Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Most people can recall or have at least heard of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. This event is cited as one of the most devastating environmental disasters to occur in US history, receiving much mediated and public attention. Yet, why is it that over the past few weeks there has been waning discourse about a recent coal spill in Tennessee that is estimated to be 50 times larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill?

Aerial Footage of the Spill:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYGO7O30moM]

Just recently on December 22 of 2008, 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash flooded out of a TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) Kingston Fossil Plant in an Eastern Tennessee town just forty miles West of Knoxville. For those unfamiliar with this particular culprit known as coal ash, it is the leftover residue from coal-fired power plants that generate electricity and expel pollutants.  In order to prevent the ash from entering into and contaminating the atmosphere, it is mixed with water so that it can be kept in retaining pools.

This particular TVA plant had been accumulating waste for over half a century, housing sludge that staggered 65 feet into the air, spreading over 100 acres prior to when the dam burst in December. As imagined, the consequences of this spill were, and still are, devastating to the surrounding communities. The expansive outflow of sludge has damaged around twenty-two homes and has reportedly spilled into two tributaries of the Tennessee River, the Emory and Clinch Rivers. The Tennessee River marks a major source of drinking water for not only people in East Tennessee, but in Alabama, Kentucky, Chattanooga, and Western regions of Tennessee as well. Concerned yet? The T.V.A. isn’t—their website refers to the spillage as an “ash slide”, making the catastrophe sound rather harmless.

So, the big question is, why has a story of such magnitude been so downplayed in the media? I know that there are big stories to cover in the news right now, from the conflicts between Israeli and Palestinian forces to a tanking American economy. But, this is arguably the biggest environmental disaster in United States’ history! This story needs to be unveiled—questions need to be asked and action needs to be taken. The main question I asked earlier—why is the story going unreported—directly leads into the conflict surrounding the hazards of coal ash. When it comes to the subject of coal residue, the majority of people engaged in the topic believe that coal ash contains no harmful toxins, and is perfectly safe. This likely explains why this story has been shoved under the rug. Yet, it would be misleading to say that there are not people concerned about this issue, namely environmentalists and Tennessee residents who believe that coal ash is harmful. If there is a present concern, the question should be examined: is coal ash really as harmless as many claim it to be? Continue Reading »

On the heels of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s environmental scoping meeting about the proposed expansion of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant outside of Fort Worth, TX (two of six new units moving through the permitting process in Texas), a new study by Craig Severance a leading expert in power plant costs- was released detailing the staggering cost estimates of new nuclear power.

The new study, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power  puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants between 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity  rates! This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today, and ten times the cost of energy efficiency. 

This is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. The author, Craig Severance is a practicing CPA and co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976). 

This important new analysis fills the critical transparency gap in the current debate over nuclear power, demystifying the entire process, so that anyone reading  it (including non-technical readers) can develop a clear understanding of  how total generation costs per kWh come together.  

Join the opposition to new Comanche Peak nuclear reactors

For those living near the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant near Glen Rose, Texas who are concerned about the health, safety and pocketbooks of Texans, join the opposition by attending a public meeting:

Thursday, January 29th at 7pm
Fort Worth Botanical Gardens

Learn more about radioactive, health and economic risks of nuclear power, as well as the history of Comanche Peak’s existing reactors at www.NukeFreeTexas.org.  (Video of the January 6th scoping meeting coming soon to this site) 

In an editorial published yesterday, the Austin American Statesman agrees:  Texas needs to take the lead on climate change.

And I quote (bold my own),

…sea levels could rise by 4 feet by 2100 – versus the 1.5 feet predicted by a United Nations panel on climate change. That’s a warning that ought to be taken seriously now – especially along the Texas coast.

Unfortunately, it appears Texas government will try to ignore the problem of climate change. Gov. Rick Perry, digging in his boot heels, seems to admit only grudgingly that climate change is occurring, never mind that science has concluded that it is being driven by humankind’s use of fuels that produce carbon dioxide – coal, oil and natural gas, primarily.

Perry says potential federal legislation to begin limiting carbon dioxide production could harm the Texas economy. But drought and rising sea levels won’t? Texas needs to find a way to take the lead on this problem, not try to pretend it will go away.

Well done, Statesman editorial board.  You make us proud.

