Pollution Solution: Reduce Harmful Emissions At Coal-Fired Power Plant

[Bobbieo]

WINDOW ROCK – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed Wednesday to require the Four Corners Power Plant near Farmington to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions 80 percent by requiring additional pollution controls.

EPA’s proposal will require plant operators to install the most stringent pollution control technology available for this type facility, known as selective catalytic reduction, on all five units. These controls will reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from approximately 45,000 tons per year to 9,000 tons per year.

The installation and operation of selective catalytic reduction is estimated to increase the electricity bill for the average Arizona Public Service residential customer by about 70 cents per week. APS is sole owner of units one, two and three, and owns 15 percent of units four and five at the 2,040 megawatt coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo Nation.


http://nativeunity.blogspot.com

[NNadir]

1. "Pollution solution," my ass

There is no such thing as "clean coal." Nitrogen oxides are a trivial pollutant from coal plants compared to the major pollutant, which is carbon dioxide.

If you wait long enough though, it is a very, very, very, very, very, very normal thing to hear anti-nukes putting lipstick on the coal pig.

[Bobbieo]

4. Hi There!!! Knew that would get your attention .

Ms. Helms said this is a very controversial story.

[kristopher]

13. That will be CO2e reductions of more than 10 million tons per year.

Thanks for posting.

[GliderGuider]

26. Is the GWP of NOx the same as for N2O?

I believe that "300x" figure relates to N2O. I haven't yet found a direct Global Warming Potential number for NOx. It's classed as an indirect GHG because of its mechanism of action - it increases tropospheric ozone through photochemical reactivity. None of the research I've been able to dig up gives a direct answer for the GWP of NOx, though the number for N2O is well publicized.

Of course NOx is a powerful pollutant in its own right, and deserves to be addressed. I also understand that people need to trumpet any success they have in such a difficult field.

It's hard to reduce the CO2 emissions of a 2 GW coal-fired power plant through technical means, and we don't yet have the policy vehicles in place to encourage a shift away from fossil fuel generation, so I guess we'll have to be content with nibbling around the edges of the problem. It does feel a bit like cleaning the wax out of the ears of the 800 lb gorilla that's sitting in the living room, though.

[GliderGuider]

2. The big pollutant from coal plants is CO2.

The Four Corners power plant ( a 2 GW coal plant) produces about 15 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Compared to that, the nitrogen oxide emissions of 45,000 tonnes are mind-boggling trivial.

[wtmusic]

3. Temporary, better than nothing.

There won't be a nuke plant on Navajo land in the near future.

[Bobbieo]

5. This will raise my APS bill about $2.80 a month. That I can live with!

[madokie]

9. Just like I keep saying about converting our coal plants to gasifiers

if nothing else it would help to buy time to get the alternates up and running.

[Dead_Parrot]

6. This makes me think of the execution of hereditary Peers in the UK...

...who were allowed to be hanged with silken ropes rather than ordinary rope, because it was so much nicer.

Leaving Four Corners spewing out 15.6 million tons of CO₂ but scrubbing the NOx is very silky.

Any last requests?

[Bobbieo]

7. Shucks!!! You forgot the tons of radioactive uranium spread all over Navajoland.

[madokie]

8. Those same posters will tell you its the Navajos fault

or some other such bullshit when confronted with that little tidbit of truthiness.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Yeah, I should really sort my priorities out

It's not like we need those oceans, forests, icecaps & glaciers.

[kristopher]

11. Nuclear power has the same base of support as coal and petroleum.

Your claims that you care about climate change are in direct conflict with your unceasing support for nuclear energy - a third rate solution that wastes time and money that delivers far more carbon reductions when spent on renewable energy sources and energy efficiency efforts.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[Dead_Parrot]

15. It's rather cute...

...that even though several people have pointed out the huge flaw in your logic, you still "believe".

