Happy Holidays from all of us at Knowles Solar! We wish you a safe and happy holiday season and we look forward to seeing you in the new year!
One score and one year ago, our EPA brought forth a new regulation to bring upon clean air and acid free rain, that would take until December 21, 2011 to be brought into effect.
21 years after being first mandated by Congress, the EPA released air pollution regulations that require power plants to lower dangerous smokestack emissions.
Giving the companies three years, power plants have to cut the emissions of 84 different toxic chemicals to match the 12% of the cleanest plants–however the EPA has made it clear that if more time is “necessary” to achieve these goals, it is available.
This is an important regulation as power plants emit half of the mercury and cause more than 75% of the acid gas emissions in the US, according to the EPA. The EPA estimates that by cutting these toxic emissions it will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks, and 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms a year.
Currently, only 12% of the nations power plants meet these standards (hence them being the mark others strive for) while 48% have some, if not all, the necessary technologies in order to achieve these standards. Unfortunately, the left over 40% have no technology in place to just flip the switch on. As Lisa Jackson (EPA Administrator) told USA Today, “[they] have done nothing, they have no controls, they emit unlimited amounts of pollutants, they have no technology in place.”
But what would regulations be without cockamamie claims to try to avoid them?
In attempts to thwart EPA regulations, power plants have been arguing a number of angles against the regulations from: it will make electricity more expensive and less reliable; to, it will bring economic hardships.
Perhaps if families don’t have to shell out thousands of dollars a year in medical expenses for the toxic pollutants they’re exposed to in the air they breath and water they drink, they could afford to spend a little more to pay for energy. In theory I could see how electricity reliability might decrease for a period of time with construction or alterations of the plants, but that isn’t a long term problem. In fact, the EPA and Department of Energy don’t foresee any problems with regards to power failures or blackouts.
As far as economic hardships go, the EPA estimates that with manufacturing, engineering, installation, and maintenance, pollution standards will provide employment for thousands potentially including 46,000 short term construction jobs. Now, unless the power plants are referring to economic hardships they themselves will suffer for having to pay for these regulations…I’m not sure I can sympathize with their qualms.
Though these regulations will decrease the amount of pollutants being spewed into the environment, they won’t get rid of them all together (after all there’s no such thing as “clean coal“). And since the EPA doesn’t seem hell-bent on enforcing the three year timeline for having the necessary technology in place to reduce said emissions, in theory power plants could stretch actual implementation out for decades–and by that time most of these power plants will have reached the end of their useful lives as they’re (on average) 50 years old–I’m not sure what they’re complaining about.
Pavillion is a small town (165, according to the 2000 census) located in west-central Wyoming, and late last week the US EPA found synthetic chemicals used in hydraulic-fracturing in two deep water-monitoring wells near a gas field outside the town.
Fracking allows the US to get about one-third more natural gas from underground stores. It encompasses pumping millions of gallons of a pressurized mixture of chemically treated water and sand underground to fracture rock and let trapped gas vapor flow, thus increasing extraction rates.
With the EPA’s report, environmentalist groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, are now pushing for stronger regulation…sorry freedoms.
Though the above photograph wasn’t taken in Pavillion (it was taken in a town about 2 1/2 hours away in Casper, Wyoming, where I had the pleasure of visiting last September) I’m sure Pavillion’s largest natural gas producer (Encana) hold the same, if not similar sentiments, when it comes to regulations.
I know the residents don’t, as they were the ones who asked the EPA to address water quality issues in the first place and have had to use outside drinking water sources for drinking and cooking.
Although my secret ambition is to be Erin Brockovich and expose corporate negligence, pollution, extortion…what have you…I’ll try to abstain. But it’s difficult, very difficult indeed, when Doug Hock, spokesperson for Encana, responds to the EPA report by saying since the EPA uses terms like “likely”, it means the report isn’t definitive. Hock continues by saying EPA might be the culprit behind the well contamination when they conducted sampling.
An industry representative for Chesapeake Energy Corp, Aubrey McClendon, goes on to say, “Try not to be the 51st person to write a story about the alleged contamination of somebody’s water well from fracking.” Well Aubrey, I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume if there are so many reports of contamination, no one’s having smoke blown up their well…so to speak. If fracking is in the neighborhood, there might be a very good chance aquifers and wells are contaminated because of it.
As it is, gas companies don’t need to disclose the chemicals used in fracking. By his own admission, Hock said he didn’t know if the chemicals found were used by his company. Now I don’t know what’s worse, a company not having to disclose the chemicals being used in close proximity to drinking water sources, or the fact the spokesperson “doesn’t know” what chemicals said company uses whilst fracking.
The EPA does admit there could be a variety of reason contamination leaked into wells–faulty construction from the beginning, gaps in the rock, fractures created by drilling–but the evidence still stands, petroleum hydrocarbons were present in the water at levels well above acceptable drinking water standard.
Whichever way you look at it, regulations need to be stronger, because if drinking water contamination is present in Wyoming fracking sites, the chances of it being elsewhere is also likely.
But thanks to Encana, “likely” isn’t definitive enough of an answer to claim responsibility.
There’s a lot of buzz regarding the Durban climate change talks. One being that that’s all that occurred: talk.
But don’t worry guys, we made a deal…to make a deal in 2015, but that deal won’t come into effect until 2020. Then there is the quandary of having all nations sign off on said deal. That’s…promising?
Of course there were some countries (cough…China…cough) who wanted just to extend the original Kyoto Protocol which expects developed countries to sharply lower emissions, where as developing nations are exempt. Unfortunately for China, I wouldn’t exactly classify them as a developing country anymore, not to mention the fact that they are the world’s biggest carbon emitter.
Though developing countries are expected to be behind a rise in emissions in the coming decades, they will also be the hardest hit by climate change. According to the Guardian, developing nations have been promised $100bn a year by developed nations until 2020, however no mention of where these funds would be procured was mentioned.
BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) are at a crossroads: still in the midst of development, and fearing the harm that could come to their economic growth by being forced to adhere to stringent climate regulations. They’re receiving pressure not only from developed countries, but from groups like Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and Least Developed Countries (LDC) whose futures literally ride on the outcomes of climate change, and the decisions made today in climate talks like Durban. As Karl Hood, chairman of AOSIS, put it, “While they develop, we die; and why should we accept this?”
Though a rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels is the agreed, estimated limit before disastrous, and irreversible damage is done by climate change, in actuality the temperature rise is looking more like 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees F).
Even if nations followed through with every proposal, and implemented every action plan, temperature rise will still be around 3.5 degrees Celsius–and we run the extreme risk of triggering a positive feedback loop that would throw any hope of wrangling in the effects of climate change out the window, according to the Climate Action Tracker.
After the Durban climate talks, we have rising emissions, rising temperatures, and developing nations whose fate hangs in the hands of developed, and BASIC countries to make serious strides as far as reducing emissions. Unfortunately, we don’t have serious strides–we have a plan…to implement a plan…in eight years.
Governments are unwilling to take the steps to implement serious change, and instead are viewing climate change as a distant problem, pushing the solutions even more out of reach.
It’s definitely a difficult climate for renewable energy these days. Renewable energy is at a competitive disadvantage in comparison to the oil, and coal industries who receive billions of dollars a year. Receiving less than one percent–one tenth of a percent to be exact–of funding, federal support for renewables is the lowest it has ever been.
Federal support and investment is crucial to renewable energy success. If the government cut through the inequalities between renewable and fossil fuel funding, we could achieve a nation who gained not only energy independence, but make significant strides to helping the environment. California has been doing its best to forge a path with renewable energy–as it is 1/4 of solar jobs are in California–but the nation can’t make progress in creating healthy competition in the energy sector without some subsidies or incentives.
Thankfully, renewable energy might have a new friend, the EPA certainly does: the US Army.
Be all you can be, Army of one, with your net-zero and sustainability goals. If anyone can succeed in achieving zero water, waste, and energy goals it is most certainly you, as you have now partnered with the EPA in order to gain the most cutting edge technology, and development.
In all seriousness, the Army employing renewable energy, even having net-zero goals, could be a great boost for not only the renewable energy sector, but the environment as a whole. A governmental institution taking measurable steps towards achieving energy efficiency could–well, not set the bar high–but at least set the bar for the rest of the government. The Army has a plan to install 300 megawatts of solar on military housing in the next five years–the Army needs power, why not get it from a source that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg?–and where veterans can be hired to complete said installations.
With fluctuating gas prices, and oil back in the $100 dollar range, some predict the US will be a net importer by 2030. According to the International Energy Agenc, by 2035, the price of coal is expected to rise 65 percent. Instead of sinking federal funds into these dwindling fossil fuel supplies, solar–and renewable energy as a whole–is a viable alternative that should be not only considered, but implemented before we start importing all of our oil, or the price of coal has skyrocketed.
Renewable energy is at a competitive disadvantage right now because the government won’t level the playing field with fossil fuels in terms of funding or incentives, but that doesn’t mean it still can’t come out on top. With the US Army creating some semblance of a bar that other government entities could reach towards, and rising costs of not only oil but coal, renewables may be able to sidle their way to the front for the win.
“Oh, boy,” Newmont Mining Corporation must be saying, “The people of Cajamarca are at it again.”
According to Business Week, Newmont’s $4.8 billion construction on a gold deposit was put on hold yesterday due to the presence of 2,000 people–some riding in on horseback–to protest against the mine.
Adjacent to Yanacocha Mine, Minas Conga sits on gold deposits that are estimated to produce between 580,000 and 680,000 ounces of gold per year and considered to be vital to Peru’s mining industry, as well as local economies. The people of Cajarmarca and the surrounding highlands should be thrilled. Right?
Perhaps a little background on Cajamarca is needed to understand why the locals may be a bit hesitant to have yet another mine take root in their communities. Yanacocha, located in the Norther Peruvian Andres, nestled high in the mountains, was opened by Newmont Mining company in 1993 and has since produced 26 million ounces of gold and is the most profitable mine in the Andes–hitting $22.3 billion in total assets in 2009.
So, why aren’t the people of Cajamarca thrilled?
According to Oxfam America, mining is one of the most energy and water intensive industries, as well as one of the most dangerous professions. Oxfam America reports that 79 tonnes of toxic waste is generated for every ounce of gold extracted. For those who don’t want to do the math that leaves the Yanacocha mine with about 2 billion tonnes of waste including (but not limited to) mercury, cyanide, zinc, copper, iron, and aluminum which is left over from the heap leaching process that separated gold from the surrounding rocks. These heavy metals reach the nearby communities through air, water, and soil pollution. But don’t worry, it’s all put into dams called tailing ponds, which like the mine, sit at the top of the watershed…in the seismically active Andes mountain range…
From cyanide and other heavy metals looming over their heads (literally), and contamination of air, water, and soil, the people of Cajamarca have another reason to despise Yanacocha’s current presence, in addition to Minas Conga impending one. A mine is unyielding and ever present. The sound of mine blasts reverberate down the canyons like an impending storm. Day and night, mining trucks troll through the streets carrying materials to and from the mines. This might not seem so bad to some (especially in comparison to the other problems a mine induces), but if you heard these Toyota six pack diesel trucks, you might think otherwise. Aside from the truck’s noise, many of them carry mercury left over from heap leaching.
In June, 2000, a truck carrying mercury from Yanacocha had a container leak, spilling an estimated 300 pounds of mercury. In villages like Cajamarca, little is known about the adverse effects of mercury on human health, and many villagers not only collected the liquid mercury droplets, but burned them in their homes. Newmont Corporation offered reimbursements for the mercury’s return, which sent villagers to the streets to scour for any remaining mercury. More than 1,000 people were diagnosed with mercury poisoning. Now when asked, the people of Cajamarca say mercury kills their babies, causes cancer, as well as other fatal diseases–not entirely false accusations.
Like things weren’t bad enough already, mercury bioaccumulates, or increases in concentration in organisms over time. Mercury builds up in food chains through smaller organisms being eaten by larger ones–consequently, the organism highest in the food chain has the highest concentration of mercury–these animals are usually consumed by humans, posing a serious threat to their health and well being.
Health ailments from the mercury spill remain today among community members. Events that had never occurred in the town are becoming more prevalent: children being born without fingers or toes, miscarriages occurring at alarming rates. Children suffer disproportionately with chronic problems such as nosebleeds, respiratory infections, loss of hearing and or sight, migraines, and the inability to concentrate. As mercury is a common toxic byproduct of gold extraction, it’s not hard to see why people are protesting the construction of Minas Conga.
Because the mines are located at the tops of watersheds, villagers and farmers are concerned that the mine will dry up water sources, and there is the risk that what water they do receive will be contaminated. Though Newmont claims its operations adhere to strict environmental regulations, Oxfam America reports, “The [mining] engineers tell us there is water, and no pollution, but we know the land does not produce as it used to, and there is less water than ever,” says a 24 year old from Bajo Porcon, a village halfway between Cajamarca and the mine.
Though extractive industries entered Latin American countries like Peru under the guise of providing development, has any actually occurred? Yes, corporations like Newmont have provided roads, schools and medical facilities to Cajamarca, but would they be better off not having these luxuries but clean water to drink, clean air to breath, and clean soil to grow crops in?
There is a darker side to our golden commodities, and it’s no wonder people from Cajamarca aren’t thrilled with the prospect of another mine. Though Newmont has halted construction for the time being, it’s only a matter of time until Minas Conga is up and running.
Photo Credits: Servicio de Informacion Grufides, Bullion Street, Global Voices Online, New York Times