The environment thread

[Balta1701]

Cool, couple bloggers I read got to test drive an early version of the Volt and came back impressed.

[Balta1701]

China is planning to adopt gas mileage requirements that are far more stringent than the ones President Obama just announced.

 

Gotta admit, it's a smart business move if they're looking to develop their auto industry. If the U.S. is making cars that can't legally be sold in China because they consume too much fuel, then you eliminate competition from any of those models.

[NorthSideSox72]

is planning to adopt gas mileage requirements that are far more stringent than the ones President OChinabama just announced.

 

Gotta admit, it's a smart business move if they're looking to develop their auto industry. If the U.S. is making cars that can't legally be sold in China because they consume too much fuel, then you eliminate competition from any of those models.

OChinabama?

[Balta1701]

I actually didn't do that. The computer did. I'm going to blame Bill Gates. I had the sentence typed normally, then I added the link and the text decided to move.

[NorthSideSox72]

Some great news today from SecAg Vilsack, for those of us interested in protecting roadless primitive and wilderness areas...

 

Vilsack issued an order where all development to occur in any roadless area within the Forest Service must now be reviewed and signed off on by him personally. This is effectively a "time out" for all new development in roadless areas under the USFS.

 

Great first step. but it does not cover BLM or NPS land, which are under Interior - hopefully Salazar will make a corresponding move. Then, ideally, the oversight of such roadless areas for development should be combined in a single reviewing body, instead of spread out over seperate departments and agencies. And as a final cement, take all the internal recommendations for Wilderness designations and upgrade all the WSA's out there.

 

[Balta1701]

Great first step. but it does not cover BLM or NPS land, which are under Interior - hopefully Salazar will make a corresponding move. Then, ideally, the oversight of such roadless areas for development should be combined in a single reviewing body, instead of spread out over seperate departments and agencies. And as a final cement, take all the internal recommendations for Wilderness designations and upgrade all the WSA's out there.

Well, there's a reason why these are spread out amongst different agencies though...the road access is for different purposes. I'm not sure it makes sense to have a single agency be a clearinghouse deciding where logging can go, where mining can go, and where tourist and other transit travel can go. Different purposes for each.

[BigSqwert]

Two words describe the people in these photos. f***ing assholes.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, there's a reason why these are spread out amongst different agencies though...the road access is for different purposes. I'm not sure it makes sense to have a single agency be a clearinghouse deciding where logging can go, where mining can go, and where tourist and other transit travel can go. Different purposes for each.

I didn't say combining agencies, as clearly they have different missions. I said a reviewing body, whose specific interests are those that are common among them.

 

Alternately, have committees in each agency bound by the same rules and guidelines, but that will eventually lead back to a lack of mission in regards to how we manage open spaces.

 

[GoSox05]

Two words describe the people in these photos. f***ing assholes.

 

 

Scumbags. Just ununbelievable that people do s*** like this.

[BigSqwert]

Tesla update

[Balta1701]

The Kyoto accords would have required each signatory to come up with an economy-crippling cut to their CO2 emissions. The UK, for example, had to cut their emissions to 12.5% below 1990 levels by 2010.

Based on a new report, the UK will be at 23.5% below 1990 levels by 2010. Clearly, these cuts are the cause of the world economic crisis, and this is why every British citizen is now living in poverty.

 

In all seriousness...that's remarkably effective. If anyone out there wants to tell me how you can't cut back on carbon emissions at the same time you have economic growth, there's your answer. The European cap and giveaway system may have been incredibly poorly designed, but look how much it did compared to doing nothing.

[NorthSideSox72]

There has been a lot of talk lately in the news about the practice of "fracking" (har). This is used by companies looking to drill for natural gas or hydrogen or the like, by flushing compressed air, water and/or chemicals into the ground at very high power, to "bring up" the wanted materials. Some of the discussion has been that this practice has screwed up and possibly contaminated water supplies, and some states and agencies are looking at banning or restricting the practice, which was allowed in a loophole in federal legislation.