Old Argument, New Twist

tvTelevision sets use about 4% of household power nation-wide, and the newest flat screens are even bigger power suckers — LCD screens use 43% more power than the old tube TV models.  Despite this situation, government efficiency testing standards for televisions haven’t been updated since Leave It to Beaver appeared in black and white.  Energy Star, a voluntary labeling system developed by the EPA, uses modern efficiency tests, but Energy Guide, the mandatory Department of Energy labeling program, still uses standards from the era of Lucy and Ricky in separate twin beds.

In order to confront this problem, California has once again stepped to the forefront.  According to Kate Galbraith at Green, Inc:

California regulators are drafting rules mandating that retailers stock only the most energy-efficient TVs, according to The Times. The program would start in 2011, with a more stringent standard coming into effect in 2013.

Industry, of course, objects:

The proposal is running into resistance from the Consumer Electronics Association and other industry representatives. One retailer told the Los Angeles Times that efficiency standards would “kill dealerships,” because Californians would search the Internet for less-efficient TVs, and get them shipped into California.

I’m sorry, but that argument is completely ridiculous.  And I’ve heard it before.  Remember when the auto industry resisted efficiency measures and stricter environmental standards that would have forced them to create a better product, and then foreign companies did just that and stole all their business?  And then domestic auto companies couldn’t keep their businesses afloat anymore and had to ask the government for a bailout? I remember that, because it just happened.

I’m really tired of industry bellyaching about efficiency and environmental standards that would make them create better products.  All this California amendment would say is, we want our consumers to be provided the most innovative, efficient products on the market.  There are already over 100 models that would keep up with their proposed standards.  Industry reps are just upset that their inefficient, energy sucking TVs won’t make the cut.  Sorry, but it isn’t California’s fault you created a sub-par product.

Double Take

John Broder at The New York Times reports:

“With the designation of the world’s largest marine reserve in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in 2006, and now these three other sites, George W. Bush has done more to protect unique areas of the world’s oceans than any other person in history,” said Joshua Reichert, managing director of the Pew Environmental Group.

Wow.  Maybe after eight years I have low expectations, but that’s not something I expected to hear at any point in my life this morning.  Turns out our outgoing lame duck president has decided to do something positive with his last remaining days. Today Bush is set to designate over 195, 280 square miles of “American-controlled Pacific Ocean islands, reefs, surface waters and sea floor as marine national monuments.”

06oceans_600Apparently the islands are remote and for the most part, uninhabited.  The article reports, however, that there was some opposition to the designation by commercial and recreational fishing groups, as well as government officials from the nearby Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands who feared potentially negative commercial impacts.

The article continues,

The islands, atolls, reefs and underwater mountain ranges offer unique habitat to hundreds of rare species of birds and fish. Among them are tropicbirds, boobies, frigate birds, terns, noddies, petrels, shearwaters and albatrosses, according to environmental groups who pushed for the protection. It is also the habitat of the rare Micronesian megapode, a bird that incubates its eggs using subterranean volcanic heat.

Yay! I love frigate birds.  My favorite part of this story, however, is how America came to control this land in the first place.  I’m a big history nerd, so you’ll have to bear with me as I geek out.  You see kiddoes, in 1856 we passed the Guano Island Act, a law that allowed sea captains to just claim any islands that were rich in guano.  This encouraged sailors to seek out the poopy-est islands possible and claim them in the name of America.  These rock solid legal claims kept those lands under our dominance for over 150 years.  Weird.

Anyway, thank you Bush, for protecting these lands as a final parting shot.  This is a welcome change from your other last minute presidential actions, such as auctioning off public lands in Utah to oil and gas drilling letting his EPA administrator make up bogus rules.

UPDATE:  Looks like I spoke too soon: Bush’s One Last Blow to the Environment

Hey, look! A joint press release from Public Citizen Texas, the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the SEED Coalition:

An NRC Environmental Scoping Meeting will be held on Jan. 6th in Glen Rose, Texas to take comment on the environmental impact study for two nuclear reactors proposed for the existing Comanche Peak site. A coalition of environmental and consumer groups and their members will be telling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Luminant (formerly TXU) that nuclear plants are “too risky, too expensive and too dangerous” to help Texas meet its power needs, and makes no sense when clean, safe, affordable options exist. The coalition of groups said they
only learned of the hastily called public meeting to seek input on environmental issues on December 24th.

“We’ve been down this road before,” noted Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. “The utility industry sold Texas on Comanche Peak and the South Texas Project and consumers have been paying the ‘stranded’ costs ever since, even as valuable water resources are expended and radioactive waste piles up on-site.”

