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

Tax Incentives Put Solar Within Reach

  • Eric Lindstrom, Vice President of Cannon Design, stands next to the building's 140 new solar panels (Photo by Joyce Kryszak)

Buying a solar system for your home still is not as simple or inexpensive as say picking up a new water heater. But solar energy advocates argue that the systems are affordable and obtainable for just about everyone – right now. Joyce Kryszak checked out that claim:

Transcript

Buying a solar system for your home still is not as simple or inexpensive as say picking up a new water heater. But solar energy advocates argue that the systems are affordable and obtainable for just about everyone – right now. Joyce Kryszak checked out that claim:

You might say that sunlight is a trade mark for Cannon Design. The Western New York based firm designs some of the most solar friendly buildings in the world. But only now is Cannon using the sun for its own building.

Eric Lindstrom is Vice President of the company. He says it’s what their environmentally savvy clients expect.

“You know there’s a huge P.R. factor here that we can bring our clients in and say, you know, this is what we’re recommending to you, but we’ve done it ourselves and it works. That we didn’t just read it in a magazine somewhere and say this is what you should be doing.”

Lindstrom takes us up on the roof of the company’s building to have a look at the new system.

Up here we find solar panels. 140 of them. They’re stretched out from edge to edge, soaking up the rays.

Lindstrom says they generate about 5% of the energy the building needs. But he says even at that small percentage the company will recoup the roughly $17,000 investment in about three years.

The system’s total price tag is actually about $170,000. But Cannon Design got corporate tax credits and incentives that covered roughly 90%. After the pay-back period, Linstrom says the company will actually pocket money.

Back in the building they can watch the savings add up on the inverter meters inside. That got Lindstrom thinking. He got a bid on a system for his home. He’s decided against it for now because the payback would take about eight years. You see, businesses get more tax breaks than homeowners.

But some people say the payback time can be less. And sometimes it just doesn’t’ matter to them.

Joan Bozer was at the American Solar Energy Society Conference held in Buffalo, New York. Bozer was showing off pictures of her home’s $30,000 solar system. It cost her half that after incentives. The payback will take a while—about eight years. But Bozer says that’s okay.

“Because it doesn’t make any difference to me if it’s five years or ten years what the payback period is. I want the solar panels, like people in their house they put on the roof they want, or they put on what they want and this is what we want – solar panels on the roof. That’s how we want to do it.”

But as green-minded as she is, Bozer admits that federal and state incentives gave her the final push.

While everybody can take advantage of recent federal tax credits, state incentives vary. Some are generous, and some offer homeowners nothing. Some local governments are offering low-interest loans on top of the federal and state incentives.

Neal Lurie is with the Solar Society. Lurie says incentives are creating demand and that’s driving down the cost of solar systems.
He says systems cost about 30% less than last year.

Lurie says with lower prices and tax incentives, some homeowners can have solar without much – or no – money out of pocket.

But how soon will solar catch on with the masses? Lurie predicts in less than six years.

“We’ll see solar technology a low-cost provider of electricity, even lower priced than fossil fuels without incentives. I think that when that happens we’re going to see it go from being something that people are looking at and starting to do to something that is truly common-place, much more than people may actually expect today.”

Others think solar will really take off in just three years. Solar installers are already gearing up. Some say they’ll double their workforce by the end of this year.

For The Environment Report – I’m Joyce Kryszak.

Related Links

Coal: Dirty Past, Hazy Future (Part 4)

  • Four Corners Power Plant is one of the dirtiest in the country, based on its emissions of nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and mercury. Under a cap-and-trade system, plants like this would have to cut pollution or buy carbon permits. (Photo by Daniel Kraker)

President Obama wants the U.S. to reduce the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming. Congress is considering a carbon cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports on what that will mean to coal-burning industries and your power bill:

Transcript

President Obama wants the U.S. to reduce the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming. Congress is considering a carbon cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports on what that will mean to coal-burning industries and your power bill:

For all the talk about carbon cap-and-trade, few people really understand what it is. And no one really knows what it will end up costing you on your electric bill – at least not yet.

The President wants carbon dioxide polluters such as coal-burning power plants to cut how much carbon dioxide they spew from the smokestacks.

So, the government is now designing a plan to cap the total amount of carbon dioxide pollution nation-wide. Once that amount is set, each polluter is allotted a limited amount of allowances to release carbon dioxide. Go over that allowance and the polluter has to pay per ton of CO2 released. Don’t use all of the allowances, and a company is free to trade them -–for a price—to others who need the allowances.

Over time that nation-wide cap will keep get lower, making carbon pollution more and more expensive.

How much of that cost ends up on your electricity bill is the big question.

There are some wildly different predictions. Some lobby groups indicate cap-and-trade could nearly double electric rates. But politics really plays into many of those predictions.

We went to analysts at Point Carbon. It’s a respected world-wide carbon market consultant. Veronique Bugnion says Point Carbon made some estimates based on President Obama’s carbon cap-and-trade plan in his proposed budget.

“Now, in terms of the U.S. average, what we calculated is that it would represent a roughly seven% increase over current electricity rates.”

That’s the average.

But, if your power company uses mostly coal instead of hydro-power or nuclear or wind or solar, Bugnion says it could cost more.

“At the extreme, in the regions that are essentially entirely coal dependent, the impact would be closer to anywhere between ten and 15-percent.”

President Obama says says a carbon cap-and-trade scheme can be designed so that it smooths out the effect on consumers who live in a coal-dependent area.

“The way it’s structured has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So, there are a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through.”

And Congress is just beginning to sort through them. But coal and power companies as well as big oil and industries that use a lot of energy are lobbying hard to kill carbon cap-and-trade or make sure doesn’t cost them, or their shareholders, more than they want.

That leaves most of us wondering what reducing the greenhouse gases will end up costing us after Congress gets finished.

Sandy Kline runs a small house-cleaning business called “More Grime than Time” out of her home in suburban Detroit. Because of the economy she’s lost some business lately. Times are a little tighter.

She says she’s concerned about climate change, but she’s worried what the President’s carbon cap-and-trade plan might do to her power bill and her family budget.

“What he’s proposing sounds like a good idea –big picture– as far as the greenhouse emissions and that, but, you know, on an individual basis it can really hurt people like me.”

She wonders if consumer pressure isn’t enough to get those power companies using coal-burning plants to change. But, that could take decades. Climate scientists say we don’t have that kind of time. We have to do something to reduce greenhouse gases now.

So, experts say you should get ready. Since we don’t know exactly what cap-and-trade will do to electricity rates, it might be a good idea to reduce your power usage. Take advantage of the current tax incentives to get more energy efficient appliances and tighten up your home.

They say, even if rates do go up because of carbon cap-and-trade, if you’re using less power, it could be you won’t see a much of a difference when you get your electric bill.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Getting Crafty for the Holidays

  • Student Kate Doyle makes a sweatshirt as a holiday gift (Photo by Jennifer Guerra)

The economy is on the fritz,
unemployment is way up – so this holiday
season: cheap is the new black. And who
better to give tips on how to stretch
a dollar than students. Some crafty
college kids share their more unique
ideas for homemade gifts:

Transcript

The economy is on the fritz,
unemployment is way up – so this holiday
season: cheap is the new black. And who
better to give tips on how to stretch
a dollar than students. Some crafty
college kids share their more unique
ideas for homemade gifts:

“Hi, I’m Dani Davis.”

“Meghann Rotary.”

“I’m Kate Doyle and I’m crafting currently as we speak. I’m cutting up some old
sweatshirts and I’m creating them into Christmas gifts. The bottoms and the sleeves of
old sweatshirts you get this really nice stretchy material and you can make a woven detail
to put on the front of a new sweatshirt and give it to somebody. Ideally, you’re using the
person who’s receiving the gifts their favorite colors. And what not. This is actually a test
drive to make sure it looks good because I saw this pattern in the stores actually but it
was like $135 dollars. So these two sweatshirts were given to me. But if I were to buy
these at Salvation Army or something, I would say the project would cost 5-8 dollars.”

