Is Springfield A Green City? Depends on how you define change

Oh you thought I was going to say green didn’t you? Here’s how the story played out in an article by one of Springfield’s best writers:

http://www.sj-r.com

Springfield to use ‘green list’

ranking to attract visitors


By TIM LANDIS

BUSINESS EDITOR

tim.landis@sj-r.com

Springfield made a top 50 list of the nation’s greenest cities for the second year in a row in 2008 thanks partly to construc­tion of a clean-coal power plant, plenty of trees and a smoking ban that took effect before a statewide prohibition. But will the No. 29 ranking by “PopSci” — an online edition of Popular Science magazine — bring the tourists in?

The state’s top tourism offi­cials, and Mayor Tim Davlin, said Thursday they certainly plan to make the attempt. “We’re going to put on a cam­paign this year. We should be doing a lot better,” said Davlin, pointing out that Springfield ranked 12th when the city broke onto the PopSci list forthe first time in 2007. Davlin said he believes the city could have made it into the top 10 last year, but a citywide smoking ban did not take effect until September. A statewide ban took effect on Jan. 1 this year. PopSci uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Geographic Society’s Green Guide to award cities up to 10 points for green uses of electricity and transportation, and up to 5 points for green liv­ing (parks and preserves) and recycling.

And now, the Springfield re­sults:

     Electricity: 5.3.

    Transportation: 3.0.

    Recycling: 4.2

.    Green living: 3.2.

    Total score: 15.7.     

No city earned a perfect 30. Portland, Ore., scored 23.1 to top the list, while Greensboro, N.C., came in at 50 with a score of 10. Joliet, 40, and Chicago, nine, also made the list.

While families aren’t likely to make a day of it at the City Water, Light and Power genera­tion plant on Lake Springfield, Illinois deputy director of tourism Jan Kostner said “green travel” is one of the fastest-growing seg­ments of the tourism industry.

But she said there also needs to be industry standards for awarding a “green” tourism des­ignation.

“One of the problems we have is there’s no gold standard for the industry. You can say you’re green when maybe you’re not,” said Kostner, who was in Spring­field for the annual Illinois Gov­ernor’s Conference on Tourism.

Tim Landis can be reached at 788-1536.

Tim writes more about the Environment and Energy Issues more better than anyone else in the area. But here is the actual lead on the story:

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-02/americas-50-greenest-cities

 America’s 50 Greenest Cities

Want to see a model for successful and rapid environmental action? Don’t look to the federal government—check out your own town. Here, our list of the 50 communities that are leading the way. Does yours make the cut?

In the international alliance to fight climate change, the United States is considered the sullen loner. But in the seven years since we rejected Kyoto, changes have begun. Not at the federal level, however. It’s the locals who are making it happen.

Note the not so subtle difference in the leads. President Bush sucks on the environment. Everyone in the world including President-to-be Putin knows that. You’d think with a name like Bush (think: beer commercial Buusssssssh)  he’d be better than that. But more than that – the question Tim asks is “how can we exploit this rating”? So what has to change? Well: 

1. Springfield’s inability to criticize anybody degrading the environment (by the way according the Pope it’s now a sin).

2. Understanding that exploitation is at the heart of the problem.  
< In everything from emissions control to environmental stewardship,  cities across the country are far ahead of the federal government, and they’re achieving their successes with ready-made technology. Austin has pledged to meet 30 percent of its energy needs with renewable sources by 2020, aided by planned wind-power installations that will surpass their predecessors in efficiency. Seattle has retrofitted its municipal heavy-duty diesel vehicles with devices that will reduce particulate pollution by 50 percent. Boulder has enacted the country’s first electricity tax to pay for greenhouse-gas emission reductions. Something about the comparative speed of city government—a city-council member can greenlight a project and be cutting the ribbon a year later—leads to bold action, and as cities trade ideas, a very positive sort of mimicry is spreading.The 10 trailblazing civic projects profiled in our list of the top green cities in America are among the most impressive success stories to date—examples of what’s possible when elected officials and local business leaders back up their green visions with scientific know-how, clout and creative funding.

 

Nor does Tim’s article mention what a real green city would look like:

1. Portland, Ore. 23.1

  • Electricity: 7.1 Transportation: 6.4 Green Living: 4.8 Recycling/Perspective: 4.8

America’s top green city has it all: Half its power comes from renewable sources, a quarter of the workforce commutes by bike, carpool or public transportation, and it has 35 buildings certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.

2. San Francisco, Calif. 23.0

  • Electricity: 6.8 Transportation: 8.8 Green Living: 3.5 Recycling/Perspective: 3.9
  • See how San Francisco turns wasted roof space into power, here.

3. Boston, Mass. 22.7

  • Electricity: 5.7 Transportation: 8.7 Green Living: 3.4 Recycling/Perspective: 4.9
  • CASE STUDY: Grass Power
    Boston has preliminary plans for a plant that would turn 50,000 tons of fall color into power and fertilizer. The facility would first separate yard clippings into grass and leaves. Anaerobic bacteria feeding on the grass would make enough methane to power at least 1.5 megawatts’ worth of generators, while heat and agitation would hasten the breakdown of leaves and twigs into compost.

