http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/plan/buildings_plan.shtml
The mayor is really doing some great stuff regarding NYC and cutting down on GHGs- check out the PLANYC 2030 website (see above). I think the plans for Greener Buildings is the first thing to do- it's a way to achive the 30 % reduction in New York City’s annual greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030.
And going green in our buildings can help reduce the fact that almost 80% of our citywide emissions result from the energy that we use in buildings!!!!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
A simple way to cut down on home energy costs- new technology Smart Grid
http://www.energyhub.net/consumers
Intro:
The Energy Problem
Intro:
The Energy Problem
Home energy usage in most of the U.S. is at an all-time high, and utilities across the country are struggling to keep up with demand. Meanwhile, America’s 110 million households needlessly waste energy, mainly through thermostats that are incorrectly programmed, lights and appliances that are left on, and the occurrence of leak current (the power used by electronic devices when they are plugged in but not in use).
At the same time, we’re all motivated to reduce our carbon footprint and save money. But aside from changing to compact fluorescent lightbulbs or choosing Energy Star appliances, we don’t know where or how to begin—because we don’t have the tools or information......
______
Smart grids are one way to make energy use far more efficient mainly because it reduces the need for energy during peak times (mainly 9am-5pm) and allows users (us) to choose to buy their energy during off peak times. Why does this matter- 1- saves you money 2- if we reduce the amount of energy at peak times it will eliminate the need for other plants to be built- less coal or nuclear plants (how most of nyc gets its electricity) = less green house gas emissions.
UNFCCC on Climate Change - What is going on with Climate Change bills?!
After reading the Geo 4 Fact sheet- I realized that at best I possessed a superficial understanding around the UN's involvement in formulating international climate change policies and what the US's role in those meetings was- So a few hours of reading one article after another on various websites (all the links are listed at the end of this post)- I began to piece together a framework that helped me to fill in some of my many blanks.
This is my overall summary on the major political meetings and policies-
The United Nationals Framework Convention on Climate Change was one of three conventions adopted at the 1992 "Rio Earth Summit- UNFCC is made up of 192 countries- it is an international treaty that sets general goals and rules for confronting climate change.
Every year the UNFCCC meet to talked these are called COPs- Conferences of the Parties.
I. In 1997- the landmark Kyoto Protocol
Major Points:
1-Carbon Emissions- Only Annex 1 (developed industrialized countries) are ask to undertake carbon emissions mitigation to 5% below 1990 levels by 2008 - 2012.
Each country that signed the protocol agreed to its own specific target. EU countries are expected to cut their present emissions by 8% and Japan by 5%. Some countries with low emissions were permitted to increase them.
***The Kyoto Protocol became a legally binding treaty on 16 February 2005- ONLY after
* It had been ratified by at least 55 countries
* It had been ratified by nations accounting for at least 55% of emissions from Annex 1 countries - 38 industrialized countries given targets for reducing emissions, plus Belarus, Turkey and now Kazakhstan- Russia was critical to sign on after US and Australia refused!!!
"US President George W Bush pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, saying implementing it would gravely damage the US economy. His administration dubbed the treaty "fatally flawed", partly because it does not require developing countries to commit to emissions reductions. China and India fall into this category, although they are two of the world's biggest producers of greenhouse gases. Mr Bush says he backs emissions reductions through voluntary action and new energy technologies." (Link 2)
2-Established three market-based mechanisms
1) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)- a means of allowing the Annex 1countries to meet their national targets by investing in lower cost carbon emission reduction projects in developing countries. The CDMs main purpose is to reduce the cost of cutting emissions in the North while helping developing countries finance their own clean energy projects.
"The CDM is a private-sector initiative that allows businesses in developed countries to meet part of their domestic emissions targets by financing emissions-reducing projects in developing countries, where costs are often lower. A European company required by its government to reduce greenhouse gas discharges by 100,000 tonnes per year, for example, might find it cheaper to upgrade a polluting coal-burning power plant in India than to modernize its factory at home. The CDM allows that company to count the pollution averted in India against its 100,000-tonne target." (link 1)
2) Emission Trading Mechanism by which an Annex I Party may transfer Kyoto Protocol units to or acquire units from another Annex I Party. An Annex I Party must meet specific eligibility requirements to participate in emissions trading. - Cap-and-trade schemes force participants -- often energy-intensive industries -- to buy permits to emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
3) Joint Implementation Mechanism- through which a developed country can receive 'emissions reduction units' when it helps to finance projects that reduce net greenhouse-gas emissions in another developed country (in practice, the recipient state is likely to be a country with an economy in transition).
" The AFB has interesting and innovative features.
- It is the first 'global tax' on a 'global good': the CERs are generated by a transaction between an entity (usually a private company) in a developed country and one in a developing country who then have it certified by an international body (the CDM Executive Board under the UNFCCC) who issue the CERs and, for every 100 CERs issued, keep two for the AF. So this fund does not go through any country’s national exchequer. Nor can it be seen as coming from developed countries, as developing countries are also party to the CDM transaction.
- Its governance is far more democratic and representative, as it is under the COP/MOP (Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the protocol). The COP/MOP appoint a 16-member board from different regions with special seats for the two most vulnerable country groups, namely the LDCs and SIDS, giving a majority for developing countries. No other international funding institution has a such a democratic governance structure.
- It allows direct access for funding to developing countries, although this is still being worked on, which is not the case for funding through the GEF. " (link 9)
A number of new adaptation-related funds were agreed as part of the Marrakesh Accords
The LDCF- Least Developed Coutnries Fund- based on voluntary contributions from rich countries and managed through the GEF- Global Environment Facility which provided funding to nearly 50 LDCs to omplement the Nation Adaption Programmes of Action (NAPA). NAPAs identify immediate and urgent adaptation projects.
40 NAPAs have been competed- however available funding falls far short of the needs, LDCF contains only US$200 million where the total costs of all NAPAs submitted so far comes to some US$1.5 billion.
The SCCCF- Special Climate Change Fund is also based on voluntary contributions from rich countries and managed by the GEF, but is not confined to the LDCs nor solely to adaptation. This fund contains nearly US$400 million and has already started to fund adaptation projects in a number of developing countries.
III. COP13- Bali Action Plan (BAP)
1-It set a two-year limit for the COP15 meeting,
2-Declared that all countries will undertake Measurable, Verifiable and Reportable mitigation Actions (MVR).
3- Governments agreed to explore ways to expand the CDM into areas previously excluded from eligibility, such as forest preservation, and to simplify application and compliance rules.
4-Set up the Adaptation Fund in practice-
5- Created broad building blocks for a post-2012 'Copenhagen Agreement' were also agreed. These are:
- stronger action on mitigation by all countries
- adaptation by all countries and support for adaptation in the poorer and more vulnerable countries from richer countries
- technology transfer for mitigation and adaptation
- innovative finance for mitigation and adaptation.
IV. COP14- Poznań, Poland
Was seen as a disappointment by developing countries and environmental groups- Major contributing factors for the disappointment are seen as: a global economic downturn, the EU was experiencing internal disagreements over the nature of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and also the US was unable to participate- The reason why...I found this both hilarious and embarrassing- the US sent a delegation saying that now Obama has been elected the US will finally be able to act but the Bush regime is still in power- basically they said- hold on- the US is coming- just wait till Bush is gone.