“For Christmas this year I think my big crafty endeavor for my boyfriend. My friend lent
me a taxidermy ram head which is currently on my wall in my bedroom. And my
boyfriend thought it was really cool and even at the Salvation Army they’re like $150 or
something and they’re missing chunks of hair. So I was like, oh, out of fluff and fabric,
probably like old curtains or something, I could make him a taxidermy in quotations deer
head. You guys can’t tell him!”

“A few years ago I decided – well, I was broke first of all, so I didn’t know what I was
going to do for a gift. So I decided I was going to make marshmallows and package them
really nicely.”

“Basically it’s just gelatin, corn syrup, confectioners’ sugar, granulated sugar – lot of
sugar – and water. And they only take about 20 minutes to make. So I’ll buy a bunch of
dark chocolate and white chocolate and melt that down and then dip the marshmallows in
that and then dip the chocolate in nuts and peppermint. And then put them in little boxes
and sometimes I’ll cover the boxes in nice papers or wrapping paper. So it’s pretty cheap.
Yeah. And if you’ve never had a homemade marshmallow you’re missing out.”

“I’d like to get some of your marshmallows this Christmas.”

Related Links

Interview: ‘Bottlemania’

  • Author Elizabeth Royte encourages people to buy reusable water bottles instead of disposable. Just make sure your water bottle doesn't have BPA in it like this one! (Photo by Rebecca Williams)

We buy a lot of bottled water.
Globally, sales are more than 60-billion
dollars a year. Elizabeth Royte just wrote
a new book about the whole bottled water
phenomenon. It’s called ‘Bottlemania’.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham
asked her how we got to where we’re carrying
a plastic bottle of water with us at all times:

Transcript

We buy a lot of bottled water.
Globally, sales are more than 60-billion
dollars a year. Elizabeth Royte just wrote
a new book about the whole bottled water
phenomenon. It’s called ‘Bottlemania’.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham
asked her how we got to where we’re carrying
a plastic bottle of water with us at all times:

Elizabeth Royte: “Because of hundreds of millions of dollars spent on advertising telling us that
bottled water is pure and natural, will make us look better, and make us more attractive to the
opposite sex. If you’re smart, you’ll drink bottled water.”

Lester Graham: (laughs) “Okay, so at $1.39 a pint, it sounds like I’m paying for a lot of advertising
and not much water.”

Royte: (laughs) “Yeah. You’re paying for advertising, you’re paying for lawyers, you’re paying for
PR flacks, you’re paying for the right to extract water from communities where many people might
not. So there’s a lot of legal battles going on over it, so some of your money may be going toward
that. You’ll be doing your pocketbook and the environment a big favor by just getting a good
refillable, reusable, washable bottle and filling it up with good old tap water.”

Graham: “A lot of bottled water comes from public water supplies. Dasani and Aquafina, from
Coke and Pepsi, come from public water supplies, and, as you say in ‘Bottlemania’, ‘they filter the
bejesus out of it’. Other water comes from natural springs, or glaciers, or pure mountain rivers –
doesn’t that make it better?”

Royte: “Well, you’ve hit on it, because that’s what they’re trading on and sometimes they charge a
bit more from that. They do say it is a natural product – it’s coming from the Earth. Those other
brands, Aquafina and Dasani, do start from municipal water supplies, they’re very filtered. And if
you don’t want to have minerals in your water, then you should aim for one of those. Or, get a
reverse-osmosis filter and install it under your sink and you’ll get the same thing, more or less.”

Graham: “Okay, so I’ve been buying bottled water by the case, let’s say. You want me to stop
buying bottled water because there’s fuel used in it, there’s petroleum used in the plastic, I’m
paying more than I should have to for water. What should I do?”