Luminant proposes to build two more nuclear reactors at the existing Comanche Peak nuclear site near Glen Rose, in Somervell County, using an unproven, untested technology known as USAPWR. “The design of the reactors has not been certified and has never been builtanywhere in the world. Why should Texas serve as guinea pigs for a dangerous radioactive experiment?” asked Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “Design problems as well as human error led to numerous problems and shutdowns of Comanche Peak reactors in the past. The competence and character of Luminant need to be examined closely since the history of the existing reactors is disastrous. In the past, there was a chance to fix nuclear reactor construction problems before an operating license was issued, but that safeguard is gone with the new licensing process.” Continue Reading »

Joe Straus in da HAUS

straus2Joe Straus (R- San Antonio) announced in a press conference this morning that he has enough pledged supporters to win the race for Speaker of the Texas House.

In holding with the national trend towards change and bipartisanship, Straus will replace the great and powerful Tom Craddick with a pledge to bring harmony back to the sharply divided Texas legislature.

Said Democratic strategist Harold Cook in an article in the Dallas Morning News,

“I don’t know anybody who doesn’t like the guy, and in the Legislature, that’s really saying something,” Cook said. “It’s easy to see why people looking for a new tone out of the Texas House are gravitating toward him.”

Other state Dems agreed,

“He is one of the most honest people that I know,” said Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio. “He’s going to be a fair speaker who will rule with an even hand and an open mind.”

We have seen such a bitterly divided legislature in recent years, these reactions sound almost too good to be true.  But it looks as though Straus may represent Texas’ brightest hope for a constructive, pragmatic legislative session.

What’s more, Straus has a positive history on ethics reform, open government, and has shown significant leadership on environmental issues.  As a member of the Regulated Industries Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Efficiency, Straus oversaw the passage of the most important energy efficiency bill since deregulation. Straus’ HB 3693 doubled utilities’ efficiency goals to 20% of load growth by 2010 and directed the Public Utility Commission to study whether increasing the program to 50% of load growth is technically possible.  This report, released by ITRON a month ago, found that Texas could not only meet but exceed that goal.

Straus has also received awards from both the Texas Public Power Association and the  Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club for his work in energy efficiency and contributions to public power.

Public Citizen congratulates Straus on being the next Speaker of the House of Representatives, and looks forward to working with him in the upcoming session.

Happy 2009, everyone.

Imagine my surprise when I see the new issue of The Economist, now talking about the major problems global warming will be creating called The Curse of Carbon.  When even The Economist is coming around on global warming, it seems like things might be changing on the climate change debate.  Who’s next?  The Free Republic?

From the article:

Copyright The Economist 2009

If the seas continue to become less alkaline at the current rate, the time will soon come when reefs will start to lose coral faster through erosion than they gain it through calcification. How soon? Some scientists think it could be in 60 or 70 years. Many fear that half the world’s coral will be gone by 2030.

The Arctic has lost over 40% of its year-round ice since 1985, 14% in 2004-05 alone. This will not do much directly to raise sea levels, because most Arctic ice is floating, but it suggests that the melting is speeding up, and that is confirmed by the flow of the Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland, which doubled in speed between 1997 and 2003.

Everything depends on the speed at which the ice disappears. Computer models have been predicting that the Arctic will not be ice-free, even for a short time in late summer, until 2040, and at present only icebreakers and the occasional lone yachtsman are getting through. But some people believe change is coming so fast that the northern seas will open up much earlier than expected. They may be right.

If so, it will be seen as a harbinger of a another horror: the prospect of a shutdown of the North Atlantic conveyor. This is the current of water that takes enormous amounts of heat—about as much as would be generated by a million nuclear power plants—from the tropics and carries it to eastern North America and western Europe. The fear is that melting ice, along with increased snow and rain, could reduce the density and salinity of the top layers of the sea, making them more buoyant. At present, the conveyor depends on surface water sinking and travelling towards the equator, there to rise again and bring warmth back to the north (see map in the introduction). If this current stopped, the average temperature in Europe might fall by five to ten degrees Celsius.

They even have a video of the ice melt and the major problems that melting arctic sea ice will create.

A quick plug for an amazing five-part series currently running in the Denton Record-Chronicle about the problems drilling on the Barnett Shale is having.  Rig explosions, flooding, mudslides, neighborhood clashes, legal battles, vandalism– it’s like “There Will Be Blood” except happening today… and in Denton.  Somebody get T. Boone Pickens on the phone– isn’t he in this movie?

The really scary thing?  The Railroad Commission, which is supposed to regulate oil and gas drilling in the state, has two of its three members running for Senate in 2010 in a crowded field.   Competing for campaign donations, will either of them dare cross the gas companies?  Do we expect them to side with consumers and homeowners, or will they side with the corporate interests?  So far, at least, it doesn’t seem like anyone from the EPA to the Railroad Commission is looking after the health and environmental effects urban drilling is causing.

Quick Links here: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5

Part 1: Eminent Dominance Expansion of natural gas industry into Barnett Shale leaves Argyle families little recourse

Jennifer Cole stepped across the parched ground of a North Texas autumn, past her dirt-caked backyard swimming pool, inching closer to a roaring machine. She watched it force its way through the earth, pushing dirt from side to side in waves like an ocean’s tide. Day by day, the bulldozer was remaking the lot behind her home on Britt Drive near Argyle, changing a sloped meadow dotted with oak trees and cattle into a flat and lifeless expanse. She shivered when she thought about what would fill the void.

Since the dirt-moving process began, dust clouds became so thick that her boys couldn’t make sense of them. “Mom, look! A sandstorm,” one said. Her sons didn’t understand why she wouldn’t let them use the pool or play outside after school. She looked down at the pool where a layer of grime clung to the bottom like black frosting, then back to the rolling bulldozer on the other side of the barbed-wire fence.

Cole didn’t know that what was happening behind that fence would consume the next three years of her life. She did know what the bulldozer meant, though. A gas rig was coming. It was Dec. 4, 2005 — a Sunday.

“Sunday,” she said above the roar, “is no day of rest.”

Part 2: Perils Afoot Gas boom brings potential dangers closer to homes Continue Reading »

Raise a glass to… glass

In case you haven’t heard, word on the street is that we’re in an economic recession.  Apparently lots of people are losing money, markets are down, and everything is on sale, sale, sale!

Things aren’t any different in the market for recycled goods.  Recyling industries are hurting, city government’s aren’t making as much money from their recycling programs, and some are even having to scrap various aspects of their programs. Thankfully,  Ms. Fisk’s second grade classroom has taken a stand.

champagne1While paper, plastic, and cardboard prices have all plunged, glass prices have remained stable. Explains Kate Galbraith at Green, Inc:

Why? The main reason, experts say, is that it gets reused domestically. Whereas paper and plastics are shipped to China to be recycled, the glass is often crushed in the United States.

So this New Year’s, raise your glass of bubbly secure in the knowledge that you’ve made the best possible environmental decision in purchasing that recyclable and lucrative glass bottle.  If you’re a beer drinker, spring for the longneck over that classy aluminum can.  Or better yet, get it on draft!  May I suggest Real Ale’s Coffee Porter?  The you can feel extra smug because on top of being low-waste, its local!  Real Ale brews out of Blanco, and the Coffee Porter is made with organic barley and organic fair trade coffee roasted by Avi Katz in Houston.

Hoppy New Year! (yuk, yuk, yuk)  Be safe, y’all.

A truly frightening article from The International News and their Karachi (Pakistan) bureau:

Global warming and the ongoing thinning of Tibetan glaciers will result in as many as 15 million ‘environmental refugees’ in South Asia in the near future, said Chairperson Hisaar Foundation and member of Stockholm-based Global Water Partnership Technical Committee, Simi Kamal.

Full article can be found here.

Besides Pakistan (who we obviously do not want to destabilize), other major powers who get their water from the Himalayan glaciers include India,  China, and other trouble spots like Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Thailand and Burma.

Emissions in Texas affect the climate worldwide, and as we all have painfully learned, what happens in other countries can end up right back on our doorstep.  We need to start cooling it, especially considering that if Texas were its own country we would be the 7th largest polluter of greenhouse gases in the world.  Thankfully, we also lead in renewable energy potential and can start saving money today by investing in energy efficiency.

Nuclear Sneak Attack

compeakIn an era dubbed a “nuclear renaissance” by the nuclear industry and during which the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has indicated that they expect up to thirty applications to be filed to build additional nuclear plants.  Currently, five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process.  Of these early applications, three of them (for 6 nuclear units, 2 per application) are proposed for Texas.

One of these applications is for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, located four and a half miles northwest of Glen Rose in Somervell County and about 80 miles southwest of downtown Dallas.  Luminant (formerly TXU) filed an application September 19, 2008 to build two additional nuclear units on this site.

The Fort Worth Weekly summarizes the history of Comanche Peak:

The process of building and licensing the original pair of reactors at Comanche Peak turned into one of the most contentious – and frankly scary – developments that North Texas had seen in many years. By the time the plant was finished, it had come through major problems in the construction process, was hugely over budget and more than 10 years behind schedule, and had gone through a hard-fought licensing process that many believe added greatly to the safety of the plant. During that process, activists often questioned the objectivity of the NRC inspectors involved.

Given the problematic history of this plant’s previous licensing process, one would think that the NRC would take particular care in making sure the public felt included in the process. But environmentalists, concerned citizens and the media were caught off guard when federal authorities waited until Christmas Eve to send out notice of a public hearing on the proposed expansion scheduled for January 6th.

Officials confirmed that electronic notices of the Jan. 6th meeting were sent Wednesday, Dec. 24th. In defense of their timing, the NRC pointed the media to an online news release dated Friday, Dec. 19th. Though dated for Friday, the release was not actually posted to the website until Monday, Dec. 22nd.

The notification system is supposed to let interested parties know when these events are occurring in a timely fashion.  Burying the notice on Christmas Eve hardly holds to this standard. Continue Reading »

What a beautiful gift to find under my cyber Christmas tree this morning (give me a break, its Christmas Eve and I’m going to milk my holiday references for all they’re worth). From harman on earth, the good news that State Senator Rodney Ellis has filed legislation to get Texas working toward a climate change solution.

Harman reports,

The Texas Global Warming Solutions Act, refiled by Ellis for the 2009 Legislative Session after a failed effort to get traction in 2007, would create a state commission to make an accounting of all the state’s greenhouse gas emissions and then help craft policy to begin reducing those levels. It would be quite a task. It has been widely reported that if Texas were its own country (as some would still have it, no doubt), it would rank as the world’s eighth-largest emitter.

To bring those levels down, Ellis’ act would have all state agencies required to account for their greenhouse gas contributions and create plans to reduce them. Private industry would also have to begin to monitor and report their releases.

In order to move forward with global warming solutions, Texas needs a thorough understanding of our contribution to the problem.

Check out Harman’s full post. Brief warning: the cockroach video is just a smidge on the creepy side.  My stomach isn’t ready for talking bugs first thing in the morning.

Check out the League of Conservation Voter’s newest ad supporting Obama’s plan to jump start the economy and solve the climate crisis.  If only he really did have super powers…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEBzRP-ZJuQ]

Worry, why do I let myself worry?

Am I “Crazy” for wondrin’ if lead in artificial turf is a bad thing, or have I just been listening to too much Willie Nelson lately?

grassThe Corpus Christi Caller-Times reports:

Some of the most hallowed ground in Texas — the artificial turf on its high school football fields — may also be toxic.

Fields in two of the state’s best-known high school stadiums, including the one made famous by the book and movie “Friday Night Lights,” have lead levels far exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency’s standard for soil, according to independent tests done within the last month.

The results, obtained by The Associated Press, are the first public indication that Texas’ prized high school stadiums have become part of the national controversy over whether artificial turf contains unsafe levels of lead.

Testing commissioned by the Ector County school district on the turf at Odessa’s Ratliff Stadium found lead at roughly 14 times the EPA standard. Similar testing by the Birdville school district in the Fort Worth suburb of North Richland Hills discovered a lead level nearly 10 times the EPA standard at that district’s stadium, the Fine Arts/Athletics Complex.

While tests indicated that the top part of the turf that players have the most contact with was not terribly toxic, the lower portions of the faux grass had high lead levels.  Water runoff from the Birdville field had lead levels twice the EPA’s drinking water standards, indicating that the lead was leaching into the environment — and perhaps, down the line, into groundwater.

In other states, schools that found lead levels much lower than what has been found in Texas were moved to actually shut down their facilities.  In New Jersey, two fields with lead levels 8 to 10 times the EPA’s soil standard were closed this April.  In California, a playground with levels just twice the EPA standard was closed down until the turf could be removed as hazardous waste.  But here in Texas, despite even higher lead levels, school district officials seem unconcerned.

What is it with Texas?  In a post last week on air toxics near schools, we learned that several Texas schools are surrounded by air pollution even worse than what has caused school closures in other states.  Now we’re finding lead on school premises in concentrations much higher than what has caused other states to take real action, and school district officials aren’t even concerned.  Do we just not believe in the health risks of toxic exposure? Do we not care about our kids?  Or are football and industry just higher priorities than a few children with brain damage and cancer?

Bah, humbug.