economics


Of course I will be dead by then so I won’t care.
LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK AND REPRESENTING ATTORNEY STUART SMITH CREATE WEBSITE FOR PUBLIC EXAMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING DATA IN AREAS IMPACTED BY BP CATASTROPHE
For weeks, Attorney Stuart Smith and researchers Dr. William Sawyer and Marco Kaltofen have been providing evidence contrary to the federal government’s assertions that the oil from the BP DEEPWATER HORIZON catastrophe is gone and that seafood from oil-impacted waters are not compromised.
Now, citizens can examine for themselves data compiled by Gulf Oil Disaster Recovery and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) at a public website maintained by Dr. Kaltofen’s company, Boston Chemical Data.
“We are thrilled about this new resource,” said Marylee Orr, Executive Director, LEAN. “This website allows anyone interested to see what chemicals were found, where they were found, and how much was found. We feel the public has the right to this information.”
The website, http://bostonchemicaldata.com/LEAN/ provides oil spill data and mapping resources. You can compare where EPA, universities and independent labs have sampled. An individual must download Google Earth in order to view the site’s various downloads and maps.

“This should be useful to environmental groups and the unified command,” said Mr. Smith. “We’ve always believed there should be more transparency in this process.”
Most recently, Mr. Smith’s team has documented a large oil plume offshore of northwest Florida which is killing seafood. Samples have been sent to Canada for independent assessment.

“As state and federal officials continue to open Gulf waters to fishing, we have to again point to evidence that the ‘all clear’ is being sounded way too early,” said Mr. Smith, who represents the United Commercial Fishermen’s Association, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, public entities in the Gulf Coast, as well as private property and business owners. “One of the cautionary notes is that our experts have documented that toxic chemicals remain in the water and food chain – and pose a significant health risk. Those studies have shown that PAHs (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) are present in shrimp from the impacted area. And the PAHs in off-shore Florida are at levels 43 times the levels of shrimp from inland, low-impact inland areas sampled in Louisiana. In our estimation, it may take eight months before the toxic soup has had substantial enough biodegradation to announce an ‘all clear’ on seafood.”
###

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
www.smithstag.com
www.gulfoildisasterrecovery.com
www.oilspillaction.com
www.leanweb.org

Dr. William Sawyer: Chief Toxicologist of Toxicology Consultants & Assessment Specialists, LLC., Sanibel, FL (Registered d/b/a 1990, Incorporated January, 1994, 2009-FL)
Marco Kaltofen, P.E.; President of Boston Chemical is a Registered Professional Engineer (Civil, Massachusetts) and an environmental scientist with more than 25 years experience in environmental, workplace and product safety investigations in North America and Eastern Europe.

CONTACT:

S. Smith: (504) 593-9600        C. Brylski/H. Harper (504) 897-6110

:}

More tomorrow

:}

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezHlu9rUAW0

So here is the governments thought for you renters out there.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.es_at_home_tips_renters10

Top 10 Tips for Renters!

Even if you rent an apartment, townhouse, or a home, you can make a big difference, too! These tips will show you how to be more energy efficient and save energy, money, and reduce the risks of global warming. If there are things you can’t change on your own, share these tips and encourage your landlord to help you make a change for the better.