52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve re-election in 2012

52 Percent of Americans Believe Space Shuttle Program Worth the Cost

52 percent of Americans use mobile for non-voice activities

52% of Americans said Jesus speaks to them

And they're all the same people...

[kristopher]

16. It must be terribly tiring trying to defend the indefensible...

These poll results speak for themselves.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Yes, they do.

They say: "Kris can't make a coherent argument, so he keeps pasting the same block of text waiting for the magic to happen".

[kristopher]

18. Reeeeeeaaaaaallllly?

You are claiming that when asked these questions the 540 individuals from within the group of 1038 people who said "more coal" were not the same 540 individuals that said "more nuclear"?

You are seriously claiming that?

Good luck getting anyone to believe it.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. Well...

...anyone who can count will tell you that at least 42 people who said yes to more nuclear said yes to more coal. Just as anyone who can count will tell you that at least 457 of the people who said yes to renewables said yes to coal.

If you want to discuss beliefs, however, may I suggest the Religion & Theology forum?

[kristopher]

20. The base of support for nuclear is *the same* as the base of support for coal.

Your rabidly pronuclear spin can't hide it.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Rinse. Repeat.

Is the magic working yet?

[kristopher]

22. As many times as you wish to foolishly deny the obvious

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Speaking of foolishness...

...I thought I'd have a look at this poll of yours. Took a while to dig it out, since the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll of Oct 16-18, 2009 doesn't mention the questions you list: They're actually from an ABC/WaPo poll in August of that year.

+15 points, BTW, for posting non-existent poll results an impressive number of times without anyone noticing: It proves how subtle you are. Or how much anyone gives a shit, one or the other.

-50 points for not noticing yourself. lol.

Anyway, the full poll results are at http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1093a4Energy.pdf for all to read. One paragraph jumped out at me, though:

Compared with an ABC/Post poll in 2001, the biggest changes are on power plants – an 11-point
drop in support for building more fossil-fuel plants, from 62 percent eight years ago to 51
percent now; and a smaller 6-point rise in support for more nuclear plants, from 46 percent then
to 52 percent now. However, support for nuclear power drops to 35 percent if the plant would be
closer than 50 miles away.

Now if, as you claim (in your refreshingly math-free way), the same people are involved, how can there be both more of them and less of them at the same time?

[Nihil]

24. Uh-oh ... I can hear the pressure building up now ...

> Now if, as you claim (in your refreshingly math-free way), the same people are
> involved, how can there be both more of them and less of them at the same time?

... there's gonna be a melt-down soon ...

(BTW, well done for blowing yet another piece of spam out of the water. Wonder what
will replace it in the paste buffer this time?)

[Dead_Parrot]

25. I'm in no hurry to find out

The annoying thing is, it takes considerably longer to dig out the actual facts behind the spam-du-jour than it does to does to hit ctrl-v, so there's fify of the buggers by the time anyone realises.

Oh well. My money's on another Jacobsgasm, we've only got about 200 of them. I do hope so, I'm looking forward to doing some "300" themed photoshops around Christmas.

[kristopher]

27. OMG!!! I snagged the wrong title. The base of support for coal and nuclear is still the same

The numbers are still the same and they show very clearly that nuclear and coal have the same base of support - those who place "energy security" as their highest priority. They are people with "traditional values" who are primarily concerned about how changes in energy policy will affect their family and the economic well being of the nation.

I appreciate the heads up in the titling mistake. As I looked in my file I noticed that I have both the page you linked to and another discussion that is by the head of ABC polling outfit that did the survey. The page you linked to is a press release, and as such it is available to be posted.

You posted this

Compared with an ABC/Post poll in 2001, the biggest changes are on power plants – an 11-point drop in support for building more fossil-fuel plants, from 62 percent eight years ago to 51 percent now; and a smaller 6-point rise in support for more nuclear plants, from 46 percent then to 52 percent now. However, support for nuclear power drops to 35 percent if the plant would be closer than 50 miles away.

