文章 Articles

The ash cloud over China

A new report from Greenpeace argues that growing piles of coal ash in China pose a serious – and largely ignored – threat to public welfare. Meng Si looks at the findings.

Article image

Fly ash, a residue generated by the combustion of coal, is China’s single biggest source of solid industrial waste and, according to Greenpeace, one of its gravest problems. The international campaign group has brought out a new report on the substance, also known simply as coal-ash, in which it argues that China has severely underestimated the extent of the crisis. Not only are the quantities rising, it says, but there is no control over the long-term pollution the ash creates.

“China’s fly-ash problem is unique,” says Yang Ailun, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace. “It is an inevitable consequence of coal-fired power generation, since every four tonnes of coal burned produces one tonne of ash. Since 2002, when China started a rapid expansion of its coal sector, coal ash production has gone up two and a half times.”

On September 15, Greenpeace China published “The True Cost of Coal – an investigation into coal ash in China”. The report estimates the country produced 375 million tonnes of coal ash in 2009 – more than twice that year’s total urban-waste production. In terms of volume, that’s 424 million cubic metres a year, enough to fill a standard swimming pool every two and a half minutes. If this waste is not dealt with appropriately, it will become a grave threat to the environment and to public health.

According to the report, China meets 70% of its energy needs through coal, with electricity generation accounting for half of all coal consumption. The heavy metals and radioactive substances present in coal remain in the ash, where they exist in higher concentrations

Between January and August this year, Greenpeace surveyed the coal ash disposal sites of 14 Chinese power plants. According to the report, more than 20 different toxic substances, including heavy metals and chemical compounds harmful to human health and the environment were found. Although concentrations of heavy metals and other substances are lower than in other forms of industrial waste, the sheer quantity of coal ash produced means the actual quantities of harmful substances released into the environment are still substantial. But as the impact of the ash on the environment and human health takes time to emerge, it is easily overlooked.

Yang says: “The choice of location and measures to prevent wind dispersal, leakage and run-off were entirely inadequate to stop pollution at the majority of the coal ash disposal sites we examined. Toxins in the ash are already polluting the local soil, air and water, harming not just the health of local people but, through the food chain, also threatening the wider population.”

Greenpeace’s investigations found that both surface and well water around many coal power plants did not meet official standards. 

Coal ash impoundments are also taking up an increasing amount of land, says the NGO. The majority of those surveyed are much closer to nearby villages than the 500 metres stipulated in the government’s standards on storage and disposal of industrial solid waste. The coal dam at Douhe Power Plant in Hebei province, north China, is a mere 50 metres away from the village of Lijiayu. And the Fengzhen and Yuanbaoshan power plants, both in Inner Mongolia, are close to milk collection points that belong to a well-known dairy firm.

The head of Greenpeace China’s climate and energy campaign, Zhao Xingmin, told chinadialogue: “We didn’t do any specific tests, but since we know that the health of dairy cows is affected – demonstrated by lower milk production and birth rates – we expect that, even if the effects are slow, the toxins will be passed from the cows into the food chain.”

According to the report, villages and fields near the impoundments have also been affected by dispersed ash. The Greenpeace team met villagers complaining of skin and respiratory disorders near all of the sites. In some areas, cows and sheep were found to be suffering from diarrhoea, reduced fertility and higher mortality rates after eating grass polluted with coal ash.

Large quantities of ash blown onto fields has also increased salinity and alkalinity, and pollution of groundwater by run-off from the impoundments forced villagers to find new sources of drinking water, with some having no choice but to buy expensive bottled water. In certain cases, the weight of the stored coal had increased groundwater pressure, deforming the foundations of nearby homes and making them uninhabitable.  

The report highlights another potential danger-point. If rainstorms or floods caused landslides at the sites of the impoundments, then the tens of thousands of tonnes of stored coal ash – containing heavy metals and other toxins – would present a serious threat to both public health and the environment. Such disasters have happened before. In June 2006, a leak from the coal dam at Pan County Power Plant in Guizhou, south-western China, sent 300,000 tonnes of coal ash into the Tuochang River.

The Greenpeace report says that, in accordance with central government requirements, many local governments have set a provincial or municipal target of reusing 60% of the fly-ash produced. Both central and local government have put preferential policies in place accordingly, such as funding or tax breaks for projects using coal ash. But Yang Ailun is not convinced by the figures. “The issue of coal-ash pollution has never received the attention it deserves,” she says. “The biggest misconception is the belief that 60% or more of China’s coal ash is reused – in reality it’s less than 30%.”

The main cause for this is poor quality, weakly-implemented and non-binding legislation, and a failure to consider the unique scale of the issue, argues Greenpeace. Also, the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s coal ash discharge fee of 30 yuan per tonne is an ineffective deterrent.  

The report also says that toxic trace elements and radioactive substances are present in products made from the ash, such as concrete, bricks and paving stones, where they will continue to present a threat to the environment and human health. But current Chinese policy means that these products are not treated as solid waste, and therefore environmental law is not applicable. There is also a lack of specific and effective regulation for protecting health and the environment – yet another risk for China.

Meng Si is managing editor in chinadialogue’s Beijing office. 

Homepage image from Greenpeace China

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default thumb avatar
gaidee

绿色和平

绿色和平组织的目的想必是要全世界变绿,让我们活得更像人,这点我不怀疑。在中国呢,情况有些不同,绿色不受人欢迎,哪个男人喜欢被别人戴“绿帽子”呢,在咱们中国,还是男人说了算。当然了这是个玩笑,不必当真。我们要当真的是,按照这个代价不菲的报告的内容,我们认识到了问题,这个严重的问题,但是解决的方法呢?我们知道我们法律大而空,我们知道这个不好那个不好,不好的事情很多很多,美国也有一大堆,指出问题,但是不给出解决问题的线索,好像不大像回事吧。看来,我这辈子这个问题是解决不了了,不是我年纪大,而是问题大,中国的,绿色和平的。

Greenpeace

The aim of Greenpeace most probably is to make the whole world greener, to make our existence more human, and I don't object to this. But in China the circumstances are slightly different, green is not well seen by people, those men like others wearing "the green hat" [also meaning being a cuckold], in our China men still say that. This is obviously a joke, it must not be taken seriously. What we have to take seriously is that, according to this expensive report's content, we realise there's a problem, a critical one, but how do we solve it? We know that our laws are big and empty, we know this and that are not good, the issues are very numerous, and the US have lots too, they recognise them but there are insufficient clues to solve them. It seems to me that I won't be able in my whole lifetime to see any of these problems solved, and it's not that I'm old, it's just that these issues are big, China's own, Greenpeace's own.