  1. Lighting is one of the easiest places to start saving energy. Replacing your five most frequently used light fixtures or the bulbs in them with ENERGY STAR qualified lights can save more than $65 a year in energy costs. ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) provide high-quality light output, use 75% less energy, and last 6–10 times longer than standard incandescent light bulbs, saving money on energy bills and replacement costs.
    • Remember to always turn off your lights when leaving a room. Turning off just one 60-watt incandescent bulb that would otherwise burn eight hours a day can save about $15 per year!
  2. Considering purchasing a room air conditioner? Consider an ENERGY STAR qualified model. They use at least 10 percent less energy than standard models.
    • In the winter, be sure to insulate room air conditioners from the outside with a tight-fitting a/c unit cover, available at your local home improvement center or hardware store. This keeps heated air from escaping outside. Alternately, you can remove the window unit in the winter months to prevent energy losses.
    • Be sure the window unit fits tightly in the window so outdoor air is not getting in.
  3. If possible, install a programmable thermostat to automatically adjust your home’s temperature settings when you’re away or sleeping.
    • When used properly, a programmable thermostat with its four temperature settings can save up to $150 a year in energy costs. Proper use means setting the thermostat at energy-saving temperatures without overriding that setting. You should also set the “hold” button at a constant energy-saving temperature when you’re away or on vacation.
  4. Consumer electronics play an increasingly larger role in your home’s energy consumption, accounting for 15 percent of household electricity use. Many consumer electronics products use energy even when switched off. Electronics equipment that has earned the ENERGY STAR helps save energy when off, while maintaining features like clock displays, channel settings, and remote-control functions.
    • Unplug any battery chargers or power adapters when not in use (like your cell phone charger!).
    • Use a power strip as a central “turn off” point when you are done using equipment.
      • Even when turned off, electronic and IT equipment often use a small amount of electricity. For home office equipment, this stand-by or “phantom” power load can range from a few watts to as much as 20 or even 40 watts for each piece of equipment. Using a power strip for your computer and all peripheral equipment allows you to completely disconnect the power supply from the power source, eliminating standby power consumption.
  5. A ten minute shower can use less water than a full bath.
    • With a new 2.5 gallon-per-minute (low-flow) shower head, a 10-minute shower will use about 25 gallons of water, saving you five gallons of water over a typical bath. A new showerhead also will save energy — up to $145 each year on electricity — beating out both the bath and an old-fashioned showerhead.
    • To avoid moisture problems, control humidity in your bathroom by running your ventilating fan during and 15 minutes after showers and baths.
  6. Make sure all air registers are clear of furniture so that air can circulate freely. If your home has radiators, place heat-resistant reflectors between radiators and walls. In the winter, this will help heat the room instead of the wall.
  7. During cold weather, take advantage of the sun’s warmth by keeping drapes open during daylight hours. To keep out the heat of the summer sun, close window shades and drapes in warm weather.
  8. Save water by scraping dishes instead of rinsing them before loading in the dishwasher. Run your dishwasher with a full load and use the air-dry option if available.
    • Rinsing dirty dishes before loading your dishwasher uses a lot of water and energy. Most dishwashers today can thoroughly clean dishes that have had food scraped, rather than rinsed, off — the wash cycle and detergent take care of the rest. To make the most efficient use of your dishwasher’s energy and water consumption, run the dishwasher only when enough dirty dishes have accumulated for a full load.
  9. Wash your laundry with cold water whenever possible. To save water, try to wash full loads or, if you must wash a partial load, reduce the level of water appropriately.
    • Hot water heating accounts for about 90 percent of the energy your machine uses to wash clothes — only 10 percent goes to electricity used by the washer motor. Depending on the clothes and local water quality (hardness), many homeowners can effectively do laundry exclusively with cold water, using cold water laundry detergents. Switching to cold water can save the average household more than $40 annually (with an electric water heater) and more than $30 annually (with a gas water heater).
    • Washing full loads can save you more than 3,400 gallons of water each year.
  10. Don’t over dry your clothes. If your dryer has a moisture sensor that will automatically turn the machine off when clothes are done, use it to avoid over drying. Remember to clean the lint trap before every load. Dry full loads, or reduce drying time for partial loads. Learn more.
    • It’s easy to over dry your clothes, if one setting is used for various fabric types. Try to dry loads made up of similar fabrics, so the entire load dries just as the cycle ends. Many dryers come with energy-saving moisture or humidity sensors that shut off the heat when the clothes are dry. If you don’t have this feature, try to match the cycle length to the size and weight of the load. A dryer operating an extra 15 minutes per load can cost you up to $34, every year.
    • The lint trap is an important energy saver. Dryers work by moving heated air through wet clothes, evaporating and then venting water vapor outside. If the dryer cannot provide enough heat, or move air sufficiently through the clothes, they will take longer to dry, and may not dry at all. One of the easiest things you can do to increase drying efficiency is to clean the lint trap before each and every load. This step also can save you up to $34 each year.

Learn More!

View the full list of tips

Launch ENERGY STAR @ home

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OXrmxDp44&feature=related

:}

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/apartments/index.cfm/mytopic=10010

Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable

Energy Savers

Your HomeYour VehicleYour WorkplaceRebates, Tax Credits and FinancingProducts and ServicesRenewable EnergyInformation ResourcesHome

Your Home

Apartments

Simple energy conservation measures can lower your utility bills while increasing the comfort of your apartment. Although your landlord or management company is ultimately responsible for your building’s energy efficiency, you make dozens of energy decisions every day.