You should have continued with what was next. The table below breaks support down by separating the "strong" suppport from the "net" support.

Those pale, in any case, in comparison with longstanding support for developing more solar and wind power (91 percent) and fuel-efficiency standards (85 percent); for electric car technology (82 percent support) and for requiring more energy conservation in the commercial sector (78 percent) and by consumers (73 percent).


There also are differences in “strong” support for these items.
A vast 79 percent strongly favor solar and wind power, compared with
48 percent for oil and gas drilling,
36 percent for nuclear plants and
33 percent for building more fossil-fuel power stations.

Also, “strong” support for mandated conservation by consumers drops off to 56 percent, albeit still a majority.

% Support
NET Strongly
Solar/wind power 91% 79%
Fuel-efficient vehicles 85 74
Electric cars 82 67
Require conservation by businesses 78 62
Require conservation by consumers 73 56
Cash for clunkers 69 51
Oil/gas drilling 64 48
Nuclear plants 52 36
Fossil-fuel plants 51 33
Coal mining 52 31


PARTISAN – As in so many issues on the political plate, partisanship is a sharp divider.

Republicans are 27 points more apt than Democrats to support more oil and gas drilling,

(Republicans are) 20 points more apt to support building more nuclear plants,

(Republicans are) 14 points more apt to back more coal mining.

(The NIMBY effect, though, is essentially the same in both parties – about a 15-point drop in support for nuclear plants if they’re within 50 miles.)

Democrats, for their part, are 25 points more apt to favor mandatory conservation by business and individuals and 11 to 18 points more likely to support developing electric cars, increasing fuel-efficiency standards and the cash-for-clunkers program.

However, there’s little difference between the parties in views on building more fossil fuel plants – supported by 53 percent of Democrat and 58 percent of Republicans alike, while “strongly” supported by about a third in each group.

There are even sharper partisan and ideological divisions on support for energy reform overall – 78 percent among Democrats, 56 percent among independents, but just 33 percent among Republicans. Similarly it’s 76 percent among liberals, 63 percent among moderates, 40 percent among conservatives.

You might also enjoy the perspective of the head of ABC polling - http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/01/the-president-and-nuclear-power.html where Mr. Langer stated, "Support for more nuclear plants in our poll reached 61 percent among Republicans and 55 percent among independents, the crucial center where Obama’s been in trouble of late. Among Democrats, by contrast, it dropped to 41 percent, with nearly six in 10 opposed.

Ideology tells a similar story. Conservatives favor building more nuclear plants by a 23-point margin. Moderates – remember the middle – by a closer 54-44 percent. Liberals, on the other hand, oppose it as broadly as conservatives are in support."

Nothing you've presented contradicts the obvious conclusion that the base of support for coal and nuclear are the same; in fact the analysis supports the idea that energy security vs altruism is the dividing line - just as I've been saying.

But hey, at least you got a woody by catching me out on a mistaken title.

[Dead_Parrot]

28. Ahh, right.

So when you say "The base of support for nuclear is *the same* as the base of support for coal", what you actually meant to say was, "Both supporters of coal and supporters of nuclear want the lights to stay on".

Fair enough.

[kristopher]

29. Close but not exactly - it goes deeper

The traditional values that predict a focus on energy security are those that result in trust in the nuclear industry:
"Family security, safety for loved ones
Honoring parents and elders, showing respect
Self-discipline, self-restraint, resistance to temptation"


That is best understood in contrast to the altruistic values that are predictors for those who reject nuclear power:
"Respecting the earth, harmony with other species
Protecting the environment, preserving nature
Equality, equal opportunity for all
Social justice, correcting injustice, care for the weak
Unity with nature, fitting into nature
A world at peace, free of war and conflict"

This dovetails well with the finding that "Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power."

