Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

Coal Plants Deliver Only A Fraction of the Jobs Promised

Posted in Coal, Global Warming, tagged , , on April 2, 2011 |

In a New York Times piece, they report on a study by the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies in Chattanooga, TN, which takes an in-depth look at the promises of jobs made by builders of new coal plants.

No one should be surprised to learn that when wooing a community, developers in just about every industry tend to overestimate the number of jobs they expect to create when they they build that new shopping mall, industrial park, widget factory or coal plant.

The Ochs Center findings  suggest that the trade-off that many cash-strapped communities make — specifically, accepting the health and environmental risks that come with having a new coal-burning power plant in their midst, in return for a boost in employment — is not what it’s cracked up to be.  In all cases they studied, what these communities were promised, isn’t what was delivered.

The analysis looked at the six largest new coal-fired power plants to come online between 2005 and 2009, including facilities in Pottawattamie County, IA; Milam and Robertson Counties, TX.; Otoe County, NE.; Berkeley County, SC; and Marathon County, WI.  All of the plants had capacities that exceeded 500 megawatts.

Researchers looked at each project’s initial proposals and the job projection data, from public statements, published documents and other material. They then looked at employment — before, during and after construction — in the areas where the projects were built, relying chiefly on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.

The results: only a little over half, or 56 percent of every 1,000 jobs projected, appeared to be actually created as a result of the coal plants’ coming online. And in four of the six counties, the projects delivered on just over a quarter of the jobs projected.

So communities are left with fewer jobs than promised and a plethora of  harmful emissions like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, mercury and planet-warming carbon dioxide.  These emissions contribute to a long term legacy of  thousands of deaths over the lifetime of a plant, according to an estimate by the Clean Air Task Force.  Hardly a bargain in our estimation, but what a good deal for the coal plants.

Click here to read the New York Times blog: Coal, Jobs and America’s Energy Future by Tom Zeller.

Click here to read the report, A Fraction of the Jobs, by the Ochs Center for Metropolitan Studies.

Read Full Post »

Celebrate Earth Day in April with H-E-B and EarthShare of Texas

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , on April 1, 2011 |

Earthshare - HEB campaign 2011Thanks to all who donated to EarthShare of Texas through H.E.B.’s charitable giving campaign.  Every dollar of this  money will be distributed to all the environmental and conservation non-profit organizations that participate in EarthShare so they can continue the good work that they do.

Read Full Post »

Wind and solar may be competitive with coal without aid in a decade, Chu says

Posted in Global Warming, Renewables, tagged , , , , , on March 26, 2011 |

According to Bloomberg, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is calling for a national energy policy that will promote the use of clean-energy technologies.  This would include U.S. investment in advanced battery technologies, biofuels and efficient high-voltage transmission systems.  Secretary Chu went on to say they are expecting wind and solar power may be able to compete with fossil fuels, without aid from government subsidies, within the next decade, rather than the three decades the U.S. Department of Energy was projecting earlier.

Read Full Post »

March 25th – Still the bill of the day!

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , on March 25, 2011 |

HB 2184 – BAD and moving forward
by Lewis (more…)

Read Full Post »

The Texas Livestock Industry: Are our cows at risk?

Posted in Climate Change, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , on March 25, 2011 |

Americans tend to think of climate change as a ‘down the road’ future phenomenon. But the fact of the matter is that although the world isn’t coming to an end tomorrow, we are being impacted by climate change, and much more than we may think.  We may feel like we don’t know anyone dealing with the repercussions of climate change, but the effects are closer than we think. In fact, think of that cattle ranch down the road, it’s probably dealing with the effects of climate change, like drought, and extreme heat waves, and most of us don’t even know it.

Climate change can affect livestock, especially here in Texas, aka the cattle country.  This occurs principally through variations in appetite, and distribution in energy between maintenance and growth.  The potential for disease incidence becomes increased as well. Does this become worth the cost for those who raise cattle? Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that it is not.

Cattle during a roundup session

My family has owned a working cattle ranch for as long as I can remember.  The cattle were left to openly graze through the pastures and wander about the ranch, to the fishing pond and beyond.  I can remember countless times driving in only to be stopped by a cow standing blatantly in the middle of the road munching on some mesquite.  A few months ago, the decision was made to slowly get rid of the cattle on the ranch.  Why you ask? For one, the expense it costs to maintain such a production is becoming more than the profit.  The cattle are eating everything in sight, not allowing the wild game to acquire enough to eat to reach their full mass potential.  This essentially decreases the amount of hunting leases the ranch receives, since the game isn’t at its full potential, size wise.  As long as the cows continue to eat, they’ll also continue to erode everything in sight, especially since they’ve been grazing for so long out in the pastures.  And specifically speaking of extreme heat waves, I can remember a few times in my lifetime when we’ve had cows die right in the pastures as a result of the brutal Texas heat.  That seems to be a pretty clear indicator of the serious catastrophic risks that the effects of warming have on the hard-working cattle ranchers. (more…)

Read Full Post »

NRG cools development of STP 3 & 4, Public has opportunity to comment on license extension of STP 1 & 2

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , on March 22, 2011 |

NRG has announced that they will back off of additional development of STP reactors 3 & 4, while awaiting federal guidance regarding safety issues resulting from the nuclear disaster in Japan. The reactor site in Bay City, Texas, is 100 miles from Houston.
Reactor safety has long been a concern of Public Citizen and the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. The disaster in Japan illustrates the danger of fires and explosions and of putting many nuclear reactors in the same location.  The SEED Coalition raised these concerns in legal opposition to the licensing of two additional South Texas Project reactors and anticipate an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearing this Fall. This case is likely to set important precedent as it will be the first in the nation to examine these safety issues in new reactor licenses.
The risks of nuclear power are real and apply to U.S. reactors as well as those in Japan. At the South Texas site, a hurricane could knock out power and flood diesel generators, leading to a loss of coolant and potentially a meltdown.  Human error or technological problems can lead to accident scenarios.  Drought conditions are expected to worsen so low river flows could threaten the ability to cool existing reactors. Hopefully, we’ll never see a terrorist attack, but that is a possibility too. We believe it is time to use safer, more affordable ways to generate electricity.
SEED Coalition recently raised safety issues in opposition to the re-licensing of reactors 1 and 2, which are set to retire in 2027 and 2028. The NRC is considering allowing them to operate another 20 years past their originally intended lifespan. Reactors become more risky as they age, and we do not believe another 20 years of operation is safe. We must prevent a serious accident from happening here.
There have been plenty of problems with the existing reactors, both of which were shut down for over a year in the 1993-94 timeframe due to problems with the auxiliary feedwater pumps and diesel generators. Houston Lighting and Power was fined $500,000 for safety violations.
Click here for a summary of historical problems at the site.
The public can comment on STP re-licensing until April 1st.  Click here for information on how to comment.

Read Full Post »

US House Committee to hold hearings on EPA clash with Texas leadership

Posted in Air Quality, Climate Change, tagged , , , , on March 21, 2011 |

The Energy and Power Subcommittee of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee plans to hold a hearing this Thursday on the clash between Texas officials and the EPA at the South Texas College of Law in Houston.  Click here for more information.

A coalition called the Texas EPA Task Force, made up of federal and state Republican officials, is backing proposed federal legislation that would stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. They also strongly disagree with a December EPA ruling that said Texas’ flexible permitting program for air emissions is not in compliance with the act.  They will be at the hearing in force to push their agenda.

Environmentalists response to the Texas EPA Task Force is that for 40 years the EPA has been working to make sure Texans have cleaner air and better health, and call for the citizens of Texas to not let industry insiders and their friends in Congress get in the way.

Read Full Post »

Army Corps of Engineers should say no to White Stallion coal project

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , on March 18, 2011 |

This is a reprint of an article that ran in the Houston Chronicle submitted by Air Alliance Houston, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the No Coal Coalition, Public Citizen and Greenpeace.

Here’s the situation: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has “go” or “no-go” decision- making power on a project that could greatly impact all Houston area residents and future generations.

Here’s the ask: In addition to denying a permit for the proposed White Stallion coal plant, USACE Chief Fred Anthamatten and Galveston District Commander Col. Christopher Sallese are urgently encouraged to call for an Environmental Impact Statement that would lend transparency to a currently deficient process. Likewise, the Corps should also be receiving similar requests for this Environmental Impact Statement from Houston Mayor Annise Parker, City Council members and other concerned citizens as decisions made today could have a profound impact on lives tomorrow. We urge our local elected officials to write Anthamatten and Sallese requesting such a study.

For those not familiar with the situation, if White Stallion gets approved, it could dramatically increase smog levels in the Houston-Galveston-Beaumont region, which is already in “nonattainment” of federal ozone standards.

In 2008, White Stallion owners filed for an air pollution permit that ultimately attracted opposition from Matagorda County local citizens, county officials and clean air advocates. Even the administrative law judges reviewing the application found flaws and recommended permit denial. Ignoring the recommendations, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) gave its approval late last year, spurring our local Houston-Galveston Area Council to write a letter asking for assurances that the proposed plant wouldn’t affect our region.

As if that wasn’t enough, new facts have come to light calling previous points into question. Six days after TCEQ gave its approval, White Stallion filed a new and different site plan for the same power plant in support of its permit application to the Corps. This new site plan changes the location of 73 of the 84 pollutant emissions points used in the air dispersion modeling upon which the final TCEQ order was based.

The plant predicts emissions of 10 million tons of carbon dioxide, 4,955 tons of sulfur dioxide, 4,047 tons of nitrogen oxide, 1,792 tons of particulate matter and 96 pounds of mercury every single year. But now no one — not the state, not the Corps and certainly not the residents – knows specifically where that pollution would be coming from.

With this latest development, Matagorda County and Houston-Galveston-Beaumont residents and industries are entitled to new hearings on the matter as well as an Environmental Impact Statement. These changes should require White Stallion to demonstrate that its proposed plant will not undo years of efforts by local industry and residents to clean up our air. Indeed, these changes should require White Stallion to go back to square one.

Think about it. The Matagorda County-based plant may not be in our backyards, but it’s awfully close – just 20 miles outside our nonattainment area. That’s close enough to undo years of efforts to clean up Houston air. Why not, at the very least, require White Stallion to do its homework?

This is a critical opportunity for Anthamatten and Sallese to do the right thing and show citizens that our federal processes are open and transparent.

They have it within their power to call for an Environmental Impact Statement examining what these changes mean for the Houston area, and we respectfully implore them to do so.

Read Full Post »

CPS halts negotiations with NRG

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , on March 15, 2011 |

San Antonio’s electric utility, CPS, has halted their negotiations on a power purchase agreement between CPS and STP’s expansion units 3 and 4.  CPS’s CEO, Doyle Beneby, announced that CPS and NRG have mutually agreed to terminate their PPA negotiations at this point. 

It would appear that the issues facing NRG’s Japanese partners (including Tepco, the beleaguered owners of the doomed Fukushima nuclear plant) are giving everyone pause in their relentless pursuit of the STP expansion.

Read Full Post »

FERC to use Texas outage inquiry to evaluate national energy issues

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , on March 13, 2011 |

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) wants to know the reasons for the Texas power generation outages and for the interruptions in natural gas delivery to New Mexico.

As Texas officials began looking into the causes of the Texas electricity blackouts, New Mexico was holding its own hearings.  The ripple effect felt by down pipeline states when Texas’ electric grid and natural gas supplies went awry during an abnormally cold winter storm in February of this has prompted the federal agency to examine how to ensure that a new fleet of natural gas plants around the country can get plenty of fuel.

This has major implications for a state that has been expanding natural gas drilling operations exponentially over the past several years, many think to the detriment of the environment and the health of those who live around those operation.  Just ask the folks in the Barnett Shale region of North Texas.  Some of them might even be able to light their water taps on fire for you.

If you want to learn more about the concerns of citizens living in natural gas drillling areas check out “Gasland,” the Academy Award nominated documentary film by Josh Fox, that examines whether hydraulic fracturing of shale formations threatens water supplies and poses other environmental hazards.  Click here to read our earlier blog about the movie.

Read Full Post »

Explosion at one of the Japanese nuclear power plants damaged by the earthquake

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , on March 12, 2011 |

According to an update from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) an explosion has occurred at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMEV-_X5b_8]

Video of the aftermath of the explosion shows that the containment building
has been destroyed.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELR3hdlce2g]

The NIRS update goes on to explain, in a General Electric Mark I reactor, the containment building is fairly weak and is considered the secondary containment. The primary containment is a steel liner that surrounds the reactor core. So far, video and photos have not been clear enough for us to determine whether this steel liner is intact.

Radiation levels at the site are reported to be 1,015 micro/Sieverts per hour. This is roughly equivalent to 100 millirems/hour. The allowable annual dose for members of the public from nuclear facilities in the U.S. is 100 millirems/year. The allowable annual dose for nuclear workers is 5,000 millirems/year. The average annual background dose from all radiation sources in the U.S. is about 360 millirems/year.

The explosion in Unit 1 was almost surely a hydrogen explosion. Pressure has been building up in the containment since offsite power was lost to the reactor because of the earthquake/tsunami. The GE Mark I reactor design is called a “pressure suppression” design. Rather than be built to withstand large pressure increases, General Electric sought with this design to attempt to reduce such increases in an accident scenario. The design has been criticized by independent nuclear experts and even Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff for many years (see: http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/bwrfact.htm).  In this case, the design clearly did not work. 24 U.S. reactors use the GE Mark I design.

The evacuation zone around the site has been expanded to 20 kilometers (about 12 miles). Another reactor at Fukushima Daiichi, Unit 2, is reported to be without cooling capability at this time. Three reactors at the nearby Fukushima Daini site are reported to be without cooling capability. These are GE Mark II designs, which are considered a mild improvement over the Mark I design. Both sites are on the Pacific Ocean, about six miles apart.

Read Full Post »

State of emergency declared at two Japanese nuclear facilities

Posted in Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged , , , , on March 11, 2011 |

In the wake of the massive 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan earlier today, the government has issued an evacuation order to thousands of residents near Fukushima No. 1 power plant in Onahama city, about 170 miles northeast of Tokyo, after its primary and emergency cooling systems failed (there are six nuclear units located at this facility run by Tohoku Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO) which is the Japanese power company that has expressed interest in investing in NRG’s expansion at South Texas (nuclear) Project). 

Fukushima Nuclear Plant

Japan’s nuclear safety agency said workers are currently scrambling to restore cooling water supply at the facility, but that there was no prospect for an immediate success.  So far there have been no reports of any radiation leaks.

UPDATE:  At 4:30 CT on Friday, March 11th all the U.S. news outlets were breaking news about radiation levels in the control room of the No. 1 reactor of the Fukushima nuclear power plant reaching around 1,000 times the normal level and that some radiation has also seeped outside the plant, prompting calls for further evacuations of the area.

Japan's nuclear plants near the earthquake epicenter from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42025882/ns/world_news-asiapacific/)

The quake struck just under 250 miles northeast of Tokyo, the U.S. Geological Survey said.  It was followed by more than a dozen aftershocks, one as strong as 7.1, and eleven nuclear reactors were automatically shut down in the affected area, according to the Japanese government, but they haven’t confirmed any effects induced by radioactive materials outside the facilities.

In addition to the situation at the Fukushima plant, at the TEPCO’s nearby Onagawa facility, which is in the worst-hit Miyagi prefecture north of the Fukushima facility, a fire broke out at the plant following the quake. The blaze occurred in a turbine building, which is separate from the plant’s reactor, and was reported as being quickly extinguished.  However, there seems to be some concerns about the cooling system at this plant too and the the Japanese government has also declared a state of emergency at this facility.  Another unit at Onagawa is reported as experiencing a water leak, though it is unclear whether the incident is significant.

Obviously, we don’t know if any of these reports will lead to a serious nuclear event or not, but the isolated reports so far are worrisome.  

In this region, earthquakes are a design basis accident which nuclear plants are supposed to survive, but engineering, while it can take many factors into consideration and build in multiple backups, can only be  tested by an actual natural disaster.  The problem is, under such circumstances, if there is a failure, one can only assume that other systems (transportation, power availability, access to experts and technicians – all the ancillary things ones needs to deal with a containing a serious event) will also be disrupted.  So when a nuclear “expert” tell you that a plant is designed to withstand a massive hurricane, storm surge, tornado, or earthquake, keep that in mind.

Related Articles

Read Full Post »

NRC hearing on Exelon’s early nuclear site permit in Victoria, TX

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , on March 10, 2011 |

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) will hear oral argument relating to the Victoria County Station Early Site Permit (ESP) proceeding on March 16-17 in Victoria, Texas.

The ASLB is the independent body within the NRC that presides over hearings where the public can challenge proposed licensing and enforcement actions.

Oral arguments will begin at 9 a.m. CDT on Wednesday, March 16, in the Theatre Victoria at the Leo J. Welder Center for the Performing Arts, 214 N. Main St. in Victoria. The session will continue at 9 a.m. CDT on March 17. The session is open for public observation, but participation will be limited to authorized representatives of the groups taking part in the proceeding (Texans for a Sound Energy Policy [TSEP], the applicant – Exelon Nuclear Texas Holdings – and NRC staff involved in the proceeding).

Early arrival is suggested to allow for security screening for all members of the public interested in attending. NRC policy prohibits signs, banners, posters or displays in the hearing room.

Exelon submitted an ESP application March 25, 2010, seeking approval of the Victoria County Station site, which is approximately 13 miles south of Victoria. The ASLB is considering whether to grant TSEP intervenor status. The group has submitted several objections, or contentions, challenging Exelon’s application. The ASLB will hear oral argument on whether TSEP’s contentions meet the NRC’s requirements to be admitted for hearing under the NRC’s jurisdiction.

