<object width="644" height="458"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="movie" value="http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/fishchopper/coalwater.swf%22%3E%3C/param%3E%3Cparam name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/fishchopper/coalwater.swf" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="644" height="458" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Many of us may not be aware of it, perhaps many are, but our nation's power plants, pretty much all fed by coal, are slicing and dicing millions of the fish that live in the streams, rivers, and lakes upon which the power plants are situated. Power plants do this unfortunate, brutal, and, now unnecessary, act by drawing in millions of gallons of water per day to cool their power equipment inside their plants. They then shoot out the water back to where it came from but now, the water is warmed considerably and is not conducive at all to survival of the remaining fish and plants in the rivers, streams, and lakes. And, as noted already, the fish that are drawn in are chopped up into countless bits. Besides killing the fish, this process also endangers all the marine life, insects, plants, and animals, that depend on these fish for their nutrition and survival, as well do the fishermen and sportsmen who fish from these waters.
There is now a new technology that can be installed by the power companies that can reduce the intake of water for cooling purposes by some 97% percent or so. But, as usual, the power companies don't want to pay for this new technology, and they are pressing the EPA very hard to exempt them from having to adopt newer, stringent standards regulating the use of our nation's waters for industrial cooling purposes. It seems that industry in America has the opinion that they have the exclusive right to use and exploit our nation's resources in the same, old ways that they have been doing it for decades, and centuries, really. But the rest of us have to change, don't we? So why shouldn't they as well?
Above this article, there are two links to an informative and colorful animation that depicts the practice of power plants drawing in huge amounts of water, killing millions of fish, and also verbalizes these companies' selfish attitude and stubborn refusal to change their position on this matter. Please take a look at this great animation and then sign the petition that's on the website of the Sierra Club urging the EPA to hold these selfish and greedy power plants to the new proposed standards. Come on, are you really fine with having Charlie the tunafish and all his relatives and friends sucked into massive turbine engines that cut them all up into microscopic pieces??
Thanks!
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Another example of the risk in private companies owning and operating our natural resources.
Environmental Accident Occurs Tuesday Morning, April 5, in Tennessee.
1.2 to 3.2 million gallons of storm and sewage water, apparently without solid waste, has surged out a sewage holding tank attached to a sewage treatment plant located in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. The tank collapsed early Tuesday morning. The tank and the entire sewage treatment plant is operated by Chicago-based Veolia Water, a for-profit water management firm.
The holding tank is 70 feet wide, 40 feet high, and has 12-inch reinforced concrete walls. A photo shows a section of the walls that has been blown out. Two workers at the plant are missing and a search for them is underway. The sewage is flowing directly into Gatlinburg which is the main entrance to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
More than 2.62 inches of rain fell in the national park in the 24 hours prior to the breach Tuesday morning. Personnel from the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and the National Park Service are on the scene.
Note: The content of this news brief comes from a report from the Associated Press found on the newspage for Earthlink, Inc., on April 5, 2011. The words and sentences have been paraphrased by this blog writer but all credit goes to the Associated Press.
Commentary
Unfortunately, this is yet another environmental disaster to afflict Tennessee in the last 18 months or so, and like the previous disaster having to do with the breeching of a giant coal sludge retention pond, this disaster also has to do with a retention pond, this time retaining, or supposed to be retaining, excess sewage water prior to it being transferred to the treatment plant. From what I recall, the giant coal sludge pond was managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the huge, quasi-governmental agency created back in the 1930s for the purpose of bringing electricity for the first time to the isolated, rural communities of Tennessee. The sewage plant involved in this present disaster is managed by Veolia Water. Veolia Water has been granted long-term management leases of several water districts in the U.S., including here in the State of Illinois, if I am not mistaken. It is companies like these who are pushing mightily to be granted long-term management rights to the water supplies of cities nationwide, including cities like Chicago, my home city. These companies are also pushing to be granted monopolistic, ownership rights to our nation's rivers and streams, all with the promise that they can deliver water service more efficiently, at a better price, and at equal levels, if not higher, of safety.
Oh really? From what I've read, many of the towns and counties that have turned their water departments to Veolia and other such firms are now desperately looking for ways to get out of their contracts seeing that the prices for delivery have gone up as high as seven times, and the quality and reliability of the service has notably declined. Our outgoing mayor, Richard M. Daley, has said on several occasions how he's been seriously considering outsourcing the drinking water of our city. Our incoming mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, has been rather vague and inconsistent on this proposal, at one time saying he definitely would not consider outsourcing any more of our city's public assets, and at other times saying that he would look into such possibilities.
Outrageous. If the events at this Tennessee sewage plant are any indication of the reliability and efficiency that for-profit firms are promising in return for taking over public natural resources, and then take into account the history so far of their other water management deals, I say the ideas and proposals to continue with this short-sighted, indeed blind, way of executing the public's business is a definite NO. If these companies succeed in obtaining more such contracts, which is fairly likely, it seems, then you and I can look forward to many more spills, breeches, water contaminations, etc., like we're seeing today in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Think about it. If you agree with me, then stand up and voice your concern. Say NO WAY to further privatization of our natural resources, and public assets of any type.
Thanks!
1.2 to 3.2 million gallons of storm and sewage water, apparently without solid waste, has surged out a sewage holding tank attached to a sewage treatment plant located in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. The tank collapsed early Tuesday morning. The tank and the entire sewage treatment plant is operated by Chicago-based Veolia Water, a for-profit water management firm.
The holding tank is 70 feet wide, 40 feet high, and has 12-inch reinforced concrete walls. A photo shows a section of the walls that has been blown out. Two workers at the plant are missing and a search for them is underway. The sewage is flowing directly into Gatlinburg which is the main entrance to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
More than 2.62 inches of rain fell in the national park in the 24 hours prior to the breach Tuesday morning. Personnel from the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and the National Park Service are on the scene.
Note: The content of this news brief comes from a report from the Associated Press found on the newspage for Earthlink, Inc., on April 5, 2011. The words and sentences have been paraphrased by this blog writer but all credit goes to the Associated Press.
Commentary
Unfortunately, this is yet another environmental disaster to afflict Tennessee in the last 18 months or so, and like the previous disaster having to do with the breeching of a giant coal sludge retention pond, this disaster also has to do with a retention pond, this time retaining, or supposed to be retaining, excess sewage water prior to it being transferred to the treatment plant. From what I recall, the giant coal sludge pond was managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the huge, quasi-governmental agency created back in the 1930s for the purpose of bringing electricity for the first time to the isolated, rural communities of Tennessee. The sewage plant involved in this present disaster is managed by Veolia Water. Veolia Water has been granted long-term management leases of several water districts in the U.S., including here in the State of Illinois, if I am not mistaken. It is companies like these who are pushing mightily to be granted long-term management rights to the water supplies of cities nationwide, including cities like Chicago, my home city. These companies are also pushing to be granted monopolistic, ownership rights to our nation's rivers and streams, all with the promise that they can deliver water service more efficiently, at a better price, and at equal levels, if not higher, of safety.
Oh really? From what I've read, many of the towns and counties that have turned their water departments to Veolia and other such firms are now desperately looking for ways to get out of their contracts seeing that the prices for delivery have gone up as high as seven times, and the quality and reliability of the service has notably declined. Our outgoing mayor, Richard M. Daley, has said on several occasions how he's been seriously considering outsourcing the drinking water of our city. Our incoming mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, has been rather vague and inconsistent on this proposal, at one time saying he definitely would not consider outsourcing any more of our city's public assets, and at other times saying that he would look into such possibilities.
Outrageous. If the events at this Tennessee sewage plant are any indication of the reliability and efficiency that for-profit firms are promising in return for taking over public natural resources, and then take into account the history so far of their other water management deals, I say the ideas and proposals to continue with this short-sighted, indeed blind, way of executing the public's business is a definite NO. If these companies succeed in obtaining more such contracts, which is fairly likely, it seems, then you and I can look forward to many more spills, breeches, water contaminations, etc., like we're seeing today in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Think about it. If you agree with me, then stand up and voice your concern. Say NO WAY to further privatization of our natural resources, and public assets of any type.
Thanks!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Preparing for electric cars' entry into the market
Greetings everyone,
Yes, it's been three months since I've last posted. Shame on me. Then again, it doesn't appear that anyone has read my blog on environmental matters yet, so I guess I don't need to feel too ashamed. I still have hope that I will, someday, gain some interested readers.
Well, the blog news today is about electric vehicles, specifically how some companies are ramping up their charging technology and marketing plans to provide a feasible way to provide electric charging service for those brave folks, admittedly few still, who are, and will be, purchasing all-electric or mostly electric vehicles (such as the Chevy Volt) in the very near future. For those electric car owners who don't own their homes, and thus do not have a garage in which they can plug their cars in, say overnight, to charge them up, the company 350 Green LLC, based out of San Diego, California, has agreements with the city of Chicago to install 73 public charging stations within city's metro area by the end of 2011. The agreements call for a total of 280 charging stations with no specific date mentioned in the Chicago Tribune articles of February 16 and 27, 2011 (Please see the Business sections for both dates).
Isn't that amazing? Our city, Chicago, is actually taking real and tangible steps toward the realization of electric vehicle power here and now, in the present. I find this simply wonderful, despite the risks and potential pitfalls. And there seems to plenty of those to chew on. Without getting into too much detail here, one problem has to do with the charging power of the stations to be installed.
The first 73 stations, Level 1 stations, will have quick-charging sockets that will be able to fully charge a vehicle in 30 minutes, at a cost of $65,000 per station. The remaining 146 stations to be built will be Level 2 stations, which will fully charge a vehicle in around 7 hours. These will cost under $10,000 per station. 350 Green is planning on charging customers around $50 to $60 for a month's worth of charging service. Will they have any takers? And what will be the cost to use the slower-charging stations? In any case, while paying $50 to $60 per month for electric "gas" might not seem like all that great of a deal, when compared to the $120 to $200 per month that many of us most likely are now paying, and compared to the probably significantly higher prices we'll soon be paying for gasoline, the cost for charging an electric vehicle is going to sound more and more like a warm hum instead of a loud buzz.
Well, that's all the environmental buzz for this blogpost. I hope someone will read and enjoy this, and please, tune into the buzz surrounding electric vehicles entering the American car market in the very, near FUTURE!
Rudy G
Yes, it's been three months since I've last posted. Shame on me. Then again, it doesn't appear that anyone has read my blog on environmental matters yet, so I guess I don't need to feel too ashamed. I still have hope that I will, someday, gain some interested readers.
Well, the blog news today is about electric vehicles, specifically how some companies are ramping up their charging technology and marketing plans to provide a feasible way to provide electric charging service for those brave folks, admittedly few still, who are, and will be, purchasing all-electric or mostly electric vehicles (such as the Chevy Volt) in the very near future. For those electric car owners who don't own their homes, and thus do not have a garage in which they can plug their cars in, say overnight, to charge them up, the company 350 Green LLC, based out of San Diego, California, has agreements with the city of Chicago to install 73 public charging stations within city's metro area by the end of 2011. The agreements call for a total of 280 charging stations with no specific date mentioned in the Chicago Tribune articles of February 16 and 27, 2011 (Please see the Business sections for both dates).
Isn't that amazing? Our city, Chicago, is actually taking real and tangible steps toward the realization of electric vehicle power here and now, in the present. I find this simply wonderful, despite the risks and potential pitfalls. And there seems to plenty of those to chew on. Without getting into too much detail here, one problem has to do with the charging power of the stations to be installed.
The first 73 stations, Level 1 stations, will have quick-charging sockets that will be able to fully charge a vehicle in 30 minutes, at a cost of $65,000 per station. The remaining 146 stations to be built will be Level 2 stations, which will fully charge a vehicle in around 7 hours. These will cost under $10,000 per station. 350 Green is planning on charging customers around $50 to $60 for a month's worth of charging service. Will they have any takers? And what will be the cost to use the slower-charging stations? In any case, while paying $50 to $60 per month for electric "gas" might not seem like all that great of a deal, when compared to the $120 to $200 per month that many of us most likely are now paying, and compared to the probably significantly higher prices we'll soon be paying for gasoline, the cost for charging an electric vehicle is going to sound more and more like a warm hum instead of a loud buzz.
Well, that's all the environmental buzz for this blogpost. I hope someone will read and enjoy this, and please, tune into the buzz surrounding electric vehicles entering the American car market in the very, near FUTURE!
Rudy G
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Electric Vehicles Becoming a Visible Reality
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.
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.
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)