Guns in National Parks

  • Guns are no longer prohibited in America's national parks. (Photo courtesy of Fenners)

People can now carry guns in national parks. The National Park Service is adapting to the new law. Samara Freemark reports:

Transcript

People can now carry guns in national parks. The National Park Service is adapting to the new law. Samara Freemark reports:

The new policy means a reversal for the nation’s 392 National Park sites. Firearms have been prohibited in the parks.

But now….

Whatever law you were under in that state outside of the park now applies in the national park unit.

That’s National Park Service spokesman David Barna. He says that means that parks everywhere except Illinois and Washington DC will allow firearms.

But different states have different laws about the specifics – for example, whether you can conceal your weapon or not.

Barna says that could get complicated.

Appalachian Trail passes over 14 states. Yellowstone National Park is in 3 states. And the burden is going to be on the public to know those various laws.

Barna says the Park Service will help gun owners out with website updates and postings in park facilities.

But he says they can’t put up notices every time a park trail crosses a state line.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Lifting Bans on Nuke Power Plants?

  • The nuclear power plant in Braidwood, Illinois, was started up just after the state banned new nuclear power construction. For its entire history, it's been operating without a permanent home for its spent nuclear fuel. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

There’s been plenty of buzz
about dozens of proposed nuclear power
reactors in the US. Well, Wall Street’s
financial mess is making power companies
scramble to find all the investment money
for them. But, in twelve states, it won’t
matter whether power companies have cash
in hand or not; it’s illegal to build new
nuclear power plants there. Shawn Allee
reports there are efforts to repeal some
of those bans:

Transcript

There’s been plenty of buzz
about dozens of proposed nuclear power
reactors in the US. Well, Wall Street’s
financial mess is making power companies
scramble to find all the investment money
for them. But, in twelve states, it won’t
matter whether power companies have cash
in hand or not; it’s illegal to build new
nuclear power plants there. Shawn Allee
reports there are efforts to repeal some
of those bans:


JoAnn Osmand represents a state legislative district in northeastern Illinois.

Nuclear power is close to her heart – there’s an old, dormant nuclear power plant in her
district. Osmond thought, maybe that plant could be useful again. So, she sat down with
the plant owner.

”And I asked a question: ‘Why are you not taking some of the parts away and
putting them in other nuclear locations?’ They said, ‘there’s a moratorium, we’re
not building any more nuclear plants in the state of Illinois.’”

Osmond was stunned.

Illinois has six existing nuclear power plants – she didn’t know it’s illegal to build more.
She hears plenty of gripes about energy prices – so she thought, why leave nuclear energy
off the table?

“I don’t want my granddaughters to have to buy their electricity from another state.
I want to be able in 2020, 2030 to be able to plug in our electric cars.”

Osmond’s bill to lift the moratorium stalled – it’s still illegal to build nuclear power
plants in Illinois. California and Wisconsin recently had similar fights over their nuclear
moratoria.

Some veterans of nuclear politics are shocked anyone would want to life a ban on nuclear
power plants.

“It makes absolutely no logical, rational sense in any mode of analysis.”

I find Dave Kraft at a coffee shop. Kraft is with the Nuclear Energy Information Service,
a group that’s worked against nuclear power for almost thirty years.

Twelve states severely restrict or ban new nuclear power plants. Kraft says seven have
language almost identical to Illinios’.

“The moratorium simply said, no more new construction of nuclear reactors until
the federal government has a demonstrated means of dealing with the waste
permanently.”

Kraft says states tried protecting themselves from becoming dumps for the most
dangerous nuclear waste – the radioactive spent fuel.

The federal government is supposed to store spent fuel – maybe in Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. But so far, that hasn’t happened, so it’s piling up in nuclear power plants – like
this one in Braidwood, Illinois, southwest of Chicago.

(sound of a door)

Bryan Hanson manages the Braidwood power plant. He leads me to a square storage
pool. It has the bluest water I’ve ever seen.

Hanson: “This is where we store our spent fuel. It’s about thirty feet of water
between us and the top of the fuel bundles down there. So you’re looking at thirty of
water and another twelve feet down below.”

Allee: “If you look into it, it’s almost like honeycomb.”

Hanson: “Honeycomb … looks like an egg crate or honeycomb. Within those cells
are fuel bundles that have been used in the reactor, generated energy, and now
they’re waiting for eventual disposal.”

Braidwood’s pool was meant for short-term storage, but spent fuel’s been stored here for
nineteen years. Hanson says the company is planning for when spent fuel will have to be
stored on-site, but outdoors, perhaps for decades.

It’s a situation the nuclear industry’s is unhappy about, but it’s confident the federal
government will come up with a solution – some day.

So, most power companies support removing bans on new plants. This drives critics like
Dave Kraft crazy.

“To build more reactors at a time when we have no place to put the waste makes no
sense at all. The first rule of waste management is, stop producing.”

Even though Kraft says it doesn’t make sense to lift bans on nuclear power plant
construction, he predicts those bans will get challenged again soon.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part I: Stuck With Old Nuke Plants

  • Ray and Irene Zukley of Zion, Illinois were forced to sell this Lake Michigan beach cottage to make way for Zion Nuclear Station back in the late 60s. The Zukley's and other Zion residents hoped the plant would last for at least forty years, but after fits and starts, it closed fifteen years early. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

America has a new flirtation with
nuclear power. Utility companies are fanning
out across the nation to set up shop. And
they’ve given the government more applications
for new nuclear plants than they have for
decades. Many towns fell under the spell of
nuclear power in the past, but some power plants
stopped running decades earlier than planned,
and towns are stuck with what’s left behind.
Shawn Allee profiles one town’s tarnished
relationship with nuclear power:

Transcript

America has a new flirtation with
nuclear power. Utility companies are fanning
out across the nation to set up shop. And
they’ve given the government more applications
for new nuclear plants than they have for
decades. Many towns fell under the spell of
nuclear power in the past, but some power plants
stopped running decades earlier than planned,
and towns are stuck with what’s left behind.
Shawn Allee profiles one town’s tarnished
relationship with nuclear power:

Irene and Ray Zukley have been together so long, they finish each others sentences.

Especially when I ask how things were in Zion, Illinois back in the 60s.

Zuckley: “The factories were getting downgraded.”

Allee: “What were those?”

Zuckley: “It was the curtain factory, the cookie factory, chocolates and Zion fig
bars.”

But just then, the power company said it would spend hundreds of millions on a nuclear
power plant.

Irene Zukley says most people welcomed it.

“Ray and I never worried about it, you know we just wanted progress is what we
wanted. When you think of having taxes lowered for everybody in Zion, that made
you feel, what else would come in and do that?”

Irene and Ray Zukley were forced to sell their family’s beach cottage to make room for
Zion reactor number one.

Beachfront neighbors did the same.

But, like the Zukleys predicted, taxes and jobs rolled into Zion.

It was supposed to be a forty year windfall.

But it didn’t last.

When you visit the power plant, it’s nearly empty.

“What we’ve got here is what used to be a full-fledged control room.”

Ron Schuster runs what’s left of the Zion nuclear power plant.

Once, it had more than eight hundred employees.

Now, Schuster and about fifty workers help manage the regional power grid.

They also monitor radioactive spent fuel waste.

The generators have been offline since 1997.

“There were large pieces of equipment essential to making electricity that would
have needed total replacement going forward. We’re talking significant dollars so
the economic decision by the board of directors that Zion station would go into safe-
store mode.”

That means the power plant and Zion have been in limbo for ten years.

The radioactive fuel is still on site, but the plant provides no power, few jobs and a
fraction of the property taxes.

Delaine Rogers is Zion’s economic development director. She says the town didn’t plan
on this.

“You’re in a community that has welcomed you. We haven’t had an antagonistic
relationship. They’re not going to close. But they did. And it took 17 million dollars
of our local revenues. We were facing losing all our arts and music and sports in our
schools. How do you fund police the police department. How do you fix potholes? It
was a very scary time.”

Lately, the power company’s gone back and forth about when it will decommission, or
dismantle, the power plant.

It could be done ten years from now or it could take decades more.

But even when most of the buildings are gone, there’s still the radioactive spent fuel.

“They’re just going to leave it. They’re going to put a football-sized concrete pad
filled with 80-90 casks of stored fuel on site, above ground. Tell me how you get a
private developer to think residential or retail. I’m not buying the first condo.”

Dozens of towns are stuck in relationships with dormant nuclear power plants.

Delaine Rogers says the town of Zion is in the same position.

She won’t call it a bad relationship, but says it sure would be nice to know exactly where
it’s going, or when it will be over.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part Ii: Stuck With Old Nuke Plants

  • Rick Delisle co-owns two commercial buildings, one of which is depicted in this photo that dates from the time of Zion, Illinois' founding. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

The nuclear industry is eager to
build new nuclear power plants, but for
now they’re just far-off plans. The real
growth industry is in containers to hold
radioactive spent fuel. Dozens of closed
nuclear plants need somewhere to put spent
fuel waste, and these containers fit the
bill. Shawn Allee looks at why one town’s
bracing for their arrival:

Transcript

The nuclear industry is eager to
build new nuclear power plants, but for
now they’re just far-off plans. The real
growth industry is in containers to hold
radioactive spent fuel. Dozens of closed
nuclear plants need somewhere to put spent
fuel waste, and these containers fit the
bill. Shawn Allee looks at why one town’s
bracing for their arrival:

Illinois’ Zion nuclear power plant hasn’t produced electricity for eleven years.

It’s so close to Lake Michigan you can smell the beach. But other than that, the empty
parking lots and office space make the place seem dead.

The plant manager says that’s not the case.

“I think a lot of people have a vision of us playing cards or swinging our golf clubs
on the beach. I would say we’ve been extremely busy the entire time.”

Ron Schuster says he and other workers remove hazards from the station, like diesel fuel
and electrical equipment.

But one hazard is still here: the spent nuclear fuel.

And when the power plant is dismantled, that radioactive waste will be put in new
containers.

They’re concrete casks.

Schuster: “A cask is approximately fifteen feet tall. It looks like a small silo and
there is no radiation exposure on the outside of these things.”

Allee: “So from this office window, can we see where the casks might go?”

Schuster: “We’ve got four spots on this site that have been at least looked at. When
it comes time to actually put the fuel in dry-cask storage it will be a huge structure,
about as big as a football field.”

Schuster’s confident this will be a simple and safe solution.

Not everyone in Zion so convinced.

“This cask issue, just sitting on the site was never appealing to me.”

Rick Delisle co-owns two commercial buildings close to the power plant.

In other towns with spent-fuel casks, nuclear power plants sometimes get turned into non-
nuclear power plants or into parks.

But Delisle and the city of Zion are hoping to do more – maybe build new commercial
buildings or even homes.

Delisle says having concrete containers full of radioactive waste left on-site could make
their work harder.

“So, I hope the casks are relocated somewhere else. Having them next to a
population of about 23,000 people is probably not a great place for it to be.”

Other communities are in the same position – they’ll be left with spent fuel casks even if
their dead nuclear plants get torn down.

There’s a simple reason.

“We don’t really have a final resting spot for these casks at the moment.”

Dave Lochbaum is with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.

“The federal government is way behind schedule providing a repository for high-
level waste.”

Lochbaum says the government has one storage place in mind.

It’s inside Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, but that’s still just being studied.

Power companies can sometimes move spent fuel to other plants or facilities.

But Lochbaum says politically, that just won’t fly.

“There’s no revenue from electricity being generated, so it’s a hard sell to go to a
community and say we’d like to have you store spent fuel for decades into the
future. The easiest way out is to leave it where it is, because those communities have
already accepted that fate.”

Well, cities like Zion say they didn’t accept this exact fate.

They bought into nuclear power for jobs and property taxes – they didn’t count on
babysitting spent fuel waste.

But that’s likely to happen, because the government won’t take it. The power companies
won’t dare move it, and the towns can’t move themselves away.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Coal: The Comeback Kid

  • Memorials to miners and past mining disasters dot the public spaces in rural parts of southern Illinois. This granite obelisk is in honor of mining near West Frankfort, which is in the heart of Illinois coal country, and close to several operating mines. In 1980, Illinois had 18,000 coal miners - now, the workforce is less than 4,000. Mining experts say new digging permits, new hires and new investment in Illinois coal signals a comeback, though it's unclear mining employment will reach former heights. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

America has a love-hate relationship
with coal. We burn coal to make half our
electricity, but we’re always fighting coal’s
air pollution. Some regulations decimated
the coal industry in one key state. Shawn
Allee reports miners there are caught
between a slow comeback and another round of
regulation:

Transcript

America has a love-hate relationship
with coal. We burn coal to make half our
electricity, but we’re always fighting coal’s
air pollution. Some regulations decimated
the coal industry in one key state. Shawn
Allee reports miners there are caught
between a slow comeback and another round of
regulation:

Coal was once king of the Southern Illinois economy, but no longer.

Nathan Threewitt lives in the area. He explains mining jobs evaporated.

Nathan Threewitt: “Eighteen years ago, give or take a couple, people went from
making a nice, upper-class living to nothing at all. Couldn’t find work, everybody
had to move.”

Shawn Allee: “Did you have that happen in your own family?”

Threewitt: “Yep. My dad’s got ten brothers and sisters. They went from, everybody
had clothes for school, everybody had food to eat, to, we don’t know how the hell it
was gonna happen.”

Even though Threewitt has a tough history with coal – he’s actually trying to get into the
industry.

In fact, I find him while he’s taking a break from a coal mining training class at Rend
Lake College.

I know at one time, classes like these had been canceled.

I track down instructor David Colombo to see what’s changed.

David Colombo: “This room is where I train miners for the most part.”

Shawn Allee: “What’s this?”

Colombo: “Ugh. This is a high voltage cable.”

Allee: “This is almost as thick as your arm.”

Colombo: “This isn’t the biggest of the bigs, either.”

Right now, only about four thousand Illinois miners need to be familiar with equipment
like this.

But Colombo gets calls from mining companies in the area who need trained workers.
So, his school’s growing to keep up.

Shawn Allee: “Why have faith that you’re going to need space for miners to be
trained?”

David Colombo: “With the mining permitting that’s going on, is the highest it’s been
in thirty years.”

Colombo: “Gentlemen in this afternoon’s class will start sinking a mine within the
next week or two. Right now it just employs ten people, but in a year from now, that
same mine’s probably going to employ a hundred and ten people.”

People use words like rebound and comeback when they describe the Illinois coal
industry. To understand what happened, you have to dial back a little.

“It was really the effect of Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.”

This is John Mead. He heads coal research at Southern Illinois University.

He says Illinois coal is blessed with high energy, but it’s cursed with sulfur that caused
acid rain and lung disease. The amendments aimed to cut that.

“Most utilities were able to switch to lower-sulfur coal, and that’s just what they
did.”

In fact, utilities opened new mines out West where the coal has less sulfur.

As for an Illinois coal turn-around?

“Today, sulfur and other materials in the coal can be controlled pretty effectively
with technology.”

So, now Illinois coal can better compete with lower-sulpher coal.

But here’s the thing. There could be another pollution clamp-down in the works.

You know about global-warming, right? Well, carbon dioxide’s a big cause, and coal
produces carbon dioxide in spades.

Scientists say cutting coal emissions would be a quick way to cut carbon.

So, miners in Southern Illinois get mixed messages – the country wants their coal again,
but maybe not for long.

Miner-to-be Nathan Threewitt says he’s thought this through.

Nathan Threewitt: “Well, if anybody looked at the economics of it, it’s gonna go
back. Coal used to be fifteen dollars a ton, it’s now 65 dollars a ton. You’re gonna
have these coal companies with coal left in the ground, it used to not be worth it to
get the money out, now it’s worth it.”

Shawn Allee: “You like those odds.”

Threewitt: “Yeah, I do. I’m rolling the dice on it.”

Threewitt figures, he’s got time to build a career from coal, while America makes up its
mind just how clean it wants its coal-fired electricity.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

States Go Farther to Reduce Mercury

  • Some of the fish caught in the Great Lakes are unsafe to eat due to mercury (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

The government warns people not to eat too
much Great Lakes fish. That’s because some fish are
contaminated with mercury – a toxic chemical. Some
of that mercury comes from coal-burning power plants.
Erin Toner reports more states are beginning to make
power companies cut down mercury pollution:

Transcript

The government warns people not to eat too
much Great Lakes fish. That’s because some fish are
contaminated with mercury – a toxic chemical. Some
of that mercury comes from coal-burning power plants.
Erin Toner reports more states are beginning to make
power companies cut down mercury pollution:

The courts have ruled the federal government has not done enough to reduce mercury
pollution. Now, more states are adopting their own rules.

Illinois and Minnesota require power plants to cut mercury emissions 90% by 2015.
Wisconsin is following suit, but its plan gives utilities more time to get to 90% if they cut
other pollutants at the same time.

Keith Reopelle is with the group, Clean Wisconsin.
He’s happy with the new rule, but says it could be stronger.

“It does require the largest power plants to reach the 90% reduction on average over their
fleet, that’s not really the same as requiring every plant to get a 90% reduction.”

Wisconsin’s largest utility says complying with the new rule will be a ‘technological
challenge’. Power bills are expected to go up between 5 and 12 dollars a year to pay to
reduce mercury pollution.

For The Environment Report, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

‘Futuregen’ Project Scrapped by Feds

  • FutureGen would burn coal and capture carbon dioxide produced in coal plants like this one. (Photo by Erin Toner)

The United States Department of Energy is pulling the plug on a state-of-the-art
power plant intended to demonstrate how coal could be burned cleanly. Amanda
Vinicky reports:

Transcript

The United States Department of Energy is pulling the plug on a state-of-the-art
power plant intended to demonstrate how coal could be burned cleanly. Amanda
Vinicky reports:


The FutureGen plant would burn coal without pollution by sequestering carbon
emissions underground.


President Bush called for FutureGen five years ago and repeated support for this kind of project in his
recent State of the Union speech:


“Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions (applause
fade).”


But the Department of Energy says because of ballooning costs, it’s backing out.
Illinois Republican State Senator Dale Righter says it could kill the project planned
for his state:


“It was the right thing to do, in order to find new ways to produce energy using 21st
century technology. That idea is more expensive, as everyone knew it would be. But it’s still
the right thing to do.”


Congress could still salvage the FutureGen project.


For the Environment Report, I’m Amanda Vinicky.

Related Links

Enviros and Coal-Fired Power

  • City Water Light and Power of Springfield, Illinois compromised with environmentalists to build a cleaner power plant and supplement supplies with wind energy rather than fight through the permitting process. (Photo by Lester Graham)

There are around 100 coal-burning power plants
on the drawing boards. Many of them won’t be built.
In some cases environmental groups will fight to
make sure they don’t get built. But, Lester
Graham reports, one coal-burning power plant is
being built with the blessings of the
environmentalists nearby:

Transcript

There are around 100 coal-burning power plants on the drawing boards. Many of
them won’t be built. In some cases environmental groups will fight to make sure
they don’t get built. But, Lester Graham reports, one coal-burning power plant is
being built with the blessings of the environmentalists nearby:


Usually, when a utility wants to build a new coal-burning power plant, the fight is on. The
utility is challenged by environmental groups every step of the permitting process.
Then, more times than not, the utility and the environmentalists take the fight to the
courts. It means years of delays and millions of dollars of legal bills, but that didn’t
happen here.


Construction workers are erecting the superstructure of a new 500-million dollar
coal-burning power plant. This power plant is scheduled to go online in two years.
When it’s complete, it’ll use the latest technology to reduce the nastiest pollutants
from its smokestack: sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides and mercury. And this power
plant is much more efficient.


Jay Bartlett is the chief utilities engineer with City Water Light and Power in
Springfield, Illinois. He says compared to the utility’s older power plants next door,
the new plant will burn about 20% less coal to produce the same amount of
electricity.


“It takes about 1.4 pounds of coal to make a kilowatt of electricity from that plant
over there. This plant will be in the .85 range.”


And that will mean electricity bills for ratepayers won’t have to go up. It also means
the net amount of greenhouse gases is reduced. That makes environmentalists
smile.


And that’s no accident. Jay Bartlett says after being contacted by the local Sierra Club,
the power company and the environmentalists decided to talk:


“It was our goal when we sat down with the Sierra Club, saying, ‘You know we can
fight this out and it will cost both sides lots and lots of money, but will anything good
come out of this in the end?’ And we both decided that something better could come
out of spending those dollars. And what that was investing in wind, investing in
better pollution control, products for this plant to make it as clean as it can possibly be
and move forward. ”


No one really thought this would happen. Not the utility, not the regulators, and not
the environmentalists.


(Sound of coffee shop)


At a downtown coffee shop, Will Reynolds still seems a little surprised. He’s with the
local Sierra Club chapter that worked with Springfield’s City Water Light and Power:


“Yeah, at the start of this I thought there was no chance for any kind of agreement or
compromise. But by the end of it, we had an agreement that reduced the CO2 to
Kyoto Treaty levels, we had a utility that was able to build a power plant to have a
stable, efficient power supply — which was what they were looking for as a small
municipal utility — and in the end, I think it was a win-win for everybody.”


What the two sides agreed to is this: the best off-the-shelf equipment to control
pollution better than the law requires, and to offset the CO2 produced by the plant,
the utility signed an agreement with an Iowa wind-power company to provide part of
Springfield’s electricity:


“Springfield is a small, pretty conservative town that just took a huge step forward
and showed what can be done realistically to reduce our global warming emissions.
And we were able to do it and still provide for our power, still have affordable, reliable
power for the entire city. So, if Springfield can do it, then other cities can do it.”


The state regulating agency, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
applauded the efforts. Illinois is a coal-producing state and has been encouraging
power companies to clean up their plants so that coal can still be used without as many
of the pollution worries. IEPA Director Doug Scott says the Springfield utility’s efforts
will be a model for other power companies:


“I mean, all of the things that they did and the things that they worked out with Sierra
Club, the extra reductions that they’re getting over and above what they would have
had to have done in a normal permitting sense. I mean, that they were looking at
trying to be good stewards of the environment as well as being responsive to their
ratepayers as well.”


And Scott says that’s key. Because it’s plentiful and domestic, coal is not going
away. Scott says this can work for not just municipal electric utilities, but private
power companies can keep shareholders happy, keep ratepayers happy and keep
the skies clearer by updating power plants to work more efficiently, seriously reduce
the emissions from coal, and do what they can to offset greenhouse gas emissions
until technology is found that can clean up CO2.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Geothermal at Home

  • Swimmers in Iceland enjoy the toasty Blue Lagoon hot springs. (Photo by Kurt Holtz)

You might be hearing about geothermal energy more and more. But what exactly is geothermal energy? The new federal Energy Act calls for more research and investment into the alternative energy source. Robbie Harris has more on this long used, but little known technology, for tapping the earth’s heat:

Transcript

You might be hearing about geothermal energy more and more. But what exactly is geothermal energy? The new federal Energy Act calls for more research and investment into the alternative energy source. Robbie Harris has more on this long used, but little known technology, for tapping the earth’s heat:


(“Now look at that!” “Wow!”)


(whooshing of geyser)


In Iceland, where geysers gush from the ground and steam rises from the bays, geothermal is the number one source of energy. This island nation in the north Atlantic burns virtually no fossil fuel to heat or cool its buildings.


“You will probably not see a building that is not heated by geothermal
energy during your visit here.”


Pall Valdimarsson is Director of Research and Development with Enix. It’s Iceland’s largest geothermal consulting firm.


“And I myself, I have never lived in a house in Iceland without geothermal
energy, not in my whole life and I am not the youngest one as you can see.”


Valdimarsson says Iceland has used a special technology to tap earth-generated heat since the 1930s. And why not? It’s everywhere on this volcanic island. The first settlers here in the eighth century saw what they called “smoke” rising from the hot springs.


Today, steam blasts from hot water wells at Iceland’s newest, state of the art geothermal plant. The steam spins turbines to make electricity. The superheated water is piped directly into buildings where it gives up its heat. This heat exchange is the core concept behind geothermal technology.


Hans Bennimidgel is a spokesman for the power plant. He says the benefits for Iceland are simple:


“Clean energy and dirt cheap.”


Few places have the hot water resources Iceland has. But according to the Geothermal Resource Council, superheated water is available virtually anywhere in the world, if you drill deep enough.


The U.S. already taps this underground hot water to produce more geothermal electricity than Iceland does. And that’s expected to grow sharply, but for decades Americans have also used a different form of geothermal energy to heat
and cool buildings.


Erik Larson is a vice-president of Indie Energy. He calls it the other geothermal, which is, basically:


“Free heat from the earth and an extremely efficient way to eject heat from
the building in the summer time.”


Larson says geothermal, or geo-exchange systems, are comparable to traditional
heating, ventilation and cooling systems. But they use the earth’s constant underground temperature — around 55 degrees in most of the U.S. — to take the edge off a building’s heating and cooling load:


“Geothermal heat pump technology like we’re talking about can be done
anywhere in the country. Anywhere where there is ground to drill we can
put in our closed loop wells to draw heat from the earth to provide an HVAC
system.”


For a long time in rural areas, large horizontal loops several feet
underground captured and released heat. But in urban areas, there wasn’t
enough land. Now Larson says Indie Energy uses a new drilling technique
known as a vertical closed loop system. He says they can be installed under
almost any building. Pipes inside wells hold a fluid, which continuously
circulates between the ground and the building — creating a heat exchange.
Larson says a geothermal system saves owners money:


“We are a system that you would fully own through the ground loops or these
wells that we put in…through the distribution which is basically happening
within your building. So it adds value to your property, you control it and you
take advantage of all the savings.”


Larson says geothermal systems for buildings cost anywhere from 50 to 100 percent more than a typical heating, cooling, and ventilation system. But he says, most pay for themselves in five to eight years with the energy savings.


Business is booming. Larson says Indie Energy plans to expand in two new locations this year. Four months ago, they installed a large geothermal system at Boocoo Community Center in Evanston, Illinois. During the installation, they helped train new workers in geothermal technology. It was a joint project between Indie Energy and Boocoo. They’re training workers for a new green industry they hope will not only save resources, but create new jobs.


(Sound of hammers in Community Center)


For the Environment Report, I’m Robbie Harris.

Related Links

A Future for ‘Futuregen’?

  • FutureGen would burn coal and capture carbon dioxide produced in coal plants like this one. (Photo by Erin Toner)

The federal project known as FutureGen now has a home. The zero-emissions coal-to-
hydrogen plant is to be built in Illinois. It’s been in the planning stages for several years.
But, there are skeptics who doubt FutureGen will ever be built. Sean Crawford reports:

Transcript

The federal project known as FutureGen now has a home. The zero-emissions coal-to-
hydrogen plant is to be built in Illinois. It’s been in the planning stages for several years.
But, there are skeptics who doubt FutureGen will ever be built. Sean Crawford reports:


Many power plants already burn coal, but there is growing concern the
emissions they release into the atmosphere contribute to global warming.
The solution would be a way to use this plentiful, domestic resource – coal –
without emissions.


That’s where FutureGen comes in. The plant, a research facility, would
burn coal and capture nearly all the carbon dioxide produced in the
process. Instead of floating into the atmosphere, the greenhouse gas
would be stored underground. Other emissions such as sulfur dioxide and
nitrous oxides would be removed.


If that plant is successful, it means coal could be a more popular fuel.
Since there’s billions of tons of it in the U.S., it would mean much less
dependence on foreign fuel such as natural gas. Coal could even be a
substitute fuel for automobiles if it’s converted to hydrogen or a coal diesel
fuel.


That potential for FutureGen to start a coal resurrection almost sounds too
good to be true, and Ken Maize believes that’s the case.


Maize is editor for Power Magazine, which is a publication that for
more than a century has focused on electricity generation. He says for all
the hype over FutureGen, power companies remain uninterested. He says
it would be expensive for them to install technology FutureGen promotes.


Power providers in the private sector, who had been expected to put
money toward the building of FutureGen, have mostly stayed on the
sidelines. That means the cost to the federal government has ballooned to
nearly twice what it was when FutureGen was introduced. Maize has taken
to calling the project Never Gen because he doubts it will be built:


“You know it’s been political from the beginning of course. Bush wanted to show he
was doing something for energy. It has all of the elements of projects, scores of projects that I have seen in the past, that
looked like they were going to go somewhere and the wheels begin to
wobble and pretty soon they come off.”


But the coal mining industry hopes that doesn’t happen with FutureGen.
Phil Gonet lobbies for Illinois’ coal companies. He thinks FutureGen has a
future:


“I’m cautiously optimistic that the funding will proceed. What started as a 1
billion dollar project, the last figure I saw was about 1.4. So you kinda get concerned. And when government is
funding even a portion of that, I think there is some concern but I’m optimistic, the
funding has been included in President Bush’s budget and hopefully
whoever the next president is will see the wisdom of this.”


FutureGen has come under scrutiny for the rising cost, but it still has a lot
of support in environmental circles. Harry Henderson is with the Natural
Resource Defense Council. He likes the potential FutureGen brings, but
says no one should expect a lot of new clean burning coal plants to come
online in the near future, unless the federal government requires tighter
emission controls for existing facilities. As for only building new plants
with the carbon capture technology, he says it won’t make financial sense:


“Presently, an investment in highly, highly expensive infrastructure when they would be
competing against people who would be competing against people who
had absolutely almost no burden to do this, like the current plants that capture absolutely no carbon, when you’re competing against them, it is an unfair competition.”


But FutureGen is a model. It could show what could be done with coal.
That’s important to Illinois, since coal is becoming an increasingly
unpopular fuel because of the growing concern about global warming.


Jack Lavin is the Economic Development Director for the State of Illinois.
He’s put countless hours, energy, and dollars into landing FutureGen in
his state. But while Lavin celebrates Mattoon, Illinois’ selection as home to
the nearly zero-emissions coal-burning power plant, he knows his work is
far from finished:


“There’s lots of competing interests for budget priorities. And we believe that clean coal is a very high budget priority. And that’s going to
take work with the Congress, the Department of Energy and whoever’s in
the White House, to make sure those projects are fully funded… including
FutureGen.”


It’s unclear if there’s a long term commitment to FutureGen at the federal
level. Construction could begin in another year, but the Department of Energy is already talking about restructuring the project with a hefty price tag, there’s speculation President Bush’s initiative could be shelved once he
leaves office. For those in the coal industry, and the State of Illinois, making sure the federal
government follows through with its promise could be the toughest sell job
of all.


For the Environment Report, I’m Sean Crawford.

Related Links