Major accomplishments:
1- Made Adaptation Fund operational- Funds can now be disbursed
2- Funds can now be disbursed using a 2% levy on carbon trading under the UN Clean Development Mechanism (3% was asked and MDC denied the increase)
3-Progress on how environment-friendly technology can be transferred to developing countries
4-Agreement that deforestation needs to be reduced- (sinks to be increased)
5- Recognition that the situation is quite urgent
V. COP15 Copenhagen- to be held this December
Hopes to:
1- To increase emission level reduction- understanding the Kyoto Protocol is now antiquated and inadequate.
2- Will hold major developing countries (i.e. Brazil, China and India) responsible- calling them to reduce emissions.
3- UNFCCC estimated annual cost of $40-170 billion dollars in Adaptation money- other reports are saying this is a gross under-estimation (costs could be 2x-3x higher).
4-LDC to undertake NAMAs (nationally appropriate mitigation Actions)- if an LDC increases NAMA projects they will become more eligible for monetary and technological support.
5- Figure out how much mitigation is needed globally- who is responsible and what will the costs be for developing countries
6- Adapation Issues- how to fund adaptation in developing countries, how much will be needed, how it will be raised and how it will be disbursed.
(More to come on COP15 when I read the treaty)
My Questions-
I am still unclear as to how the CER credit is turned into cash- how does a company take a CER it has earned from investing in a LDC Green carbon cutting technology/project and then apply that credit?
"Such CDM-approved projects are assigned one “carbon emission reduction” credit (CER) for every tonne of greenhouse gas they save. CERs in turn can be sold on one of several international carbon exchanges — for instance, to a steel company in Germany, a cement factory in Sweden or a power plant in the UK, to help those countries meet their emissions-reduction requirements." (link 1)
How is the AF funded by a 2% levy on carbon trading under the UN Clean Development Mechanism? How does the Levy work? Who does it affect? I think it is a tax on the sale of CER generated from CDM projects- that are then put into the AF- in order to be distributed to MVCs.....
Links:
1- http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol22no2/222-green-cash.html
2- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7781022.stm
3- http://www.globalissues.org/article/771/cop14-poznan-climate-conference
4- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269921.stm
5- http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=COP14
6- http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/50190/story.htm
7- http://www.iied.org/climate-change/key-issues/evaluating-adaptation/climate-change-media-partnership
8- http://www.iied.org/climate-change/key-issues/economics-and-equity-adaptation/costs-adapting-climate-change-significantly-under-estimated
9- http://www.iied.org/climate-change/key-issues/climate-negotiations-capacity-building/climate-basics
10- http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/the-cost-of-adapting-to-climate-change/?scp=2&sq=climate%20change&st=cse
11- http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/green-groups-offer-a-mock-climate-treaty/
12- http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/how-much-should-poor-countries-be-paid-to-fight-climate-change/
13- http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/advocates-cash-is-critical-for-climate-deal/
15- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91098074
16- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105285865Energy Effieicent Homes- Ways to cut Carbon
Energy Efficient Homes-
Tyler Caruso
In terms of “existing technologies” for reducing Green House Gases- efficient buildings can take out 16.7 million tons/year (30 percent of targeted reductions).
77 percent of NYC’s emissions come from buildings.
Within this 77 percent, almost a third are associated with residential buildings; commerical buildings account for another 22 percent.
In the US annually buildings consume 39% of America's energy and 68% of its electricity. Furthermore, buildings emit 38% of the carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas associated with climate change), 49% of the sulfur dioxide, and 25% of the nitrogen oxides found in the air.”
Alternatives and techniques available:
Major things to look at in a home- heating and cooling systems, lighting and heat water:
Insulation and sealing
* Heat recovery ventilators (HRVs) to improve ventilation while saving energy
* Low-VOC adhesives, caulks and paints, and water-based low-VOC sealers
* Natural stone or ceramic tile, concrete or linoleum for flooring
* Exterior grade plywood sealed with a no-VOC sealer for use as structural subfloors.
Energy efficient appliances
* Lighting represents as much as 25 percent of your home's electrical use, so it is a
significant part of your monthly utility bill.
$$$$$-
1- In NYS through the Green Jobs/Green NY Bill that the NY senate passed there are proven ways to implement green retro fits without taking any money out of a city or state budget; by saving homeowners money on their utility bills and using the money homeowners save to repay loans taken out to perform the retrofit. This process creates thousands of jobs that bring money into the local economy.
· NYSERDA will establish a revolving loan program to provide up to $13,000 per residential customer to retrofit a home, and up to $26,000 to retrofit each qualifying business, and also conduct energy audits, program administration and a credit enhancement for critical private sector capital investments.
The program will be funded with revenue raised by the auction of carbon emission credits through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (not taxes). This funding will be used to leverage private and federal investments. The bill allocates $112 million from these auctions to NYSERDA. Auctions of carbon emission credits over the last two years raised $126 million, with an estimated $75 million more expected in the next two auctions this year alone.
· In partnership with the Department of Labor, NYSERDA will also create workforce-training programs throughout the state to ensure that the state’s workforce is highly trained and in place to handle mass-scale retrofitting.
· The program will front the cost of the work, enabling property owners to afford energy efficient retrofits. Although property owners will repay the full cost over time, their total energy usage will be reduced by 30-40%, and the loan payment on their energy bill will be less than what they saved, yielding a net saves to the property owner.
2- Energy Star Federal Tax Credits
Tax credits are available at 30% of the cost, up to $1,500, in 2009 & 2010 (for existing homes only) for:
* Windows and Doors
* Insulation
* Roofs (Metal and Asphalt)
* HVAC
* Water Heaters (non-solar)
* Biomass Stoves
* Tax credits are available at 30% of the cost, with no upper limit through 2016 (for existing homes & new construction) for:
o Geothermal Heat Pumps
o Solar Panels
o Solar Water Heaters
o Small Wind Energy Systems
o Fuel Cells
3- The "Stimulus Bill" (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) provided $300 million to states for consumer rebates on the following ENERGY STAR qualified appliances:
* central air conditioners
* heat pumps (air source and geothermal)
* boilers
* furnaces (oil and gas)
* room air conditioners
* clothes washers
* dishwashers
* refrigerators/freezers
* water heaters
Each state will develop its own rebate program, and has the flexibility to select which appliances to include and what rebate amounts to offer.
4- Consumer can figure out how many years it will take to recover the cost of green renovations.The 'Green' Revolution
I am so fascinated by the subject of the Green Revolution. On the surface it can seem hard to resist it - people were starving and then a very immediate solution was offered. It is a really good example of the precautionary principle having been ignored and now that the gains very clearly (which is totally regardless if people have been acknowledging the side effects/repercussions) are wearing off.
A brief overview of the immediate consequences:
The practice monocropping requires an over-reliance on chemicals that damage human health, destroy eco systems, release carbon into the air and wreck soil. The monocrop method is responsible for a decrease in the quality of diet, leading to massive malnutrition which is not much better than all out starvation in my opinion. Another major problem is that it requires an intensive dependence on water to irrigate the crop in order to support a high yield which is leading to droughts world wide (especially prevalent in India where wells are being dug well below 200 ft!). It reduces agricultural biodiversity- which could lead to an increased susceptibility of food supplies to pathogens that cannot be controlled or are resistant to agrochemicals and it also requires a massive amount of pesticides to be sprayed and synthetic fertilizers to be used- which really pollute the scarce water sources and soil. Pesticides are nasty nasty chemicals- when doing landscape work I refuse to spray them- not even for the earth but for my own health- I have seen what happens when it spills on your hands- I don’t want to imagine what happens when ingested. The use of these new crops has lead to the permanent loss of many valuable genetic traits bred into traditional varieties of crops over so many years and generations.