What this tells us is that those who claim to be motivated by climate change to support nuclear are very likely engaging in rationalization for either their own benefit or the benefit of those they are having a discussion with. The fact is they almost certainly already support nuclear power and they see climate change as just another argument for the technology they already favor.

And...

...they are probably both conservative and Republican.

[Dead_Parrot]

30. You're getting confused, Kris

Your blending of 'altruistic' and 'uneducated' was hammered out in another thread, remember?

I had no idea that people like James Hansen, Barry Brooke, Mark Lynas, Stephen Tindale, and Chris Smith were nuke nuts all along - talk about playing the long game...

[kristopher]

33. I'm not confused at all...

You are the one that is foundering around in unfamiliar territory.

Let me demonstrate. Read this from the abstract of the analysis that produced the findings that traditional and altruistic values are "predictors" of attitudes governing acceptance of nuclear power.

"Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles."

On its face that would seem to contradict the discussions we've been having about the polling data. The polls seem to tell us education is a significant variable, yet this study looked and found it wasn't a variable with enough significance to be a "predictor" of attitudes about nuclear power. That doesn't mean that the polling isn't weighted in one direction or another - for it is. It is just that the weighting isn't significant *enough* to draw conclusions about the rest of a persons thoughts - in this case, about nuclear power.

Another example is that even though *significantly* more Republicans are supportive of nuclear power than Dems, I can't predict whether you will support nuclear power by knowing if you are a Dem or a Republican.

That's clear enough, isn't it?

To find 1) if something exists that is significant enough to draw conclusions about the rest of a persons thoughts and 2) what that something might be, we need to examine the public's thinking on a deeper level, a level where more fundamental attitudes exist that are internal guides for shaping beliefs and behaviors. This is a cumulative process that is supported by a very large and well accepted body of work behind all the internal elements of the Whitfield etal analysis.

This type of analysis *is* a standard part of public policy research and is considered a component vital to clear understanding of public attitudes across the entire range of public policy issues.

Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception

Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3 ∗


Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades?

We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power.

Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power.

Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites.

These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.

[Dead_Parrot]

39. You're half right

It doesn't contradict the discussion. Just one half of it. Y'know, the half that comes up with stuff like "Nuclear power is a Republican energy choice" and "Republican's nuclear boondoggle".

Would you like thinks for those?

[bananas]

40. Nuclear energy - the "fuck you" energy source

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/01/the-president-and-nuclear-power.html

<snip>

Support for more nuclear plants in our poll reached 61 percent among Republicans and 55 percent among independents, the crucial center where Obama’s been in trouble of late. Among Democrats, by contrast, it dropped to 41 percent, with nearly six in 10 opposed.

Ideology tells a similar story. Conservatives favor building more nuclear plants by a 23-point margin. Moderates – remember the middle – by a closer 54-44 percent. Liberals, on the other hand, oppose it as broadly as conservatives are in support.

<snip>

As noted, there’s a significant not-in-my-back-yard element to these views. Support for building nuclear plants drops to 35 percent if it’d be within 50 miles of your home – down by almost identical amounts, 15 to 19 points, among Democrats, independents and Republicans alike.

<snip>

[Dead_Parrot]

31. BTW, Kris...

...I see there's a more recent poll here that shows support for nuclear at 62% overall, and 51% among democrats.

I look forward to you writing polls off as meaningless, bemoaning the fact there are so few real democrats left, or testiculating about error margins.

[kristopher]

32. Polls are polls, it is the quality of the analysis that matters

The numbers for nuclear have been extremely consistent over a long period of time. There are minor swings which occur, but those swings are seldom indicative of any lasting trend.

[Dead_Parrot]

38. Then why, pray tell...

...did you copy and paste the poll results dozens of times without once linking to the analysis?

Here, btw, is the trend:

[kristopher]

41. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=260908&mesg_id=261067

[Dead_Parrot]

44. C'mon Kris, it's a simple enough question

Unless you you no idea why you do what you do.

