Canadian oil Sands pipeline

The latest drama on the environmental vs fossil fuel front is the Keystone XL pipeline that may be going from Alberta Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. This pipeline will corss numerous states and in it's currently planned path, will overlay the Ogallala aquifer. hmmmm, really?! Okay, so this is part of the drama, this pipeline will increase the amount of jobs in the US. lots of jobs. The pipeline is a $13 billion dollar project. yea, lots of jobs. It will also decrease out dependency on Middle Eastern oil. That's a good thing. Canada doesn't have the refining facilities that the US has for oil sands, so, there would be jobs at the refinery's for all of this extra oil. So, those are the good points. The bad points..... The oil sands contain lots more carbon than regular oil. I mean lots more. Which, unless we figure out a way to capture CO2, will increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the air. Um, don't we already have a problem with that. Also, the planned route of the pipeline will be over the Ogallala aquifer, as I've mentioned. The company has proposed a $100 million bond in case of any spill that would happen in the area. I think I've written a post before on the aquifer, but let's refresh, shall we. The aquifer supplies 80% of the drinking water to the people within it's boundaries. It lies underneath 8 states. It supplies 30% of the irrigation for agriculture in the US. Granted the aquifer is getting emptied a lot faster than it's being recharged, but that's another whole post. But it also creates a problem that I don't think anyone has considered while planning this pipeline. If there is a spill over any area of that aquifer, the potential will be to destroy over 170,000 square miles of aquifer. An aquifer that supplies 80% of the drinking water to people in 8 states. Since the water is being withdrawn faster than it is being recharged, there are lots of empty spaces where oil can easily flow, filling up spaces that were once filled with water. I don't think the $100 million bond will cover the water needed for 80% of the people in 8 states, nor will it cover the loss of irrigation water to agricultural industry in the area. Think of all the crops that will not be able to grow, or the increase in price if water has to be shipped or piped in from somewhere, is that aquifer is compromised. We've seen by the Alaska pipeline that a pipeline can go in without to much environmental impact to wildlife. That's not really my concern, as I've said, there is proof that wildlife could care less about the pipeline, it may change a few migration patterns, but on the whole, that isn't a problem. It's all the other stuff that worries me. I really think these people need to rethink their plans for locating that pipeline, cause any spill near that aquifer would be disasterous to all involved.

