risks.

“Resurected”

Since: Feb 10

Destin, Fl

#18 Nov 25, 2012
From the article: "Louisiana Generating will achieve these reductions through a combination of new pollution controls, natural gas conversion, and annual emission caps at all three units at the Big Cajun II plant. Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) will be reduced by approximately 20,000 tons and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by about 3,300 tons. Louisiana Generating will spend an estimated $250 million in capital costs to comply with the consent decree through the end of 2015. Louisiana Generating also has agreed to further air pollution reductions by 2025, which will reduce SO2 by at least an additional 4,000 tons each year."

“Resurected”

Since: Feb 10

Destin, Fl

#19 Nov 25, 2012
False River Native wrote:
<quoted text>The cost of nucler power is much greater than the cost of coal generation and this is all due to the increased engineering cost required to REDUCE health risks.
Exactly, so why is coal given a pass while nuclear had to control their byproducts. You act like the cost of the energy is the only cost to be considered.

But, as I've been asking over and over, why shouldn't a company be responsible for their byproduct? It would have been cheaper for me to pour my used motor oil into False River, but I am required to recycle it. Are you saying that if I could make an extra $5 while reducing the cost of the oil change by pouring the oil in the river, I should be allowed to do so?
False River Native

Nokomis, FL

#20 Nov 25, 2012
I can read!
The fact is that those three units are not emitting 54,600,000 lbs of harmful emissions per year. That artical was written for the purpose of scaring people and it obviously suceeded.
The cost including the fines will all be paid by the consumers! I agree that resonable measures should be taken for industry including power generation to minimize harmful emissions but not at the expence of the consumers. Natural gas prices will not always be so inexpensive and when coal plants are shut down and that cost does go up to where they were just 10 years ago, we will all regret it! Don't forget what our president promised regarding coal plants and that is to bankrupt them with their emission measures?
False River Native

Nokomis, FL

#21 Nov 25, 2012
Cajun has not been given a pass! They elimate the majority of harmful emissions and the needed instalation of equipment required by this court case will futher reduce theie emissions but not near the 54m number cited in this artical.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New Roads Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Homes for rent in new roads 7 hr justme 1
theives 8 hr chicken little 2
Confederate flags spotted locally 13 hr Gerald Brossette 8
News Hot Tails Crawfish House (Mar '12) Mon Judy 80
nrg big cajun 2 reduction in force (Jan '15) Jul 26 bubblicious 61
We need more Muslims in New Roads Jul 24 VentressGuy 9
UFOS spotted in NEW ROADS (Sep '13) Jul 21 reddog 11
More from around the web

Personal Finance

New Roads Mortgages