 

But here is an interesting one, that Balta could maybe sound off on. An area in Texas, thought to not be geologically risk, has been experiencing regular earthquakes lately. And the locals feel that the fracking and drilling might be causing it.

 

Balta, is that even possible?

 

[Balta1701]

Yes. Any time you pump anything in to the ground at pressure, you have the potential to trigger seismic activity. There is some finite amount of stress distributed throughout the earth's crust...usually it's less than it takes to fracture the rock or cause an earthquake. But if you pump a fluid in to there...the fluid is a hydrostatic pressure medium...in other words, you push on any 1 side of it with an amount of pressure and it applies that pressure in all 3 geometric directions. Rocks however are not hydrostatic; they have yield strength. If you pump in a fluid, because it's hydrostatic, you change the relationship between the stresses being felt and you can set off earthquakes.

 

If that doesn't make sense, the short answer is "Yes", pumping a fluid in to the ground can set off earthquakes and fracturing. It's certainly not a guarantee that this is the single cause - a lot of things change tectonically and earthquake swarms do happen randomly, so there could be other causes, but pumping in fluids at pressure is certainly one way to move rocks to a state of failure.

 

It's an interesting geoengineering topic actually. Some have proposed that pumping water in to a fault like the San Andreas might be a way to get it to creep along setting off only smaller earthquakes than it normally does. But no one wants to deal with the insurance implications, especially if something goes wrong.

[kapkomet]

There has been a lot of talk lately in the news about the practice of "fracking" (har). This is used by companies looking to drill for natural gas or hydrogen or the like, by flushing compressed air, water and/or chemicals into the ground at very high power, to "bring up" the wanted materials. Some of the discussion has been that this practice has screwed up and possibly contaminated water supplies, and some states and agencies are looking at banning or restricting the practice, which was allowed in a loophole in federal legislation.

 

But here is an interesting one, that Balta could maybe sound off on. An area in Texas, thought to not be geologically risk, has been experiencing regular earthquakes lately. And the locals feel that the fracking and drilling might be causing it.

 

Balta, is that even possible?

As I leave my subdivision, I can see no less then 5 gas drilling wells... I live right on top of this.

 

[Balta1701]

British Nuclear accident only avoided by guy deciding to do laundry at the right time.

A nuclear leak, which could have caused a major disaster, was only averted by a chance decision to wash some dirty clothes, according to a newly obtained official report.

 

On the morning of Sunday 7 January 2007, one of the contractors working on decommissioning the Sizewell A nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast was in the laundry room when he noticed cooling water leaking on to the floor from the pond that holds the reactor's highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel.

 

As much as 40,000 gallons of radioactive water spilled out of a 15ft long split in a pipe, some leaking into the North Sea. The pond water level had dropped by more than a foot (330mm) – yet none of the sophisticated alarms in the plant sounded in the main control room.

 

By the time of the next scheduled safety patrol, the pond level would have dipped far enough to expose the nuclear fuel rods – potentially causing them to overheat and catch fire sending a plume of radioactive contamination along the coastline.

 

The HM Nuclear Installation Inspectorate's report of the incident, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, said: "The pond could have been drained (it takes about 10 hours) before the required plant tour by an operator had taken place. In this worst-case scenario, if the exposed irradiated fuel caught fire it would result in an airborne off-site release."

 

It concluded: "NII believes that there was significant risk that operators and even members of the public could have been harmed if there had not been fortunate and appropriate intervention of a contractor who just happened to be in the right plant area when things went wrong."

I would also like to note that the Republicans this week released their version of an energy bill - which included building 100 additional nuclear plants in the U.S.

[kapkomet]

British Nuclear accident only avoided by guy deciding to do laundry at the right time.

I would also like to note that the Republicans this week released their version of an energy bill - which included building 100 additional nuclear plants in the U.S.

OMG, FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR.

 

 

[Balta1701]

OMG, FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR.

