Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Do you like clean air?

Do you like clean air for KIDS?

Seems like the rest of the state does, too.  According to TCEQ, a program to retrofit school buses around the state has been able to retrofit 2300 buses statewide. Even more amazing was the demand for the program exceeding its allotment by 40%, meaning for every 3 school buses we wanted to fix, we could only fix 2.   However, that means that for tens of thousands of kids, they are now riding in much better buses, and those school districts who gut put on the waiting list just have to wait for more money from the Legislature to get their buses clean, too.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKwjyXjvb6k]

A demonstration of how much pollution is prevented on a school bus

Local ISDs, schools, parents, and kids love this program because of how much it reduces toxic air pollution from our buses, and does so without taking money out of the classroom.  Local businesses and residents should love it because it is making their communities cleaner.  This is a win for air quality, a win for school districts, and most importantly, a win for children’s health.

More video, a press release, and gory details after the break: Continue Reading »

The Austin American Statesman ran an article yesterday reporting on the City Council’s likely decision to hire a consultant to look into expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear power facility.

In February NRG invited the City Council, which owns a 16% stake in the plant,  to invest in a project that would double the size of the South Texas facility.  Austin declined when it was determined that the expansion would take an additional $1 billion and 2 years to complete than expected.  Now NRG is asking the Council to reconsider, and they will likely hire a consultant to evaluate NRG’s offer.

Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED (Sustainable Energy and Economic Development) Coalition, responds:

stxplantmapAustin should continue to steer clear of more nuclear power. Morally, it is simply wrong to leave radioactive waste to thousands of generations to come. We should instead invest in safe energy efficiency and solar and wind power, which don’t come with radioactive terrorism risks.

Economically, nuclear power is a disastrous nightmare. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission data shows that nuclear power is the most expensive way to generate electricity. The City of Austin’s new study is likely to show that the economic risks have increased since their first look.

The two South Texas Project reactors would run between $12 – 17.5 billion according to Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. If Austin were to invest as a 16% owner, the cost to every Austin Energy ratepayer would be over $7200, before cost overruns. Rate hikes would be huge. Last time, the nuclear reactors ran six times over budget and were eight years late coming online. Nuclear power also comes with huge costs at the end of reactor lifespans, since decommissioning is the most expensive funeral ever.

Austin was right to say no to the nuclear expansion in February, and we should tell New Jersey based NRG a resounding and final no this time around.

I wouldn’t fret too much about this consultant, though.  Even the Statesman article notes that it is highly unlikely the city will buy into the expansion — they just need more information on the deal.  In all likelihood, this report will just confirm what a terrible investment this would be for the city.

Aww, Shucks!

The Dallas Morning News wrote a sweet editorial last week lauding Public Citizen’s efforts to require that Luminant abide by stricter mercury emissions standards at the new Oak Grove coal-fired power plant under construction near Waco:

When authorities failed to require Luminant, formerly TXU, to abide by stricter federal emissions standards at a coal-fired power plant under construction near Waco, the Sierra Club and another watchdog group, Public Citizen, had to step in.

The groups threatened to sue Luminant when it got a pass from state environmental regulators to use more relaxed, older pollution standards at its two-unit Oak Grove power plant near Waco instead of following tighter new restrictions for mercury emissions…

Clearly, the Sierra Club and Public Citizen meant business with their lawsuit, bolstered by a federal appeals court ruling in February that said the Environmental Protection Agency had to enforce mandatory cuts for mercury emissions at power plants, as the Clean Air Act requires. Mandatory means companies like Luminant can’t regard compliance as optional or arguable.

The lawsuit would have proved costly and could have delayed next year’s scheduled opening of Oak Grove, so Luminant worked out a deal to ensure that its emissions stay within Clean Air Act limits. Luminant promises to control mercury emissions using “maximum achievable control technology,” but if it still exceeds limits, the Oak Grove plant could be forced to curtail operations.

If this is what it takes to make Luminant and other polluting power companies abide by the law, at least Texans can breathe easier knowing they’re in compliance. We still look forward to the day when coercion is replaced by cooperation in the effort to clean up the air we breathe. Until then, watchdog groups deserve praise and support for making sure pollution standards are respected – and enforced.

