Ford Motor Co. is planning to introduce a line of electric vehicles here in Chicago, Illinois, beginning first by the end of this year, 2010! Isn't that exciting to hear? Their new model lines will include the Transit Connect Electric small commercial van, the Focus Electric passenger car, and a plug-in hybrid vehicle. Only the plug-in hybrid, apparently still without a name, will require gasoline to run.The other two will not. Is that exciting or what?
One problem is the sufficient availability of electric charging stations for these electic vehicles. Currently, the city of Chicago plans to begin installing, through a U.S. Department of Energy Clean Cities grant, about 100 charging stations by the end of this year. According to Ford Motor Co., about 300 charging stations around the country are being installed on a monthly basis (who knew that?). Ford would like to see in a city such as Chicago the availability of a charging station within a 2 to 3 mile radius for a consumer. And it would like to see a majority of those stations be "Level Three" stations, which are able to fully charge a vehicle in less than two hours. A "Level Two" charging station can take three times longer to charge a vehicle. A Level Three station can cost up to $50,000 while only $2,000 is required for a Level Two station.
Another problem is deciding how to regulate the charging stations and how much, if at all, to charge the consumer for charging their vehicles. The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) hopes to deal with this and related questions by the spring of 2011. According to Manny Flores, chairman of the ICC and former Chicago alderman, the ICC's top priority is maintaining the safety and reliability of the electric grid. But private companies have already started to install charging stations in the Chicago area. They are planning to charge by the "session" as opposed to charging by the kilowatt hour. For instance, InterPark parking company has installed 22 charging stations so far, with two at each of its 10 Loop parking garages, and two at its garage at the corner of Ohio and Rush streets. The company is giving out free charges until the end of the year. Again, is that great or what?
Still another problem is the fact that a colder climate hampers the battery charge for an electric vehicle, and here in Chicago we all know about a colder climate. But, as we also have seen, there have been a number of unsual warm spells during the winter months, and if one tends to see a correlation between this phenomenon and the scientific predictions of climate change, as I personally do, then one can expect to see increasing warming trends during winter months as a continuing pattern. Thus, there should be less cold days to worry about the electric car battery not holding its charge well. And, by driving an electric vehicle, one will certainly be helping to draw down the carbon emissions which are contributing to climate change to begin with. So all you soon-to-be-purchasing new car folks, please, pretty please,consider the prospects and the benefits of purchasing an all-electric vehicle for your personal and commercial needs. As it was expressed in the commercial from years' past, "You'll LIKE IT!" Thanks!
The information for this post was drawn solely from an article in the Chicago Tribune, Saturday, October 30, Business Section, page 10, written and reported by Julie Wernau, Tribune reporter. Reasonable and truthful attempts were made to paraphrase any statements or sentences that otherwise would have been too literally close to the original sentence in the fine article by Ms. Wernau. All due attributions are given to the reporter, Julie Wernau, and to the Chicago Tribune.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Making Economic Sense
One hears this all the time these days from various companies and corporations regarding their willingness to change their dirty, polluting habits. "We will make changes when it makes economic sense to do so, and not sooner," or, "It is not economically beneficial for us to put in these cleaner technologies at this time," or something to that effect. One hears similar statements from our government leaders such as this from the previous administration, "We must abide by the requirement that any such changes be in accordance with what make economic sense before we push any new regulations on the practices of producing corporations." This is a paraphrase of a sentence in a letter that the White House personally addressed and sent to me a few years back when I had written a scathing, personal letter to the Bush White House expressing my outrage over the mountaintop removal practices of the coal companies in the Appalachian regions.
There are many of us who remember the debate during the Bush years (and earlier, I believe) over how to structure the emphasis on how to decide environmental policy. The debate centered on the principle of costs vs. benefits. The conservative side wanted to emphasize a direct economic connection between costs and benefits, which meant that if benefits could not be shown to outshine the economic costs, even if those benefits were meaningful in other ways, such as less pollution, more beauty, etc., then the regulatory approach should not be taken. The liberal side always tried to show that the benefits of effective enviromental requirements, such as requiring big industry to implement the best available technology (BAT) in regard to their waste output, do outweigh the costs. Well, now there are some newly-available facts to buttress that argument.
The Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center just released a report based on data obtained from the National Research Council showing in concrete numbers just what is the economic costs to human health as a result of the emissions from our nation's coal-burning power plants. The National Research Council provided health cost estimates for the nation's energy output as a whole, including emissions from power plants and from vehicles, and their overall cost estimate is $120 billion per year. This estimate is for hidden costs tied, for the most part, to soot emissions from power plants and from vehicles, and does not include what we pay for the comsumption of coal, gasoline, and diesel fuel (Chicago Tribune, Michael Hawthorne, Thursday, October 21, 2010,"Health costs of coal plants are tallied," Section 1, page 11).
The National Research Council, one of our nation's leading scientific organizations, included data for emissions from power plants and their health impacts from across the country, including for the antiquated, still-running, coal-burning Fisk and Crawford power plants right here in our city of big shoulders and big smokestacks, Chicago. The estimated costs for the neighboring communities of these plants, those being the Pilsen and the Little Village neighborhoods, are $127 million annually.
If you think about it for a moment, you realize that hey, it's not just the direct costs to a producing company that need to be considered for that plant to either change or keep its emission practices, it's also the costs to the surrounding entities, whether they be people, animals, trees, plants, fields, streams, and so forth. Sticking with people here, the costs are clearly significant. Think about it. Thanks!
There are many of us who remember the debate during the Bush years (and earlier, I believe) over how to structure the emphasis on how to decide environmental policy. The debate centered on the principle of costs vs. benefits. The conservative side wanted to emphasize a direct economic connection between costs and benefits, which meant that if benefits could not be shown to outshine the economic costs, even if those benefits were meaningful in other ways, such as less pollution, more beauty, etc., then the regulatory approach should not be taken. The liberal side always tried to show that the benefits of effective enviromental requirements, such as requiring big industry to implement the best available technology (BAT) in regard to their waste output, do outweigh the costs. Well, now there are some newly-available facts to buttress that argument.
The Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center just released a report based on data obtained from the National Research Council showing in concrete numbers just what is the economic costs to human health as a result of the emissions from our nation's coal-burning power plants. The National Research Council provided health cost estimates for the nation's energy output as a whole, including emissions from power plants and from vehicles, and their overall cost estimate is $120 billion per year. This estimate is for hidden costs tied, for the most part, to soot emissions from power plants and from vehicles, and does not include what we pay for the comsumption of coal, gasoline, and diesel fuel (Chicago Tribune, Michael Hawthorne, Thursday, October 21, 2010,"Health costs of coal plants are tallied," Section 1, page 11).
The National Research Council, one of our nation's leading scientific organizations, included data for emissions from power plants and their health impacts from across the country, including for the antiquated, still-running, coal-burning Fisk and Crawford power plants right here in our city of big shoulders and big smokestacks, Chicago. The estimated costs for the neighboring communities of these plants, those being the Pilsen and the Little Village neighborhoods, are $127 million annually.
If you think about it for a moment, you realize that hey, it's not just the direct costs to a producing company that need to be considered for that plant to either change or keep its emission practices, it's also the costs to the surrounding entities, whether they be people, animals, trees, plants, fields, streams, and so forth. Sticking with people here, the costs are clearly significant. Think about it. Thanks!
Monday, October 18, 2010
Premier Post of Environmental News and Commentary
Greetings and Hello,
I have, for some time now, felt the need to express my interests and concerns regarding the fight to preserve our environment, here at home and abroad, in writing. I do send in written opinions regarding specific issues when signing various petitions aimed at our political representatives in Washington or in our state capitols (mine is Springfield, Illinois). But I feel the need to do more and express more my interests and my thoughts on issues of the environment, hence my decision to start a blog. Yes, I know, there are numerous blogs on this topic, and I know I am late coming into this game. Yet, I definitely think that the issues and debates surrounding how we, as people, as social beings, and as producing beings, use and treat our natural environment are of paramount importance in today's world that is crowded with important issues.
The essential thing is, the quality of our environmental resources and processes are directly related to our quality of living, both in the absolutely essental aspects of living, such as available clean water and clean air, and in the aesthetic and spiritual aspects of living, such as being able to enjoy a healthy and beautiful state or national park, and to have the knowledge that the various wild animals, insects, reptiles, and plants that we love (and need) have not been lost to extinction.
This is why I am motivated to start yet another blog on environmental concerns. I hope that I can make this idea materialize into something worthwhile and interesting, both for myself and for any interested readers. Thank you for your choice to visit and read this blog. Certainly, to involve yourself in matters of our precious environment can not harm you. On the contrary, it can help lift you up, educate you, and prepare you to be an active, involved person in this most important struggle to find some balance and sanity in the current mad rush to exploit what is left of the earth's resources.
The item for today's news is the ongoing efforts of our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to regulate what is known as coal ash. Coal ash is the residual matter left over from the combustion of coal which takes place at coal energy plants which produce much of our nation's electricity. The EPA is proposing "the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants" (LaTisha Petteway, petteway.latisha@epa.gov, 202-564-3191, 202-564-4355). Some of you may recall the huge release of stored coal ash from the contaiment site owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The TVA produces much of the electricity for residents living in rural areas of Tennessee and other states, I believe. The spilled coal ash covered millions of cubic yards of land and river. Coal ash has harmful substances in it such as heavy metals including lead and chromium. The EPA is proposing new regulations that would require more stringent requirements for the storage and handling of coal ash, and to also redesignate coal ash as being a toxic product. Such a designation would create new limits on how coal ash is handled, shipped, and so forth. There are many businesses that creatively use recycled coal ash in various products that are used in industry and agriculture. They object to the proposed toxic label.
The EPA has proposed two approaches for dealing with the problems of handling and disposing of coal ash. One option, Subtitle C, is stringent and is compulsory. The other option, Subtitle D, is much more voluntary in nature, and would be enforced primarily by citizen actions, i.e., lawsuits. The texts of both approaches can be found at the website: http://www.epa.gov/coalashrule .
While you are there, please take a couple of minutes to express your support for one of these options. I would be pleased if you decide to support subtitle C. But it is important, in any case, that our EPA hears from its constituents. They do value what people have to say and they take people's thoughts and opinions into consideration when they deliberate on which policy to adopt. So please, take the time and let the EPA know what you think at http://www.regulations.gov/ . Enter "EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640" into the search field and click "Search". Follow the links to submit a comment. Who knows, you may reside next to a coal ash containment site and not even know that you are. Wouldn't you want to have the strongest and current protections to minimize the risk of having that toxic sludge slide into your back or front yard?
Thank you.
I have, for some time now, felt the need to express my interests and concerns regarding the fight to preserve our environment, here at home and abroad, in writing. I do send in written opinions regarding specific issues when signing various petitions aimed at our political representatives in Washington or in our state capitols (mine is Springfield, Illinois). But I feel the need to do more and express more my interests and my thoughts on issues of the environment, hence my decision to start a blog. Yes, I know, there are numerous blogs on this topic, and I know I am late coming into this game. Yet, I definitely think that the issues and debates surrounding how we, as people, as social beings, and as producing beings, use and treat our natural environment are of paramount importance in today's world that is crowded with important issues.
The essential thing is, the quality of our environmental resources and processes are directly related to our quality of living, both in the absolutely essental aspects of living, such as available clean water and clean air, and in the aesthetic and spiritual aspects of living, such as being able to enjoy a healthy and beautiful state or national park, and to have the knowledge that the various wild animals, insects, reptiles, and plants that we love (and need) have not been lost to extinction.
This is why I am motivated to start yet another blog on environmental concerns. I hope that I can make this idea materialize into something worthwhile and interesting, both for myself and for any interested readers. Thank you for your choice to visit and read this blog. Certainly, to involve yourself in matters of our precious environment can not harm you. On the contrary, it can help lift you up, educate you, and prepare you to be an active, involved person in this most important struggle to find some balance and sanity in the current mad rush to exploit what is left of the earth's resources.
The item for today's news is the ongoing efforts of our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to regulate what is known as coal ash. Coal ash is the residual matter left over from the combustion of coal which takes place at coal energy plants which produce much of our nation's electricity. The EPA is proposing "the first-ever national rules to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants" (LaTisha Petteway, petteway.latisha@epa.gov, 202-564-3191, 202-564-4355). Some of you may recall the huge release of stored coal ash from the contaiment site owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The TVA produces much of the electricity for residents living in rural areas of Tennessee and other states, I believe. The spilled coal ash covered millions of cubic yards of land and river. Coal ash has harmful substances in it such as heavy metals including lead and chromium. The EPA is proposing new regulations that would require more stringent requirements for the storage and handling of coal ash, and to also redesignate coal ash as being a toxic product. Such a designation would create new limits on how coal ash is handled, shipped, and so forth. There are many businesses that creatively use recycled coal ash in various products that are used in industry and agriculture. They object to the proposed toxic label.
The EPA has proposed two approaches for dealing with the problems of handling and disposing of coal ash. One option, Subtitle C, is stringent and is compulsory. The other option, Subtitle D, is much more voluntary in nature, and would be enforced primarily by citizen actions, i.e., lawsuits. The texts of both approaches can be found at the website: http://www.epa.gov/coalashrule .
While you are there, please take a couple of minutes to express your support for one of these options. I would be pleased if you decide to support subtitle C. But it is important, in any case, that our EPA hears from its constituents. They do value what people have to say and they take people's thoughts and opinions into consideration when they deliberate on which policy to adopt. So please, take the time and let the EPA know what you think at http://www.regulations.gov/ . Enter "EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640" into the search field and click "Search". Follow the links to submit a comment. Who knows, you may reside next to a coal ash containment site and not even know that you are. Wouldn't you want to have the strongest and current protections to minimize the risk of having that toxic sludge slide into your back or front yard?
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)