A Gold Rush for Natural Gas

  • If land leases are any indication, Michigan will be seeing a lot of these things dotting the landscape. A horizontal drilling rig in Appalachia. (Creative Commons photo by user Meridithw)

Michigan is getting ready for a potential new boom in drilling for natural gas, and some people say: what’s not to love? It’s home grown fuel. It can mean new jobs. It’s much cleaner burning and emits less carbon dioxide than coal or oil.

Listen to a Michigan Watch series on natural gas drilling

An investigative series by ProPublica

The EPA’s fracking page

Transcript

Doug Houck is a spokesman for EnCana Corporation. That’s a Canadian company that’s been exploring for gas in Michigan.

“You know, natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel we have, it’s very plentiful. Natural gas is going to be a key part of our energy portfolio for many, many years to come.”

Okay, so he’s a gas guy… so you’d expect him to be talking it up. But a lot of scientists and even some environmentalists agree with him.

Hugh McDiarmid is with the Michigan Environmental Council.

“There are lots of benefits to this in terms of using homegrown energy that we extract and you know, natural gas is a less polluting fuel than some of the traditional fossil fuels.”

But he’s watching this latest buzz around natural gas with some caution. We’ve been drilling for gas at shallow levels in Michigan for 80 years… but there’s a new game in town.

It’s because of gas reserves that have been discovered much farther down. The gas is trapped in tight shale rock formations. To get to the gas, drillers use something called horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking for short.

Horizontal fracking pumps millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals into a well under high pressure to force open the rock and extract the gas.

Hugh McDiarmid says he’s worried about that.

“It’s going to use a lot more water, it’s going to require the transport of a lot more dangerous chemicals. And a lot of these endeavors are exempt from a lot of the pollution laws other industries have to follow.”

Gas companies don’t have to tell us the exact chemicals they’re pumping into the wells. The Environmental Protection Agency is trying to get that information. Officials are asking the companies to just tell them, voluntarily.

And even the EPA doesn’t know what the risks are to drinking water. It’s just now starting to study that.

Even with any risks, some experts say natural gas is the best way to go for energy security and jobs.

Terry Engelder is a professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. He thinks drilling for these new gas reserves deep underground is worth it. But he says the industry needs to do more to reassure the public.

“What we need is a situation where industry understands the public has zero tolerance for pollution, particularly water pollution. This is a heavy industry that will have an effect.”

So he says if you decide to lease your land for gas drilling… you’re going to notice it. Some trees will be cleared from your land and there will be a lot of noise and truck traffic.

And some people say although natural gas IS cleaner than coal or oil… it’s still a fossil fuel. So we’re still burning a fuel that’s releasing carbon dioxide… and adding to the global warming problem.

Cyndi Roper is the Michigan Director of the group Clean Water Action. She says she’d like the U-S to get off fossil fuels. But she’s not completely against using natural gas as a bridge away from coal and oil… moving toward more wind and solar power.

“So we’re willing to look at this as a part of a plan for moving away from the dependence. In order to do that we want to make sure it’s safe and we are not putting these communities and the people in jeopardy.”

State officials say we’re ready for this new kind of drilling… and it can be done safely.

But Cyndi Roper says before a drilling boom happens… she wants to make sure the regulations that are in place will be strong enough.

On Thursday, we’ll hear from landowners in Northern Michigan who have mixed feelings about gas drilling.

Emotions Run High Over Dam Removal Questions

  • The Argo Dam was first built as a hydroelectric dam in 1914. Detroit Edison decided it wasn't worth the investment and sold it to Ann Arbor in 1963. (Photo by Mark Brush)

There are close to two hundred hydroelectric dams in Michigan, and almost half of those stopped making power a long time ago. Many of these dams are getting old and they need attention. The communities that own these dams are faced with a decision: pay to fix them, or pay to take them down. As Mark Brush reports it’s a decision that often stirs people’s emotions.

Map of Hydroelectric Dams in Michigan (pdf)

The Ann Arbor Chronicle on Argo Dam

The City of Ann Arbor on Argo Dam

More about Rowing on Argo Pond (pdf)

“Why remove Argo Dam?” from the HRWC

“The Ballad of Argo Dam” by Dave Barrett

Transcript

(Sound of Argo Dam)

The controversy around Argo Dam in Ann Arbor started when the State’s Dam Safety Program said there were problems were with the embankment next to the dam. The repair costs were estimated to be up to $300,000.

Laura Rubin is standing next to the dam on the Huron River. Rubin is the executive director of the Huron River Watershed Council, and she wants to take this dam out. She says taking the dam out would save the city money in the long run. She says it will also return the river to a more natural state, and would be better for fish and wildlife. Rubin says when she looks at the pond made by the dam, she doesn’t see good things.

“When I look at Argo Pond I see really a stinky, stagnant, non-oxygenated pond. It’s not really functioning. Other people look at it as, you know, this beautiful pond that they go down to. And it’s really, that’s just one of perspective, and sort of your background and your training.”

The people who like the dam accused Rubin and the Watershed Council of overhyping the problems with the dam, and with Argo Pond. The people most outspoken were the members of a local rowing club.

Rubin and others in favor of taking the dam out said the rowers could find better places to row on the Huron River, and the city could pay for the move.

Mike Taft is a coach for the Huron High School rowing team. He and many of the other rowers said the other places just wouldn’t work.

“You know my kids grew up here and this is where we spent our time. So, you can find what you want on various stretches of this river, and this is a one of a kind the way it is.”

Some environmentalists accused the rowers of digging their heels in – of not considering other options. Taft feels that accusation is unfair.

“I think this is not about the rowers. I think it’s about the Watershed Council pursuing their absolute aim here, which is to take out this dam.”

People with the Watershed Council say they do want the dam out, but they say they respect the rowers concerns.

The city of Ann Arbor put together a committee to help them with the decision. They held meetings and heard from some experts. They came to agreement on a lot of other issues about the river, but on the Argo Dam they just couldn’t agree.

Steve Yaffee is an expert on ways to manage environmental conflicts. He’s written extensively about the Spotted Owl case out west and he facilitated some of the Argo Dam meetings. He says in hindsight, he felt like the process could have been better informed. He thought it would have helped to have outside experts weigh in on the questions about science and about the alternatives for rowers.

“Because I think the rowing interests weren’t convinced that there were environmental benefits. And the environmentalists weren’t convinced that there weren’t options for the rowers. And if you’re not convinced of that, why work with that.”

Yaffee says for communities facing these big controversies it’s important for all the parties to first sit down and talk broadly about what they want for their community. He says it’s also important to have some creative thinkers at the table. People who can articulate a vision for the future and can come up with solutions.

For now, the city is planning to keep the dam. If it does, taxpayers will probably have to pay close to half a million dollars in repair and maintenance costs in the next several years, and for many cities with tight budgets money is often what ultimately drives their final decision of whether or not to keep a dam.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Coal Power Plants Go Up in Smoke

  • Ted Nace says a lot of the slow down in building coal-burning power plants is driven by economics, but also a lot of it’s still being driven by climate concerns. (Photo courtesy of NREL/Warren Gretz)

Many of the plans to build new coal-burning power plants have gone up in smoke. In early 2007, the Department of Energy noted there were 151 coal-fired electric generators on the drawing board. Lester Graham reports since then… nearly a hundred of them have been canceled—or shelved.

Transcript

Many of the plans to build new coal-burning power plants have gone up in smoke. In early 2007, the Department of Energy noted there were 151 coal-fired electric generators on the drawing board. Lester Graham reports since then… nearly a hundred of them have been canceled—or shelved.

There are several reasons. The recession has tightened credit for building coal-fired power plants. Electricity demand has flattened- partly due to the economy—partly to better efficiency in businesses and homes. Lawsuits blocked some of the coal-burning plants. And some states are requiring power companies to compare the costs of burning fossil fuels to using alternatives such as wind because of concerns about climate change.

Ted Nace is with the environmental advocacy group CoalSwarm. He says he thinks this slow down in building coal-burning power plants is permanent…

“It’s a pretty profound shift in the American economy. And a lot of it’s being driven by economics, but also a lot of it’s still being driven by climate concerns.”

Some new coal-burning power plants did go online last year… but in real terms there was just as much new wind power installed.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

EPA Coal Ash Plan Criticized

  • The new coal ash clean-up project will take four years and cost 268-million dollars. (Photo courtesy of Brian Stansberry)

More than a year ago – when an earthen wall broke at a power plant in Tennessee, 500-million gallons of toxic coal ash and water were spilled. If you compare it to other environmental tragedies – it was 50 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill. Half of the coal ash spill’s been cleaned up, but crews are still working to get the rest of it. And as Tanya Ott reports there are concerns about a new plan to deal with the ash:

Transcript

More than a year ago – when an earthen wall broke at a power plant in Tennessee – 500-million gallons of toxic coal ash and water were spilled. If you compare it to other environmental tragedies – it was 50 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill. Half of the coal ash spill’s been cleaned up, but crews are still working to get the rest of it. And as Tanya Ott reports there are concerns about a new plan to deal with the ash:

The plan comes from the US Environmental Protection Agency. Clean-up crews would scoop up the ash and put it in the same pit it came from… but the pit’s been reinforced with concrete. What the plan doesn’t call for, though, is a liner to make sure no metals leach into groundwater. Tennessee law and even the EPA’s new proposed coal ash rules require liners.

Craig Zeller is the project manager for the EPA. He says because this pit isn’t new – or expanding – it doesn’t have to comply with the rules. Plus, he says, water testing in the area shows there’s no problem with leaching.

“If, in the future it does show that we need to add a groundwater mediation piece to this, we will!”

Adding a liner after-the-fact could be difficult and expensive. The new clean-up project will take four years and cost 268-million dollars.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tanya Ott.

Related Links

Too Many Concessions in New Climate Bill?

  • Critics of the new bill say Kerry and Lieberman are giving too much away to polluting industries to attract more votes. (Photo courtesy of Tim Pearce)

Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled their climate and energy bill. It has support from some big fossil fuel industries. And several environmental groups say… it’s a good first step. But Mark Brush reports, critics are arguing it gives too much away to polluting industries:

Transcript

Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiled their climate and energy bill. It has support from some big fossil fuel industries. And several environmental groups say… it’s a good first step. But Mark Brush reports, critics are arguing it gives too much away to polluting industries:

The American Power Act sets a national goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And it would stop states from setting their own greenhouse gas standards.

It also provides billions of dollars to the coal industry to develop carbon capture technology. And it encourages more offshore drilling by offering states a share of royalties.

Kieran Suckling heads up the Center for Biological Diversity. He says by trying to attract more votes – Kerry and Lieberman are giving too much away to polluting industries:

“If all those giveaways and buyoffs got you the votes you needed, so you could actually pass the bill, you might hold your nose and say o.k. But it’s not even working. So you have all the giveaways and then you still get massive opposition.”

So far – despite the concessions – no republicans have stepped forward to support the bill.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Studying Cancer Near Nuke Plants

  • The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.(Photo courtesy of the Rancho Seco Reactor)

For decades, the federal government has said it’s safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study’s out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.

Transcript

For decades, the federal government has said it’s safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study’s out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.

The federal agency that’s looking for an up-to-date cancer study is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC.

It’s asked the National Academy of Sciences to do that study, but the Academy hasn’t made up its mind. The academy asked the NRC, the nuclear power industry, and the public to explain why a new study’s even needed.

It broadcast the hearing over the Internet.

“Our first speaker is Sarah Sauer, private citizen.”

Sarah Sauer is 16, but looks much younger.

“I am one of the statistics you’ll be studying. When I was seven years old, I was diagnosed with brain cancer. I hope in this study you will remember who you’re doing this for.”

“Thank you Sarah, let me invite your parents to say something if they’d like to.”

“I am Cynthia Sauer, Sarah’s mom. For my family and i this study is long overdue. nine years ago today, Sarah was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. The pain has been so shattering that we still cannot give it words.”

Cynthia Sauer tells the National Academy how her family once lived near the Dresden nuclear power station, about 50 miles Southwest of Chicago.

She’d learned that power plant leaked radioactive water years ago.

Cynthia Sauer can’t say for sure the plant caused Sarah’s cancer, but she wonders … because other kids were diagnosed with cancer, too.

“I began searching for answers to my questions regarding the leaks and the numbers of children diagnosed with cancer in our small town.”

Cynthia Sauer turned to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.

“The scientists in the ad hoc committee statement clearly stated the study was flawed and that further monitoring and investigation was needed.”

What are the flaws? For one, the old study concluded people living near nuclear power plants do not face extra risk of dying from cancer … but it didn’t answer whether they’re at risk of getting cancer.

It ignored cancer survivors or people who moved before dying of the disease.

Sauer tells the academy that … this is why we need a new cancer study – we just can’t be confident in the old one.

And that’s a problem because at least three million people live within ten miles of a nuclear power plant.

Some US Congressmen want the safety issue settled, and in fact, so does the nuclear power industry.

Ralph Anderson is with The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.

He says other studies suggest power plants are safe … so the industry has nothing to worry about from a new study – unless the Academy misinterprets results:

“There have been studies where people simply collect the data and let the computer go to work to bend the data in a wide variety of ways. We have been the victim of a number studies that have done precisely that. So, you end up with weird age groups and things like that because the data’s carefully selected to prove the point. That’s what we’d like to see avoided.”

So the public, the government and industry want some kind of follow-up study on cancer rates near nuclear power plants.

But that might not be enough for The National Academy of Sciences to move forward.
Many scientists say we can’t begin good studies, because it’s hard to collect the necessary data.
In fact, one group that says that … is the same group that conducted the original cancer study twenty years ago.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Ivy League Gets Greenest

  • In this Green Power Challenge, only 54 schools were purchasing enough green power to qualify. (Photo courtesy of NREL)

Colleges and universities have been competing to see who can buy the most green energy. Rebecca Williams has this year’s results:

Transcript

Colleges and universities have been competing to see who can buy the most green energy. Rebecca Williams has this year’s results:

The Environmental Protection Agency puts on what it calls a “green power challenge” among colleges each year – who’s using more renewable power such as solar, wind, and geothermal.

This year, the Ivy League beat out the Big Ten to come in first.

The University of Pennsylvania was the top winner.

Blaine Collison directs EPA’s Green Power Partnership. He says colleges and universities can have a lot of influence with utility companies.

“If every school in America were to stand up tomorrow and say ‘we want to be 50% green powered by the end of next year’, the supply side of the market would say, ‘great, let’s talk about how to do that.’”

But in this competition, there’s a lot of room at the top. Only 54 schools were purchasing enough green power to qualify for the challenge.

For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Weather Modification Making It Rain

  • The cloud seeding generator sprays heated silver iodide into the air-which then acts like a magnet, attaching to ice particles until snow forms.(Photo courtesy of Christina Aanestad)

We need a lot of water. We use it to grow food, wash our cars and even make electricity at hydro-dams. But in some areas there might not be enough water. The federal government estimates places in 36 states might experience drought conditions by 2013.

So, scientists and power companies are looking at manipulating the weather to create more water. And, as Christina Aanestad reports the practice, called weather modification, is more common than you might think:

Transcript

We need a lot of water. We use it to grow food, wash our cars and even make electricity at hydro-dams. But in some areas there might not be enough water. The federal government estimates places in 36 states might experience drought conditions by 2013.

So, scientists and power companies are looking at manipulating the weather to create more water. And, as Christina Aanestad reports the practice, called weather modification, is more common than you might think.

“A mile and a half to go–we should see the cloud seeder.”

I’m traveling through the rugged terrain of Burney Falls, in northern California with Paul Moreno. He’s a spokesperson for Pacific Gas and Electric, one of the nation’s largest power companies and it wants to modify the weather in this remote area- it’s a process called cloud seeding.

“There it is……”

Energy companies, water districts and the federal government have conducted weather modification since the 1950’s. Today, it occurs in about a dozen states in the US-mostly the West and Midwest.

Moreno points to a large metal box.

“were’ looking at a cloud seeding generator that is off the ground about 12 feet on a steel platform and inside the cabinet is a tank that contains the silver iodide solution. The silver iodide solution is sprayed kind of atomized, like a perfume atomizer.”

This is how it works: the generator sprays heated silver iodide into the air-which then acts like a magnet, attaching to ice particles until snow forms. The purpose? More snow means more water and, more water means more power for Pacific Gas and Electric’s hydropower project.

At least… that’s the theory.

“It’s never been proven to actually work.”

Matt Ryan is a 25-year weather consultant.

“The idea that you can drug the sky into dropping more rain onto you is part of the problem in and of itself. Silver iodide which is the drug of choice throughout the cloud-seeding industry is a class-C toxic non-soluble inorganic chemical. When they say that it is Class C-You can’t flush this down the drain…it’s toxic.”

But not everyone thinks it’s a serious threat. Brant Foote heads the Research Applications Lab at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado. He’s studied cloud seeding for decades.

“In general what we’ve shown is that health hazards of cloud seeding is negligible.”

But, Foote seems less certain about whether cloud seeding actually works.

“It’s been a tough nut to crack. There have been a lot of attempts to evaluate cloud seeding and more often than not with inclusive results, rather than with either negative or positive.”

Whether it works or not is beside the point to some. They just don’t like the idea. Mark Franco is headman for the Winnemum Wintu Tribe in Northern California. He doesn’t think people should be playing around with nature. He says instead of trying to artificially make precipitation, maybe we should be putting more effort into conserving water.

“One of the things people forget: when you’re running out of water, don’t use as much. Use water efficiently, people need take responsibility for the usage and waste of water.”

But, despite concerns about whether cloud seeding is a good idea… or whether it even works… some states support the science with millions of taxpayer dollars. And, utilities like Pacific Gas and Electric spend millions of ratepayer dollars on cloud seeding projects in the US.

For The Environment Report, I’m Christina Aanestad.

Related Links

New Bi-Partisan Climate Change Bill

  • Darren Samuelsohn says the bill will also include a national renewable electricity standard, requiring more power to come from sources other than fossil fuel such as coal. (Photo courtesy of NREL)

A long-awaited climate change bill in the Senate is to be released next week. A prominent Republican says the bi-partisan bill won’t pass. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A long-awaited climate change bill in the Senate is to be released next week. A prominent Republican says the bi-partisan bill won’t pass. Lester Graham reports.

Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, an independent and Lindsey Graham, a Republican have been working behind closed doors for six months to draft a climate and energy bill. They’re supposed to release it next Monday.

Darren Samuelsohn covers Washington for ClimateWire. He says no one knows everything the bill will include… but some points have been revealed.

Samuelsohn: Price on carbon emissions across multiple sectors of the economy: power plants, heavy manufacturing and transportation and then trying to ramp up a range of domestic energy supplies from nuclear to natural gas to oil.

Samuelsohn says the bill will also include a national renewable electricity standard, requiring more power come from sources other than fossil fuel such as coal.

Samuelsohn speculates this bill could pass in the Senate… but it will require some arm twisting and deal making by President Obama.

The Senate’s chief climate change denier, Republican James Inhofe told Fox News the bill won’t get half the votes it needs to pass.

For The Environment, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Subsidizing Solar Power

  • John Wakeman of SUR Energy says government and utility incentives have lowered the costs of a solar installation for consumers.(Photo courtesy of Mark Brush)

Sources of renewable energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric are still just tiny players in a world powered by fossil fuels. Most of the power for your light switch comes from burning coal and natural gas. Mark Brush reports the government is trying to change that. There are state and federal programs that will pay you to put solar panels on your house:

Transcript

Sources of renewable energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric are still just tiny players in a world powered by fossil fuels. Most of the power for your light switch comes from burning coal and natural gas. Mark Brush reports the government is trying to change that. There are state and federal programs that will pay you to put solar panels on your house:

John Wakeman was laid off from his factory job eight years ago. So, for him it was, “well… Now what?” He’d always been interested in solar panels and wind turbines. So he decided to go into business helping homeowners put these things up. It’s been eight years, business was slow at first, but he says these days, business for solar panels is picking up.

“There are a lot of people that have always just dreamed of it. You know, they thought it was really cool, they looked into it in the ‘70s. In the 70’s it cost, you know, ten times as much for the same energy. The costs have really come down.”

But it’s still really expensive for a lot of people. Wakeman says a typical solar job costs around sixteen thousand dollars these days.

But now – you can get help from the government.

There’s a federal tax credit that will pay for 30% of the cost of new solar panels on your house. So you spend sixteen grand – you get $4,800 off your next tax bill. And on top of that, there are a bunch of state and utility operated programs that will help pay for the up-front costs.

In fact, more than half the states in the country are forcing utilities to make more renewable power.

So more utilities are paying people to install things like solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal heat pumps.

In many places, it costs less to install these things than it ever has.

Wakeman says these incentives have been good for his business.

“I can actually build a business somewhat on that. I can hire some people and get them trained. You know we can go out and sell some systems.”

But some say these subsidies are not a good idea:

“The sunlight may be free, but solar energy is extremely expensive.”

Robert Bryce analyzes the energy business for the Manhattan Institute. It’s a conservative think tank. Bryce says solar power is enjoying big subsidies from the government right now, but it’s not translating into a lot of power going onto the grid:

“Solar energy received 97 times as much in subsidies per megawatt hour produced as natural gas fired electricity; even though the gas-fired electric sector produced 900 times as much electricity as solar. So how much subsidy are we going to have to give them to make them competitive. And I think the answer is going to be… It’s going to have to be a whole, whole lot.”

Bryce agrees – there are some big environmental costs to traditional fossil fuel sources. Costs that are not always paid for. But in the end – he says renewable energy sources like solar just can’t compete with traditional fossil fuels.

But others say the subsidies for renewable power are boosting an industry that is trying to get a start.

Rhone Resch is the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. He says the subsidies renewables are getting today just make the game fair:

“We’re starting to get the same kinds of support from the federal government that the fossil industry has enjoyed for the last 75 to 100 years. And when you do that, the cost of wind comes down, the cost of solar comes down, the cost of geothermal becomes more cost competitive.”

If you look at the numbers, traditional power sources have always gotten more money from the government. In 2007, the federal government gave out 6.7 billion dollars in subsidies to support electricity production. Most of it went to coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Today, renewable energy sources, like solar, are getting a little more help. And supporters hope that help doesn’t disappear – like it has in the past – when the political winds change.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links