Fuel Consumption at Peaker Plant:Electric Junction

[Arch]

From the Department of Energy website, you can download power plant data by year/month.

Crunching just the data of 1970 through 1989 we have this:

'Consumed' is the number of barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) of DFO consumed to produce electricity.

PlantName,FuelType,FuelName,RptYear,Consumed
EL JUNCTION,8,FUEL OIL,70,80108
EL JUNCTION,8,FUEL OIL,71,542324
EL JUNCTION,8,FUEL OIL,72,873971
EL JUNCTION,8,FUEL OIL,73,447169
EL JUNCTION,8,FUEL OIL,74,856900
EL JUNCTION,8,FUEL OIL,75,809950
EL JUNCTION,8,FUEL OIL,76,724586
EL JUNCTION,8,FUEL OIL,77,840385
EL JUNCTION,8,FUEL OIL,78,652026
EL JUNCTION,8,FUEL OIL,79,670066
EL JUNCTION,2,LIGHT OIL,80,56900
EL JUNCTION,2,LIGHT OIL,81,7136
EL JUNCTION,2,LIGHT OIL,82,10428
EL JUNCTION,2,LIGHT OIL,83,6595
EL JUNCTION,2,LIGHT OIL,84,1117
EL JUNCTION,2,LIGHT OIL,85,4191
EL JUNCTION,2,LIGHT OIL,86,12091
EL JUNCTION,2,LIGHT OIL,87,11413
EL JUNCTION,2,LIGHT OIL,88,32981
EL JUNCTION,2,LIGHT OIL,89,5050


Source: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906u.html


Good thing it was hardly ever used there. With no pollution controls ever in place there and no monitoring ever done (ComEd's words, not mine), I can't understand that on earth people could be worried about. Can you?

[Arch]

Here is the 1995 permit application, just in case anyone wants to call BS on the pollution controls not ever being present:

tinyurl.com/2b68c8

[jwh]

So you are concerned about the air pollution 15-35 years ago? If I heard right, the soil samples revealed a small detection of diesel fuel, in one location, that is easily remediated.

Granted, we all need to see the Phase II so that we can verify that has been told to us already (that there are no other surprises).

[WeBe204]

jwh said:

So you are concerned about the air pollution 15-35 years ago? If I heard right, the soil samples revealed a small detection of diesel fuel, in one location, that is easily remediated.

Well if I remember correctly you also believe that:

1. Brach and Brodie legal fess/damages will <=5M
2. 25 acers will sell over night
3. NSFOC lawsuit will get tossed out of court

There are just some who still have a health sense of curiosity about the current situation. And there are others who just believe everything is as it should be. Call it a difference of opinion.

Edit: I will also add an edit that you keep towing the line eventhough we all know those reports were promised to come out what two weeks ago? Are you not curious? Does it not look sort of odd? Does it not sort of make you wonder what is up? Or not?

[jwh]

brad204 said:

jwh said:

So you are concerned about the air pollution 15-35 years ago? If I heard right, the soil samples revealed a small detection of diesel fuel, in one location, that is easily remediated.

Well if I remember correctly you also believe that:

1. Brach and Brodie legal fess/damages will <=5M
2. 25 acers will sell over night
3. NSFOC lawsuit will get tossed out of court

There are just some who still have a health sense of curiosity about the current situation. And there are others who just believe everything is as it should be. Call it a difference of opinion.

Works for me. That's why I posted mine.

[Arch]

jwh said:

So you are concerned about the air pollution 15-35 years ago? If I heard right, the soil samples revealed a small detection of diesel fuel, in one location, that is easily remediated.

Granted, we all need to see the Phase II so that we can verify that has been told to us already (that there are no other surprises).