And if we even needed more reasons to not love the Green Revolution it has resulted in greater corporate control of agriculture due to farmer debt from droughts- which was talked about in the NPR series.
What is the hardest part of this for me- is that the lesson has not been learned- some people see the solution to the end of the green revolution as an opporuntity to develope a new seed that will be drought resistant as oppose to looking at the agricultural and economic infrastructure for much needed shifts. I find the argument for bioengineered foods as a silver bullet as a whole hard to swallow- Michael in the class posted a video where Louise Fresco talks about how white bread isn’t so bad- and I found some of her argument to hold water- I know for instance nyc can’t have all of its food produced locally but what about within 100 miles- I think innovation in this case is less about bioengineering and more about the government’s practice around farming and its infrastructure being overhauled- which in the US around the Great Depression had been done before! FDR appointed an Iowan as his Secretary of Agriculture named Henry Agard Wallace. He spent his two terms as secretary expanding the U.S. Department of Agriculture and establishing a powerful system of government relief for farmers. With his Farm Credit Administration, Agricultural Adjustment Administration and Soil Conservation Service, Wallace encouraged farmers to limit corn production in order to keep prices high when their crop hit the market.
Then Earl Butz the Secretary of Agriculture who worked for Nixon in 1973 decided to deregulated the corn market (which I learned thanks to King Corn)- promoting the Free Market to determine prices- and that the crashing prices farmers would experience would soon be fixed by exporting and new creative uses of the surplus- enter stage right- corn syrup- America’s friend and the diabetes aid.
Time line of corn in the 1950s- to now
1968: Experimentation with corn Syrup- the modern version of that high-fructose corn syrup was first produced for commercial use in 1968. Today, 6% of field corn grown in the United States--more than 545 million bushels--goes toward the production of high-fructose corn syrup.
1973: Expansion - President Richard Nixon signed the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 into law. Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, championed an expanded system of government price supports that encouraged all-out corn production.
1976: Concentration - the EPA gave a special designation to feedlots with a dense population of animals raised without access to vegetation. Dubbed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations--or CAFOs--these feedlots were made possible by the widespread production of Yellow Dent corn, which provided an affordable and abundant source of feed. In recent years, more than 50% field corn grown in the United States has ended up as animal feed.
1984: Conversion – High costs of sugar soft-drink giants Coca-Cola and PepsiCo approved the wholesale replacement of sugar by high-fructose corn syrup in their recipes in November 1984.
1998: Modification - Buoyed by the success of their genetically modified soybean seeds, the biotechnology corporation Monsanto introduced the first genetically altered corn seeds to U.S. farmers in 1998. Marketed as Roundup Ready Corn, the seeds were engineered to resist Monsanto's particular brand of glyphosate herbicide. In their first year on the market, glyphosate-resistant corn seeds like Roundup Ready were planted on 950,000 acres. By 2007, 41 million acres were planted in the modified seeds.
2007: Culmination - U.S. corn farmers harvested more than 13 billion bushels of corn in the fall of 2007, surpassing their previous record by more than a billion bushels and achieving the nation's largest corn harvest ever.
SO what does this mean- When around the FDR new deal era had policies that encouraged farmers to keep production low so that crop prices would remain high.
But the our current Farm Bill bears little resemblance to its 1930s counterpart. We can thank Earl Butz who did away with production limits in the early 1970s, with the subsidy system that was said to protect and guarantee corn farmers a livable income even when the market is flooded with corn.
In theory this subsidies aren’t bad- they were initially meant to protect farmers from the vagaries of weather and the ups and downs of the free market system- however the subsidy system now rewards big growers over small- and mid-sized producers.
It also has lead to the gov payments ending up in the select hands of a few producers “Between 2003 and 2005, for example, American taxpayers paid $34.75 billion in crop subsidy benefits to farmers, but only the top one percent of farmers received nearly one-fifth of that amount. In Iowa, 70 percent of subsidy payments go to only 20 percent of the state’s commodity farmers.”.
So all of this massive increase in production ended with a huge crash and the government bailing out farmers with millions in subsidy payments in 1990s and early 2000s (which tax payers footed the bill for). All this means that corporations and large scale farmers profit and small family farmers suffer- the farmers rely on subsidies and the corporations profit from low corn prices and have succeeded in the consolidation and industrialization of our food system.
So we need to get rid of a “free market” that lacks a price floor for crop prices and decentralize our food system- because as of now…..
2 companies dominate 58% the corn seed market- mainly GMO
3 companies control 90% of the grain market
4 companies control 85% of the High Fructose Corn Syrup Industry
I just think further exploits in bioengineering like in the green revolution are not the answer- I think restructuring the policies around farming and going back to what we had is what is needed.
Npr has done a great 2 story series on it:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102944731
http://www.chewswise.com/chews/2009/06/the-new-green-revolution-organic.html
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/bushelsMy thoughts on Natural gas drilling- why i think it is a horrid idea
This past weekend I took a trip up to the Catskill sand stayed at this little amazing place that had been restored. The owner was an amazing woman who told me all about the local efforts she was a part of in order to stop the drilling for natural gas- I am going to try to go up for the next town meeting.
A few classes back i think we spoke a bit about the moratorium on drilling for now in class- but I wanted to find more about what went on and how people who live there feel. It's so hard to understand how the vice president of government relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, can say with a straight face that the city's worries are unfounded because the waste water will be managed and is regulated under state law. "I don't see this hypothetical risk to New York's drinking water as realistic at all," he said.
But the identity of the chemicals used in hydrofracking- (which is the shooting millions of gallons of water and drilling chemicals at explosive pressure deep underground to break up the rock, and drilling the Marcellus would require more water than most other types of drilling ), which are toxic are protected as a "trade secret"! And it has been recorded that drilling in other states has resulted in more than a thousand waste water spills that have affected drinking water. There is also immense amounts of water needed for the hydrofracking and there is not a lot of disclosure about where the water would come from (most likely Delaware river), or how it would be disposed of after it was used.
http://www.propublica.org/feature/natural-gas-drilling-watershed-806
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/96537
PART 2
This was a response to a classmate of mine at pratt who was arguing that natural gas is a good 'transitional' fossil fuel......
Thanks for your response- I hear your point about as a society not being able to immediately switch over to all renewable energy and that there will be a transitional period- however while weighing the pros and cons- we need to do a full life cycle assessment of what the effects of extracting natural gas are, not just what happens when it is burned. After doing an LCA can we say it is worth the environmental and economic damage to gain another energy source for the next 20 years max before the natural gas in the Marcellus shale runs out given the current population and energy needs of the US- leaving us again where we are today?
Everyone can probably already guess my answer- no.
Why?