Royte: “You shouldn’t buy bottled water for bad reasons. You should educate yourself. You
should find out what’s going on upstream, what’s going on in your watershed, what sort of industry,
agriculture, development. Read your consumer confidence report. Know the utility is found in the
water, then go a step further, and order up some of your own tests so you can find out what’s in the
pipes in your house. Because the utility is responsible for the quality of the water only until it gets
to your service lines.”

Graham: “But that’s a lot of work. It’s easier to buy a bottle of water.”

Royte: (laughs) “It’s easier in the short run, but it’s going to hurt you financially in the long run, and
its contributing to climate change. That’s the carbon footprint of the transportation, the making the
bottles, the landfills, the incinerator, the litter – it goes on and on and on. It is a little bit of money
up front. But it’s only up front. You’ll get that reusable bottle, you might have to get a filter, but
again, you’re going to save money buying this filter and maintaining it over relying only on bottled
water.”

Graham: “So, let’s say you go to lunch or go to meet someone for coffee and your friend comes in
with a plastic bottle of water they bought at a local store. Do you resist the urge to say, ‘hey, do
you know?’ or do you go ahead and let them have it. Let me hear your elevator speech to your
friend.”

Royte: (laughs) “I don’t have friends like that.” (laughs) “All my friends have refillable, reusable
bottles.” (laughs) “No, yeah, I sometimes do resist the urge. I do see people in their cars with
these bottles and I don’t say anything because I want to keep them as friends. But I try to model
good behavior, and they see me filling up my bottle, and I hope some of that rubs off on them.”

Elizabeth Royte is the
author of ‘Bottlemania: How Water Went On Sale
And Why We Bought It’. She spoke with Lester Graham.

Related Links

A New Bulb on the Block

  • imothy D. Sands, at left, director of Purdue's Birck Nanotechnology Center in Discovery Park, and graduate student Mark Oliver, operate a "reactor" in work aimed at perfecting solid-state lighting, a technology that could cut electricity consumption by 10 percent if widely adopted. Purdue researchers have overcome a major obstacle in reducing the cost of the lighting technology, called light-emitting diodes. (Photo by David Umberger, courtesy of Purdue News Service)

Unless you like to live by candlelight,
you have to buy lightbulbs. But the options
out there aren’t that great. Jessi Ziegler reports how all that might change soon:

Transcript

Unless you like to live by candlelight,
you have to buy lightbulbs. But the options
out there aren’t that great. Jessi Ziegler reports how all that might change soon:

Plain-old incandescent lightbulbs are not efficient. That’s
old news.

And fluorescents? The color is funny and they have toxic
mercury in them.

So, what option is left?

LED lights. They’re as efficient as compact flourescents
minus the mercury.

The problem? They’re one-hundred-dollars-a-bulb
expensive.

But scientists at Purdue have been working on a way to
cut that cost.

Researcher Timothy Sands says in about 5 years, LEDs could
cost the same as the other bulbs.

“So, the nice thing about it is you can save energy, and
actually save money over the long haul – even though the
initial cost is very high right now, without changing what
you’re used to, or without lowering your standards for
lighting.”

And Sands says another big advantage of LEDs is you’d only
have to change the bulbs every 15 years.

For The Environment Report, this is Jessi Ziegler.

Related Links

Investors Wary of Diesel From Coal

  • (Photo courtesy of the US Geological Survey)

The price of gasoline and diesel fuel from
foreign oil is making people think about other ways
to fill up. Lester Graham reports the coal industry
is pushing the idea of making diesel out of coal
from the US:

Transcript

The price of gasoline and diesel fuel from
foreign oil is making people think about other ways
to fill up. Lester Graham reports the coal industry
is pushing the idea of making diesel out of coal
from the US:

The technology to make diesel fuel out of coal has been around for a while. Germany
used it in World War II.

Recently, researchers at Rutgers and the University of North Carolina developed a
more efficient way to convert coal to diesel.

So, what’s stopping coal-to-diesel? Money and risk.

Coal to diesel is feasible – if the price of oil is above $50 a barrel. Oil is around $143 a
barrel right now. So, the money is good.

Phil Gonet is president of the Illinois Coal Association. He says now investors want
some government assistance.

“That guarantees that investors will at least get their money back if OPEC starts to play
around with the world price of oil.”

And make diesel from foreign oil cheaper than diesel from domestic coal.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Faster Payback on Hybrids

  • High gas prices cause some hybrid vehicles to recoup prices faster (Photo by Ben VanWagoner)

Hybrid cars are generally more expensive than their gasoline counterparts. But as Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports, high gas prices mean several hybrid models are recouping their costs faster:

Transcript

Hybrid cars are generally more expensive than their gasoline counterparts. But as Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports, high gas prices mean several hybrid models are recouping their costs faster:

Hybrid cars like the Nissan Altima and Toyota Prius take around 4 years to pay back their premium. That’s according to the automobile research firm Edmonds.com. The GMC Yukon hybrid has the shortest payback period of the SUVs – almost five years. The hybrid that comes in dead last is the Lexus 600H.

John O’Dell at Edmunds.com says the Lexus could take over 80 years to recoup its premium.

“In that case you have a v8 engine that’s hybridized you’re really using the hybrid for some additional power and performance. You’re not using it – well you are using it for a little bit of gas savings – but we compute those saving to be a mere $192 dollars a year.”

That’s compared to more than a thousand dollars a year in gas savings for the Yukon and the Prius.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton

Related Links

Book Publishers Getting Greener

  • Logging truck. (Photo courtesy of US Fish and Wildlife Service)

The next time you curl up with your favorite book,
you might think about where the paper in the book comes from.
Mark Brush reports on a new trend for the pulp industry that
isn’t fiction:

Transcript

The next time you curl up with your favorite book,
you might think about where the paper in the book comes from.
Mark Brush reports on a new trend for the pulp industry that
isn’t fiction:

It’s estimated that only a small amount of paper in the average book is made up of
recycled content. Experts say a lot of the paper comes from sensitive forests in Canada,
the southeastern US, and Indonesia.

But a new report says publishers are beginning to use more recycled paper.

Tyson Miller is the Director of the Green Press Initiative – one of the groups that commissioned the report. He says some major book publishing companies are doing their part:

“Random House’s policy says that they’ll move from a 3% recycled fiber use rate to a
30% recycled fiber use rate by 2010. That alone will save about a half a million trees a
year.”

Some companies don’t want to use more recycled paper because it’s more expensive. But
Miller says their research has shown that people who buy books are willing to pay a little
extra to save a few trees.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Selling Forest Land for Schools

The Bush Administration is proposing to sell more than 300-thousand acres of public forest land to raise money for schools in rural communities. Lawmakers, environmentalists and former Forest Service directors have come out against the plan, calling it short-sighted and shameful. The GLRC’s Erin Toner reports:

Transcript

The Bush Administration is proposing to sell more than 300-thousand
acres of public forest land to raise money for schools in rural
communities. Lawmakers, environmentalists and former Forest Service
directors have come out against the plan, calling it short-sighted and
shameful. The GLRC’s Erin Toner reports:


The goal of the plan is to raise 800 million dollars for schools that have
lost money generated by timber sales, but lawmakers from both parties
say auctioning off forest land is short-sighted. Environmental groups say
it’s one of the latest attempts by the Bush administration to give oil,
timber and mining interests access to pristine natural areas.


Amy Mall is with the Natural Resources Defense Council.


“These lands are part of America’s natural legacy. Some of them are really wild
areas where there is very high-quality wildlife habitat. They might be
areas where a lot of people recreate. They might go hunting or fishing.
Or they might just think that these areas should remain wild.”


An agriculture department official described most of the land proposed for sale
as isolated and expensive to manage.


For the GLRC, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links