<

CES Is Getting Really Impressed With The Personal Wind Turbine

And here is where you can learn how to build one for yourself.

http://www.windstuffnow.com/main/

wind.gif

Thanks for dropping by and Welcome!!!

As a dedicated “do it yourselfer” I put this site up for all those who share similar DIYS skills and convictions.

I hope what I have here helps you in your endeavors in some way, big or small.

This site is maintained using windpower only.  My entire office is powered by the wind. Also part of my house now… !  Email me at  elenz(at)windstuffnow.com        But… you must include something specific to the site in the subject line.  Any email that has a blank subject line will be deleted and therefore not answered.

 

<There are great design ideas at this site if you are good with your hands. There is even a design for a very effect bladed turbine turbine. But my favorite part is the LINKS:

 windlogo.gif

Here are a couple of great links to start with…  There will be more added as time goes on.

www.otherpower.com  They sell magnets and lots of other goodies we like to play with.  Also their site offers a world of information. They also have another site where they sell their magnets and other trinkets to play with at www.wondermagnet.com  

www.homepower.com  Magazine dedicated to us DIYS’ers of home brewed power

www.ScoraigWind.co.uk  I learned a lot from Hugh Piggott, and would strongly recommend his books to anyone getting involved with wind power. 

http://www.green-trust.org has a wealth of information on just about any kind of Renewable energy you can think of.  Expect to spend some time on this site…

www.utterpower.com   . slow speed engines, generators, and more”… Lots of cool stuff we like to play with…

www.freewebs.com/acselectronics lots of DIY projects, information and links.  

http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen

This site has information about small manufactured wind turbines as well as other information about wind power http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klemen This site has information about small manufactured wind turbines as well as other information about wind power  

http://www.dsgnspec.comRob has some great stuff for us experimentors… lots of electonic gizmos we all gott’a have.   This is where the star/delta switch I used in my downwind turbine project came from and it works flawlessly! Also !!! If your looking for a small hand held tach, the non-contact type you gotta’ check out the “Tach JR” Perfect little tach at the right price!!! Dont miss out!!!

http://www.learnonline.com-

Great place to learn about renewable energy for young and old.  A new and interesting way of learning.http://www.learnonline.com-Great place to learn about renewable energy for young and old.  A new and interesting way of learning. 

http://disposalmovie.tripod.com -Off topic but a great movie to experience.  Plus you can help support a young upcomming movie maker.  A must see!

www.dragonflypower.com – lots of good information on wind power as well as a nicely built windturbine using an auto alternator.

http://www.ecs-solar.com – The Solar Industry’s Water Heater Bible
” Hot Water Systems: Lessons Learned 1977 to Today ” Solar Hot Water and Pool Heating Design / High Performance Low Maintenance Systems / Reality Checks Using Current Technology…a definitive how-to book for installing and maintaining high-performance and low-maintenance solar hot water systems — written by one of the leaders in solar contracting today.

www.yourgreendream.com – another nice site for the DIY wind / solar and more! check it out.

www.thebackshed.com – Great DIY site with lots of fun projects we all like to see and build – cool stuff!

http://www.builditsolar.com/ – Tons of DIY projects – plan to spend some time here, I still haven’t been through all the cool stuff !

www.nextenergysolar.com  Bay Area Solar Company, serving San Francisco Bay and Northern California specializing in residential solar power installations. 

http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/wind_turbines.htmlDiscover how a home wind turbine could save money on your electricity bill. We also offer many environmental articles relating to solar, wind and geothermal power, and this includes a section on deciding if a wind turbine can be efficient in your area.

www.energyplanet.infoLots of information in many many catagories of renewable and alternative energies.  Plan to spend some time here … tons of info

Energy News – Why CES’ does not do many original blogs

Just type in Energy News into any Search Engine like Yahoo, MSN or Google and you turn up thousands of pages. 5 entries off the first page are listed below:

http://www.forbes.com/energy/2006/11/27/china-india-energy-biz-energy-cx_pm_1127energy_slide.html

 China and India are Asia’s two largest emerging economies. Both have large populations, industrializing economies and rising living standards and energy consumption. This slide show compares energy production, consumption and efficiency of both countries head-to-head and the environmental issues both are confronting as a result of their growing energy use. The numbers are drawn form official statistics, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency and are the latest available full-year estimates. The energy intensity comparison is based on purchasing power parity conversion rates.

 Forbes of course pointing out that China and Indian will pretty much kill off our species. 

http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2008/20080016.html

energylogo.jpg

February 22, 2008 – Vol.12 No. 48

A SOLAR POWERED WORLD?

Arizona Public Service (APS) has announced plans to build a 280-megawatt concentrating solar power plant in the desert 70 miles southwest of Phoenix. The Solana Generating Station, if it were operating today, would be the single largest solar power plant on the planet. Solana, with its thermal energy storage, will be able to operate 24/7 providing power for 70,000 homes.

As big and impressive as it sounds it’s only a tiny fraction of what’s possible: According to the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC), the energy potential from sunlight striking the world’s deserts is 700 times that of the world’s primary energy demand today. Further, solar power generated in the world’s deserts could reach 90 percent of the world’s population. Australia, Asia, Africa, North and South America all have expansive deserts. By satellite measurement there are 13,500,000 square miles (35 million square kilometers) of hot, dry, sunlit desert on the planet.

Like the APS project, solar thermal power generation is the best option for the world’s deserts. Not only is it a time-tested technology that can provide low cost power, cooling water from the plants can be used for desalinization of sea water. (Energy from clean sources is a major global need right now. So is fresh water.)

Further, made of glass and steel there are no supply constraints to solar thermal power generation equipment as with purified silicon needed for photovoltaics.

The TREC concept, known as DESERTEC, is to build solar power plants in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and build power lines – a Euro-Supergrid – connecting the plants to Europe.

  http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/

Let’s see that would be Africa getting ripped off by Europe AGAIN!

Alternative Energy News

News » Energy | Biofuels | Environment | Hydrogen | Solar | Transportation | Wind

Alternative Energy News

RSS

The Most Efficient Washing Machines Of 2008

March 10th, 2008 · 1 Comment

lg-steam-washer-energystar.jpg

At MetaEfficient, I evaluate appliances based on a number of factors, namely: energy efficiency, effectiveness, reliability, and price. This holds true for washing machines, because all of these factors need to be considered and weighed against each other (I’d also like to include lifecycle analysis, but  there’s no information available for washers). For raw efficiency data, one can turn to the Energy Star ratings, to work out which machines use the least amount of energy and water overall. Based on the Energy Star data, the most efficient washing machines for 2008 are made by LG Electronics and Kenmore.

Three LG washers received the best Energy Star ratings, and four Kenmore washers followed very close behind the LG machines. These ratings are based on the Modified Energy Factor (MEF) which is a way to compare the relative efficiency of different units of clothes washers (higher is better). The second factor is the Water Factor which is the number of gallons per cycle per cubic foot that a washing machine uses (lower is better). Here is a listing of the highest rated washing machines according the February 2008 update:

This site has a real cool video on its home page, but I could not get it to load up on our Blog. The article is from a sidebar. Please look at the video though. 

http://energy.sourceguides.com/news.shtml

 risingsun.gif

Environment: THE ENERGY CRUNCH AND THE PACIFIC ISLANDS

Rising fuel costs mean lost growth for some

Asterio Takesy


Few places have been hard hit by the recent rise in energy costs as the Pacific islands countries (PICs). While the impacts are felt around the world, islands societies are already on a financial razor’s edge—rising fuel costs being more than many can bear.
Making matters worse is that an estimated 90 percent of total electricity generation and the fuel for the entire sea, land and air transport in our region comes directly from fossil fuels. In many of our members, fossil fuels represent a full 100 percent across the board.It is estimated that for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of crude oil, national incomes for the Federated States of Micronesia and Kiribati reduce by over 4% and by at least 2% in Tonga, Tuvalu, Palau and the Solomon Islands. Considering the price of oil has increased by approximately $45 a barrel since 2002, this translates into at least five years of lost growth for some islands countries.Consider also the impact on the balance of trade. It is estimated that fuel imports are now triple the value of merchandise exports in Kiribati, Samoa and Federated States of Micronesia. In the case of Fiji, its combined export earnings in 2006 from three of the country’s major industries, gold, sugar and textiles, only accounted for two-thirds of the country’s total fuel import bill.

All this points to the continuing need for the development of renewable energy resources throughout the Pacific region (and the world). PICs have the highest renewable energy potential per capita in the world.

We are in the midst of the largest ocean on earth with its unlimited wave, tidal and ocean thermal energy. The tropical wind is always blowing and we are along the Pacific “Rim of Fire” with its potential for geothermal power generation. So why hasn’t adoption of renewables happened more quickly?

Let’s see the Islands of the Pacific have not moved ahead with renewables and alternative generation BECAUSE they are in the stranglehold of the Energy Corporation. Man what a surprise

 Again, the above is a side from:http://www.islandsbusiness.com

And finally (wipes brow, takes long drink of water and fans face): 

http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#FROMED

net25.jpg

EDITORIALS AND OPINION

1. Editorial: Will India Surprise the U.S. (Again)?

By Steven B. Krivit

A recent lecture tour by Michael McKubre of SRI International, Mahadeva Srinivasan, former associate director of the physics group at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre on low energy nuclear reaction research, and me found an interested and receptive audience at the center and other science institutions in India. 

But what’s happening in the U.S. and other more developed nations with LENR research? Rumors reaching New Energy Times suggest that people in the U.S. government are taking notice – but quietly. A few of them now have active LENR research programs.

Only one U.S. government group, the Navy’s SPAWAR San Diego (a different entity from the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.), has published LENR papers (19) and does research openly. Some of the other government groups recently received internal funding to begin research, but they have been told not to publish.

Is this a good thing for science? For the U.S.? Probably not. On the other hand, the science community in India has come to terms with the fact that it missed out on 14 years of research on LENR. Will science leaders in the U.S. and other nations take notice of India’s newfound interest?

Glowing articles about the LENR revival in India have been published in Nature India and New Energy Times. However, no journal papers from India have been published recently.

In 1974, researchers at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Trombay, India, not-so-quietly unveiled a not-so-little secret: They had developed nuclear weapons technology. U.S. intelligence and the rest of the world was caught by surprise. Will India surprise the U.S. again with LENR?

 The U.S. may take a wait-and-see attitude with LENR research. The rest of the Western World also may wait. India is not likely to wait. Its people cannot afford to take precious food and burn it in their cars. Their hydro power is maxxed out. Their coal, while plentiful and providing 67 percent of India’s total electrical power, is low-grade and dirty.

Think pollution is bad in Los Angeles? You ain’t seen nothin’ if you haven’t been to a major city in India. They don’t have enough uranium for their current-generation fission reactors, and according to Rajagopala Chidambaram, principal scientific adviser to the government of India, it will take at least another 20 years to bring the next-generation reactors online to take advantage of India’s thorium reserves

Smart people in India understand science, technology, and innovation. And they have ambition and necessity, key ingredients for technological growth.

For those of you who had the patience to read this far Low Energy Nuclear Research has been know as Cold Fusion in the past.

The Pope Say That Pollution Is A Sin – What shall we call it? Degradation

The Pope made it official, all Catholics must immendiately trade in their SUV’s for Hybrids.

 http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20080310/hl_nm/pope_sins_dc.html

Vatican lists “new sins”,

 including pollution

By Philip Pullella Posted Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:00am PDT

A faithful holds the cross during a mass at a Catholic church on the outskirts of Changzhi, Shanxi province December 23, 2007. The Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of ‘new’ sins such as causing environmental blight. (Stringer/Reuters)

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Thou shall not pollute the Earth. Thou shall beware genetic manipulation. Modern times bring with them modern sins. So the Vatican has told the faithful that they should be aware of “new” sins such as causing environmental blight.

The guidance came at the weekend when Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican’s number two man in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils.

Girotti, in an interview headlined “New Forms of Social Sin,” also listed “ecological” offences as modern evils.

In recent months, Pope Benedict has made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race.

Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become progressively “green.”

It has installed photovoltaic cells on buildings to produce electricity and hosted a scientific conference to discuss the ramifications of global warming and climate change, widely blamed on human use of fossil fuels

Lamborghini is probably not amused.

http://www.lamborghini.com/

 But when you think about, how important is sinning anyway in the Judao/Christian/Muslim cacophony of what we must do and what we must not do? First their are the 10 COMANDMENTS (Think NRA President Chuck Heston):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

Text of the Ten Commandments

The lists which are commonly known as the Ten Commandments are given in passages in two books of the Bible: Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21. These passages are provided in English below, using the New Revised Standard Version translation and formatting. Various religions and denominations group the commandments differently; see the Division of the commandments section for a detailed accounting.

Exodus 20:2–17 Deuteronomy 5:6–21
2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;3 Do not have any other gods before Me.4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.8 Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.10 But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.

11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

13 You shall not murder.

14 You shall not commit adultery.

15 You shall not steal.

16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.

17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;7 you shall have no other gods before me.8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.13 For six days you shall labour and do all your work.14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you.

15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

16 Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

17 You shall not murder.

18 Neither shall you commit adultery.

19 Neither shall you steal.

20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour.

21 Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.

OK so its more like 11 depending ON WHO YOU BELIEVE. No it can be…. And then there are the Seven Deadly Sins:

 http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm

Yes its true, a topic so important it has its own website.

Pride is excessive belief in one’s own abilities, that interferes with the individual’s recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others’ traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

MAN THAT’S A LOT OF WORK…..

MEMO to Brad Pitt, Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey: You need to remake your own movie. But it would be called Eight. The plot would change slightly. hahahahaha Do you really think Brad would kill Kevin because he cut off the head of Franklin Thomas, the Leading Director of the Board of Directors for Alcoa, Inc. one of the leading polluters of the world.

http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/about_alcoa/corp_gov/directors/Thomas_FA.asp?leadDirect=true

Taylorville Energy Center Is A Bad Idea – What are we to do when our protectors betray us

Where I come from most Environmentalists and Energy Advocates would be filing lawsuit after lawsuit against any Toxic Deep Well Injection Site proposed in their area. Yet in an amazing sellout the organizations that could stop this are ADVOCATING For It. This is a sad and tragic turn of events.

This from Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center had this to say:

http://www.elpc.org/news/statementfuturegensiteannouncement.php

elpc_logo_protecting.gif

ELPC > Newsroom

Statement of Howard A. Learner on

 FutureGen Site Announcement

Contact: Shannon Rooney(312) 795-3720
Srooney@elpc.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 18, 2007

 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD A. LEARNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER
FUTUREGEN SITE ANNOUNCEMENT

CHICAGO, IL – Illinois scored a major victory with today’s announcement that Mattoon, Illinois has been selected as the first site for the experimental FutureGen “clean coal” plant. It is designed to test an innovative carbon capture and sequestration approach to burn coal without emitting carbon dioxide pollution into the atmosphere.

“Illinois is now positioned to be an advanced clean energy technology leader. The proposed FutureGen technology, if it works, is the Holy Grail enabling the economic boost from using Illinois coal while avoiding global warming pollution that harms our environment,” said Howard A. Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “We look forward to continuing to work as a member of the FutureGen coalition to help this project succeed.”

The FutureGen plant is expected to begin operation in the fall of 2012.

The Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) is the Midwest’s leading environmental, legal advocacy and eco-innovation organization. For more information go to www.elpc.org.

                                                                            ###

And then there’s this Letter To the Editor from Dave Kolata, Executive Director of the Citizens Utility Board, published in Springfield’s State Journal-Register.  It’s bad enough that he publishes this in the Illinois State Capital, but their web site claims he published something similar, in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, though their web site refused to give up the actual text.

 www.citizensutilityboard.org

February 28, 2008

State needs to get on with clean coal plans

We applaud your editorial supporting the Taylorville Energy Center (“A clean coal plant may yet be built in state,” Feb. 7). We agree wholeheartedly that despite the disappointing loss of FutureGen, Illinois still has a chance to show leadership on clean coal.

Using cutting-edge technology that gasifies coal to remove pollutants, the privately financed Taylorville project would be the cleanest coal plant in the world, dramatically reducing the exposure to harmful environmental triggers of asthma and lung cancer. At the same time, this $2.5 billion facility would create thousands of jobs, provide Illinois with a needed source of power, and reduce consumers’ energy costs by using coal instead of expensive natural gas to produce energy.

Indeed, the Taylorville plant could provide a badly needed boost to the state’s coal industry. Illinois is home to the second largest coal reserves in the nation, but with FutureGen off the table and our state having recently suffered the shutdown of the Crown II and Monterey mines, the Illinois coal industry needs a shot in the arm that only Taylorville can provide.

As your editorial points out, last year legislation that would have allowed the project to proceed got caught bogged down in Springfield and no final action was taken. Unlike FutureGen, the Taylorville plant is 100 percent within our state’s control. We urge the Illinois General Assembly to act quickly to secure our state’s energy future while doing right by consumers, the economy and the environment.

Phil Gonet President  Illinois Coal Association

David Kolata Executive Director Citizens Utility Board

Michael Carrigan President, AFL-CIO

Angela Tin  Director Environmental Programs American Lung Associationof Illinois


I mean really, you want to threaten downstate aquifers so the air can stay clean?  Where is the outrage here. And what is Angela Tin thinking? That us downstaters will trade Lung Cancer for Stomach Cancer when we drink polluted water? This is crazy, but even the Sierra Club gets into the act
 >.http://illinois.sierraclub.org/ >

December 18, 2007 Sierra Club Statement on FutureGen Siting
No New Coal Plants Until Technology Proven

Statement of Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign, in response to today’s announcement that Mattoon in East Central Illinois was picked as the site for the $1.8 billion FutureGen project — an experimental coal plant that would capture and store its carbon.

“If coal is to remain a part of our energy future, it must be mined responsibly, burned cleanly and not contribute to global warming. FutureGen will allow the coal industry to determine whether or not it is technologically and financially feasible to continue to burn coal without accelerating global warming

“It will still be years before we see if the highly experimental FutureGen project is successful in capturing and safely storing its carbon emissions–until then it is critical that no additional coal plants are permitted and constructed in the United States. We need to continue to invest in the demonstrated clean energy alternatives that are available today and don’t contribute to global warming, like wind power and energy efficiency.  

“We can expand our energy choices beyond the limited, unhealthy options of the past. We should be offering incentives for alternatives to coal that can meet our energy needs and save us money while boosting the economy, improving public health and combating global warming. Illinois and many other states are already reaping the benefits of transitioning to cleaner energy. While we continue to look for cleaner ways to use existing energy sources, we should also be investing and supporting alternative, renewable sources of energy and increasing efficiency.”

 ###

  

>This is heinous. There is no other word for State based groups selling out their own.
>

Taylorville Energy Center Is A Really Bad Idea – Deep Well Injection (DWI) is not good in Illinois

First a slight mea culpa. A gentleman from an Advance Gasification Publication emailed me and took me to task for being a “know nothing” blogger. Is that great or what! He pointed out that my description of Gasification was flawed. On each Blog I put up all kinds of site addresses like Wikipedia and others so that people can “click and read” about any subject I Blog about if they wanted to. I do not view myself as a babysitter. Google being what it is (or any other search engine for that matter) I don’t even really have to put up the links. A reader can just type in the subject and get a list sources for their own selves. I do it to make it easy for people to READ about what I am writing about and to show the sources I am using.

If you go to the site below you can see the gentleman in all his indignant fury:

http://gasification-igcc.blogspot.com/

For the record the hydrogen to run the plant come from electrolysis like catalytic effect from steam heated in part by the coal. Also for the record this is a dumb way to generate electricity, almost as dumb using coal to make steam. Solar is more direct and more efficient than this crap ever could be. Also for the record, I try to write for the normal Joes and Jackies in the world. The only thing they care about is that the “lights come on when they flip the switch” and the health of their children. It’s the health and welfare of their children and their grand children where this whole project falls apart.

Back to DWI. Illinois is a real bad place to put a Commercial Toxic Waste Deep Well Injection Site and that is what Tenaska is trying to do. The Energy Portion of the Project is In One Sense is a smokescreen. If they get their financial way and get around regulation of the site By the ICC By declaring it an Independent Power producer AND pass Legislation Mandating the Purchase of the Power by Illinois Utilities then they could make a fortune. More on that later. Trust me much more. But lets say, for the moment that RATE BASING a 2 Billion $$$ Power Plant ain’t happening and that a 2 Billion $$$ Power Plant will be “Too Expensive To Meter” What’s the game here?

There are only 5 Commercial Toxic Waste DWI’s in the nation:

http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/tsdfdeepwells.php

 deepwells.bmp

 

As you can see they all sit atop spent or partially spent rock trapped oil fields. Though there is no evidence that these sites are fool proof they at least have the intellectual possibility of succeeding. Most of the other Non-Commercial Toxic Waste DWI sites that are usually operated to get rid of human waste and wastewater have proved troublesome at best.

http://www.stopthetoxicwells.com/

http://eelink.net/EJ/well.html

 

Their failure rate for something that was supposed, “to solve the waste problems” in the US have not worked out so well.

When you look at Illinois, which has 3 major rivers the Mississippi, the Wabash and the Illinois, and a soft coal-filled  Center:

 

herrin_coal_map.jpg

 

then putting a Commercial Toxic DWI right in its center seems unjustified. But think about this for a moment once it is open who else might dump their Toxic stuff there as well? It is widely rumored in the Environmental and Energy communties that the only reason that Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin signed as a “supporting Governor” is that he believes he could ship some of his States sequestered carbon here. This is what a proper sequestration system in North Dakota looks like:

m-24_weyburn-co2.jpg

www.netl.doe.gov/…/core_rd/mmv/41149.html

 

Build a PIPELINE to the nearest  stone encased oilfield. Hint: It’s not in Illinois.

 

Taylorville Energy Center Is A Very Bad Idea – Pump Poison where they can’t monitor it

FutureGen was a bad idea because it made Deep Well Injection (DWI) look like a possibility in Central Illinois. And get this it cost NOTHING. The Government didn’t spend a dime nor did the Energy Industry. But, it accomplished so much. FutureGen:

1. Got the citizens excited and made the appearance of their acceptance.

2. Got the State of Illinois hooked into something that does not exist…Clean Coal Technology.

3. Produced studies that claim that DWI will work in Central Illinois – its the Sandstone…its the sand stone..its.

4. Glossed over the toxics produced and the huge amounts of water it will consume.

5. Coopted the Energy and Environmental Groups

6. Paved the way for the real threat which is in Decatur and Taylorville in a classic bait and switch move.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS230346+31-Jan-2008+BW20080131

Taylorville Energy Center Receives Final Air Permit, Environmental Appeals Board Denies Sierra Club Appeal
             Project Can Begin Once Illinois Lawmakers Act
TAYLORVILLE, Ill.--(Business Wire)--In a critical milestone for the development of clean coal
technologies, the U.S. Environmental Appeals Board denied the Sierra
Club's appeal of the air permit granted to the Taylorville Energy
Center. The project is now poised to move forward once enabling
legislation is passed by the Illinois General Assembly.
   On June 5, 2007, following a two year application process, the
Illinois EPA granted the first U.S. air quality permit for a
commercially-sized Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power
generating facility to the Taylorville Energy Center (TEC), a $2
billion, 630-megawatt project being developed by Christian County
Generation LLC (CCG).
 
 

In CES’ last blog I covered what was in Coal because gasification uses huge amounts of it. Why? because gasification is only interested in the Hydrogen it can get out of the stuff, plus many of the elements they won’t use are flammable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification

thus they contribute to the BTWs in coal when it is burned. As a result they will need 2 or 3 times the amount of coal to produce the same amount of Electricity. Logically then they are going to produce at least 2 to 3 times the toxics and probably more. In the past, gasification sites just dumped all that nasty stuff on the ground. That has produced a fair amount of Superfund Sites and the irony is that one of them is in Taylorville. The second irony is that that site hasn’t even been cleaned up yet, and Tenaska wants to start another one.

But these people think its just a dandy idea:

http://www.cleancoalillinois.com/tec.html

While these people talk out of both sides of their mouths:

http://www.tenaska.com/newsArchive.aspx

Tenaska Proposes Nation’s First New Conventional Coal-fueled Power Plant to Capture Carbon Dioxide – February 19, 2008

Captured CO2 would be sequestered in the Permian Basin and help recover more than $1 billion of West Texas oil annually.

Tenaska, Inc. is developing a site near Sweetwater, Texas, upon which to construct a technologically advanced coal-fueled electric generating plant able to capture up to 90 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) that would otherwise enter the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide would be sold for use in enhancing oil production in the Permian Basin, resulting in geologic storage.    

Did they coopt the Environmental and the Energy Groups who are supposed to stop this stuff? You bet your jammies they did:

   EAB questioned Sierra Club's arguments given the organization's
numerous past statements supportive of IGCC technology:
   For a number of years, Sierra Club has argued that IGCC technology
should be adopted as the best available control technology for
limiting air pollutant emissions from the burning of coal to produce
electrical power.

What Is In Coal Anyway – eww yuck

For a long time I have wondered why there was not an easy place to go to get a list of what all is in coal without having to know the periodic table by heart, have a degree in geology or understand energy industry techo speak. I understood (I thought) what was in a clump of the nasty dusty stuff BUT it was never easy to understand. This was purposely made worse by disengenious efforts by the industry to say, “it varies from sample to sample”. The implication was that there was just no way to tell.