My reasons can be broken down into three major parts-
1- While it is true that as you stated "...Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant. "
However natural gas has the highest pre-combustion Co2e emissions due to gas leaks from pipelines- Pre- combustion effects are responsible for 5-20% of the total emissions associated with all fuel used in a building.
2- Also currently nyc doesn't have to treat its water- and if hydrofracking occurs a $10 billion water treatment facility will need to be built.
3- Pollution of ground water and the surrounding ecosystems- which I covered in my first two posts-from the exemption of hydro fracking from the EPAs Safe Drinking Water Act is a major concern on an environmental level, and an economic level (falling property values from contamination and decrease in tourism) and from a health and safety stand point.
You can read a lot of personal stories about the effects and concerns around pollution at :
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/09/21/more-on-dunkard-creek-fish-kill/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104565793&ps=rs
Some more places to learn about the issue:
http://www.propublica.org/article/clean-natural-gas-not-in-my-backyard
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112978060
Also I thought this header on the http://www.cleanskies.org/ was very informative:
"Natural Gas: Myth vs. Fact
CLEAN, ABUNDANT, AFFORDABLE, AMERICAN "
I honestly think Natural Gas made very good at the beginning of its marketing- and we are told that it is fair safer and cleaner- because it is clear- where coal is dirty and sooty- I think their advertising/marketing group did a fantastic job-
A few classes back i think we spoke a bit about the moratorium on drilling for now in class- but I wanted to find more about what went on and how people who live there feel. It's so hard to understand how the vice president of government relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, can say with a straight face that the city's worries are unfounded because the waste water will be managed and is regulated under state law. "I don't see this hypothetical risk to New York's drinking water as realistic at all," he said.
But the identity of the chemicals used in hydrofracking- (which is the shooting millions of gallons of water and drilling chemicals at explosive pressure deep underground to break up the rock, and drilling the Marcellus would require more water than most other types of drilling ), which are toxic are protected as a "trade secret"! And it has been recorded that drilling in other states has resulted in more than a thousand waste water spills that have affected drinking water. There is also immense amounts of water needed for the hydrofracking and there is not a lot of disclosure about where the water would come from (most likely Delaware river), or how it would be disposed of after it was used.
http://www.propublica.org/feature/natural-gas-drilling-watershed-806
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/96537
PART 2
This was a response to a classmate of mine at pratt who was arguing that natural gas is a good 'transitional' fossil fuel......
Thanks for your response- I hear your point about as a society not being able to immediately switch over to all renewable energy and that there will be a transitional period- however while weighing the pros and cons- we need to do a full life cycle assessment of what the effects of extracting natural gas are, not just what happens when it is burned. After doing an LCA can we say it is worth the environmental and economic damage to gain another energy source for the next 20 years max before the natural gas in the Marcellus shale runs out given the current population and energy needs of the US- leaving us again where we are today?
Everyone can probably already guess my answer- no.
Why?
My reasons can be broken down into three major parts-
1- While it is true that as you stated "...Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant. "
However natural gas has the highest pre-combustion Co2e emissions due to gas leaks from pipelines- Pre- combustion effects are responsible for 5-20% of the total emissions associated with all fuel used in a building.
2- Also currently nyc doesn't have to treat its water- and if hydrofracking occurs a $10 billion water treatment facility will need to be built.
3- Pollution of ground water and the surrounding ecosystems- which I covered in my first two posts-from the exemption of hydro fracking from the EPAs Safe Drinking Water Act is a major concern on an environmental level, and an economic level (falling property values from contamination and decrease in tourism) and from a health and safety stand point.
You can read a lot of personal stories about the effects and concerns around pollution at :
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/09/21/more-on-dunkard-creek-fish-kill/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104565793&ps=rs
Some more places to learn about the issue:
http://www.propublica.org/article/clean-natural-gas-not-in-my-backyard
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112978060
Also I thought this header on the http://www.cleanskies.org/ was very informative:
"Natural Gas: Myth vs. Fact
CLEAN, ABUNDANT, AFFORDABLE, AMERICAN "
I honestly think Natural Gas made very good at the beginning of its marketing- and we are told that it is fair safer and cleaner- because it is clear- where coal is dirty and sooty- I think their advertising/marketing group did a fantastic job-
Natural Gas Drilling in the Catskills! part 4
River towns complete drilling impacts study
Contributed Story
NARROWSBURG – “Time is of the essence” for local municipalities to prepare for the impacts of natural gas development, concludes a new study funded in part by the Upper Delaware Council (UDC), Inc. that recommends specific actions to implement before the end of 2009 and beyond.
Representatives from the Multi-Municipal Gas Drilling Task Force presented their completed project to the UDC’s Project Review Committee on Sept. 22.
The UDC awarded a $12,000 Technical Assistance Grant to the Towns of Tusten, Cochecton, Delaware, and Highland on Sept. 4, 2008 to undertake a study entitled, “Managing Natural Gas Development Impacts: Strategies to Protect Town Infrastructure and Land Use.”
Subsequently joining in the $31,800 study were the UDC member Towns of Lumberland and Fremont. The western Sullivan County Town of Callicoon also opted to participate at their own expense.
The Sullivan County Division of Planning & Environmental Management coordinated the year-long project.
“This is the largest intermunicipal project to be undertaken in Sullivan County to my knowledge,” said Dr. William J. Pammer, former Sullivan County Planning commissioner and currently an associate professor with the Department of Public Management at John Jay College in New York City.
The study recognizes that “while gas development offers potential economic gains for property owners and local governments, municipalities need to plan for expected impacts to their land uses and capital assets.”
Factors attracting natural gas companies to this region are the abundance of Marcellus Shale formations that underlie 36 percent of the Delaware River Basin, enhancements to gas extraction technologies including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, proximity to the Millennium Pipeline to transport the gas, the number of large land parcels with low density development, and the potential use of the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River as a water source.
“Nobody is under the disillusion that gas companies aren’t coming here, but we still have to be able to live here,” said Supervisor Ben Johnson from the Town of Tusten, which served as the lead municipality for the grant project.
Given that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has authority over the issuance and monitoring of gas drilling permits and that the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has jurisdiction over water withdrawal requests, local municipalities are limited in their powers.
The study cites two major areas in which towns can exert influence.
The first recommendation is to actively participate in the DEC’s update of the 1992 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the Gas, Oil and Solution Mining Regulatory Program under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act.
The draft Supplemental GEIS is expected to be released for comment this fall.
Secondly, the report recommends preparing for and mitigating impacts on local roadways, bridges and culverts by establishing a Road Use Agreement (RUA) framework.
Traffic associated with the construction and operation of gas well sites could overwhelm local roads that were not designed to handle a large volume of industrial trucks carrying heavy loads of materials and water. The task force contracted with a consulting firm to study the potential traffic problems.
Among the recommendations given to the towns are to: approve a local law to support the development of a RUA; continue meeting as a consortium; retain the services of a structural engineer and legal representative to act as a professional team on behalf of all the towns; allocate approximately $4,000-$8,000 in their 2010 budgets to cover this expense; and comment collectively on the DEC’s Draft Supplemental GEIS when it’s released.
Now that the study is complete, the Task Force welcomes sharing and joining with additional communities facing the prospect of natural gas drilling. One expected outgrowth from the project is the development of an accredited course for planning and zoning board members on this topic. Dr. Pammer offered at the Sept. 22 UDC meeting to volunteer his planning consultant services to support the consortium’s ongoing work.