Oh, stop it, Dallas Morning News!  You’re making us blush! Many thanks to the editorial board for giving credit where credit is due.  It sure is nice to feel appreciated 🙂

Efficient Cities Roundup

santaTexas cities are working extra hard this holiday season on efficiency measures of all shapes and sizes. Do you think they’re looking for energy and resource savings, or could this just be a last minute push to make Santa’s “nice” list? In keeping with the holiday spirit, I’ll applaud these cities for good behavior, motives aside.

HOUSTON

The Houston City Council approved a $16.4 million contract last week to replace city traffic signals with energy efficient LED lights. The new lights will save the city more than $4 million a year on electricity bills.

Said city mayor Bill White,

“We want to use energy-efficient lighting and make energy-efficient improvements for the same reason that Wal-Mart does, and that is to reduce costs and save money over the long run and to give Houston a competitive advantage.”

The city has several other green initiatives in the works, such as stepping up recycling programs, installing solar panels, buying renewable energy and hybrid vehicles, and establishing new building energy codes.

tree

Houston decided to festoon its official holiday tree with LED lights as well, meaning that this year’s tree will use one-tenth the energy of last year’s spruce.

And last but not least, city officials announced the winners of Houston’s “Recycle Ike!” contest to determine the best way to recycle tree debris from September’s disastrous hurricane. A team of Rice students and scientists won first place for their plan to turn the waste into biomass charcoal (“biochar”) in a pilot bioreactor to be built on campus.

AUSTIN

Austinites need not turn green with envy, because our city has recently rolled out some great new initiatives as well.

My favorite is the Pecan Street Project, a new smart-grid project. Says Brewster McCracken, the mayor pro-tem,

“The goal of the Pecan Street Project is to provide one power plant’s worth of clean, renewable energy, and to produce it within the city of Austin.”

A smart grid would allow utilities to deliver energy more efficiently and provide customers with the information to make more efficient energy choices.

For more information on smart grids, check out Kate Galbraith’s post on Green, Inc., the New York Times’ energy and environment blog.

The Austin City Council has also been discussing a new “zero-waste” plan to keep 90% of the city’s waste out of landfills by2040. The Council is slated to vote on the plan this Thursday. I hope they remember that Santa’s watching!

irrigation

ROUND ROCK

The city of Round Rock is also looking into an ordinance to get customers to consume less water. The ordinance would jack up the cost of water for excessive users during dry summer months, educate people on the need for conservation, and step up conservation efforts citywide.

I’d say all that deserves a holiday “Huzzah”!

Bad news for Old St. Nick…..

The fossil fuel industry should get a lump of coal this holiday but I’m sure they’d be happy with that. Scientists at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco this week are giving us some alarming news about polar ice cap melt, glacier loss, and other threats from climate change.

Global warming is causing massive ice melting at the poles of over 2 trillion tons of ice this year. This creates even more warming as less of the sun’s rays are reflected off the white ice cap and are absorbed by the dark ocean. Scientists are incredibly alarmed at this rate. This amount of arctic warming and ice loss was predicted to occur decades from now, meaning we are warming much faster than scientists had expected. One article in the UK Times this morning even asked Has Arctic Melt Passed the Point of No Return?

There isn’t much good news to be had, but at least melting arctic sea ice doesn’t add significantly to sea level rise. Melting ice from Greenland’s glaciers, however, does– and they lost a piece of ice last year more than twice the size of Manhattan. Scientists are concerned because Greenland lost three times more ice this year than only a few years ago, showing the speed at which warming is accelerating.

NOAA has shown just how bad this ice melt has been in the last few years:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXhcKyYOb9Y]

And why is this bad news for Mr. Claus? Continued ice melt like this, will, most likely, put Santa’s workshop underwater, which I guess will look something like this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHgYYc20Pws]

So what do we do? The most recent climate conference in Posnan left a lot of people hoping for more. We need to plot a course that will keep climate change from under 2 degrees worldwide, which probably means stabilizing CO2 at 350 parts per million or less. That would require strong federal legislation in this next year which will cut our emissions by at least 80% by mid century and 25% by 2020.

~~Citizen Andy

The Smokestack Effect

An investigative report by USAToday brought me to tears this morning.

Granted, I am a particularly emotional person at a period of transition in my life. I just started a new job (here, with Public Citizen!) in a new town (loving Austin already), and am living out of a suitcase. Things are rather in flux, and my emotional state may have followed suit. But I think that even beyond all that, USA Today’s recent report finally made air toxics issues hit home.

Cesar Chavez High School In Houston, TX

USAToday’s report, entitled “The Smokestack Effect: Toxic Air and America’s Schools”, ranks 127,800 schools nationwide based upon the concentrations and health hazards of the chemicals likely to be in the surrounding air.