For the love of Texas

I love Texas. I really do. I lived there for two years. Enjoyed most of the time I spent there. All but the job part, that kinda sucked. And I lived in West Texas, which can be considered a whole other planet from East Texas. But it's Texas, there are awesome things there, and some awesome people. I love how they talk, I like to talk to my Texan friends, just so I have an excuse to talk like them again. If I could get away with it, I'd probably talk like that all the time. But I digress. My real reason for ranting today, has to do with....., yep you guessed it, Texas. Sometimes I think they think they are too big for their own damn britches.
So what's the drama you ask with Texas, well, let me fill you in.
There is a new federal rule dealing with interstate air pollution. It's so that states that don't have manufacturing, electricty plants, etc, don't have to pay for the states that do by suffering from acid rain, decreased air quality, and a host of other air quality issues. Make sense? I'll give you an example. If a company is on the east side of Texas (since we are talking about them) and they produce a large amount of emissions because they are providing electricity for the entire eastern half of the state, the stuff coming out of their smoke stacks is most likely being blown into Loisiana, Alabama, and maybe even farthr east. Understand now? Anyway, they EPA is trying to enforce a new rule regarding this situation, and one of their targets is Texas. And let me tell you why.
The Clean Air Act was revised in 1990 to add interstate trading programs to decrease emissions nationwide. In case you don't know what happens in trading, one company cleans up their emissions better than what is required and then sells their "extra" emssions that they are allowed. The big polluters that can't reduce their emissions as quickly (or because they don't want to) can buy up the "extra" emissions and pollute up to that amount. Anyway, back to the topic. Since 1990 sulfur dioxide emissions (main component in acid rain) has decreased  by 70% in the Eastern US, Texas emissions fell by .1%.  3 of the 11 highest sulfur emitting plants in the US are in...you guessed it, Texas. And all of them are owned by the same company, Luminant. Hmmmm, wonder who's palms are getting greased.
Now the EPA is forcing the issue with Texas, and Texas, being the big headed people that they can be, are pushing back. (Ridiculous in my opinion, just shut up and do what your told) They are threatening to shutter 2 plants and 3 mines, laying off 500 people in reponse to the demand to meet emissions standards. My big question is, You've had since 1990 to fix your stuff!!!! Why are you mad about it now? Don't you think it would have been a little cheaper if you had been working on it this entire time. And I'm guessing that back in 1995 say (give them 5 years to get their act together) it would have been A LOT cheaper than it is now to get some control on your emissions? As my gram would say," you have no one to blame but yourself."
And the news gets even better. Supposedly these two plants have air scrubbers that aren't running. huh-wha? They aren't running, and you're making a stink about having to decrease emissions. AND the EPA has said that they would offer more allowances for the company until they can get their emissions down.
I don't know if you've ever been through a Texas summer, but without air conditioning, oy it's hot! The threat to close the 2 plants would probably cause rolling blackouts within the state during the summer. Oh, yeah, that would not be fun. So the Texans, specifically Luminant, which is owned by Energy Furutre Holdings Corp. are holding that over the EPA's head.
I say, why don't you SUCK IT UP! You've waited this long to get your stinking act together and now your WHINING cause someone is making you do what you should have done 10 years ago. Get over it. It's your own damn fault.
I guess in reality this applies to all big companies that try to get away with stuff, but since Texas is the last hold out, the state fets some credit too. I'm guessing Old George W. probably had something to do wtih them not getting their emissions down, but that might be just cause I don't like him, and blame him for lots of stuff :)

It's probably best not to build there

I've been reading a lot about Home Owners Associations sueing the EPA, about the Clean Water Act, in relation to wetlands. For some reason people want to put their developments near a river. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers keep saying, you need a permit, you will need to mitigate, and the homeowners associations take them (EPA & ACOE) to court saying, "no, we don't have to do any of that." So my question is, have these people been watching the news, the weather, TV in general? Have they read a paper lately? Any major news source from the daily paper to Time magazine is about climate change. No, not global warming, climate change. I think I spent a rant on the difference and the idiots who proposed the term and caused the confusion, so onto the current rant. So, about climate change. Rivers, probably a bad place to plant a house. Probably within 5 miles of a river is a bad place to plant a house. Have these people not heard about the increased flooding? Increased rain in some areas, increased drought in others? So, in my opinon, why in the heck would someone WANT to have their house anywhere near a river? Basic earth ecology tells you that wetlands act as a sponge, when you remove them, the chances for flooding increase....SIGNIFICANTLY! So, lets forget for a moment that the US has destroyed more than 50% of the wetlands that were here in the 1600's therby significantly increasing the risk of flooding. And let's think about the increased amount of rain that some areas will be getting, or have gotten. So we no longer have these sponges, and we have an increased amount of rain.....hmmmm, I don't know about you, but even without my engineering degree I can tell you that math does not add up to anything good. So, again I ask, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BUILD NEAR A RIVER?!?!?! Seriously, think about it. If you are within sight of the river, the area is probably close enough to be part of the 100 year floodplain. So, there is at a 1% chance the area will flood, and then on top of that you are, more than likely, building on a wetland. More wetlands are destroyed, and you are putting your house within an area that will most likely flood, at least once in your lifetime. As I said before, that math is not good. You might ask, "how the heck can you say, at least once in my lifetime?" Well, because of global climate change, severe events are becoming more frequent and more destructive. Meaning, the odds are against you that you will escape a major flooding within your lifetime if you plant your house within 5 miles of a river.... unless you plants it on a big hill, but ask the people in Tennessee about having their house on a hill and how much that helped them. I think that about covers the rant for now. I'm sure something new will tick me off tomorrow. Enjoy your day!

Who's in who's pocket?

I've been doing a little reaserch for work. I've got to look at the latest headlines and find info on Green House Gases (GHG) and in the meantime I find all kinds of other environmental articles. Most make me shake my head and wonder at the....hmmm, not sure whether it's audacity, greed, stupidity, or just plane evilness that makes people do the things they do. For example: Obama has put the breaks on new ozone regulations. Granted this is a little behind the times, by about a month, but I just got this assignment and am catching up. So anyway, a republican senator then proposed an amendment, connected to ANOTHER bill, so that no one could sue the EPA in regards to limiting the ozone levels. The whole "rider" thing on bills is another rant for another day and is one of the small reasons our government is broke as well as inaffective. So, back to my issue with the ozone reg's. We know that ozone is bad, we know that it causes health problems. WE KNOW THIS!!! So why in the hell is someone pushing back the date when regulations need to become more stringent? Oh, the economy, right, tha's already in the toilet, maybe if we fixed the ozone regulations, we'd create jobs. Someone ( most likely an elected official or two) are in the pockets of someone with a lot of money that doesn't want to pay to decrease ozone emissions. I'm just saying.
Another article I read was about the natural gas exploration out in Wyoming that has had a dramatic effect on the sage grouse population. And not a good effect either. The BLM has seriously mismanaged their lands. The amount of grazing combined with the natural gas exploration has had a detrimental effect on the sage grouse population. Because of this the BLM has been taken to court by an environmental group and actually won and a judge has charged the BLM with preparing a new environmental assessment.  So my question is, who's pocket were these idiots in? Obviously someone's since they looked the other way on an obviously critical area that should have been more closely monitored. This is another area that we should have learned the consequences about already. We know that when we destroy habitat entire species have a difficult time rebounding from population crashes. There are countless examples in the US and all over the world. So why does someone need to go to court and get a judge to tell them that they need to look at what they are doing. We are destroying our planet and all anyone is worried about is lining their damn pockets with cash. Don't they realize that they won't be able to use any of their evil gotten gains if there is no planet to live on. Granted the planet will survive long enough for the idiots to spend their money, but they obviously aren't thinking of anyone but themselves. They aren't even thinking of their children or grandchildren, because those are the people that will have to deal with the mess we leave behind.

Carbon sequestration

As I've already pointed out I work for an environmental consulting firm. So I have lots of exposure to different things people/ companies are doing to "save" the environment. Cracks me up, since we're trying to shut the barn door after the horses are already LONG gone. One such area is carbon sequestration. We have quiet a few companies looking into sequestration, especially injecting the stuff into deep saline aquifers. okay, so I've come across a few projects where the companies are proposing to um, get this, CUT DOWN TREES, so they can drill injection wells to sequester carbon dioxide. Huh, wha?!! Okay, let me get this straight, you want to cut down trees, that NATURALLY capture CO2, so you can drill a hole in the ground to... capture CO2. um, okay, sure, you go right ahead and do that. really? seriously? To my way of thinking (yes that is a totally redneck/country thing to say) you should be planting MORE trees, not cutting them down! Good grief! Stop building the blasted shopping malls and strip malls that no one can afford to shop at and plant some blasted trees!! Stop building housing developments with their McMansions that people don't need nor can they afford, and plant some trees. Or how about this novel concept, LEAVE the trees that are growing ALONE!!! hmm, maybe that would work. Go to areas that are abandoned, falling down, and a public nuisance and demolish them, and ... you guessed it, plant some trees. People really need to start thinking about working smarter, not harder. I mean come on, really?!

Can't people just be honest?!

I have a real problem with companies trying to get plants built to make a buck, while misleading the public. Why can't people just be honest?!
My rant comes from reading about coal. Oh, for the love of coal. In the US 40% of our electricity comes from coal. As in, it gets pulverized, burned, steam is created and turbines turned, and you can turn the light on in your house. Coal is cheap and plentiful in the US. Really plentiful, pretty cheap, compared to other sources. However, coal has a few drawbacks. It's dirty, really dirty, contains mercury, sulfur, among other stuff. And when it's burned it creates carbon dioxide. yes, that would be the most famous greenhouse gas. The one causing climate change. (not global warming!) The burning of coal also creates a large need for water. a HUGE need for water. Actually power creation in general uses a lot of water, but since the use of coal creates a large amount of electricity... you see my correlation there? So, dirty + water consumption = not the best option for increasing energy demands. So electric companies have looked into newer more efficient means of using coal. There are a few kinds that have shown up on the radar. IGCC, and supercritical are two of the main types that are being scaled up to large power plants. The promotional "guys" say these two types are the next big thing, and will be great and great jobs, reduce emissions, create more energy from less coal, use less water... etc, etc. Okay, I'll give them that, these two technologies do have those capabilities. eventually. However, at the moment, lots more money needs to be spent on the testing and refining of the technology. And that is where I get annoyed with people being dishonest. It's going to cost money to get these technologies to be as efficient as they can be, meanwhile, the companies are saying it will only be a "few" more dollars than what is being spent now to build coal fired power plants. HA. right. We are talking millions of dollars, and that's on the low end.
I understand where they are coming from. Americans are cheap. seriously, we are. Cheap, cheap, cheap. We don't want to pay anymore than what we have been paying for the same stuff. So companies try to hide the fact that new technology is going cost more. Nevermind that the technology will save us in the long run. This whole instant gratification thing creates a large problem when it comes to technology, and improving the environment by improving power sources.
So, we need to SUCK IT UP!! If the human race wants to have trees, grass, blue sky, etc. we are going to have to figure out how to use what we have more efficiently and it's going to cost money, and lots of it. I guess it comes down to whether everyone is willing to pay to breath fresh air.

Solar arrays

I was working on a project today for work and a picture came across my desk that showed a corporation in Ohio, of all places, with a solar array over part of their parking lot. I was seriously impressed. If anyone knows anything about Ohio, well, lets just say there are sunnier places in the U.S. Although it is near Cincinnati, so it gets more sun than say Northern Ohio. Anyway. Facts are, there is winter, & spring, both of which aren't very sunny. On average in Milford, Ohio, where the corporation is located, has about 182 sunny days a year, not bad. But when compared to Phoenix, AZ at 212, and Yuma, AZ at 242, and Las Vegas at 210 days, well, Ohio just isn't that sunny. Okay, you ask why am I beating the dead horse about Ohio not being sunny. Wellllll, let me explain. About 2 years ago there was an article in Scientific America, or maybe Discover, not sure, one of those science magazines that proposed a HUGE solar array in the middle of the desert in the southwest U.S. Uh, okay. there logic was there was ALLLL this wasted space since there was nothing there but the desert. um, ya, okay. They didn't take into account the little things that may live there, the animals that might migrate through there or the weather pattern change that might occur if they put their 65 acre solar array thing in. I can't remember how many acres they were proposing, but it was something insane, like 100's of acres. Hmm, maybe I should do a little research and refind that article. Maybe later. Anyway. This article got me thinking, why not put solar arrays on parking lots?! I mean, the southwest is a hot, sunny place, and ALLLL these parking lots are uncovered. People park, go in, and come back out to a scorching hot car seat. ouch! So instead of using pristine desert that might actually have a real environmental purpose, why don't we use areas that we have already destroyed by paving. hmmmmmm? Wouldn't that be better? Making something good out of something that causes nothing but environmental damage? (don't even get me started about parking lots!!) I think it's a pretty good idea, and it creates a shaded area for cars, so shoppers don't have to come out to a hot car seat. seriously! I mean, if a company can do it in Southwest Ohio, and get some benefit out of it, can you imagine what benefit we'd reap from putting them on parking lots in the southwest U.S.? It might even help alleviate the heat sink (I don't think so, but ya never know). People need to start coming up with more creative alternatives to use what we have, instead of destroying more virgin land. uh, duh!