Documents related to the Victoria County Station ESP application are available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/victoria.html .

Documents pertaining to the ASLB proceeding are available in the agency’s electronic hearing docket at: http://ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD .

More information about the ASLB can be found at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html.

Read Full Post »

Encourage the EPA to issue strong New Source Performance Standards without delay

Posted in Air Quality, Climate Change, Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , on March 9, 2011 |

Submit a commentRepower America, wants to share an important piece of news with you.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to limit global warming pollution from big fossil fuel industries like power plants and petroleum refineries. These industries alone account for about 40% of the global warming pollution in the U.S. — making them the two largest sources of emissions.

Here’s where you come in. The EPA is charged with developing rules called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) that will protect public health, reduce the pollution that causes climate change, and send a signal to polluters that they need to invest in clean energy technologies.

It’s crucial that the EPA sticks to its schedule and develops strong rules. Between now and March 18, the EPA is accepting comments on their plans. They will definitely be receiving comments from the coal, gas and oil industries. Make sure they hear from you, too.

These rules are common sense. The EPA was created to understand our impact on our environment and protect the health of our people. An overwhelming majority of scientists are united in their understanding of the effects of global warming pollution and the EPA is charged with developing rules based on that science. Yet strong special interest groups are working to derail that process.

The EPA needs to hear that you support their efforts to limit global warming pollution from these industries. That’s why you need to encourage the EPA to issue strong New Source Performance Standards without delay.

The science is clear: Climate change is happening. Unfortunately, big polluters will make big profits if they mislead the American public about that fact. RePower America needs you to counteract and counterbalance their money and their voice by sending a comment to the EPA today.

Fill out the form by clicking here, and RePower America will deliver your comment to the EPA before the March 18 deadline:

Read Full Post »

Solar Si, Nuclear No!

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , on March 9, 2011 |

Citizens spoke at Austin City Hall to let city leaders know that purchasing more nuclear power is unacceptable.  NRG, the energy company that is the major owner of South Texas (Nuclear) Project,  is scrambling for investors in its proposed expansion of the plant, especially since a messy court battle with partner CPS Energy last year that ended with San Antonio reducing their 50% share down to just over 7%.  Reactor development had been costing San Antonio $30 million a month. After spending $370 million, CPS Energy sued NRG for $32 billion, accused NRG of fraud and conspiracy and spent $6.1 million on litigation to determine how get out of the partnership

NRG now wants Austin to buy into nuclear power through a power purchase agreement instead of direct investment.  (Click here to read our earlier post on the letter sent by NRG to Austin Energy.)  “Considering this messy history and the fact that reactor costs have tripled, why should Austin Energy even be talking about a nuclear deal with NRG?” asked Karen Hadden, Director of the SEED Coalition.  Watch the press conference video to see how other concerned citizens are responding to this new NRG tact.

[vimeo 20811734]

Solar Si, Nuclear No! Press Conference
Speakers, in order of appearance:
Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition
Frank Cooksey, Former Mayor of Austin
Susan Dancer, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy
Susana Almanza, PODER
Roy Waley, Vice Chair, Austin Regional Group of the Sierra Club”

The power purchase agreement would raise electric bills 20% or more and would cost $13 – $20 billion over the life of the reactors. These billions of dollars could do so much more if used for safe, clean renewable energy and efficiency projects..

Frank Cooksey, who was the Mayor of Austin from 1985-1988 when Austin was hemoraging money during the construction of the first two units at STP as cost overruns and construction delays caused the existing reactors to balloon to six times the original budget estimate and come online eight years late, said “I was serving during the time when those costs were placed into our electric utility rate base, resulting in large increases in the utility bills of our citizens. The angriest and most difficult public hearing that I ever presided over was the one that addressed the increases in electric rates generated by the high costs of construction of the STNP (South Texas Nuclear Project).”

Austin Energy has been a leader on energy efficiency and in developing solar projects, and other clean energy efforts that benefit our local economy.  The recently approved Austin Generation Plan, developed by a citizen task force with input from Austin Energy and approved by the City Council, builds on that legacy and did not include a power purchase agreement  with a nuclear project that Austin already decided was too risky to buy into as a partner.

Nuclear reactors would consume vast quantities of Colorado River water at a time when regional drought is expected to increase. No other form of power comes with such high security and terrorism risks and creating more radioactive waste adds to a problem that has not been solved.

Austin should steer clear of more nuclear power and pursue a safe and clean energy path.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »