Power Plant Pollution Declines, but Autos Keep the Smog Around

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On a hot summer day, plumes of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide--collectively known as NOx--billow forth from coal-fired power plants in the eastern U.S. Along with urban concentrations of their transportation counterparts--think the tailpipes of cars and trucks--such plumes can be readily detected from space via orbiting satellites. And such space-based data reveals that NOx emissions, from power plants at least, are on the decline.

Si-Wan Kim of NOAA's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder and her colleagues collected satellite observations of such coal-burning power plants in the six states of the upper Midwest. By 2005, emissions from the largest such plants in the Ohio River valley had declined, dropping overall NOx in the atmosphere 38 percent below 1999 levels, according to the satellites' measurement of such plumes. This decline follows a recent federal law that requires cuts in such smog-forming emissions by setting an overall cap for the entire power sector and allowing individual power plants to trade pollution permits to meet it--a so-called cap-and-trade system.

Because such power plants account for roughly 25 percent of total U.S. emissions of the smog-forming gases, that should be good news for clean air in the eastern half of the country. But the satellites showed little decline in such pollution in the northeast U.S. "Power plants account for less than 20 percent of total NOx emissions in this region," Kim explains. Even a "50 percent reduction of power plant NOx emissions means less than 10 percent overall decrease in the total NOx budget." In other words, pollution spewed from tailpipes in the urban Northeast dwarfs--and swallows up--the reductions produced by cleaning up belching coal smokestacks in the Midwest.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The satellite data confirms measurements taken by so-called continuous emission monitors on the smokestacks themselves as well as data gathered by airplane, analyzed earlier this year by NOAA's Gregory Frost and others. Ground-level ozone, otherwise known as smog, has dropped in areas near the largest power plants by as much as 16 percent. Because smog has been linked to a variety of health effects, including heart disease, any drop--no matter where it is located or how widely it spreads--brings benefits. But, as the researchers write in the paper presenting the findings in the November 29 Geophysical Research Letters, "these findings suggest that further substantive reductions in eastern U.S. [ground-level] NOx levels will require decreases in mobile source NOx emissions."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe