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!

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.

NEPA

I got this great new job. I'm working at a consulting firm and we do contract work for the government. Not a bad thing, maybe I'll even get to make a difference somewhere along the way. Small difference I'm sure :) So I'm working on NEPA stuff. That would be National Environmental Policy Act, for those non-governmental individuals. Something that I've wanted to point out is about the "categorical exclusion (cx)." Or even the idiots that try to use it to get around doing an Env. Assessment (EA) or an Env. Impact Statement (EIS). So, what is a CX? It's an "action that has been determined to have no significant effect on the human environment and for which there therefore, neither and EA nor and EIS is required." You can find that quote right in the NEPA document. So what the heck does that mean? Well, it means that there are things that federal agencies can do without having to fill out an EA or EIS. BUT, they have to report what they are doing, in the form of a CX. The stuff that falls into the CX category are things like routine maintenance, painting buildings, repairing roads, data gathering, etc. Ya get the drift? If there is any construction involved, generally an EA or and EIS is required. Now here's the fun part. There are several things that determine if and EA or EIS are needed, and believe it or not, human impact and historical impact are considered. Seriously!! If some federal agency or company paid by the federal gov't, wanted to put a new steam heating system down the middle of downtown Colonial Williamsburg, they'd have to fill out an EA or and EIS. Understand? If those same people wanted to put a wind farm in the middle of Central Park, NY they'd have to fill out an EA or EIS. And guess what? After that, the PEOPLE/PUBLIC get to comment on the proposed project. Yes, people, YOU have an impact on the crazy crap that the government does!! Okay, so I got a little off topic there. I was going to point out that some people try to get around the EA & EIS process cause they are lazy, or cheap, or both. An EA or EIS takes at least a year and can cost thousands of dollars, if not tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the project size. So there are companies that try to sneak things past the government checkpoints to get projects approved without appropriate study. And of course, I'm sure there are government jerks that pass things through as a CX cause they are getting a little something on the side. Which makes me sad. Cause really, what's more important? A little extra money now, or the fact that your kids generation will go extinct cause you pushed something through that you shouldn't have? hmmm, now there's a thought. But then, I guess, some people are just big jerks and care for nothing but themselves, so there isn't anything we can do.....