Periodically (yes yes it’s a pun), I would find something like this:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

 Coal is largely composed of organic matter, but it is the inorganic matter in coal—minerals and trace elements— that have been cited as possible causes of health, environmental, and technological problems associated with the use of coal. Some trace elements in coal are naturally radioactive. These radioactive elements include uranium (U), thorium (Th), and their numerous decay products, including radium (Ra) and radon (Rn). Although these elements are less chemically toxic than other coal byproducts.

 

But even that little snippet should cause the casual reader to ask why have they been putting millions of tons of the above substances in our air, and why are they throwing that stuff away when it’s worth money? Sometimes big money? Those are good questions but you ain’t seen nothin yet.

 

So what is in coal besides carbon? When asked this question I usually say EVERYTHING. Think about it. Coal is nothing but rotted forests and shallow seas that were sealed over by geological upheavals of one sort or another. The geological upheavals puts pressure on the rotting vegetation and animals which hydrogenates the whole stinking mess into oil. If enough time passes, and the liquids solidify it turns into coal. So every element that was in that forest or in that shallow sea is in that coal or oil. I know this seems simple but really its what happens to dead things under heat and pressure.

 

People in the Coal and Oil Industry like to hide what is in oil and coal behind tons of gobbeldegook, jargon and hems and haws about sample size, type of coal and location. But that is because they want to stay in business (read: steal your resources and make huge profits) and they do not want you to know what they are throwing into your water and your air with gay abandoned.

This list is culled from the National Coal database for Illinois, so it is based on mostly bituminous coals and yes amounts of elements vary from coal sample to coal sample…But not as much as the normal person would assume. I have listed the elements in 3 tiers based roughly on the amounts present in the tested samples. The first tier is the Bulk of the makeup of coal that is not carbon, the second tier elements are usually referred to the Volatiles, and the third tier are what are usually referred to as Trace elements. We will come back to that issue of “trace” elements after the list.

Take your pick of 2 below for our science favorite (Sesame Street Music) – The Periodic Table!

niketanblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/remembering

Standard periodic table

periodic-table.bmp

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

 

Major Ingredients In Coal (besides carbon)

 

Silicon

Aluminum

Calcium

Magnesium

Sodium

Potassioum

Iron

Titanium

Sulfur

Silver

Arsenic

In Alphabetical Order the Slightly Rarer Ingredients

Boron

Barium

Beryllium

Bromine

Cobalt

Chromium

Cesium

Copper

Europian

Florine

Galium

Mercury

Lithium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Nickel

Lead

Antimony

Scandium

Selenium

Samarium

Strontium

Thorium

Uranium

Vanadium

Yttrium

Ytterbium

Zinc

Zirconium

 

The Trace Elements

 

Gold

Bismuth

Cadmium

Cerium

Chlorine

Dysprosium

Erbium

Gadolinium

Germanium

Hafnium

Indium

Iridium

Lanthanum

Lutetium

Niobium

Neodymium

Osmium

Phosphorus

Palladium

Praseodymium

Platinum

Rubidium

Rhenium

Rhodium

Ruthenium

Tin

Tantalum

Terbium

Tellurium

Thallium

Thallium

Thulium

Tungsten

 

This is roughly 80 elements out of the current total number of 117, some of which either do not occur on earth, like irriduim, or do not occur in nature. Primitive Capitalist had excuses for all this waste, the elements were either to hard to retrieve, their was no one to tell them to do so, or even that this waste had no effect. Fact of the matter is that they were just ignorant and lazy. When someone would bring up curbing pollution, they would just dismiss it as a waste of money or too expensive. But in reality NOT throwing things away makes money. Everytime Corporations have been forced to curb a pollutent, they have made money off the process. All extraction is is an engineering problem and these days it is not even that much of a problem. Yet the Energy Companies still persist in making these kinds of claims and now they have come up with a new dangerous way not to do it.

 

This issue of what is in Coal is really important when it comes to Deep Well Injection of waste. More on that Tomorrow.

The Chinese Clean Our Economic Clock – While we work on stuff that does not work

While we try to bury our waste through dangerous deep well injection, the Chinese work on stuff that really advances the New Energy Economy.

http://www.terradaily.com/2007/080228143924.7nvde7oj.html

Public transport to go electric in gas-rich Qatar

 The gas-rich Gulf state of Qatar on Thursday launched a public transport project that will use electric buses and taxis in a bid to cut air pollution. The battery-powered vehicles are being built by a China-based developer for Mowasalat, Qatar’s public transport operator, and will enter service soon, the organisation’s business development manager Ahmad al-Ansari said.“The developer is working now on technical issues such as increasing the speed of the vehicle, extending the battery range and reducing the mass of the vehicle,” he told AFP.The vehicles will have their batteries recharged in the company’s depot during the first phase of the scheme until charging stations are set up around the capital Doha, he said.“We endeavour to develop technology with the aim of providing services that will bring environmental and economic benefits,” Mowasalat chairman Jassem al-Sulaiti said at a news conference to announce the project.

Mowasalat will also have the patent for the new product and will market it worldwide, he added.

The government-owned transport network recently inaugurated a taxi service using cars powered by liquefied natural gas which Qatar has abundant amounts of — 15 percent of the world’s proven reserves.

