Tuesday, 22 March 2011


Please read below article that i found from this site >>> http://business.inquirer.net/money/topstories/view/20100422-265855/Mariveles-coal-plant-to-be-linked-to-Luzon-power-grid <<< and  think if this is a good solution to electricity shortage problem.

My opinion........." this is not a solution, there are other resources that they can use like the sun or wind."
By Amy R. Remo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 19:52:00 04/22/2010
Filed Under: Coal, Mining and quarrying, Economy and Business and Finance

THE ENERGY Regulatory Commission has allowed the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines to construct facilities that will connect GNPower Mariveles Coal Plant Ltd.’s 600-megawatt coal power plant to the Luzon grid.
In its decision, the ERC said the connection assets are essential to delivery of power from the generation facility, which will be completed in August 2012, to the Luzon grid.
The NGCP is expected to spend P918.7 million for the construction of 19-kilometer 230-kilovolt transmission line to connect GNPower’s coal power plant to the Luzon grid at the Limay B substation.
It would also fund the construction of a 3-km temporary line to provide power during the testing and commissioning period of GNPower’s facility prior to completion of the said transmission line; as well as the upgrade of the Limay B substation to accommodate the connection of the generation facility.
NGCP has signed in January this year a Connection Asset Construction and Maintenance Agreement with GNPower for this particular project.
Under the agreement, NGCP shall construct the connection assets and provide the necessary financing for such construction. In consideration, GNPower shall pay NGCP the related connection charges.
NGCP and GNPower earlier explained that it was imperative that the ERC approve the connection project because the power project will help avert a power crisis that will adversely affect the Luzon grid as early as 2011.
“The connection assets are essential to the delivery of power from the generation facility to the Luzon grid. Thus, it is imperative that construction of the connection assets commence immediately so that the same may be ready to deliver the generation facility’s power to the grid when the said facility commences commercial operations on the latter part of 2012,” the two companies said.
According to the government’s Power Supply and Demand Situationer for 2006-2014, power supply situation will become critical in Luzon beginning this year.
By 2011, the dependable capacity will no longer be sufficient to meet Luzon’s required capacity.
The additional capacity to be provided by GNPower’s coal power plant will thus help avert the significant economic cost of protracted brownouts, such as reduced investment, lost production and the loss ofbusiness confidence, they added.................

Mariveles is located in a cove at the southern tip of the Bataan Peninsula. It is about 173 kilometers from Manila via the North Luzon Expressway, Gapan-Olongapo Road and Roman Highway. It has a total land area of 153.9 km² representing 12% of the total land area of Bataan. Of this, about 69% consist of the pastureland, 19% of forestland, 6% agricultural lands and the remaining 6% for residential and industrial use. It is home to an Aetacommunity speaking a Sambalic language called Mariveleño.

I live in a small village near this coal power plant, even though it is not yet in operation this plant already gave us many problems like every day dusty wind and noisy construction. I love my village, i grew up here, peaceful surrounding, clean air, clean water and nice neighbor. Now it seems all will end just because of business >>>> money money money money money money <<<<<

From wikipedia..........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station

Environmental impacts

The Mohave Power Station, a 1,580 MW coal power station near Laughlin, Nevada, out of service since 2005 due to environmental restrictions[4]
The world's power demands are expected to rise 60% by 2030.[5] With the worldwide total of active coal plants over 50,000 and rising,[6] the International Energy Agency(IEA) estimates that fossil fuels will account for 85% of the energy market by 2030.[5]
World organizations and international agencies, like the IEA, are concerned about the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, and coal in particular. The combustion of coal contributes the most to acid rain and air pollution, and has been connected with global warming. Due to the chemical composition of coal there are difficulties in removing impurities from the solid fuel prior to its combustion. Modern day coal power plants pollute less than older designs due to new "scrubber" technologies that filter the exhaust air in smoke stacks; however emission levels of various pollutants are still on average several times greater than natural gas power plants. In these modern designs, pollution from coal-fired power plants comes from the emission of gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxideinto the air.
Acid rain is caused by the emission of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. These gases may be only mildly acidic themselves, yet when they react with the atmosphere, they create acidic compounds such as sulfurous acidnitric acid and sulfuric acid which fall as rain, hence the term acid rain. In Europe and the U.S.A., stricter emission laws and decline in heavy industries have reduced the environmental hazards associated with this problem, leading to lower emissions after their peak in 1960s.
European Environment Agency (EEA) gives fuel-dependent emission factors based on actual emissions from power plants in EU.[7]
PollutantHard coalBrown coalFuel oilOther oilGas
CO2 (g/GJ)94600101000774007410056100
SO2 (g/GJ)765136113502280.68
NOx (g/GJ)29218319512993.3
CO (g/GJ)
Non methane organic compounds (g/GJ)4.927.783.703.241.58
Particulate matter (g/GJ)12033254161.910.1
Flue gas volume total (m3/GJ)360444279276272