The pollutants don't go up in the air and stay there. They also fall to the ground within a certain radius footprint of the source. The Reliant plant up the road with actual pollution control devices in place still land (according to the IEPA) on the ground beyond the borders of the plant itself. The plant at Electric Junction operated up through November of 2003 still burning DFO at times. That was less than 5 years ago and the number of times it (DFO) was used was certainly more than the 'two' times our Super Intendant told us on January 22, 2008 at his site presentation to our school board who subsequently voted to APPROVE the site based on his 'data' (incorrect data, I might add) at that meeting. He is either deliberately deceiving us and the school board or has employed an incompetent staff who don't know how to do due diligence.

Where are the Phase2 reports in full detail with a full soil analysis beyond just looking for Diesel and Anti-Freeze (as we were told)? I'm ready willing and able to put my money where my mouth is on having another firm come out and do a full workup of the location but they wanted as a starting point these reports which we were told would be available around the end of January.

[twhl]

archwinsome said:

jwh said:

So you are concerned about the air pollution 15-35 years ago? If I heard right, the soil samples revealed a small detection of diesel fuel, in one location, that is easily remediated.

Granted, we all need to see the Phase II so that we can verify that has been told to us already (that there are no other surprises).

The pollutants don't go up in the air and stay there. They also fall to the ground within a certain radius footprint of the source. The Reliant plant up the road with actual pollution control devices in place still land (according to the IEPA) on the ground beyond the borders of the plant itself. The plant at Electric Junction operated up through November of 2003 still burning DFO at times. That was less than 5 years ago and the number of times it (DFO) was used was certainly more than the 'two' times our Super Intendant told us on January 22, 2008 at his site presentation to our school board who subsequently voted to APPROVE the site based on his 'data' (incorrect data, I might add) at that meeting. He is either deliberately deceiving us and the school board or has employed an incompetent staff who don't know how to do due diligence.

Where are the Phase2 reports in full detail with a full soil analysis beyond just looking for Diesel and Anti-Freeze (as we were told)? I'm ready willing and able to put my money where my mouth is on having another firm come out and do a full workup of the location but they wanted as a starting point these reports which we were told would be available around the end of January.

Thanks for bringing that up Arch. Folks keep saying the reports are 2 weeks overdue, but they are 6 weeks overdue from what Dash said on 1/22. Something else has been bothering me, and that is all of the lead gasoline fumes during the pre-unleaded days that would blow from a southerly direction or winds from the west that pushed those fumes from Eola with an easterly footprint. Did they test for that in the soil as well? what else did they miss?

[twhl]

jwh said:

So you are concerned about the air pollution 15-35 years ago? If I heard right, the soil samples revealed a small detection of diesel fuel, in one location, that is easily remediated.

Granted, we all need to see the Phase II so that we can verify that has been told to us already (that there are no other surprises).

not just from the plant but from lead tainted gasoline too........

[mandmmom]

jwh said:

So you are concerned about the air pollution 15-35 years ago? If I heard right, the soil samples revealed a small detection of diesel fuel, in one location, that is easily remediated.

Granted, we all need to see the Phase II so that we can verify that has been told to us already (that there are no other surprises).

There is NO reason we should not be allowed to see Phase II....we are the ones who are paying the $ for the HS, right? IMO, they should be released at the same time the SB sees them....why would they need to see them 1st and not the 204 public? I don't get it....

[anonofthenorth]

Arch, are you saying pollution controls but mean emissions controls? I see plenty of "pollution" controls in the permit, such as need for record keeping, control on type of fuels permitted, emission limits, ect. But to say no pollution controls make it sound like the Illinois EPA handed out a use permit like a they were getting a permit for using the local park for a party. "Here you go guys, be safe"

And if you are concerned about emissions from the plant, look east my friend. I suspect you can count on your hand how many days per year that the wind blew back towards the school site (would have to be a northeasterly wind) while the plant was running.

In your usage chart, there is obviously a trend line down through 1989. I can only guess it continued down through 1999, or until 2005 or whenever they decided burning diesel fuel didn't make sense anymore, especially with shiny new natural gas peaker plant up the street.

take a look at this:

www.catf.us/publications/view/82

If you read the article, you will see school buses do not have emmision controls either.

Now everyone can start in about extra distance to new school and how the bad air in buses are a problem. Maybe if everyone gave $204 to improve the bus fleet instead of a lawsuit, we would be better off.

[mandmmom]

anonofthenorth said:

Arch, are you saying pollution controls but mean emissions controls? I see plenty of "pollution" controls in the permit, such as need for record keeping, control on type of fuels permitted, emission limits, ect. But to say no pollution controls make it sound like the Illinois EPA handed out a use permit like a they were getting a permit for using the local park for a party. "Here you go guys, be safe"

And if you are concerned about emissions from the plant, look east my friend. I suspect you can count on your hand how many days per year that the wind blew back towards the school site (would have to be a northeasterly wind) while the plant was running.

In your usage chart, there is obviously a trend line down through 1989. I can only guess it continued down through 1999, or until 2005 or whenever they decided burning diesel fuel didn't make sense anymore, especially with shiny new natural gas peaker plant up the street.

take a look at this:

www.catf.us/publications/view/82

If you read the article, you will see school buses do not have emmision controls either.

Now everyone can start in about extra distance to new school and how the bad air in buses are a problem. Maybe if everyone gave $204 to improve the bus fleet instead of a lawsuit, we would be better off.

Why would I want to give more $ to our SB? They have done a HORRIBLE job with the $ the do have from the 204 taxpayers....but if you want to donate more $ to them, please do so....

[Arch]

'Emission Controls' Yes, that is the more appropriate term. No scrubbers, water suppression, filters, etc.

DFO was used in 9 separate months since 1991. Yes, the trend was towards 'cheaper' natural gas but that too does not burn away into nothing. If it did, Reliant up the road would not have spend so much money on their 'emission controls' and real-time monitoring thereof.

[jwh]

mandmmom said:

jwh said:

So you are concerned about the air pollution 15-35 years ago? If I heard right, the soil samples revealed a small detection of diesel fuel, in one location, that is easily remediated.

Granted, we all need to see the Phase II so that we can verify that has been told to us already (that there are no other surprises).

There is NO reason we should not be allowed to see Phase II....we are the ones who are paying the $ for the HS, right? IMO, they should be released at the same time the SB sees them....why would they need to see them 1st and not the 204 public? I don't get it....

Perhaps they have to be a little more cautious on what they release due to a certain lawsuit?

[doctorwho]

anonofthenorth said:

Arch, are you saying pollution controls but mean emissions controls? I see plenty of "pollution" controls in the permit, such as need for record keeping, control on type of fuels permitted, emission limits, ect. But to say no pollution controls make it sound like the Illinois EPA handed out a use permit like a they were getting a permit for using the local park for a party. "Here you go guys, be safe"

And if you are concerned about emissions from the plant, look east my friend. I suspect you can count on your hand how many days per year that the wind blew back towards the school site (would have to be a northeasterly wind) while the plant was running.

In your usage chart, there is obviously a trend line down through 1989. I can only guess it continued down through 1999, or until 2005 or whenever they decided burning diesel fuel didn't make sense anymore, especially with shiny new natural gas peaker plant up the street.

take a look at this:

www.catf.us/publications/view/82

If you read the article, you will see school buses do not have emmision controls either.

Now everyone can start in about extra distance to new school and how the bad air in buses are a problem. Maybe if everyone gave $204 to improve the bus fleet instead of a lawsuit, we would be better off.

1. improving the bus fleet does not move my home any closer to AME
2. more importantly - it does nothing to make the site any more palatable from a safety standpoint -
3. the way things have gone, we'd be told the money was for buses and they'd by a fleet of used Yugo's

[doctorwho]

jwh said:

mandmmom said:

There is NO reason we should not be allowed to see Phase II....we are the ones who are paying the $ for the HS, right? IMO, they should be released at the same time the SB sees them....why would they need to see them 1st and not the 204 public? I don't get it....

Perhaps they have to be a little more cautious on what they release due to a certain lawsuit?

the facts are what they are in the findings ? Or are you saying they will filter what we get because of the law suit.? I hope that is not what you are saying