Electricity

Many ways for cutting electricity costs in houses also apply to apartments. See our section on reducing electricity use for ways to lower these costs.

Heating and Cooling

Here are some ways to reduce your heating and cooling costs. They can also make your apartment more comfortable. You might need your landlord’s or management company’s permission for some of the suggestions.

Water Heating

If you have your own water heater in your apartment, see our section on energy-efficient water heating. If you don’t have your own water heater, you can still save energy by reducing your hot water use. You may need your landlord’s or management company’s permission for some of these energy conservation measures.

:}

More next week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysiT0P6OtvU&feature=related

:}

Some utilities say nothing in all. Here is a fairly terse response.

http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/WaterandLight/Conservation/r-guide.php

Renters’ Guide…To Outfitting Your Energy Budget

As your publicly owned utility, it is our hope that we can help you become a resourceful and efficient customer. By choosing energy efficient housing and by following energy saving habits you will keep your costs at a minimum. Rental property owners are finding that energy efficient units are easier to rent and require less Renters' Guidemaintenance than inefficient dwellings.

If you are a renter, the following information can help you incorporate energy efficiency into your decisions before you rent and lifestyle choices after you rent, resulting in lower energy costs in your monthly budget. The information is divided into two parts:

If you have any questions or comments please contact the Utility Services Department at Columbia Water & Light, 874-7325.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Tomorrow I will do a piece on the ECOBuild Conference where this was announced in Britain but first the policy.

http://www.herefordshirenewleaf.org.uk/warm-homes-greener-homes-governments-strategy-household-energy-management

Warm Homes, Greener Homes: The Government’s strategy for Household Energy Management

Submitted by ali on Thu, 04/03/2010 – 11:53am

The Government has today published its Household Energy Management Strategy Warm Homes, Greener Homes, setting out its plans for meeting its target for a reduction of 29% in carbon emissions from the household sector. The strategy responds to the consultation conducted on Heat and Energy Saving last year.

The vision:

  • the intention is for every home where it is practical to have loft and cavity wall insulation by 2015;
  • every home in Britain to have a smart meter and display to help them better manage their energy use;
  • up to 7 million households to have had an eco-upgrade which would include advanced measures such as solid wall insulation or heat pumps alongside smart meters and more basic measures;
  • people living in rented accommodation to enjoy higher levels of energy efficiency as landlords – private and social – take action to improve the fabric of properties;
  • wider take up of district heating in urban areas, such as in blocks of flats, in new build and social housing, and in commercial and public sector buildings;
  • a core of up to 65,000 people employed in the new industry of energy efficiency, and potentially several times more down supply chains. Jobs will include installing and manufacturing energy saving measures or providing home energy advice.

Elements of the strategy:

  • New community partnerships and an enhanced role for local authorities, including from 2013, following CERT, a requirement on energy companies to consult with local authorities to deliver local area based programmes; and support for district heating. Where a local authority has a Local Carbon Framework covering household energy efficiency, companies will be obliged to agree with the local authority that their plans are in line with this framework before acting. Some local authorities may provide their own incentives, such as council tax rebates. The ambition in the longer term is that all authorities will take on responsibility for saving carbon from energy use in the homes in their area.

:}

Please read the rest of the article and go to these links to learn more:

To read the press release click here: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn2010_037/pn2010_037.aspx

For more details and to download the Strategy click here: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/consumers/saving_energy…

:}

More tomorrow

:}

I was wrong in one respect. The Cool Surge which was last years ploy to rape this market was actually a little swamp cooler, which might have some basis in fact, if you live in death valley. However these new babies are straight up theft. As a friend of mine put it, why not just fill up a bucket with ice and let your fan blow over it. Or as my mom says, just stand at your kitchen sink and run cold water over your wrists. Either one is more effective than this stupid machine.

:}

Editor

State Journal Register

One Copley Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701

Emailed – 8/2/10

Dear Editor:

The full page ad in the July 21st edition of the SJ-R is a scam if not a fraud. The title promises air conditioners but the devices are actually fans. These devices were called Cool Surge last year now they are called Mira-Cool. The first thing to note is they offer free devices. This is probably the largest part of the scam because everyone will call in to try to get the free ones, and I guarantee they will be “out of them”. This lets the operators create a nationwide “suckers list” which they can use to sell other scams.