So, you'd like to explain why more nuclear plants are a good idea?

[mr_genius]

So, you'd like to explain why more nuclear plants are a good idea?

 

National Geographic: "OMG OMG Al Gore has new shoes! Green shoes! OMG OMG"

Edited June 13, 2009 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

So, you'd like to explain why more nuclear plants are a good idea?

Not to you, because you already "know" that they should not be an option, and no matter what I say, it won't change your mind.

 

[StrangeSox]

So, you'd like to explain why more nuclear plants are a good idea?

 

Because wind and solar are not a feasible option to replace coal and natural gas.

[NorthSideSox72]

Because wind and solar are not a feasible option to replace coal and natural gas.

A combination of solar, wind, hyrdo, geo and other natural sources is definitely a feasible option. Just not one that will come to complete fruition any time in the next decade. It takes time.

 

[StrangeSox]

A combination of solar, wind, hyrdo, geo and other natural sources is definitely a feasible option. Just not one that will come to complete fruition any time in the next decade. It takes time.

 

Not really, at least without some revolutionary breakthroughs in power transmission and storage. These sources cannot be implemented in many places in the country. Look how cloudy and rainy its been in Chicago for the past week or two--we'd be in big trouble if we were solar-only. There's no room for wind farms in the city proper, and we don't have hydro or geo sources there either.

 

There's over a Terawatt of power production in this country. We'd need about 9 million square miles of solar at absolute peak efficiency for 8 hours a day to replace that. That's half of Texas. Wind farms take up more space. Hydro and geo are great where they are available, but they're not available everywhere.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not really, at least without some revolutionary breakthroughs in power transmission and storage. These sources cannot be implemented in many places in the country. Look how cloudy and rainy its been in Chicago for the past week or two--we'd be in big trouble if we were solar-only. There's no room for wind farms in the city proper, and we don't have hydro or geo sources there either.

 

There's over a Terawatt of power production in this country. We'd need about 9 million square miles of solar at absolute peak efficiency for 8 hours a day to replace that. That's half of Texas. Wind farms take up more space. Hydro and geo are great where they are available, but they're not available everywhere.

Yes, really. Any one can't be implemented in certain parts of the country, at least not efficiently. But they all can in some places, and you don't need power production from every acre of land (we don't get it from most acres now). Solar can be implemented pretty much everywhere, by the way, and produce some power - its a matter of regional scale against cost. Panels may have a power payback against cost that is very low in Arizona, much higher in Seattle.

 

You use the source that makes the most sense for your location - solar, wind, geo, hyrdo, tidal, green matter, garbage even. Whatever is already present or going to be present.

 

Plus, you are making an assumption that the technology involved is static, which its definitely not. Solar alone has made huge strides, and the panels that will be produced in 2010 will be twice as efficient as the ones just a few years back. And the more money goes into that industry, the further it develops. This is a natural curve, it happens with all technologies. Its a slow build at first with early adopters willing to lose money or shell out big bucks, and as time goes on, the technology is better and cheaper, as more people adopt it. So to continue the solar example, its efficient in certain areas now in certain implementations, but the broad ability to work will expand over time.

 

I personally am a huge fan of a distributed solar power system. If you want Solar to give you half your power, that's an area like a quarter of Texas, which is obviously unrealistic. But you put a couple panels on every house and business roof (or just solar shingles), you now have more square coverage than that, without buying a single acre of real estate. You can add in small solar farms where they are practical, and you've got more than enough.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Unfortunately this hit over the weekend, but it's excellent stuff to see. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Waxman/Markey Climate bill, which would establish programs to cut our CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and even farther afterwards, in terms of how much it would actually cost. The answer? Virtually nothing. The CBO doesn't count savings due to increased energy efficency, only actual inputs and outputs from the government, and the total cost of the bill over 10 years is $24 billion. Since there's a breakdown in who gets what rebates, I can also give this chart from the document:

 

[StrangeSox]

That's what it will cost the government. What does it cost private industry?