The report was initiated after Meredith Hitchens Elementary School in Addyston, Ohio was closed due to the danger posed by the surrounding air. Air monitors placed near the school recorded extremely high levels of toxics coming from the plastics plant across the street. When the Ohio EPA determined that students were being exposed to cancer at levels 50 times higher than what the state deems an acceptable risk, the school was shut down.

Following this story, USAToday spent 8 months examining the extent and danger of schools located in toxic hot spots. Using the EPA’s own models for tracking toxic industrial chemicals, USAToday found 435 schools across the country with air quality worse than that which caused the closure of Hitchens Elementary School. Though the Environmental Protection Agency has a special office dedicated to protecting children’s health, the agency has never used their own data or models to look at potential problems surrounding schools. Nor does the office set health and safety standards for children in schools, as they do for adults in the workplace.

Philip Landrigan, a physician who heads Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s children’s health and the environment unit, comments on this problem in the article:

“The mere fact that kids are being exposed ought to be enough to force people to pay attention. The problem here is, by and large, there’s no cop on the beat. Nobody’s paying attention.”

Children are particularly susceptible to the health risks associated with toxic chemical exposure. Because or their small size, children breathe in more air in relation to their weight than adults. Their bodies are also still in a formative state, making early exposure all the more dangerous. And since kids are required to spend so many childhood hours in school, toxins are likely to accumulate in their bodies and not cause problems until years later.

Unfortunately, the names of several Texas schools peppered this national article. The first was San Jacinto Elementary School in Deer Park:

“At San Jacinto Elementary School in Deer Park, Texas, data indicated carcinogens at levels even higher than the readings that prompted the shutdown of Hitchens. A recent University of Texas study showed an “association” between an increased risk of childhood cancer and proximity to the Houston Ship Channel, about 2 miles from the school.”

The USAToday report’s findings were based upon EPA data and industry estimates. That means, unfortunately, that even what they’ve reported “may be a gross underestimate”, because industries only estimate their emissions. For the most part, dangerous chemical carcinogens such as benzene and butadiene are not monitored because they are not regulated by the EPA. USAToday’s report suggested that Deer Park might be a hot spot particularly worthy of such monitoring because students are exposed to very high levels of carcinogens at area elementary, middle, and high schools – that is, throughout every level of their education and development.

Port Neches-Groves High School in Port Neches, Texas, was featured as a major part of the report. That’s because 27 graduates of Port Neches schools have sued the chemical plants there or there former owners after being diagnosed with cancer… Continue Reading »

Got a few seconds? Austin Energy has a survey tool on the Austin Smart Energy website to solicit feedback on their current energy mix and where to get new energy.

Public Citizen is a stakeholder in the process.  We will do our best to advocate for lots of renewables and more efficiency.

And coming soon, for the extra nerdy, the site will have a sim game where you can play the role of GM Roger Duncan and simulate different future energy scenarios. I can’t wait! I might make pewter figurines of utility planners and stay up all night drinking Dr. Pepper.

-Matt

The Energy Collective, an online blogging group, hosted a webinar Wednesday about developing a roadmap for large-scale installation of renewable energy sources.  The online seminar’s expert participants described Texas as a world leader in wind energy, yet at the same time focused on the U.S. as lagging behind many countries in wide scale renewable installation.

“The audience is primarily American and you may not want to hear this, but you guys are lagging behind,” said Tom Raftery, a sustainable industry analyst for Redmonk and Energy Collective blogger who is Irish, but recently moved to Spain.

“All the markets are very different . . .Ireland is at about 7 percent (of renewable power sources), Spain is at 10 percent.  The U.S. is at about 1 percent.  The U.S. needs to (increase renewables), and do it fast,” Raftery said.

One attendee asked webinar participant Scott Sklar, who is president of the Stella Group and a chair of the Sustainable Energy Coalition’s steering committee, whether Sklar supported selection of an American “Energy Czar”.

“Yes,” replied Sklar.  “Because most of what the Department (of Energy) does are wonderful things but in the end have nothing to do with our energy policy.  Renewables don’t get due attention outside of photo opportunities because they are such a small part of the agency’s agenda.  It needs to be a cabinet post.”

Sklar said that converging interests demand fast development in the energy sector. He said that presidential candidate John McCain cited renewable development as a necessity for improving national security; Barack Obama cited it as a source of job creation, and environmentalists cite the need for the planet’s health.