The devices consist of nothing more than a fan and several “cold packs” that you freeze in your freezer. You insert the packs in the device and then the fans blow cool air back at you. They cost well over $200 a unit to purchase, yet for $140 you by an energy efficient air conditioning window unit that will cool a single room for pennies. For $40 dollars you can buy the fan and the cold packs yourself and achieve similar results. But it is a really bad idea from an economic standpoint. I mean you are using your freezer (expensive) to freeze the packs, and your electricity to power the fan.

The bigger issue is how effective would this “cooling effect” really be? If your room is say 80 or 90 degrees, it would take all the stored cold out of the freezer packs in a very short time. Then the temperature goes back up while you are refreezing the cold packs. They could never cool a room to anything like a comfortable temperature and this puts at risk any seniors or other people, susceptible to high heat, at risk of dieing. Be smart. Buy an efficient air conditioner. Cool a single room and save your health and a heck of a lot of money.

Doug Nicodemus

948 e. adams st.

riverton, IL  62561

629-7031

dougnic55@yahoo.com

:}

More tomorrow

:}

:}

Jack Lundee asked if he could do a guest post. I am not fond of algae as a fuel source. Well, I am neutral about it. I think it is counter productive to continue to lust after liquid fuels. Still given the second article I list it is plausible as they say on Myth Busters.

http://everythingleft.wordpress.com/

Fed-Funded Algae Fuel Research making a Strong Comeback

Algae fuel is a biofuel, which is derivative of algae. In 1978, Former President Jimmy Carter pulled the trigger on a 25 million dollar research project into algae fuel production. To make a long story short, the project was somewhat unsuccessful because of the inability of scientists to find a way to make the organisms produce lipids gifted enough to be turned into biofuels, that is, in a high volume, low cost style.

One of the biggest concerns during early research was the fact that burning this algae fuel still released CO2 into the air. Nonetheless, the burning varies much so in that it doesn’t produce any new CO2 emissions like that of fossil fuels. This was a minor concern however, as the fuel was never really able to be inexpensively mass produced.

Now, there are definite signs of hope in the field of algae-based biofuels, as a number of firms and fortune 500 companies are delving into the research, investing billions of dollars. Alternative energy and carbon emission reduction efforts are widespread, funded by large collaborate organizations like the Clinton Global Initiative.  Fathered by ex-President Bill Clinton and Doug Band ( http://politicalinsider.blogs.heraldtribune.com/10498/clinton-heaps-praise-on-band-family/ ),  the CGI ( http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/ )  has made large strides in the San Francisco Bay area, reducing fleet emissions in large numbers. Even more recently, Google made an astounding investment of $38 million dollars into wind farm production.

Ultimately, Exxon Mobile has been one of the largest cooperators/investors into algae-based biofuels, setting aside nearly $600 million dollars as of 2009. In their quest for alternative energy, they joined with Synthetic Genomics Inc., to research and develop next-generation biofuels produced from sunlight.[ http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/14/14greenwire-exxon-sinks-600m-into-algae-based-biofuels-in-33562.html ]

But why algae? Here are some major reasons why algae would be a great substitute:

  • Grows in a wide range of climates
  • Lower water intensity than corn or cellulosic ethanols
  • Ability to potentially mitigate CO2
  • Liquid fuels formed are the only one of their byproducts
  • Byproducts are potentially the most valuable

All in all, the 40 percent lipid yield of some species (according to some studies) can produce up to 10,000 gallons of oil per annum (1 acre). This is far more productive than Soy or cellulosic ethanol, which range between 50 to 2700 gallons. [ http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html ]

As in any study, there are drawbacks, and for most companies, it’s the failure to indentify the right strains of algae for high lipid concentration. Also, there are elements like contamination or predation, and dealing with the complicatedness of de-watering and oil withdrawal; all processes which have yet to be perfected.

On July 1, the department of energy (DOE) announced the investment of $24 million for approximately 3 different research groups. Their mission is to target all these obstacles in the mass production of algae-based biofuels. Sustainable Algal Biofuels Consortium, Consortium for Algal Biofuels Commercialization and Cellana LLC Consortium will all perform separate tasks in hopes of igniting an algae fuel based society.

Jack Lundee – Follower of all things green and progressive.

