Government researchers say more water will be needed for power plants in the future.
Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
Government researchers say more water will be needed for power plants in the future.
Mark Brush reports:
Power plants use a lot of water – often millions of gallons an hour. A lot of that water is
cycled through the plants and released back into lakes and rivers. But there’s also a lot
that is used up – mostly evaporating into the air.
The Department of Energy predicts that energy needs in the U.S. will increase 22% by
2030. The increase in power generation will drive an increase in water consumption.
And researchers at the National Energy Technology Laboratory say a lot more
water will be needed. That’s because of the pressure to build coal-burning power plants
that strip carbon dioxide from their emissions to slow global warming. The researchers
say the technologies needed to do this will use a lot more water. They predict that
freshwater consumption at power plants will increase as much as 50%.
Electric utility companies say they’re reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. But
according to a recent study the power companies are actually increasing their emissions.
Kyle Norris has this report:
Transcript
Electric utility companies say they’re reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. But
according to a recent study the power companies are actually increasing their emissions.
Kyle Norris has this report:
Researchers studied a voluntary program run by the Department of Energy. In the
program, electric utility companies self-report their reductions of greenhouse gases.
Researchers then compared this information to the levels that companies actually
emitted. Tom Lyon ran the University of Michigan’s study:
“I think what it tells you is you can’t really believe what the company is saying. The
company will tell you the good stuff and not the bad stuff unless you force them to tell
you the whole truth.”
The study found that 60% of the companies claiming a reduction in their emissions had
actually increased their emissions. Lyon says that the study shows that the government
needs to require the companies to fully disclose all of their greenhouse emissions.
Gas station pumps and underground storage tanks are not yet UL certified to handle E-85. (Photo by Lester Graham)
With thousands of flex-fuel vehicles hitting the road, gas stations are adding E-85 to
their fuels. E-85 is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. But, as Lester
Graham reports, storing and pumping E-85 fuel is a major concern because, so far,
no equipment has been certified as safe to handle it:
Transcript
With thousands of flex-fuel vehicles hitting the road, gas stations are adding E-85 to
their fuels. E-85 is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. But, as Lester
Graham reports, storing and pumping E-85 fuel is a major concern because, so far,
no equipment has been certified as safe to handle it:
The Department of Energy’s Handbook for Handling, Storing, and Dispensing E-85
warns, “certain materials commonly used with gasoline are totally incompatible with
alcohols.” Other government guidelines give detailed instructions about storing E-85
in underground storage tanks and the pumps people use to fill their vehicles. But,
with more and more filling stations adding E-85 pumps, not everyone is following the
instructions and warnings.
Brad Hoffman is with the nation’s largest underground storage tank service
company, Tanknology. The company inspects gas station distribution systems:
“I think they pretty much just took for granted that their tank could store whatever
fuel they put into it and they didn’t really check the compatibility of the tank and the
other piping and dispensing equipment. They didn’t really confirm that it was
compatible with the E-85 that was being delivered.”
And some of the fiberglass underground storage tanks are not compatible. Ethanol
can soften the polymers in certain tanks. That can make them weaker and might
cause them to leak. There’s also concern that leak detection equipment might also
be damaged by ethanol. So if a tank is leaking, it might go undetected. And it’s not
just the tanks. There are questions about compatibility with the pumps filling flex-fuel
vehicles.
The ethanol industry says there have been no major problems with tanks or pumps
so far. Matt Hartwig is with the Renewable Fuels Association:
“Most gas station operators will use tanks that are appropriate. They will clean the
tanks. They would do the proper maintenance and the proper preparation required
to install E-85 infrastructure. Because of the nature of ethanol, you do need a
dedicated tank and pump system to dispense the fuel. I don’t think consumers and
the American driver have anything to fear.”
But fuel tank and gas pump inspectors are not as sure. Brad Hoffman with
Tanknology says government guidelines give checklists of recommendations on how
to prepare tanks and pumping systems:
“Being realistic, I think there’s a chance that some marketers may, you know, for
whatever reason, may not thoroughly check each of those items. And there could be
some problems, either with the tanks or the dispensing systems.”
Problems that could cause leaks.
Underwriters Laboratories is the safety testing organization that certifies the safety of equipment storing and pumping fuels. John Drengenberg is with
UL. He says it was only last year that a manufacturer asked for requirements for equipment handling E-85. Drengenberg says old gasoline equipment might not
be safe to pump E-85:
“The alcohol is different in that it’s much more corrosive. We know for a fact that
alcohol will attack soft metals, in particular aluminum and copper, things of that type,
and even plastics. So, therefore, what worked for gasoline dispensers, may not work
for ethanol dispensers.”
Drengenberg says gaskets, seals, and o-rings in the pump, hose or handle could
deteriorate and mean leaking fuel at the pump:
“With this type of fuel, ethanol, we’re mostly worried about fire hazards. If there is a
leak – let’s say for some reason ethanol attacked a gasket or a seal on a dispenser,
you could have a fuel leak – the fuel leak could be very dangerous in that any spark
could set it off. You could have a fire or possibly an explosion. So, that is the
concern that we have, certainly. And that is why we’re developing requirements for
these ethanol dispensers.”
UL expects to issue requirements for equipment by the end of the year. In the
meantime, whether the tanks and pumps offering E-85 at your gas station are safe is
up to the judgment of the local fire chief, fire marshal, or other local official.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
The federal government is being blocked by judges and state officials from building a
nuclear waste storage site in Nevada. While the legal fight goes on, nuclear power
generators store their radioactive waste at their plants. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The federal government is being blocked by judges and state officials from building a
nuclear waste storage site in Nevada. While the legal fight goes on, nuclear power
generators store their radioactive waste at their plants. Lester Graham reports:
The Department of Energy has been stumbling through legal hurdles and political
setbacks for 20 years now. It’s been trying to establish Yucca Mountain in Nevada
as the nation’s storage site for spent nuclear fuel and other highly-radioactive
material.
The Los Angeles Times reports the most recent challenge was a judge’s
ruling that makes it difficult for the Energy Department to drill test holes at the site. It
will likely cause a domino effect of delays.
Many environmentalists and others don’t want Yucca Mountain to ever receive the
nuclear waste. But, in the meantime thousands of tons of spent nuclear power rods
are being stored at the nuclear power plants… and many of those power plants are
located near rivers, lakes and towns. Some of the storage is in buildings, some of it
in casks, sitting outside.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Theories that crops, such as the corn in Illinois, will benefit from increases in CO2 might not be as good as predicted. (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)
Carbon dioxide emissions from our cars and factories are the number one
cause of global warming. Scientists have long theorized that more of
the gas in the atmosphere could actually help farmers grow bigger
plants. But new research from America’s Breadbasket is challenging
that assumption. David Sommerstein reports:
Transcript
Carbon dioxide emissions from our cars and factories are the number one
cause of global warming. Scientists have long theorized that more of
the gas in the atmosphere could actually help farmers grow bigger
plants. But new research from America’s Breadbasket is challenging
that assumption. David Sommerstein reports:
Lin Warfel’s a fourth generation farmer in east-central Illinois. His
fields are flat and endless, the soil chunky and black and just about
the best in the world. An Interstate highway groans on one side of his
cornfield:
“In my career, early on, there was no Interstate past my farm.”
As traffic increased over the years, Warfel noticed a strange
phenomenon. The crops closer to the Interstate grew bigger than those
further away:
“They respond to the carbon dioxide. They can stay greener longer than
plants out into the field.”
OK… so, here’s a high school biology reminder: carbon dioxide, along
with water and sun, is an ingredient in photosynthesis, which makes
plants grow.
Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also the biggest cause
of global warming. So scientists thought, huh, more carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, bigger crops. They even coined a term: the “carbon
dioxide fertilization effect:”
“The effects of CO2 on crop yields are fairly well-understood.”
The Department of Energy’s Jeff Amthor has studied this stuff since the
1980s:
“We would expect that by the year 2050, that the increase in CO2 alone
would probably increase yields by about 10 to 15% in soybean, wheat and
rice relative to today’s yield, with nothing else changing.”
Other things are changing, like hotter temperatures and more drought.
But the predominant thinking has been that the increased carbon dioxide
will moderate those negative factors, maybe even outweigh them. A
recent study by the American Economic Review concluded U.S. agriculture
profits will grow by more than a billion dollars over the next century,
due to global warming. Most of this is based on experiments done in
controlled, greenhouse conditions, but new research done in real fields
is challenging the assumptions:
“Where you’re standing is what we refer to as our global change
research facility on the south farms of the University of Illinois.”
That’s biologist Steve Long. He runs what’s called the SoyFACE project
at the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana. Here, Long can
actually pipe carbon dioxide gas out to the fields, and grow real crops
in an atmosphere of the future.
Long strolls out to one of 16 test plots and stop at a white pipe
sticking out of the ground:
“This is one of the pipes where the carbon dioxide actually comes up
and then it will go out into the field here.”
The carbon dioxide pipes circle a plot about the size of a tennis
court. They release the gas over the crops. Computers monitor the air
to keep the concentrations steady:
“And the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is about
380 parts per million. We’re raising that to the level which is
expected for the year 2050, which is about 550 parts per million.”
Long has grown the crops of 2050 for 5 years now. His results
shocked him. The plants did grow bigger. They survived longer
into the fall, but the yields were 50% lower than expected. And
pests thrived. The Western corn rootworm, for example, laid
twice as many eggs:
“Japanese beetle, which eats quite a lot of the leaves of soybeans, do
twice as well under these elevated CO2 conditions. They live longer. They
produce many more young. The yield increases we’ve seen could start to be
counteracted by those increased pest problems.”
Long’s results found supporters and critics when published in Science magazine last summer. Some researchers say extra CO2
could hurt agriculture more than it helps because weeds become more
aggressive.
The Department of Energy’s Jeff Amthor co-wrote a paper challenging the
interpretation of Long’s data. But he agrees more work needs to be
done in real-life conditions:
“The bigger questions that are now before us are the interactions of CO2 with
warming and change in precip, changes in weed communities, changes in
insect communities, changes in disease outbreak. There are a lot more
questions there than there are answers.”
Amthor says what’s at stake is our future food supply.
For The Environment Report, I’m David Sommerstein.
According to the government, GNEP is an evolving U.S. global nuclear strategy aimed at reducing global dependence on fossil fuels; providing reliable, abundant energy necessary for economic growth, prosperity and health; utilizing international expertise to advance technologies and safeguards; and reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation. (Photo courtesy Idaho National Laboratory)
A U.S. Department of Energy initiative to reprocess spent nuclear
reactor fuel is trying to find a home for a facility. Fred Kight
reports the Bush administration says the plan is a means to safely
expand nuclear energy. Critics of the initiative say it’s unsafe and
unwise:
Transcript
A U.S. Department of Energy initiative to reprocess spent nuclear
reactor fuel is trying to find a home for a facility. Fred Kight
reports the Bush administration says the plan is a means to safely
expand nuclear energy. Critics of the initiative say it’s unsafe and
unwise:
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, would collect spent
nuclear rods from reactors and process them for re-use in the U.S. and
other countries.
Supporters, such as Henry Spitz of the University of Cincinnati, say the
program will allow more reliance on nuclear energy while reducing the
amount of waste generated by power plants:
“GNEP is an essential program if the U.S. is to become less dependent upon
foreign sources of energy.”
But opponents, such as Linda Buskin Jergens, say a facility to reprocess
spent nuclear fuel could make it easier to obtain plutonium for nuclear
weapons:
“Are we creating here a target for terrorism?”
The Department of Energy is studying 11 sites across the nation for the
reprocessing plant.
President Bush and others are promoting more use of plant-based
material to fuel our vehicles. Scientists say they’ve taken an
important step toward more efficient production of bio-fuels. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
President Bush and others are promoting more use of plant-based
material to fuel our vehicles. Scientists say they’ve taken an
important step toward more efficient production of bio-fuels. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Biofuel producers say they need to get a common plant sugar called
xylose to ferment to get an efficient conversion of plant material into
fuels like ethanol.
Researchers from the US Forest Products Lab and the Department of
Energy are working on the problem. They say they’ve now completed a
genetic map of a yeast that helps xylose ferment faster.
Micro-biologist Thomas Jeffries says with the new information about the
yeast, researchers plan to do more genetic tweaking:
“Well, we’ve been able to increase the specific fermentation rate of
this organism with one of our mutations, we’ve been able to increase it
by 50%, we really are aiming to get a four-fold increase.”
But Jeffries cautions there are still many steps before the work with
the yeast might pay off at your local gas station.
Dozens of home appliances will have to meet higher energy efficiency standards sooner than expected. Rebecca Williams reports the Department of Energy agreed to speed up its rulemaking process to settle a federal lawsuit:
Transcript
Dozens of home appliances will have to meet higher energy efficiency standards sooner than expected. Rebecca Williams reports the Department of Energy agreed to speed up its rulemaking process to settle a federal lawsuit:
The energy department has to propose stricter energy standards for appliances within the next five years.
Attorneys general from 14 states and a few public interest groups sued the Department of Energy. The plaintiffs said the agency was dragging its feet on updating energy standards. In some cases, the agency has missed deadlines by as much as 14 years.
Chuck Samuels is with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. He says it is time to update the standards for some products.
“But we need to make sure that we don’t require such radical redesigns in products that either they become cost prohibitive or burdensome for many consumers, or that they take away the basic functions and utilities that consumers expect.”
The groups who filed the suit say higher energy standards will save consumers money in the long run.
While the tower is around 3 miles north of Cleveland's shore, a viable wind farm would need to be at least 6 times farther out in Lake Erie. The wind monitoring tower measures the speed, direction, and height of Lake Erie's wind to determine if wind power generation on the lake is economically viable. (Photo courtesy of Lisa Ann Pinkerton)
Godwin and crew install a small wind turbine on top of Cleveland's water intake "Crib." (Photo courtesy of Lisa Ann Pinkerton)
The small turbine tests preliminary wind data gathered by the tower and powers all operations on the "Crib." The size of the turbine was kept small as to not interfere with continual wind monitoring. (Photo courtesy of Lisa Ann Pinkerton)
Proposals for offshore wind farms, from the coasts of Texas to New England have the potential to generate more electricity than land turbines do. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports these projects face various hurdles to becoming reality, but they’re not completely insurmountable:
Transcript
Proposals for offshore wind farms, from the coasts of Texas to New England have the potential to generate more electricity than land turbines do. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports these projects face various hurdles to becoming reality but they’re not completely insurmountable:
Over the past few months, whenever the weather is favorable, Aaron Godwin of Green Energy Ohio rides a power boat several miles out into Lake Erie. Out on the on the city of Cleveland’s century old water intake structure he’s built a tall wind monitoring tower.
“The upper part of the tower is about 168 feet above the water, so we’re measuring at about 30, 40 and 50 meters, and dual instrumentation at each level, anemometers that measure wind speed and vanes that measure direction.”
Godwin’s got almost a year of wind data and today he’s installing a small wind turbine to confirm what he’s discovered: that the lake’s wind is roughly twice as strong as wind on land. So to Godwin offshore wind farms are inevitable, especially since 75 percent of the nation’s energy use is near coastal cities.
However, proposed projects everywhere face a number of hurdles. One of them is bird and bat migration. Some land turbines have killed creatures that flew too close. But in Denmark, where offshore wind is 15 years old, extensive water foul surveys show little change in bird behavior. Charlotte Boesen is an environmental planner for Dong Energy in Denmark.
“These birds, they do fly around the wind farm. They do not like flying over land you can say and maybe they in some sort they perceive the turbines or wind farm as a similar object.”
Even so, no wind project in the US will ever get off the ground without a full assessment of potential wildlife impacts. That’s why 60% of Lake Erie has already been ruled out by a preliminary study conducted by the wind consulting firm AWS True Wind. Its Executive Director Bruce Bailey says that leaves most of eastern Lake Erie still available, with the best wind about 15 miles northwest of Cleveland.
“That’s where the strongest winds would be found. With water depths still being under say 70 feet.”
Bailey adds the shallow depth of Lake Erie combined with its solid lake bottom and fresh water makes it more friendly to offshore wind generation than oceans.
“You wouldn’t have to deal with the corrosion or the extra cost to safeguard your hardware from corrosion if you’re sighted in a fresh water lake.”
Bailey adds designing against hurricanes makes ocean projects more expensive. On the flip side, Lake Erie’s been known to freeze.
“There are ways to deflect the ice from actually pushing too strongly against or lifting out a turbine foundation. Some of them have already been deployed already in offshore projects in Northern Europe, and some of them are located in locations where you might even get icebergs.”
Another concern is whether these turbines will ruin the natural beauty of America’s Coastlines, even though on the horizon a turbine might only look a big as a thumbnail. Walt Musel of the US Department of Energy says this worry is unfounded.
“It’s worth noting there are no projects in the United States, so most people who object to offshore wind have never seen one.”
Fifteen years ago, projects in Denmark faced the same prejudice. Today tourists rent boats to go see them.
Above all, perhaps the largest impediment to offshore wind power is its high cost. Installation in water is expected to be double the cost of on land construction. However, once farms are producing power, electricity companies are open to buying it.
Out on Lake Erie, Aaron Godwin is packing up his tools for the day. He says there is an up side to those high capital costs. He says in the future, turbines will be so large it’ll make more sense to manufacture the parts locally, giving America’s manufacturing industry a ray of hope.
“Energy is a guaranteed growth market. Wind power is the fastest growing energy sector in the entire world. Why would you not want to get involved in that guaranteed growth market? It just does not make sense.”
Godwin says if the US can clear these hurdles of public perception, engineering, and environmental impacts, he thinks the US economy might find a pleasant surprise: consistent, green energy, built and harnessed off the blue coasts of America.
For the Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.
The Department of Energy is proposing new efficiency standards for furnaces. Rebecca Williams reports critics of the new rule say it won’t save consumers money:
Transcript
The Department of Energy is proposing new efficiency standards for furnaces. Rebecca Williams reports critics of the new rule say it won’t save consumers money:
The new rule would be just a two percent increase from what’s currently mandated. The rule would require new furnaces to be 80 percent efficient. That means 80% of the energy is used to heat your home while 20% is vented up the flue.
Energy groups say it’s basically no change, because most of the new furnaces on the market are already 80 percent efficient, or better.
Ketari Callahan is president of the group Alliance to Save Energy.
“It really only puts in place and codifies what the market is doing today. So it really is just far too weak and it keeps people from saving the money they otherwise would.”
Industry groups say a stronger standard isn’t needed. They say consumers in colder climates already tend to buy the most efficient furnaces.
Three states have passed their own laws for furnace efficiency that are stricter than the federal standard.