To obtain more information about this project, contact Town of Tusten Supervisor Ben Johnson at P.O. Box 195, Narrowsburg, NY 12764, phone 252-7146, e-mail bjohnson@tusten.org.
For more information on the UDC and its activities, call 252-3022 or visit www.upperdelawarecouncil.org.
Contributed Story
NARROWSBURG – “Time is of the essence” for local municipalities to prepare for the impacts of natural gas development, concludes a new study funded in part by the Upper Delaware Council (UDC), Inc. that recommends specific actions to implement before the end of 2009 and beyond.
Representatives from the Multi-Municipal Gas Drilling Task Force presented their completed project to the UDC’s Project Review Committee on Sept. 22.
The UDC awarded a $12,000 Technical Assistance Grant to the Towns of Tusten, Cochecton, Delaware, and Highland on Sept. 4, 2008 to undertake a study entitled, “Managing Natural Gas Development Impacts: Strategies to Protect Town Infrastructure and Land Use.”
Subsequently joining in the $31,800 study were the UDC member Towns of Lumberland and Fremont. The western Sullivan County Town of Callicoon also opted to participate at their own expense.
The Sullivan County Division of Planning & Environmental Management coordinated the year-long project.
“This is the largest intermunicipal project to be undertaken in Sullivan County to my knowledge,” said Dr. William J. Pammer, former Sullivan County Planning commissioner and currently an associate professor with the Department of Public Management at John Jay College in New York City.
The study recognizes that “while gas development offers potential economic gains for property owners and local governments, municipalities need to plan for expected impacts to their land uses and capital assets.”
Factors attracting natural gas companies to this region are the abundance of Marcellus Shale formations that underlie 36 percent of the Delaware River Basin, enhancements to gas extraction technologies including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, proximity to the Millennium Pipeline to transport the gas, the number of large land parcels with low density development, and the potential use of the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River as a water source.
“Nobody is under the disillusion that gas companies aren’t coming here, but we still have to be able to live here,” said Supervisor Ben Johnson from the Town of Tusten, which served as the lead municipality for the grant project.
Given that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has authority over the issuance and monitoring of gas drilling permits and that the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has jurisdiction over water withdrawal requests, local municipalities are limited in their powers.
The study cites two major areas in which towns can exert influence.
The first recommendation is to actively participate in the DEC’s update of the 1992 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the Gas, Oil and Solution Mining Regulatory Program under the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Act.
The draft Supplemental GEIS is expected to be released for comment this fall.
Secondly, the report recommends preparing for and mitigating impacts on local roadways, bridges and culverts by establishing a Road Use Agreement (RUA) framework.
Traffic associated with the construction and operation of gas well sites could overwhelm local roads that were not designed to handle a large volume of industrial trucks carrying heavy loads of materials and water. The task force contracted with a consulting firm to study the potential traffic problems.
Among the recommendations given to the towns are to: approve a local law to support the development of a RUA; continue meeting as a consortium; retain the services of a structural engineer and legal representative to act as a professional team on behalf of all the towns; allocate approximately $4,000-$8,000 in their 2010 budgets to cover this expense; and comment collectively on the DEC’s Draft Supplemental GEIS when it’s released.
Now that the study is complete, the Task Force welcomes sharing and joining with additional communities facing the prospect of natural gas drilling. One expected outgrowth from the project is the development of an accredited course for planning and zoning board members on this topic. Dr. Pammer offered at the Sept. 22 UDC meeting to volunteer his planning consultant services to support the consortium’s ongoing work.
To obtain more information about this project, contact Town of Tusten Supervisor Ben Johnson at P.O. Box 195, Narrowsburg, NY 12764, phone 252-7146, e-mail bjohnson@tusten.org.
For more information on the UDC and its activities, call 252-3022 or visit www.upperdelawarecouncil.org.
Natural Gas Drilling in the Catskills! part 3
A recent fish kill.
Here is video of the fish massacre of Dunkard Creek that flows in both PA and WV. The latest update on the cause of the mass fish kill points to illegal dumping gas drilling waste water according to the wv gazzette.
Ron Urban, NYTU Chairman
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/09/21/more-on-dunkard-creek-fish-kill/
Subject: FW: Dunkard Creek
YouTube Videos of Dunkard Creek fish kill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCEG436BvE0 v=HCEG436BvE0>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJbx9XD5GXU v=qJbx9XD5GXU>
Here is video of the fish massacre of Dunkard Creek that flows in both PA and WV. The latest update on the cause of the mass fish kill points to illegal dumping gas drilling waste water according to the wv gazzette.
Ron Urban, NYTU Chairman
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/
Subject: FW: Dunkard Creek
YouTube Videos of Dunkard Creek fish kill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Natural Gas Drilling in the Catskills! part 2
Water Contamination Concerns Linger For Shale Gas
by Tom Gjelten
Horizontal Drilling And Water Fracturing: The Keys To Shale Gas Production
Gas embedded in shale rock formations deep below the Earth's surface has long been considered inaccessible, due to high drilling costs. New horizontal drilling methods, combined with techniques to fracture the rock, have for the first time made shale gas production practical.
Roll over the red dots below for more information about the drilling methods.
Credit: Tom Gjelten, Alyson Hurt and Avie Schneider/NPR
text sizeAAA
September 23, 2009
Advances in technology have helped boost the growth of shale drilling in the United States over the past few years. But as the practice of harvesting natural gas embedded in shale rock deep below the Earth's surface has expanded, it has raised concerns about the impact this type of drilling has on the environment — especially on groundwater.
At issue is the practice of "hydraulic fracturing," which in combination with horizontal drilling is an essential part of the shale gas production process. The shale rock in which the gas is trapped is so tight that it has to be broken in order for the gas to escape. A combination of sand and water laced with chemicals — including benzene — is pumped into the well bore at high pressure, shattering the rock and opening millions of tiny fissures, enabling the shale gas to seep into the pipeline.
This fracturing technique has been in use since 1948, and industry sources say the procedure has been used in a million gas wells in the years since. But the practice has expanded in the past few years as energy companies began exploring shale formations.
The results have been so successful that energy analysts now see the development of shale gas reservoirs as a key step toward U.S. energy independence and a cleaner environment. When burned, natural gas produces about 25 percent less carbon dioxide than coal.
Benzene Contamination And Other Environmental Risks
Some landowners in shale gas areas, however, say the energy and environmental benefits of this new production are outweighed by the environmental risks it raises. NPR's Jeff Brady documented these issues in a report earlier this year.
More About The Quest For Shale
Modern Shale Gas Development In The United States: A Primer by the U.S. Department of Energy (PDF)
The American Clean Skies Foundation is a nonprofit devoted to educating the public about natural gas and its relation to renewable energy and energy efficiency.
The Ground Water Protection Council monitors regulation of natural gas drilling and production in the U.S.
Worldwatch Institute, an independent research group based in Washington, D.C., conducts research about energy and climate change.
Steve Harris, who resides near Dallas, told Brady that he noticed a foul odor coming from his tap water shortly after a gas company used hydraulic fracturing in a natural gas well near his house. Harris said he complained to the drilling company and to state authorities but without result.
"Basically, you get to the point where you think maybe everybody's working with the gas people and against the little guy," Harris said.