:}

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/08/03/converting-algae-into-fuel.html

By Marlene Cimons, National Science Foundation

The algae that keep salmon and shrimp a bright pink might keep jet airplanes and automobiles running someday.

It’s no secret that government, scientists and industry are devoting considerable resources and talent to developing renewable, cost-efficient and environmentally-friendly energy sources, the path to energy independence and to reducing the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels.

Click here to find out more!

One solution could come from the fatty acids produced by certain species of salt water algae.

“All photosynthetic plants take water, sunlight and carbon dioxide and make either sugar or fatty acids,” said Dr. William L. Roberts, a professor in the department of mechanical and aerospace engineering at North Carolina State University. “We want the ones that produce a lot of fatty acids.”

He and his colleagues, four biologists and three engineers, are working on ways to produce and extract these fats from Dunaliella, a microscopic species of algae, and convert them into fuel on a large scale, much larger than is possible today. Their research is funded by $1.99 million over four years from the National Science Foundation as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The North Carolina State University project is one of several teams in the nation studying the potential of algae as an energy source, and with great promise. This year the Department of Energy has awarded more than $100 million for bio-fuels research, an investment that includes a recently announced $24 million to specifically address the challenges in the commercialization of algae-based fuels.

“This is going to be one of the most important and dominant industries of the future because we will run out of fossil fuel,” Roberts said.

:}

More tomorrow

:}

If this country paid the real price for coal instead of socializing the costs (ie. transferring the cost to the general public) it would be too expensive to burn. If the Coal Industry had to pay the real cost of drilling the holes (tax free zones), making the holes safe (complying with regulations instead of being lightly fined), freeing the coal of its nasty properties (passed onto the consumers of coal), safely disposing of those associated wastes (see articles below) and pay part of the costs of the effects of their uses on the environment (passed on to the end users and consumers) then we would never even think about using that stuff. But they get passes on all of that and they put the public at risk. Oh and they want to put in the levies too.

What the activists say:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Illinois_and_coal

Introduction

Chicago Clean Power Coalition Takes on Coal-Fired Plants

Coal production is a major part of the Illinois economy. In 2004, the state produced over 31 million short tons of coal worth an estimated $819 million dollars, which ranked it 9th in the nation in coal production.[1] Coal deposits underly 37,000 square miles of Illinois, about two thirds the entire state. Recoverable coal reserves are estimated to total 30 billion tons, accounting for almost one-eighth of the nation’s total coal reserves and one-fourth of bituminous coal reserves.[2] In comparison to western coal, Illinois coal is high in sulfur, and even when cleaned the sulfur content averages 2 to 3 percent by weight.[3]

The state consumed over 54 million short tons of coal for electrical power in 2004,[1] producing approximately 48 percent of the electricity generated in Illinois. The state’s average retail price of electricity is 7.07 cents per kilowatt hour, the 20th lowest rate in the nation[4] In 2003, Illinois emitted 230 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking it 7th in the nation overall.[5]

Citizen activism

In a major survey article for the Illinois Times on the coal fight in the state, Peter Downs wrote:[6]

All across Illinois — at town-hall meetings, in federal courts, in the Capitol — battles are raging over coal power, the outcome of which could very well determine the role of the black rock in the nation’s energy future.
Illinois is at the heart of the national debate because in no other state have coal interests pushed for more new investment — with critical support from the state’s governmental leaders.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Electric Technology Laboratory, a year ago Illinois had proposals for more new coal-based electric-power plants — 16 — than any other state, and the plants proposed for Illinois would have the capacity to generate twice as much electricity as even the most ambitious proposals for any other state.
According to the report, “Coal’s Resurgence in Electric Power Generation,” which was issued on May 1, 2007, more than 10 percent of all new generating capacity from coal-based power plants would be built in Illinois. With 22 coal-burning power plants already providing 49 percent of Illinois’ electricity, the state was unusually reliant on coal for its energy needs. Keep in mind that in the previous seven years, only 10 coal-based power plants had been constructed in all of the United States.
A year after the Department of Energy’s announcement, the Sierra Club has claimed “victory” against all but five of the previously proposed plants, but those remaining five are among the biggest of the proposed projects and they would add substantially to the state’s capacity to generate electricity and air pollution.
“We started our coal campaign in Illinois because more [coal-based power] plants were proposed in Illinois than anywhere else,” says Becki Clayborn, regional representative of the Sierra Club.

:}

What the Newspaper reports:

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x242417430/Activists-raise-concerns-about-coal-mine-slurry-injection-in-Illinois

Activists raise concerns about coal mine slurry injection in Illinois

Posted Jul 17, 2010 @ 11:30 PM
Last update Jul 19, 2010 @ 06:58 PM

Coal mining companies are supposed to clean up after themselves, and the government is supposed to ensure groundwater is pure.

But environmental activists fear that mining companies in central and southern Illinois may poison aquifers by injecting potentially dangerous pollutants into the ground with inadequate review by regulators and no notice to the public.

The state has already allowed the practice at the Crown Mine No. 3 near Girard, and the owner of the Shay No. 1 Mine near Carlinville, which closed in 2007 but reopened last year, has applied for permission. Activists fear this is just the beginning as coal companies develop new mines and restart old ones.

The waste is a byproduct of washing coal. The slurry that results can contain arsenic, heavy metals and other pollutants. The website of the state Office of Mines and Minerals says the material “can be potentially acid-forming and/or toxic.”

The danger is serious enough that the practice of injecting coal slurry into the ground has been curtailed in West Virginia, where more than 100 lawsuits are pending by residents who blame coal companies for poisoning wells.

:}

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/sns-bc-il–levees-coalash,0,5870784.story

Environmentalists question Army Corps of Engineers plan to use coal ash as levee fix

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A federal plan to use ash waste from coal-fired power plants to shore up some Mississippi River levees drew objections Thursday from environmentalists who are worried that toxins in the ash might seep into the river and public water systems it serves.

The Sierra Club and other nature groups lined up against the Army Corps of Engineers’ plan, worrying during a public hearing that the use of coal or fly ash questionably could extend later to levees along other inland rivers and perpetuate coal burning, widely believed to contribute to global warming.

“If this should turn out to be toxic (after it’s been injected into a levee’s weak spots), how do we get it back out?” Tom Ball, a member of the Sierra Club and Missouri Stream Team, pressed during the 90-minute hearing that drew about 50 people, including electric utility representatives

“This fly ash is hazardous waste, regardless of what you call it,” added Catherine Edmiston, an environmentalist heading an Illinois group opposing longwall mining. “I am against putting it against a major river. I think we need to think about this.”

Corps officials called the injection of a slurry of water, coal ash and lime into 25 miles of slide-prone levees in 200-mile stretch of the river from Alton, Ill., near St. Louis to southern Illinois’ tip the cheapest, longest-lasting fix among several options it weighed.

Yet the corps pledged not to move hastily, calling any decision months away and pressing that the search for the cheapest fix for taxpayers won’t trump public safety. For now, the corps says, the ash-slurry plan appears be

:}

http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ash-42552-corps-louis.html

Army Corps considering coal ash to fix levees

The Associated Press

ST. LOUIS (AP) – The Army Corps of Engineers wants to use ash cast off from coal-fired electrical generation to shore up dozens of miles of Mississippi River levees, drawing fire from environmentalists worried that heavy metals from the filler might make their way into the river.

The corps announced the plan last month, touting the injection of a slurry of water, coal ash and lime into 25 miles of slide-prone levees in 200-mile stretch of the river from Alton, Ill., near St. Louis to tiny Gale on southern Illinois’ tip as the cheapest, longest-lasting fix among several options it weighed.

A public hearing on the matter, scheduled Thursday in St. Louis, is certain to elicit questions from environmentalists who consider the use of coal ash – also known as fly ash – a bad idea despite corps assurances that it has been used trouble-free on levees near Memphis for more than a decade.

:}

More Tomorrow

:}

It’s Jam Band Friday - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RupUECcyVow

What ever happend to a great innovative idea. In Early 2008 everyone was a twitter about this story. Why?  Because half to one third of the energy we generate is wasted. Then:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GadgetGuide/story?id=4173214&page=1

Scientists Claim Energy Breakthrough

Simple Device Converts Heat Directly to Electricity, Which May Mean No More Batteries

By LEE DYE
Jan. 23, 2008

Scientists are developing a new device that could have a profound impact on global energy supplies by converting wasted heat into electricity. It could potentially have an impact on everything from power plants to cell phones, and it came about because of a serendipitous discovery that had eluded scientists for half a century.

Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, have found a way to use ordinary silicon to convert heat to electricity. The technique could mean that some day you will be able to recharge your cell phone with electricity produced by your own body heat, and enormous amounts of energy that is now wasted could be recycled.

“We feel that this is a breakthrough,” said Arun Majumdar, a mechanical engineer and materials scientist with joint appointments at the Berkeley lab and UC Berkeley. “I’m very excited about this.”

Astonishingly, Majumdar and his colleagues didn’t set out to achieve what they have done.

“It was serendipitous,” he said. “We never planned for it.”

And perhaps even more surprising, they did it with a material that most scientists thought would never work for this purpose — ordinary silicon, a cheap, abundant material that is the foundation for the multibillion-dollar semiconductor industry.

Majumdar and his fellow researchers, including chemist Peidong Yang, a noted leader in the rapidly growing field of technology at the incredibly small “nano” scale, reported on their work in the Jan. 10 issue of the journal Nature. It’s not clear yet why the device they have created works.

“We don’t have all the answers at this point,” Majumdar said. But laboratory experiments show that it does, indeed, work. At least on a small scale. The device, placed between a hot plate and a cold plate, produced enough electricity to power a light bulb, although they didn’t do that demonstration. Instead, they measured the current flowing from the hot plate toward the cold plate, and it was sufficient to claim success, he said.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PenutnCkyx8&feature=related

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAF-cEThNWU&feature=related

:}

NoW:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/silicon-heat-cheap-energy-gets-1-million/

NewsEnergy Efficiency

Michael Kanellos: May 3, 2010

‘Silicon + Heat = Cheap Energy’ Gets $1 Million

Exotic waste heat startup Alphabet Energy gets more fun

Alphabet Energy, which says it can make electricity for around $1 a watt out of waste heat in factories or data centers, has raised $1 million from Claremont Creek Ventures and the CalCef Clean Energy Fund.

Waste heat — which is one of our favorites sources of energy here — essentially revolves around capturing heat from engines and machinery and using it to run things like water heaters or converting it into electricity. The U.S. consumes around 100 quads (100 quadrillion BTUs) of energy a year, and 55 to 60 quads get dissipated as waste heat, according to Arun Majumdar, the UC Berkeley professor who came up with a lot of the technology behind Alphabet (he now runs ARPA-E, the advanced projects group inside the Department of Energy). Thus, there is a lot of waste heat out there and it could be cheaper than solar. Alphabet estimates it could be a $200 billion market.

Heat-to-electricity can be accomplished in two ways. Companies such as Recycled Energy Development (RED) and Ormat have successfully retrofitted factories to capture waste heat, but these systems largely rely on mechanical engineering. Heat is captured and then channeled into productive uses. One of RED’s showcase projects — coming next year — is a system at West Virginia Alloys, a silicon manufacturer, that will generate 45 megawatts of electrical power from the waste heat generated by factory operations. The company uses 120 megawatts at the current time, but the waste heat system will effectively allow Alloys to recover about one-third of the power it now buys but wastes. Fuel cells can also be used to harvest waste heat.

Semiconductors could potentially be the next wave for the industry, and this is where Alphabet comes in. Traditional waste heat chips — heat goes in one side, electricity comes out the other — cost around $20 a watt and are made out of bismuth telluride. Alphabet won’t say what its semiconductor is made from, but sources say the chief material is silicon nanowires.

:}

More next week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nTcDU73gLs&feature=related

:}

See Booby Jindal and Billy “the blimp” Nungasser believe that if you run around acting like you’re in charge and “doing something” then voters will think you are an effective leader. But what the “near miss hurricane” showed is that they and their sand barriers are full of crap. Even worse, by insisting that BP hire local unemployed workers as clean up people, the tox results from previous oil spills show that they are also going to lead to people’s deaths. Way to go you two.

An Honest Discussion Of Louisiana’s Berm Plan
Part 2
Construction work in the Chandeleur Islands by Kyle Douglas Jeffery Photography: http://www.kylejeffery.ca/Main/Kyle_Douglas_Jeffery_Photography.html
Restoration Work on the Chandeleur Islands

The shut down on June 23 of part of the state’s dredging operations for construction of offshore sand berms was treated by Governor Jindal as a sudden and arbitrary action by federal agencies. (1) But the reality is somewhat different.

