Required Reading

Use and Release of Mercury in the United States. Read only the section entitled "Incidental Mercury Use Associated with Coal Combustion or Coal Use" on pages 39-43

Pottinger, M., S. Stecklow and J.J. Fialka. A Hidden Cost of China's Growth: Mercury Migration. WSJ 20 December 2004.

Fialka, J.J. 2006. Mercury rules designed for safety end up polluting. WSJ 20 April 2006.

Supplemental Reading

Munoz, S.S. The Dark Side of Green Bulbs. WSJ 24 January 2008.

Questions for class discussion

1. Mercury is an element. As such, it cannot be created or destroyed, as can DDT, dioxin or bisphenol A. It can moved from one location to another, and reacted with other chemicals so that it is less readily available. It is a bit like Dr. Suess's presentation of "voom," which literary reference I request you look up, and apply to the Fiaka article on mercury recycling in Maine and mercury in flyash.

2. Those who are not engineers are often unrealistically optimistic as to what technology can accomplish, and how much it costs. In this class we will work through several important approaches to controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, towards the end of understanding how these control methods work, and what this tells us about the ease with which mercury pollution from U.S. power plants could be readily reduced.

3. The continuing failure of EPA to implement the 1990 CAA amendments pertaining to mercury control notwithstanding, it is nevertheless true that mercury emissions from US coal fired power plants are an order of magnitude less than mercury emissions from Chinese power plants. What does this suggest about where the most cost-effective mercury reductions are?