[edit]Carbon dioxide

Electricity generation using carbon based fuels is responsible for a large fraction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions worldwide and for 41% of U.S. man-made carbon dioxide emissions.[8] Of fossil fuels, coal combustion in thermal power stations result in greater amounts of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity generated (2249 lbs/MWh[9]) while oil produces less (1672 lb/(MW·h)[10] or 211 kg/GJ) and natural gas produces the least 1135 lb/(MW·h) (143 kg/GJ).[11])
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see IPCC) states that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that increased quantities within the atmosphere will "very likely" lead to higher average temperatures on a global scale (global warming); concerns regarding the potential for such warming to change the global climate prompted IPCC recommendations calling for large cuts to CO2 emissions worldwide.[12]
Emissions may be reduced through more efficient and higher combustion temperature and through more efficient production of electricity within the cycle. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) of emissions from coal fired power stations is another alternative but the technology is still being developed and will increase the cost of fossil fuel-based production of electricity. CCS may not be economically viable, unless the price of emitting CO2 to the atmosphere rises.

[edit]Particulate matter

Another problem related to coal combustion is the emission of particulates that have a serious impact on public health. Power plants remove particulate from the flue gas with the use of a bag house or electrostatic precipitator. Several newer plants that burn coal use a different process, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle in which synthesis gas is made out of a reaction between coal and water. The synthesis gas is processed to remove most pollutants and then used initially to power gas turbines. Then the hot exhaust gases from the gas turbines are used to generate steam to power a steam turbine. The pollution levels of such plants are drastically lower than those of "classic" coal power plants.[13]
Particulate matter from coal-fired plants can be harmful and have negative health impacts. Studies have shown that exposure to particulate matter is related to an increase of respiratory and cardiac mortality.[14] Particulate matter can irritate small airways in the lungs, which can lead to increased problems with asthma, chronic bronchitis, airway obstruction, and gas exchange.[14]
There are different types of particulate matter, depending on the chemical composition and size. The dominant form of particulate matter from coal-fired plants is coal fly ash, but secondary sulfate and nitrate also comprise a major portion of the particulate matter from coal-fired plants.[15] Coal fly ash is what remains after the coal has been combusted, so it consists of the incombustible materials that are found in the coal.[16]
The size and chemical composition of these particles affects the impacts on human health.[14][15] Currently coarse (diameter greater than 2.5 μm) and fine (diameter between 0.1 μm and 2.5 μm) particles are regulated, but ultrafine particles (diameter less than 0.1 μm) are currently unregulated, yet they pose many dangers.[14] Unfortunately much is still unknown as to which kinds of particulate matter pose the most harm, which makes it difficult to come up with adequate legislation for regulating particulate matter.[15]
There are several methods of helping to reduce the particulate matter emissions from coal-fired plants. Roughly 80% of the ash falls into an ash hopper, but the rest of the ash then gets carried into the atmosphere to become coal-fly ash.[16] Methods of reducing these emissions of particulate matter include:
  1. baghouse
  2. an electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
  3. cyclone collector
The baghouse has a fine filter that collects the ash particles, electrostatic precipitators use an electric field to trap ash particles on high-voltage plates, and cyclone collectors use centrifugal force to trap particles to the walls.[16]

[edit]Radioactive trace elements

As most ores in the Earth's crust, coal also contains low levels of uraniumthorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination. While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could have an uncontrolled release of as much as 5.2 metric tons per year of uranium (containing 74 pounds (34 kg) of uranium-235) and 12.8 metric tons per year of thorium.[17] In comparison, a 1,000 MW nuclear plant will generate about 500 pounds of plutonium and 30 short tons of high-level radioactive controlled waste.[18] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident.[19] The collective radioactivity resulting from all coal burning worldwide between 1937 and 2040 is estimated to be 2,700,000 curies or 0.101 EBq).[17] It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.[17]

[edit]Water and air contamination by coal ash

A study released in August 2010 that examined state pollution data in the United States by the organizations Environmental Integrity Project, the Sierra Club and Earthjustice found that coal ash produced by coal-fired power plants dumped at sites across 21 U.S. states has contaminated ground water with toxic elements. The contaminants including the poisons arsenic and lead[20]
Arsenic has been shown to cause skin cancerbladder cancer and lung cancer, and lead damages the nervous system.[21] Coal ash contaminants are also linked to respiratory diseases and other health and developmental problems, and have disrupted local aquatic life.[20]Additional contaminants emitted include boron, which attacks the testes, kidney and brain, and the heavy metal mercury, a neurotoxicantparticularly harmful to a child's development, causing nerve damage and impairment of a child's ability to write, read and learn. Coal ash also releases a variety of toxic contaminants into nearby air, posing a health threat to those who breath in fugitive coal dust.[22]
Currently, the EPA does not regulate the disposal of coal ash; regulation is up to the states and the electric power industry has been lobbying to maintain this status quo. Most states require no monitoring of drinking water near coal ash dump sites. The study found an additional 39 contaminated U.S. sites and concluded that the problem of coal ash-caused water contamination is even more extensive in the United States than has been estimated. The study brought to 137 the number of ground water sites across the United States that are contaminated by power plant-produced coal ash.[20]

[edit]Range of mercury contamination in fish

U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for mercury contamination. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions.[23]

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation
nuclear-power-plant-with-radiation-signCONCENTRATED RADIATION: By burning coal into ash, power plants concentrate the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the black rock.Image: ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.
Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.
Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end ]
At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.
Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.
In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.
The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.
McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.
Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains an online database of fly ash–based uranium content for sites across the U.S. In most areas, the ash contains less uranium than some common rocks. In Tennessee's Chattanooga shale, for example, there is more uranium in phosphate rock.
Robert Finkelman, a former USGS coordinator of coal quality who oversaw research on uranium in fly ash in the 1990s, says that for the average person the by-product accounts for a miniscule amount of background radiation, probably less than 0.1 percent of total background radiation exposure. According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you're exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that's still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.
So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."
Radiation from uranium and other elements in coal might only form a genuine health risk to miners, Finkelman explains. "It's more of an occupational hazard than a general environmental hazard," he says. "The miners are surrounded by rocks and sloshing through ground water that is exuding radon."
Developing countries like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired plants—at the rate of one every seven to 10 days in the latter nation. And the U.S. still draws around half of its electricity from coal. But coal plants have an additional strike against them: they emit harmful greenhouse gases.
With the world now focused on addressing climate changenuclear power is gaining favor in some circles. China aims to quadruple nuclear capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, and the U.S. may build as many as 30 new reactors in the next several decades. But, although the risk of a nuclear core meltdown is very low, the impact of such an event creates a stigma around the noncarbon power source.
The question boils down to the accumulating impacts of daily incremental pollution from burning coal or the small risk but catastrophic consequences of even one nuclear meltdown. "I suspect we'll hear more about this rivalry," Finkelman says. "More coal will be mined in the future. And those ignorant of the issues, or those who have a vested interest in other forms of energy, may be tempted to raise these issues again."
*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J.P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

Please say No to MARIVELES COAL POWER PLANT Smiley shaking his finger, as if saying “No!”Smiley shaking his finger, as if saying “No!”Smiley shaking his finger, as if saying “No!”Smiley shaking his finger, as if saying “No!”Smiley shaking his finger, as if saying “No!”Smiley shaking his finger, as if saying “No!”Smiley shaking his finger, as if saying “No!”Smiley shaking his finger, as if saying “No!”


  1. Scientists working for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are able to predict how many premature deaths, heart attacks, and other impacts are caused by power plant pollution based on recent scientific studies by researchers affiliated with the American Cancer Society, the Harvard School of Public Health and other top universities and research institutions.

    read more on >>>> http://www.cacefindiana.org/node/programs/cieep/global_warming/health <<<<<

  2. http://marivelesgovph.org/

  3. http://www.marivelesgovph.org/index.php/photo_gallery/

  4. jobs jobs jobs. I hope the project will not degrade the environmental quality of the beautiful Mariveles.

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. There is one thing i'm sure about Filipino government Officials, they are all monkeys pretending to be human, they don't know anything better than having a banana on their hands....hahahahaha........ monkeys wearing coat and tie doing business........hahahahaha

  7. I hope those "environMENTALists" find a cave and live without power for a year. lets see if they can

    1. actually its not the power they protest its the way they getting it!!!!!

    2. funny this comment came from people that does not care but knows and denies the fact that they benefit from the people who fight for better environment........

      its not the power(electricity) what the environmentalist protest its how the power is generated.......

      this blog wanted to point out that there are more efficient and less destructive ways in generating electricity and this mariveles coal power palnt is not included in the list......... think about it.......

  8. I hope that this project will genarates more jobs to Bataan. But please consider our environment is now on critical stage.


Green Peace

Earth Saving Tips