In 2008, a hydrologist found evidence of benzene contamination in a water well in Wyoming, in the vicinity of a large gas field. Residents near Dimock, Pa., have also complained of contamination of their water supply as a result of gas well drilling in their area. Dimock is in an area of Pennsylvania that sits atop the Marcellus shale formation, one of the largest in the country, and natural gas companies have been active there.
Critics of hydraulic fracturing suspect that the chemicals used in the process have somehow leaked into the groundwater supply. It has been difficult, however, to demonstrate a direct connection between these apparent instances of water pollution and the hydraulic fracturing procedures that have taken place nearby. Industry sources point out that the shale rock subjected to the fracturing is thousands of feet below the surface of the Earth, far below the aquifers that supply drinking water. Many layers of rock are in between. The well bores themselves are shielded from the surrounding earth by steel and cement casing.
Checking For Groundwater Contamination
Gas producers cite investigations by the Ground Water Protection Council, a national association of state agencies responsible for maintaining safe water supplies. To date, the GWPC has uncovered no documented instance of groundwater contamination clearly due to hydraulic fracturing.
"We have gone to the state regulators on this, but we don't have any good evidence right now," says Mike Paque, the GWPC's executive director. "A lot of it is anecdotal."
Natural Gas: Traditional Drilling Areas And Shale Basins
It is also true, however, that state regulators have not been able to disprove a connection between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination. Some problems loosely associated with gas wells seem to have been a result of preventable accidents. Gas well pipes have broken, resulting in leakage of contaminants into the surrounding ground.
There have also been cases of improper disposal of potentially toxic wastewater from a fracturing operation. In addition, the process of drilling a well has on at least one occasion disrupted a layer of limestone containing methane, which subsequently escaped.
Such instances argue for closer monitoring of shale gas drilling operations.
The GWPC has recently contracted with the U.S. Department of Energy to develop an environmental risk assessment for hydraulic fracturing. The assessment would create a database of fracturing operations so that it would be easier to identify any possible connection to subsequent contamination problems. Read The Shale Series
Rediscovering Natural Gas By Hitting Rock Bottom Sep. 22, 2009
Who's Looking At Natural Gas Now? Big Oil Sep. 23, 2009
With Little Clout, Natural Gas Lobby Strikes Out Sep. 24, 2009
Just last week, the GWPC board approved a resolution encouraging Congress, federal agencies and state regulators to work with the GWPC "to evaluate the risks posed by [hydraulic fracturing]."
Still Identifying Potential Risks
The rapidly expanding development of shale gas reservoirs has left regulatory agencies and legislatures scrambling to keep up with the new environmental issues raised by the operations. In June, several members of Congress introduced the "Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act." The "FRAC Act" would amend the federal Safe Water Drinking Act to bring hydraulic fracturing under federal rather than state regulation.
In the resolution approved last week, however, the GWPC expressed concern that additional federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing "will divert compliance and enforcement resources from higher priority issues that pose significant threats of endangerment to underground sources of drinking water." GWPC's Paque says his organization, at this point, is more concerned about water contamination from agricultural practices and groundwater runoff than from hydraulic fracturing.
The "FRAC Act" would also require natural gas producers to disclose the chemicals they are using during hydraulic fracturing operations. The producers have been reluctant to reveal the chemical formulas used in their fracturing operations, for fear of disclosing proprietary information to their competitors.
In a statement accompanying the introduction of the bill, the sponsors said they do not oppose hydraulic fracturing but want "to ensure that the practices are done safely and do not threaten the health of the public."
Related NPR Stories
Face-Off Over 'Fracking': Water Battle Brews On Hill May 27, 2009 (GREAT AUDIO FILE!!!!!)
by Tom Gjelten
Horizontal Drilling And Water Fracturing: The Keys To Shale Gas Production
Gas embedded in shale rock formations deep below the Earth's surface has long been considered inaccessible, due to high drilling costs. New horizontal drilling methods, combined with techniques to fracture the rock, have for the first time made shale gas production practical.
Roll over the red dots below for more information about the drilling methods.
Credit: Tom Gjelten, Alyson Hurt and Avie Schneider/NPR
text sizeAAA
September 23, 2009
Advances in technology have helped boost the growth of shale drilling in the United States over the past few years. But as the practice of harvesting natural gas embedded in shale rock deep below the Earth's surface has expanded, it has raised concerns about the impact this type of drilling has on the environment — especially on groundwater.
At issue is the practice of "hydraulic fracturing," which in combination with horizontal drilling is an essential part of the shale gas production process. The shale rock in which the gas is trapped is so tight that it has to be broken in order for the gas to escape. A combination of sand and water laced with chemicals — including benzene — is pumped into the well bore at high pressure, shattering the rock and opening millions of tiny fissures, enabling the shale gas to seep into the pipeline.
This fracturing technique has been in use since 1948, and industry sources say the procedure has been used in a million gas wells in the years since. But the practice has expanded in the past few years as energy companies began exploring shale formations.
The results have been so successful that energy analysts now see the development of shale gas reservoirs as a key step toward U.S. energy independence and a cleaner environment. When burned, natural gas produces about 25 percent less carbon dioxide than coal.
Benzene Contamination And Other Environmental Risks
Some landowners in shale gas areas, however, say the energy and environmental benefits of this new production are outweighed by the environmental risks it raises. NPR's Jeff Brady documented these issues in a report earlier this year.
More About The Quest For Shale
Modern Shale Gas Development In The United States: A Primer by the U.S. Department of Energy (PDF)
The American Clean Skies Foundation is a nonprofit devoted to educating the public about natural gas and its relation to renewable energy and energy efficiency.
The Ground Water Protection Council monitors regulation of natural gas drilling and production in the U.S.
Worldwatch Institute, an independent research group based in Washington, D.C., conducts research about energy and climate change.
Steve Harris, who resides near Dallas, told Brady that he noticed a foul odor coming from his tap water shortly after a gas company used hydraulic fracturing in a natural gas well near his house. Harris said he complained to the drilling company and to state authorities but without result.
"Basically, you get to the point where you think maybe everybody's working with the gas people and against the little guy," Harris said.
In 2008, a hydrologist found evidence of benzene contamination in a water well in Wyoming, in the vicinity of a large gas field. Residents near Dimock, Pa., have also complained of contamination of their water supply as a result of gas well drilling in their area. Dimock is in an area of Pennsylvania that sits atop the Marcellus shale formation, one of the largest in the country, and natural gas companies have been active there.
Critics of hydraulic fracturing suspect that the chemicals used in the process have somehow leaked into the groundwater supply. It has been difficult, however, to demonstrate a direct connection between these apparent instances of water pollution and the hydraulic fracturing procedures that have taken place nearby. Industry sources point out that the shale rock subjected to the fracturing is thousands of feet below the surface of the Earth, far below the aquifers that supply drinking water. Many layers of rock are in between. The well bores themselves are shielded from the surrounding earth by steel and cement casing.
Checking For Groundwater Contamination
Gas producers cite investigations by the Ground Water Protection Council, a national association of state agencies responsible for maintaining safe water supplies. To date, the GWPC has uncovered no documented instance of groundwater contamination clearly due to hydraulic fracturing.
"We have gone to the state regulators on this, but we don't have any good evidence right now," says Mike Paque, the GWPC's executive director. "A lot of it is anecdotal."
Natural Gas: Traditional Drilling Areas And Shale Basins
It is also true, however, that state regulators have not been able to disprove a connection between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination. Some problems loosely associated with gas wells seem to have been a result of preventable accidents. Gas well pipes have broken, resulting in leakage of contaminants into the surrounding ground.
There have also been cases of improper disposal of potentially toxic wastewater from a fracturing operation. In addition, the process of drilling a well has on at least one occasion disrupted a layer of limestone containing methane, which subsequently escaped.
Such instances argue for closer monitoring of shale gas drilling operations.
The GWPC has recently contracted with the U.S. Department of Energy to develop an environmental risk assessment for hydraulic fracturing. The assessment would create a database of fracturing operations so that it would be easier to identify any possible connection to subsequent contamination problems. Read The Shale Series
Rediscovering Natural Gas By Hitting Rock Bottom Sep. 22, 2009
Who's Looking At Natural Gas Now? Big Oil Sep. 23, 2009
With Little Clout, Natural Gas Lobby Strikes Out Sep. 24, 2009
Just last week, the GWPC board approved a resolution encouraging Congress, federal agencies and state regulators to work with the GWPC "to evaluate the risks posed by [hydraulic fracturing]."
Still Identifying Potential Risks
The rapidly expanding development of shale gas reservoirs has left regulatory agencies and legislatures scrambling to keep up with the new environmental issues raised by the operations. In June, several members of Congress introduced the "Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act." The "FRAC Act" would amend the federal Safe Water Drinking Act to bring hydraulic fracturing under federal rather than state regulation.
In the resolution approved last week, however, the GWPC expressed concern that additional federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing "will divert compliance and enforcement resources from higher priority issues that pose significant threats of endangerment to underground sources of drinking water." GWPC's Paque says his organization, at this point, is more concerned about water contamination from agricultural practices and groundwater runoff than from hydraulic fracturing.
The "FRAC Act" would also require natural gas producers to disclose the chemicals they are using during hydraulic fracturing operations. The producers have been reluctant to reveal the chemical formulas used in their fracturing operations, for fear of disclosing proprietary information to their competitors.
In a statement accompanying the introduction of the bill, the sponsors said they do not oppose hydraulic fracturing but want "to ensure that the practices are done safely and do not threaten the health of the public."
Related NPR Stories
Face-Off Over 'Fracking': Water Battle Brews On Hill May 27, 2009 (GREAT AUDIO FILE!!!!!)
Natural Gas Drilling in the Catskills! part 1
From: Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy <info@catskillcitizens.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Date: Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:25 PM
| News Update | September 23, 2009 |
Democracy in Action! Support the FRAC Act!
Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy has partnered with Democracy in Action to enable us to easily contact our legislators on the issues that are so important to us. Just sign in with your name and address, and your letter will automatically be routed to the legislators who represent you.
For our first lobbying campaign, we've chosen to focus on the FRAC Act. This important federal bill will subject hydraulic fracturing to the Safe Drinking Water Act and compel drillers to disclose the chemicals they use in their fracking fluids by repealing the "Halliburton Exemption."
Please click here to send a letter supporting the Frac Act!
Status of the FRAC Act Today
To date, the FRAC Act has three sponsors in the Senate, including New York's Charles Schumer and Pennsylvania's Bob Casey. (Senator Gillibrand has promised to vote for the bill but has not said she if will sponsor it.)
Twenty-five members of the House have signed on as cosponsors, including six New Yorkers (Represenatives Arcuri, Hinchey, Maloney, Massa, McHugh and Tonko) and two Representatives from Pennsylvania (Sestak and Murphy). You can track the progress of the FRAC Act here.
EPA Finds Chemicals in Drinking Water
Recent developments in Pavillion, Wyoming, underscore the importance of the FRAC Act. Reports of foul-smelling water, animal deaths, and unusual illnesses led the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct its first analysis of drinking water suspected of being contaminated by drilling. Contaminants,including chemicals commonly used in fracking fluid, were found in 11 of 39 wells. Looking at the evidence, EPA scientist Nathan Wiser said, "It starts to finger point stronger and stronger to the source being somehow related to the gas development…"
This story was first reported by Abram Lustgarten for ProPublica. You can read the entire story here. All of Mr. Lustgarten's investigative articles on gas drilling can be found under "Gas Drilling" on the ProPublica home page.
A Million Gallons a Day from the Delaware?
For the second time this year, the Delaware River Basin Commission delayed acting on Chesapeake Appalachia's request to withdraw a million gallons of water a day from the Special Protection Waters of the Upper Delaware. The Commission was originally expected to approve the withdrawal in July, but delayed action after hearing comments from over 1200 groups and individuals. A second public meeting to consider a revised application was postponed at the request of Chesapeake. A new date for the meeting has not been set.
Drillers and environmentalists alike are paying close attention to how the DRBC handles Chesapeake's request because,in all likelihood, it's only the first of many water withdrawal requests from the gas companies that intend to drill in our area.
Click here to read Chesapeake's application,(called a docket).
More Devastation in Pennsylvania
While New York State and the DRBC continue to put the brakes on drilling in the Catskills, nearby Dimock, Pennsylvania has suffered still more environmental pollution. You may recall that earlier last winter fracking operations contaminated a number of water wells, then in the spring, several gallons of diesel fuel was spilled from an overturned truck. Now, in the latest incident, thousands of gallons off racking fluid contaminated a wetland and stream killing off fish in the area. The spilled fluid contained a proprietary Hallibuton product suspected of causing cancer in humans.
Fracking fluid is also suspected of destroying a 38-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek, which runs along the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border. The creek had been one of the most ecologically diverse streams in the area, with over 160 species if aquatic life; today it is virtually lifeless. Authorities are investigating the possibility that the massive kill off was caused by the illegal dumping of drilling wastewater.
What's Going on with the Sierra Club???
In a policy about-face, the national Sierra Club now seems ready to embrace drilling in the Marcellus Shale. A draft document by the club states that "…shale gas impacts, if properly managed, are somewhat less severe than those other fuels which might otherwise be used, and… natural gas should retain its transitional role." Let the Sierra Club know what you think of this policy flip-flop. One question we'd like to see answered: How much money has the Sierra Club accepted from the natural gas industry?
Two Ways to Benefit Catskill Citizens
1. On Sunday, October 11th (Columbus Day weekend), we'll be holding our second annual fundraiser at the North Branch Inn in North Branch, New York. The event will get underway at 5 P.M. A donation of $20 will be requested at the door, hearty snacks will be provided, and there'll be a cash bar. For more information, call (845) 468-7063 or email info@catskillcitizens.org.
2. On Saturday October 17th at 3:30P.M., renowned sommelier Karen King will host a wine-tasting in a private home in Narrowsburg. The event will cost $40 and attendance is limited. To make a reservation please email Photi Giovanis at info@callicoonfinearts.com or call 845-887-4202.
If you can't attend either event and would like to make a donation, please send a check to:
Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy
P.O. Box 103
Fremont Center, NY 12736
inconvenient truth about renewable energy
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/business/energy-environment/30water.html?_r=1&hpw
Alternative Energy Projects Stumble on a Need for Water
AMARGOSA VALLEY, Nev. — In a rural corner of Nevada reeling from the recession, a bit of salvation seemed to arrive last year. A German developer, Solar Millennium, announced plans to build two large solar farms here that would harness the sun to generate electricity, creating hundreds of jobs.