[kristopher]

45. I thought that was another of your rhetorical questions.

The poll I linked to is a clear demonstration of the conclusion of the Whitfield analysis.

[Dead_Parrot]

46. No, that was a real question.

How about a real answer?

[joshcryer]

35. This was what I got from the poll when it was posted initially.

It was dismissed.

[kristopher]

36. You missed a lot, didn't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=260908&mesg_id=261067

Class over, you are dismissed.

[joshcryer]

37. Got any useful wind projections?

No? Oh OK then.

[kristopher]

12. You really can't get it right, can you?

NOX emissions are about 300 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. That means that reducing the NOX emissions by 36,000 tons is the equivalent of about 10 million tons of CO2.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. And that's your definition of a solution, is it?

Fix a bit of it and ignore the rest?

[joshcryer]

34. But 1 tonne of CO2 release contributes to only 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change.

That's only 0.000015 degrees of global temperature change!!!

[GliderGuider]

42. Can you post a link supporting that 300x figure for NOx?

Every time I found it, it was tagged to N20, which isn't the same stuff.

[GliderGuider]

43. Actually, I don't think you have it quite right.

I think you're mistakenly ascribing the GWP of nitrous oxide (N2O) to oxides of nitrogen, or NOx. N2O is a direct GHG, NOx is not. here's what the IPCC has to say in one article on the subject relating to aviation:

Global Warming Potential

Global warming potential (GWP; see Shine et al., 1990, for a formal definition) is an index that attempts to integrate the overall climate impacts of a specific action (e.g., emissions of CH4, NOx or aerosols). It relates the impact of emissions of a gas to that of emission of an equivalent mass of CO2. The duration of the perturbation is included by integrating radiative forcing over a time horizon (e.g., standard horizons for IPCC have been 20, 100, and 500 years). The time horizon thus includes the cumulative climate change and the decay of the perturbation.

GWP has provided a convenient measure for policymakers to compare the relative climate impacts of two different emissions. However, the basic definition of GWP has flaws that make its use questionable, in particular, for aircraft emissions. For example, impacts such as contrails may not be directly related to emissions of a particular greenhouse gas. Also, indirect RF from O3 produced by NOx emissions is not linearly proportional to the amount of NOx emitted but depends also on location and season. Essentially, the buildup and radiative impact of short-lived gases and aerosols will depend on the location and even the timing of their emissions. Furthermore, the GWP does not account for an evolving atmosphere wherein the RF from a 1-ppm increase in CO2 is larger today than in 2050 and the efficiency of NOx at producing tropospheric O3 depends on concurrent pollution of the troposphere.

In summary, GWPs were meant to compare emissions of long-lived, well-mixed gases such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) for the current atmosphere; they are not adequate to describe the climate impacts of aviation.

Nevertheless, some researchers have calculated a GWP, or modified version, for aircraft NOx emissions via induced ozone perturbation (e.g., Michaelis, 1993; Fuglestvedt et al., 1996; Johnson and Derwent, 1996; Wuebbles, 1996). The results vary widely as a result of model differences, varying scenarios for NOx emission, and the ambiguous GWP definition for short-lived gases. There is a basic impossibility of defining a GWP for "aircraft NOx" because emissions during takeoff and landing would have one GWP; those at cruise, another; those in polar winter, another; and those in the upper tropical troposphere, yet another. Different chemical regimes will produce different amounts of ozone for the same injection of NOx, and the radiative forcing of that ozone perturbation will vary by location (Fuglesvedt et al., 1999). In view of all these problems, we will not attempt to derive GWP indices for aircraft emissions in this study. The history of radiative forcing, calculated for the changing atmosphere, is a far better index of anthropogenic climate change from different gases and aerosols than is GWP.

There's nothing in there about 300X. That's the figure for N2O.

The NOx that is to be scrubbed from the plant is indeed a nasty pollutant, but the "10 million tons of CO2e" you quote is based on a misunderstanding of the gases involved.