Environmental Mess

So it's been a while since I've posted my environmental freakishness. I've been busy. I like to do research before I go spouting off, so I don't look like a complete idiot, which takes time. Something of which I have little of anymore. sigh. One of these days I'll be independently wealthy and can do what I want, when I want :) Ahh, the American dream. ha.

Anyway, so I've recently heard of something that really got me ticked off. I don't even live there and I'm still mad about it. So, here it is. Down in Kemper, MS, a power plant is attempting to put in an IGCC plant to burn the lignite that is in the area. IGCC stands for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. It's newer technology, not quite perfected, but once it is, will be a blessing to the coal industry. It starts with gasifying coal, then removes impurities, then burns it. The process uses a lot less water than conventional pulverizing & burning of coal and carbon capture is a lot more feasible. If you want to learn more about it, google it, or look on the NETL website. This is beyond that. The area where they want the plant to "land" is home to 3000 acres of wetlands, almost 300,000 linear feet of stream and 20,000 acres of prime forest and small farms. All of which will be destroyed if this thing goes in. In order to put this plant in the company looked to the federal government for funding. In order to get those funds, the company had to complete and environmental impact statement. The record of decision for this project was.... wait for it.... finding of no significant impact, aka FONSI. uh, hmmm, really, you think so. But if you read the document, you have to wonder how they got that answer. The EIS states that the land disturbed would be 135-340 acres a year, on average 275, and after 3-5 years the amount of land destroyed would equal the amount of land restored. HA. Since I've done some research on that little area, i find that really hard to believe, since on average, the majority of the restoration projects don't occur, or they do not completely satisfy the terms of the original agreement. In other words, the restoration just doesn't cut it. And seriously, who the heck thinks they will be able to restore an area once they did a HUGE hole in the ground. really?! The EPA has said with the placement of the plant & the hole in the ground will adversely affect the stream ecosystem & hydrology. The downstream will change in that because of the removal of trees upstream, the water will warm. Uh, that means the species of fish changes too, along with all those other fun things you find in the stream. FEMA says that the plant COULD negatively impact the flood regime in the area. DUH!! Ya think? That's what we call covering your ass. Of course it will have an adverse affect on the flood regime in the area, they will be taking out wetlands. If you know anything about wetlands, they act as a sponge. The reason half the country floods now is because our dumbasses took out all the wetlands, so now the water just runs off, and doesn't soak up into anything. hmm, we are some smart people. sorry, got off on a tangent, can you tell this gets me fired up. So, now that we have discussed the flooding problem, lets move onto the wetlands. The wetland mitigation plan proposed by the company has been deemed insufficient. And lets get real here people. Mitigation really doesn't work. I've done the research on this, as much as we want to believe it works, in reality it doesn't. I haven't had time to read the huge document, over 200 pages, but I'm willing to bet that the mitigation is planned to take place far enough from the original location that it will no longer be beneficial to the area. Okay, so let me explain it like this. An area has native wetlands, that area benefits from flood control, in the very least. Now, remove the wetlands, the area becomes a sheet of concrete/dirt that the water just runs right off of. Flooding now is a major problem. The area of restoration, which didn't have wetlands before, but the ACOE (army corps of engineers) has deemed it suitable mitigation area (a bank), now has some measure of flood control. kinda. Studies, any long term ones (and since this whole mitigation banking thing is not old, long term is relative) indicate that the mitigation banks don't really work. The plants don't thrive, the water doesn't stay and the area returns to its former state. Okay, so that not such a bad thing really, since grassland or trees without construction is always a good thing. but. Now that the original wetland has been destroyed and the "new"wetland won't survive, we're down by 2 wetlands. Do you see what I mean? Now, onto the power company. They have "offered" the owners in the area lease agreements for their land. But they are trying to screw the residents. At least from what I've seen they are. They are leasing the land for 25 years, with the power company having the only option for ending the agreement. I'm guessing this is probably standard for power companies, since they don't want you to tell them to get the hell out when they see you destroying your once beautiful trees. but hey, whatever. They also retain ALL mineral rights to the property once the lease is over. Meaning, if anything is found once the lease is done, the power company gets it all. uh, yeah. They don't have to develop the land. They will pay a certain amount for leasing of the land, and if they get something out, then they'll pay royalties, or something like that (I was a little unclear on this part, but this is what I understood it as) but if they don't dig, and don't get anything out of the land, they don't pay anything other than the lease price. Sounds like a scam to me. Or at least a rip off. So now the Sierra Club is taking the DOE to court on something related to the EIS. I am unclear what it is, but I'm hoping they are able to keep it in court for a long time. This project is a disaster waiting to happen. Until we can figure out how to get coal outta the ground without destroying everything in sight we need to be careful where we get it from. We need better technology to burn the coal, since it is one of the biggest energy sources we have in the US, and we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. i guess that is the rant for the day. hope I gave you something to think about. have fun.