But then things got messy. The company revealed that its preferred method of cooling the power plants would consume 1.3 billion gallons of water a year, about 20 percent of this desert valley’s available water.
Now Solar Millennium finds itself in the midst of a new-age version of a Western water war. The public is divided, pitting some people who hope to make money selling water rights to the company against others concerned about the project’s impact on the community and the environment.
“I’m worried about my well and the wells of my neighbors,” George Tucker, a retired chemical engineer, said on a blazing afternoon.
Here is an inconvenient truth about renewable energy: It can sometimes demand a huge amount of water. Many of the proposed solutions to the nation’s energy problems, from certain types of solar farms to biofuel refineries to cleaner coal plants, could consume billions of gallons of water every year.
“When push comes to shove, water could become the real throttle on renewable energy,” said Michael E. Webber, an assistant professor at the University of Texas in Austin who studies the relationship between energy and water.
Conflicts over water could shape the future of many energy technologies. The most water-efficient renewable technologies are not necessarily the most economical, but water shortages could give them a competitive edge.
In California, solar developers have already been forced to switch to less water-intensive technologies when local officials have refused to turn on the tap. Other big solar projects are mired in disputes with state regulators over water consumption.
To date, the flashpoint for such conflicts has been the Southwest, where dozens of multibillion-dollar solar power plants are planned for thousands of acres of desert. While most forms of energy production consume water, its availability is especially limited in the sunny areas that are otherwise well suited for solar farms.
At public hearings from Albuquerque to San Luis Obispo, Calif., local residents have sounded alarms over the impact that this industrialization will have on wildlife, their desert solitude and, most of all, their water.
Joni Eastley, chairwoman of the county commission in Nye County, Nev., which includes Amargosa Valley, said at one hearing that her area had been “inundated” with requests from renewable energy developers that “far exceed the amount of available water.”
Many projects involve building solar thermal plants, which use cheaper technology than the solar panels often seen on roofs. In such plants, mirrors heat a liquid to create steam that drives an electricity-generating turbine. As in a fossil fuel power plant, that steam must be condensed back to water and cooled for reuse.
The conventional method is called wet cooling. Hot water flows through a cooling tower where the excess heat evaporates along with some of the water, which must be replenished constantly. An alternative, dry cooling, uses fans and heat exchangers, much like a car’s radiator. Far less water is consumed, but dry cooling adds costs and reduces efficiency — and profits.
The efficiency problem is especially acute with the most tried-and-proven technique, using mirrors arrayed in long troughs. “Trough technology has been more financeable, but now trough presents a separate risk — water,” said Nathaniel Bullard, a solar analyst with New Energy Finance, a London research firm.
That could provide opportunities for developers of photovoltaic power plants, which take the type of solar panels found on residential rooftops and mount them on the ground in huge arrays. They are typically more expensive and less efficient than solar thermal farms but require a relatively small amount of water, mainly to wash the panels.
In California alone, plans are under way for 35 large-scale solar projects that, in bright sunshine, would generate 12,000 megawatts of electricity, equal to the output of about 10 nuclear power plants.Their water use would vary widely. BrightSource Energy’s dry-cooled Ivanpah project in Southern California would consume an estimated 25 million gallons a year, mainly to wash mirrors. But a wet-cooled solar trough power plant barely half Ivanpah’s size proposed by the Spanish developer Abengoa Solar would draw 705 million gallons of water in an area of the Mojave Desert that receives scant rainfall.
Skip to next paragraph 
Isaac Brekken for The New York Times
The German developer Solar Millennium hopes land in the valley, above, can be home to solar plants. Public opinion, partly because of water issues, appears to be split.
One of the most contentious disputes is over a proposed wet-cooled trough plant that NextEra Energy Resources, a subsidiary of the utility giant FPL Group, plans to build in a dry area east of Bakersfield, Calif.
NextEra wants to tap freshwater wells to supply the 521 million gallons of cooling water the plant, the Beacon Solar Energy Project, would consume in a year, despite a state policy against the use of drinking-quality water for power plant cooling.
Mike Edminston, a city council member from nearby California City, warned at a hearing that groundwater recharge was already “not keeping up with the utilization we have.”
The fight over water has moved into the California Legislature, where a bill has been introduced to allow renewable energy power plants to use drinking water for cooling if certain conditions are met.
“By allowing projects to use fresh water, the bill would remove any incentives that developers have to use technologies that minimize water use,” said Terry O’Brien, a California Energy Commission deputy director.
NextEra has resisted using dry cooling but is considering the feasibility of piping in reclaimed water. “At some point if costs are just layered on, a project becomes uncompetitive,” said Michael O’Sullivan, a senior vice president at NextEra.
Water disputes forced Solar Millennium to abandon wet cooling for a proposed solar trough power plant in Ridgecrest, Calif., after the water district refused to supply the 815 million gallons of water a year the project would need. The company subsequently proposed to dry cool two other massive Southern California solar trough farms it wants to build in the Mojave Desert.
“We will not do any wet cooling in California,” said Rainer Aringhoff, president of Solar Millennium’s American operations. “There are simply no plants being permitted here with wet cooling.”
One solar developer, BrightSource Energy, hopes to capitalize on the water problem with a technology that focuses mirrors on a tower, producing higher-temperature steam than trough systems. The system can use dry cooling without suffering a prohibitive decline in power output, said Tom Doyle, an executive vice president at BrightSource.
The greater water efficiency was one factor that led VantagePoint Venture Partners, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, to invest in BrightSource. “Our approach is high sensitivity to water use,” said Alan E. Salzman, VantagePoint’s chief executive. “We thought that was going to be huge differentiator.”
Even solar projects with low water consumption face hurdles, however. Tessera Solar is planning a large project in the California desert that would use only 12 million gallons annually, mostly to wash mirrors. But because it would draw upon a severely depleted aquifer, Tessera may have to buy rights to 10 times that amount of water and then retire the pumping rights to the water it does not use. For a second big solar farm, Tessera has agreed to fund improvements to a local irrigation district in exchange for access to reclaimed water.
“We have a challenge in finding water even though we’re low water use,” said Sean Gallagher, a Tessera executive. “It forces you to do some creative deals.”
In the Amargosa Valley, Solar Millennium may have to negotiate access to water with scores of individuals and companies who own the right to stick a straw in the aquifer, so to speak, and withdraw a prescribed amount of water each year.
“There are a lot of people out here for whom their water rights are their life savings, their retirement,” said Ed Goedhart, a local farmer and state legislator, as he drove past pockets of sun-beaten mobile homes and luminescent patches of irrigated alfalfa. Farmers will be growing less of the crop, he said, if they decide to sell their water rights to Solar Millennium.
“We’ll be growing megawatts instead of alfalfa,” Mr. Goedhart said.
While water is particularly scarce in the West, it is becoming a problem all over the country as the population grows. Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, predicted that as intensive renewable energy development spreads, water issues will follow.
“When we start getting 20 percent, 30 percent or 40 percent of our power from renewables,” Mr. Kammen said, “water will be a key issue.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