While some media stories conveyed the impression that the state’s entire sand berm plan was approved by the Corps of Engineers in late May, only six sections of the original proposal were given a permit. Two sections to the east of the river, on the upper end of the Chandeleur Island chain, and four sections west of the river were authorized by the Corps, which described them as “critical locations where greater immediate benefit is likely to be achieved with minimal adverse disruption of coastal circulation patterns.” (2)

The Corps Permit specified the source areas for sand/sediment: Ship Shoal, South Pelto, the Mississippi River Offshore Disposal Site, and Pass a Loutre for the western sites, and St. Bernard shoal and Hewes Point for the sites to the east. The location of borrow and dredge sites at the northern end of the Chandeleur Islands has been one of the areas of greatest concern. NOAA and other agencies had pointed out that creating borrow pits or dredging in close proximity to the islands could cause accelerated erosion and even compromise their stability, so using a source site a couple of miles away was a condition of the permit.

Soon after receiving its permit, however, the state began to voice its intention to source near to the islands after all, due to a lack of pipe for pumping sand and mud from a distance. The state said it would replace sand from the dredged site within a few weeks, but federal agencies agreed to this change with a much shorter time limit because of the possible effects on the island.

Despite the Governor’s repeated claims that “we don’t have a day to wait,” the state was not ready for the approved level of dredging even after it was approved. Federal officials said that “the state has been unprepared since the beginning, has caused further delay because it did not have the proper pipe available and has continued to asked for time to shift to the offshore site. According to the Interior Department, it gave the state permission for more than a week to use the closer source of sand while locating the pipe, but that allowing the state to continue dredging could have negative effects on existing barrier islands.” (3)

An official with the Department of Interior noted that if the department had allowed the state to continue digging where it was digging, they feared approaching a “tipping point” with an “impact on that island chain that may never be restored.”(4) The Governor’s reaction was to completely ignore these considerations and instead attack the federal agencies: “We haven’t heard from them before today about any concern about these islands or this area. All of a sudden now that we’re building new land to protect our coast, they’re worried about a hypothetical consequence?” (5)

The Governor may not have heard or read the federal agencies concerns in their response to the state’s permit application, or have seen the U.S. Geological Survey report last year about the status of the Chandeleur Islands and how they could be actually restored in ways that minimize adverse impacts (http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5252). He could have read the comments of his own Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, which pointed out in its letter to the Corps the need to “determine whether or not borrow area excavation will increase wave energy and subsequent shoreline erosion, alter littoral currents, or otherwise impact depositional processes, in a way that undermines the sustainability of inland islands, marsh, and shorelines, most importantly the Chandeleur Islands.” (6)

For views of the sand berm and other spill related issues from the perspective of a coastal scientist  please visit the Louisiana Coast Post by Len Bahr, Ph.D. Dr. Bahr is a former LSU marine sciences faculty member who served 18 years as a coastal policy advisor to Louisiana governors from Roemer to Jindal. Dr. Bahr gives the sand berm plan an official “thumbs down” here.

(1) C. Kirkham, Times-Picayune, “Louisiana officials urge feds to let dredging continue on berm to fight Gulf oil spill,” 6/24/10, www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/louisiana_officials_again_ask.html.

(2) Documents related to the plan and the state’s permit request to the Corps of Engineers have been posted at http://leanweb.org/images/stories/bpspill/emergency_permit_documents_final.pdf.

(3) C. Kirkham, J. Tilove, Times-Picayune, “State halts dredging of sand for berms,” 6/23/10.

(4) Times-Picayune, 6/24/10.

(5) Times-Picayune, 6/24/10.

(6) Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, letter of 5/13/10, http://leanweb.org/images/stories/bpspill/emergency_permit_documents_final.pdf.


SaveOurGulf.orgVisit SaveOurGulf.org to get more information about the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster from Waterkeeper organizations across the Gulf Coast and donate to Save Our Gulf!

:}

Jim Johnston and Sustainable Springfield had the Smart Growth panel last night and I saw Will. A head slap moment occurred immediately, so here are the photos from the HIGH Speed Rail Corridor community input session on MAY7!!!!! Yup 2 months late.

:}

Sorry for the size issues but it makes the map readable

:}

There is the whole thing. Then there were the key areas of concern. In nor particular order as they say.

:}

This is the last today…the post is getting long and I am still learning the new Word Press system for handling pictures…

:}

More tomorrow Will

:}

Next Page »