“The U.S., by not having resolved our energy policy and letting our policy be driven by energy price has really harmed our own standing within these technologies,” Sklar said.

He added that the U.S. is now importing wind and solar Continue Reading »

We had a great time at our press event this week talking about the dangers of nuclear… ahhem, sorry… “Nuke-u-lar” energy.

I hope you’ll enjoy our little Halloween play, complete with monsters, dragons, and radiation… Oh My! And the worst part– billionaires trick-or-treating for our taxpayer money in Congress and State Legislature!

As I say in the video, “Stick the nukes where the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine– and that ain’t Texas!”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwz7PWHG0FM]

For more info, visit NukeFreeTexas.org.

Nicholas Stern, formerly of the British Treasury, said over the weekend that the risks of inaction over climate change far outweigh the turmoil of the global financial crisis.

The risk consequences of ignoring climate change will be very much bigger than the consequences of ignoring risks in the financial system… That’s a very important lesson, tackle risk early.”

Suggestion noted.  And just as people were sounding the alarm about the unsustainability of the housing market and the risks in the subprime lending market, so too have people been sounding the alarm about climate change.  We can still tackle the risk early or we can face the consequences.

Stern also warned not to use the current financial problems as a reason to not tackle climate change now.  Investments in efficiency will put people to work immediately and start bringing down electric bills for consumers.  Investing in solar and wind will put people to work in manufacturing, constructing, and installing these new forms of low carbon energy.

We have the technology, we can do it.  We can choose a new energy future and receive the economic benefits of investing in it, or we can face the consequences of inaction, which we are already seeing today.

Now all we need is a catchy slogan, easily shouted at campaign rallies.  Weatherstrip, baby, weatherstrip?

Generating electricity using nuclear power includes processing uranium.  After 40 years, the waste from the process can safely be put into containers for storage, though it is still dangerous to living things. After 10,000 years, the leftovers, the nuclear waste, will no longer be dangerous. Currently in the U.S., we leave the waste in ponds at the power plants and then put it in containers and bury it in the ground (a.k.a. “geologic depositories”).

“Nuclear reprocessing” means separating the waste—taking uranium that didn’t get used the first time out of the “trash” so it can be used to generate electricity.  The uranium is chemically separated from the rest of the waste and one of the new leftovers is plutonium, the radioactive ingredient in nuclear bombs.

Other countries, like France, reprocess their nuclear waste even though plutonium is left over, usually in the form of a highly concentrated power.  In the U.S., we’ve recently heard both 2008 presidential candidates say they support Americans reprocessing nuclear waste. (Private companies in the U.S. stopped doing so in 1976.)

One concern about nuclear reprocessing is individuals acquiring the powdered plutonium leftovers with which they can devise a nuclear weapon.  But for reprocessing nuclear waste, it would be extremely difficult for an individual to develop a nuclear weapon. There is disagreement among scientists about whether the plutonium powder is too radioactive to steal.

“. . .Commercial-scale reprocessing facilities handle so much of this material that it has proven impossible to keep track of it accurately in a timely manner, making it feasible that the theft of enough plutonium to build several bombs could go undetected for years,” reports the Union of Concerned Scientists website. Continue Reading »

Another post from our field contributor Sarah McDonald:

When I was deputized as a voter registrar in Harris County, I was warned to carefully double-check all forms to make sure every box was checked, every “i” dotted and each “t” crossed.  If anyone forgot to check the appropriate boxes, include their full address, or listed a nickname rather than legal name, their registration could be denied.  It made me angry that someone could lose the fundamental right to vote over such a silly mistake, but I figured — that’s bureaucracy for you.

So imagine my shock to learn that many valid, clearly legible, and perfectly completed voter registration applications were being denied by Paul Bettencourt’s Harris County Tax-Assessor Collector’s office.

It is bad enough when the vote is denied due to ridiculous human errors such as typos, misspellings, or nicknames that don’t match up to driver’s license databases.  But when 18-year-olds are told repeatedly that they are too young to vote, and applications with social security numbers clearly listed on carbon copy-receipts are rejected as incomplete due to that “missing” identification information – one has to wonder whether something more sinister is afoot.

KHOU-TV, channel 11 news in Houston, aired an investigative report to that effect which you can watch  here.  So amazing was the response to this story, they followed up with another story last night which you can see here.

