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.....

This place is SCREWED UP!!!

I'm taking one more class before I'm done with my degree. As I'm sure I've whined about! The class is about Environmental Impact Statements, and Assessments. Pretty much everything covered by the National Environmental Policy Act, aka NEPA. Anyway. I have to write a paper on wetland mitigation and what a joke it is. Well, actually I'm supposed to present both sides, and I will, cause I'm a geek and I like to get A's, so I'll give all the information I can find. HOWEVER!!!! All i've found up to this point is that it's more than a bad idea, it's a terrible one. jeez. I'm working on the paper and I come across a decision by the Supreme Court that was given in 2001. I can't believe I didn't look this up and get the entire scoop when I first heard about it. Too busy with other stuff I guess. Anyway, there is an area in Illinois that is habitat to a LARGE number of migratory birds. And some jackoff wants to, well it's probably already done, fill it..... with GARBAGE!!@!!!!!! Oh, yeah, like that is just a wonderful freaking idea. WHAT A BUNCH OF MORONS!!!!! Yes, lets put our CRAP in something that is actually beneficial to the environment. Granted, the only reason the area is there is becuase it was abandoned by some other idiot that dug it up for another purpose, which was a sand and gravel pit. BUTTTTTTTT. Since we have put everything in the animals way that we can think of, isn't it time we let them be and quit putting trash in their home. The reason it got taken to the supreme court was becuase the development company was denied permission to fill by the Army Corp of Engineers, the company said the engineers didn't have jurisdiction. The Supreme court agreed with the company. Thereby weakening Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Now 30%-60% of the nations wetlands are exposed to the threat of development. Cause people don't seem to think they are important and the place would look so much better with a dumbass development with cookie cutter ugly houses there. They don't realize that the reason the flooding that occurs on a yearly basis is so bad now is, um DUH, cause we've destroyed over 50% of the wetlands that used to cover the US. Probably more. And the reason our water quality sucks. yeah, same reason. Wetlands are a filters that clean our water. Remove the filter, GUESS WHAT HAPPENS?!!! I'm so sick about this, I can't believe the stupidity of some people. And it's not a minority, it's probably the majority of people that don't have a flippin clue and don't want to have a damn clue, cause that would mean they would have to change the way they do thing. Quit wasting energy, buying all kinds of worthless crap, and actually conserve. People just don't want to get it. They don't want to believe that we are slowly, BUT SURELY, killing our planet! They just want to go about their happy existance, living in their suburban hell and filling waterfowl habitat with garbage. what a bunch of morons. I'm still not done raving about this, I just can't seem to find anymore ways to call people idiots. so I'm done! for today.

The power of water

At the park in the area the sediment that has run off the land has settled in the lake. The Army Corps of Engineers has drained it and will be dredging it over the next year and a half.

Even though they have drained it there is still water flowing through the area. While the amount of water flowing through is small it's still pretty powerful. The lake was officially drained in September, this is the cutdown of the sediment since then. The pictures don't do it justice, the water has carried away over 2 feet of the sediment in the "river" area. The best part about this process is that it is going to cost the county over $3 million to dig out the lake. And on top of that, they haven't made any plans so that they won't have to dig it out again. "They" (city planners) do not seem to be concerned about controlling the problem, allowing for development to continue at an unabated rate. I'm still not sure why in the heck I'm getting into Environmental Engineering, I feel so inadequate, and that I will never be able to make a difference.

Hmmm, this keeps coming up? I WONDER WHY?!!

So, all I've heard today is how crappy this new health bill and how Obama doesn't know what the hell he is doing. And frankly it kinda pisses me off!! Look what the poor guy was handed!! Seriously, do you think he's going to be able to fix the horrendous mess that was left behind by idiot-boy in only 2 years?!! really, people, COME ON, use your heads for something besides a hat rack and read, investigate, quit believing the propaganda bullcrap that someone is feeding you. jeez!!! okay, i'm better now, enough of that tirade. So, like I've said, I was reading a great book, Hot Flat and Crowded, and something was mentioned in there about Bush Jr's idea that deficit's don't matter. Read the book, as well as The Pittsburgh Post Gazzette, they mentioned it in there, too. Anyway, it's the reason our country is in the trouble it is in today. Every other time we have gone to war, the American people have been taxed to pay for it. NOT THIS TIME, we've been in Iraq (for no reason) and Afghanastan for over 5 years, and our taxes have never gone up. Whos' paying for this? um, no one it seems, cause we are going further and further into debt to pay for it. Which would indicate to me, maybe we should leave. hmmm. (Now don't get me wrong, i love my service men & women and pray daily that they return safely. I just don't think they should have been sent over there in the frist place.) anyway. So, I found another place where the same thing is being said. "It's our OWN DAMN FAULT"!!!! (emphasis added by me, of course) Read this article and be enlightened. The great thing is, it's written by a financial guy, not an environmental freak, like me :) So, it's not just us environmentalists who think there is a serious problem. check it out.
www.dailyfinance.com The article is "OPEC's Business Model: Sit Back and Let the Money Flow In" by John Lazzaro. I tried to link it, but blogger won't let me today for some reason. I'll see what I can do later.