Coal ash: Threats and opportunities

Amid concerns on the latest destructions brought about by typhoon “Ondoy” and “Pepeng”, those unaffected (politicians and ordinary citizens alike) should have had the best opportunity to share what they have. Sadly, however, while ordinary citizens are going out of their way extending hands to the needy, some politicians are just too preoccupied on fending off attacks on their persons that likely threatens their political careers. 

Ironically, these politicians, despite all their wealth are seemed face with the insurmountable problem of filling in their insatiable lust for power. Setting aside bankable reasons, they tend to wield their influence to a wild extent just to let every Juan see that they are powers to reckon with. 

Indeed, the devastation in Metro Manila and Northern Luzon were reasons enough for some politicians in Cebu to momentarily set aside their bickering and shift their focus on the needs of our unfortunate brothers and sisters. On the contrary, however, the Provincial Capitol filed a case against the officials of the City of Cebu on the latter’s deal with a legitimate real estate developer, FILINVEST.   Apparently, a diversionary ploy, it seemed to insult the intelligence of the Cebuanos. However, with this latest spin, the more visible characters in the continuing sad tale of Cebu politics, the “Prince of debt” and the “Queen of darkness” (what Mayor Tom and Gov. Gwen fondly labeled each other), will certainly escalate their animosities a notch higher.

Surprisingly, however, in all their animosities, there is one issue that they are seemingly both on the same page. They both agree that Kepco’s coal-powered plant is a must and that a coal ash dumping site is necessary. 

With this development, the environmentalists are taking the cudgels of opposing the operations of the coal-powered plant and have threatened to sue the Provincial Capitol. Unperturbed, the Provincial Capitol, despite the seemingly botched deal with the Balili property, declared that the developments shall proceed as planned.

Setting aside the purchase fiasco on the Balili property, let us tackle the “coal ash” issue totally devoid of political insinuations. Environmentally, there are two (2) types of ash, the “fly ash” and the “bottom ash” that are jointly known as coal ash. Fly ash is one of the residues generated in the combustion of coal that is generally captured from the chimneys of coal-powered plants while the bottom ash is removed from the bottom of coal furnaces. While the components of coal ash vary depending upon the source and make up of the coal, all of them include one or more of toxic constituents, such as, arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, chromium VI, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with dioxins and PAH compounds.

While the serious concerns on all these toxin issues are brought to the fore by the environmentalists, proponents of the project waylaid those fears by showing the provincial governor how safe it is in the latter’s visit in one of their plants in South Korea. 

While seemingly convinced by what Gov. Garcia saw, let us look into the experiences of other nations that have been using this technology for long and learn from them. Truth to tell, one of the worst environmental disasters in recent memory has unfolded on December 22, 2008 in Kingston, Tennessee. With Christmas eve approaching, a massive coal waste spill has unleashed over a billion gallons of potentially toxic sludge into the Clinch River and surrounding land.   Allegedly, the spill was nearly fifty (50) times as big as the almost-forgotten 1989 Exxon-Valdez spill in Alaska. It occurred early dawn when a wall holding back 80 acres of sludge from the Fossil Plant gave way. 

While the owner of the power plant, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is actually trying to claim that the coal ash is not toxic, allegedly, the collapse allowed 1.1 billion gallons of toxin-filled coal ash waste to pour over some 300 acres of farm and residential land and into two local rivers.

Apart from the environmental risks it posed, the TVA claimed that “clean-up costs range from $525 million to $825 million, depending on the method of ash disposal that is assumed.” Such estimate “did not include costs for items such as regulatory actions, litigation or long-term environmental remediation.”

On the other hand, it is not all bad for the coal residues. An innovative application has been employed by Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) to recycle both the bottom ash and fly ash from two new Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) boilers as a stabilizer for non-cohesive sands, which are typical of north Florida. Now, being marketed, the results of laboratory testing and numerous field applications in the immediate market area illustrate that the product they developed from coal ash is effective in stabilizing sandy soils in pavement and roadway construction applications. 

Annually, JEA produces approximately 700,000 tons of the subject ash. Impressively, about 60 percent of this material is now being beneficially re-used, while about 40 percent is still being disposed of in area landfills.

Indeed,                coal ash, just like other wastes, has its threats and opportunities. Setting aside biases, it now rests in us on how to mitigate the threats and take advantage of the opportunities.

For your comments and suggestions, please email to [email protected].