Mounting evidence demonstrates that the Harris County trend of voter registration denial may be the result not of incompetence, but actual voter suppression.  An editorial that ran this week in the New York Times claims that Republicans in states across the nation Continue Reading »

Austin City Council will soon deliberate on the recommendations from the Energy Efficiency Retrofit Task Force: a group of stakeholders charged with coming up with ways to make more homes and businesses in the city more energy efficient.

The central recommendation of the Task Force is to require energy audits to be performed on all commercial and multi-family (think apartment buildings) properties within two years of implementation of the ordinance. Single-family homes would have a similar requirement, but it would take effect when a home is put up for sale.

Energy audits (which cost about $200-$300) are performed by Austin Energy certified professionals and include a visual inspection plus duct testing to analyze a building’s energy efficiency. Building owners or prospective buyers could then take advantage of a voluntary program of energy efficiency upgrades, that are loaded with rebates and incentives provided by Austin Energy.

This is good news for Austin consumers because Austinites have a right to know about the energy efficiency of a home, and ways they can save money. Housing affordability is not just the mortgage. It’s utilities too. For example. if you were a prospective home buyer, which house would you choose if these were the same price and right next to each other?

Which one would you choose if you knew that the first house paid $200 in monthly utilities and the second one paid $100? Energy audits make this information available so consumers can make more informed decisions like the one you just did.

But what about renters? Renters can’t make energy efficiency improvements beyond changing a few lightbulbs because they don’t own the property they live in. Concurrently, apartment building owners, don’t have a great financial incentive to make energy efficiency improvements because they don’t pay the utility bills.

That’s why, if after two years multi-family building owners are not taking advantage of the energy efficiency incentives from Austin Energy, City Council should make efficiency upgrades a requirement for multi-family properties. By strengthening the task force recommendations this way, Austin will be acting in the best interests of ratepayers…

…oh yeah, and reducing greenhouse gases.

-Matt

From our contributor Sarah McDonald:

Usually when a problem suddenly becomes much more severe, you expect whatever is being done to solve the issue to also ramp up a notch.  For example, if a tropical storm in the gulf suddenly turned into a category 3 hurricane, hurricane preparedness efforts would increase dramatically over night.  Or if your Aunt Mildred had been sick for some time and her doctor announced that she was in fact seriously ill, you’d hope that her physician would boost treatment.  And if the EPA announced that Houston had a “severe”, not a “moderate” smog problem, you’d think that region would be required to put extra effort into emissions reductions.

Well, you’d be wrong.

Because the EPA did in fact reclassify Houston’s smog problem as “severe”, and rather than ordering the 8-county regional area to intensify their clean up plans, the agency actually extended the deadline to meet federal health standards for ozone.  Governor Rick Perry requested the change from “moderate” to “severe” – skipping over a “serious” ranking entirely. The region was supposed to have met the EPA’s standards by 2010, but now has until 2019 to come into compliance.  What’s worse, this extension is still for the EPA’s 1997 ozone standard, which is no longer considered sufficient to protect public health.  The EPA reduced allowable amounts of ozone from 84 parts per billion to 75 ppb earlier this year (which is still significantly higher than the 60 – 70 ppb range recommended by the EPA’s science advisory committee as the safest measure to protect human health  — but what do those scientists know anyway?)  Houston may not be required to meet the current standard until as late as 2030.

Now, not that I wouldn’t trust Governor Perry and the EPA with my life… Continue Reading »

Call it a preemptive bailout if you like, my Friends…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi5L18ZV_qU]

…but the Department of Energy recently issued a press release stating that they have received 19 applications for federal loan guarantees to build 14 nuclear power plants. The price tag: $122 billion.

http://www.energy.gov/news/6620.htm

I know after the $700 billion bailout package, on top of $100+ billion just for AIG, $122 billion for nukes doesn’t sound that impressive. But it is a little scary when you realize that the feds only appropriated $18.5 billion for loan guarantees. Now children, don’t push in line!

The DoE estimated the total cost to construct the 21 proposed reactors at $188 billion, which they say averages out to around $9 billion per reactor.

Taxpayer-backed loan guarantees would total $5.8 billion per reactor based on DoE’s numbers. That’s a hard pill to swallow for an industry with a notorious history of default. From Bloomberg:

Taxpayers are on the hook only if borrowers default. A 2003 Congressional Budget Office report said the default rate on nuclear construction debts might be as high as 50 percent, in part because of the projects’ high costs.

-Matt