FutureGen Is A Very Bad Idea – sounds like ideas from the past

How have humans gotten rid of their nasty waste in the past? Well it has always been out of sight out of mind. In the early cities they threw stuff in the river and made piles of it “out in the country side”.

My 2 most favorite modern examples are: 1) the Steel Barrels of Radioactive waste tossed in the ocean off  San Francisco. Barrels that would- get this – never rust.

http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/farallon/radwaste.html

Farallon Island Radioactive Waste Dump

“There is intense public and media interest in this issue, and we need to have the best information available when we respond to inquiries or participate in discussions on the issue of radioactive waste dumped near the Farallones.”–Barbara Boxer; United States Congress (D-California). June, 1990

Issue

More than 47,800 drums and other containers of low-level radioactive waste were dumped onto the ocean floor west of San Francisco between 1946 and 1970; many of these are in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. 

and 2) The “reef” they tried to build out of used rubber automobile tires off the cost of Florida which has created a oceanic desert devoid of any life. It is now being cleaned up by volunteer divers.

Idea of making reef from tires

 backfires

Four decades later, Florida now considers removing up to 2 million tires

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – A mile offshore from this city’s high-rise condos and spring-break bars lie as many as 2 million old tires, strewn across the ocean floor — a white-walled, steel-belted monument to good intentions gone awry.The tires were unloaded there in 1972 to create an artificial reef that could attract a rich variety of marine life, and to free up space in clogged landfills. But decades later, the idea has proved a huge ecological blunder.Little sea life has formed on the tires. Some of the tires that were bundled together with nylon and steel have broken loose and are scouring the ocean floor across a swath the size of 31 football fields. Tires are washing up on beaches. Thousands have wedged up against a nearby natural reef, blocking coral growth and devastating marine life. 

 070216_tirereef_hmed_1p_hmedium.jpg

So what does that have to do with FutureGen?

Thursday, February 7, 2008


THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER


 


 

FutureGen developers

hope to revive plan


 

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS____________

MATTOON — Developers hop­ing to build an experimental central Illinois power plant

say they’ll try to work with the White House and the Department of Energy to get

the project back on track.

The power and coal companies known as the FutureGen Alliance also will work with Congress

to get money for the $1.8 billion project, said Paul Thompson, chairman of the developers’

group.‘We always want to keep the door open,” FutureGen chief exec­utive officer Mike Mudd said

Wednesday after two days of al­liance board meetings in Mattoon. “If that does not come to a

fruitful conclusion, we will work with Con­gress.”

Those talks aren’t happening

right now, Mudd and Thompson said. Thompson said he requested early in January to meet

with Ener­gy Secretary Samuel Bodman but has gotten no response.

Bodman, meanwhile, faced ques­tioning from Congress on Wednes­day about the agency’s

decision last week to pull out of the project, tak­ing with it its commitment to fund three-quarters

of the cost.

A DOE spokeswoman said the agency was willing to talk with the FutureGen Alliance about

its plan to restructure FutureGen, which it an­nounced last week. The agency has so far asked

for industry feedback on what it says could be several power plants across the country.

‘While the department continues to maintain open lines of communi­cation on this important

 matter, we believe the decision to restructure

FutureGen is the best path forward to demonstrate and commercialize advanced carbon capture

 and stor­age technology,” spokeswoman Julie Ruggiero said in an e-mail.

She did not address Thompson’s request for a meeting with Bod­man.

FutureGen is intended to prove a power plant can use coal to gener­ate electricity while

capturing the carbon dioxide in the fuel and stor­ing it underground to keep it out of the

atmosphere.

Government and industry, until last week, had worked together, with the DOE covering 74 percent

of the cost and the FutureGen Al­liance covering the other 26 per­cent and building the plant.

The alliance chose Mattoon in December over three other sites — Tuscola, just north of Mattoon,

andtwo sites in Texas. The project would create thousands of jobs dur­ing construction, and 150

once the plant opens.The DOE and the alliance say they talked about the project’s es­calating costs

 much of last year.

When announced by the govern­ment in 2003, FutureGen was billed as a $950 million project,

meaning the Energy Department obligation was $800 million.

The current price tag, the al­liance says, is due to the rising cost of building materials. (emphasis added)

>

>

Well this is the ultimate out of sight out of mind solution. The form of carbon seqestration that they have proposed to use is dangerous. Deep Well Injection (DWI, all pun intended) may work in some instances. The best proof for DWI is when pumping the poisons into an already proven and toxic well like a deep and depleted oil field. Other than that DWI is a total crap shoot.

http://www.pollutionissues.com/Ho-Li/Injection-Well.html

Injection wells use high-pressure pumps to inject liquid wastes into under-ground geologic formations (e.g., sandstone or sedimentary rocks with high porosity). Many geologists believe that wastes may be isolated from drinking water aquifers when injected between impermeable rock strata. However, injection wells are still controversial and many scientists are concerned that leaks from these wells may contaminate groundwater. As of 1994, twenty-two out of 172 deep injection wells contaminated water supplies. 

This applies to the Taylorville Energy Project as well, but more on that later. Shouldn’t we really be asking ourselves why we would be reverting to Gasification, an ancient and obsolete technique, instead of solar, wind, hydro and tidal power. Gasification presents a serious problem. But first what is in coal that makes it obsolete and then why gasification is dangerous.