Geothermal To Replace Coal in West Virginia?

When referring to the phrase ‘renewable energy’, most people think of popular techniques like wind turbines or solar photovoltaic panels. However, there is a resource that we can drill for that doesn’t have an end in sight. Geothermal energy is natural heat from within the Earth that can be mined from beneath the surface to produce electricity and passively heat buildings. This type of energy has many advantages over fossil fuels; especially that it is a renewable fuel and it is widely available. Advancements in the detection of geothermal wells have uncovered how abundant the resource is and that we can potentially replace a large portion of our energy production with this renewable fuel. Geothermal is a scarcely used source of energy but its abundance should be recognized and utilized as soon as possible in order to reduce carbon emissions and lessen the effects of climate change.

In October of this year, Southern Methodist University completed a study, funded by Google, which uncovered just how vast West Virginia’s supply of geothermal energy is. West Virginia currently has a capacity for just over 16,000mW of electricity, primarily through the use of coal fired power plants. According to the recent study, West Virginia holds the potential to produce almost 19,000mW through use of geothermal energy wells below the Earth’s crust. A study in 2006 led by MIT had estimated about half of this supply, and even following that discovery, West Virginia still has yet to take steps in developing the market for geothermal energy. West Virginia has the potential to boost its economy and promote clean energy if it takes steps to invest in geothermal energy.

The federal government has taken initiative in promoting the use of geothermal energy through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It subsidized the use of geothermal heat pumps through the use of tax credits, and the Department of Energy has funded projects to locate geothermal wells across the country. However, large scale energy production policies have yet to formulate. Construction of power plants that are run primarily by geothermal energy would be a huge step in promoting clean energy. Once it is proven to the general public that we don’t need to burn fossil fuels to achieve the same result, geothermal should become widespread. The potential for energy production is eye opening and the funding needed to convert the speculation into progress is just one federal policy away.

Carbon Sinks

In the carbon cycle there are four major areas where carbon resides, forests, oceans, the soil, and the atmosphere. These areas are referred to as carbon sinks because they absorb more carbon than they expel. The carbon cycle operates by absorbing carbon from living things into the atmosphere or soil. It then moves into the oceans and other water bodies where it is reintroduced to living things. This cycle continues naturally keeping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the earth from freezing. The problem arises when humans burn coal and oil this puts large amounts of extra carbon into the atmosphere. This extra carbon often resides in the atmosphere causing more heat to be trapped inside of it, this heats the earth more than normal causing a global warming effect. The more coal and oil are burnt for fuel the worse this problem becomes. Companies have now begun to build carbon sinks in order to mitigate the carbon pollution they create. While in the eyes of many people this can appear to be a good things for companies to do, it can actually be quite negative.

The building of mitigated carbon sinks is negative because companies then believe they can produce more and more carbon emissions as long as the build carbon sinks to mitigate the pollution. The mitigated carbon sinks however are not well developed and cannot recycle carbon like natural ones. Also most mitigate carbon sinks are planted in a plantation style which does not mimic nature and thus does not mimic the natural processes that occur. This vicious cycle of pollute and mitigate is a very negative way to deal with climate change and in the long run could cause more damage than the original pollution.

Instead of mitigating companies should look for new methods of producing energy and ways to reduce their need to clear land. Energy production such as wind, solar, and wave power production can help reduce the need to mitigate carbon sinks. Better land use techniques for farming and development will also lessen the need to destroy forests, mangroves, and bogs which are important natural carbon sinks. New technology such as carbon capture can also be used. This process involves separating CO2 from burn fuels which is then sent back to the oil field, where the oil was drawn from, for storage. This helps to reduce the excess carbon form entering the carbon cycle and to reduce global warming. The importance of the carbon cycle and carbon sinks often go unnoticed but if they continue to be disrupted from burning of fossil fuels they could be the cause of the largest global climate change the world has ever seen.

Fairfax Connector not Connecting

Fairfax County has been named the third worst county in the nation in terms of traffic congestion. As the most populated county in Virginia and a suburb of one of the most vibrant employment centers in the U.S., transportation as an environmental, social, and economic issue will not disappear any time soon. While the metro and metrobuses provide some service to Fairfax commuters, their service extends only to the Vienna metro station. As a result, Fairfax commuters either drive in single occupancy vehicles to the metro station or into DC. As population increases and sprawls further out toward Loudoun County,current beltway infrastructure will continue to deteriorate while capacity improvements will constantly be necessary to alleviate the colossal congestion.

The Fairfax Connector is a county bus line established in 1985. Service until recent years has been targeted and minimal, but in 2005 the county contracted a fleet of 174 vehicles with plans to establish a commuter connection not only between suburbs of Fairfax, but from the suburbs to the Vienna Metro Station. This was a breakthrough in public transportation for Northern Virginia, as Fairfax was going to be providing a public mode for reaching the metro station without the need for a personal vehicle. With the rising price of gas at the time and constant congestion, demand for alternative transportation rose, and the Fairfax Connector increased service. However, with the inauguration of an anti-spending governor, Fairfax Connector cut service incrementally in 2009-2010. However when riders expressed their dissatisfaction with the changes, the County provided additional funding by raising taxes in order to restore service.

The good news for alternative transportation development in Fairfax stops there, for the likelihood of a transportation funding bill being passed in the current political climate of the General Assembly and under the McDonnell administration is bleak at best. So it appears as though official actors, often our elected representatives, are responding to increased ridership, demand, and fare revenue with decreased investment, causing fare hikes. Our leaders will be doing so at a time when low-income residents of their jurisdictions are in serious economic trouble. 24% of Fairfax residents that live below the poverty line live east of I-95, while job growth on the western side of the county has outpaced eastern growth twenty-to-one. Therefore, by adopting a non-discriminating “no on spending” policy, our electorate has denied an essential service to the people who need it most while failing to alleviate congestion, oil dependency, or greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental Impacts of Outdoor Recreation

Have you ever gone and played outside? Have you ever thought about the impacts that your recreation has on the surrounding environment? Well, believe it or not, outdoor recreation has the potential to have very detrimental effects on the surrounding environment. Whether it be hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, mountain biking, whatever the activity is has some impact on the environment.

While most outdoor recreation is considered non-consumptive recreation because activities, such as backpacking, don't remove anything from the area like hunting and fishing remove wildlife from their habitat, these types of recreation harm the underlying soil and vegetation. Soil compaction due to activities such as hiking/backpacking, mountain biking, and ATV us

ag

e causes water to not be able to percolate through the soil and reach underlying roots and micro-organisms that live in the soil. In regards to vegetation, if recreators do not remain on designated paths or trails and decide to walk off these paths or trails, vegetation is destroyed by the continuous trampling and the trails expand instead of allowing the trail to stay a narrow path to concentrate the usage into one small area.

Now, outdoor recreation does have potential negative impacts on the environment where the activities occur, it is easily controlled and can be continued as long as people know about the best ways to recreate without harming anything. There are programs that have been created to educate people on the proper ways to recreate in the outdoors and be environmentally conscious. The most notable program is

called Leave No Trace which is a code of outdoor ethics that contains 7 principles to abide by. The principles are plan ahead and prepare, travel and camp on durable surfaces, dispose of waste properly, leave what you find, minimize campfire

impacts, respect wildlife, and be considerate of other visitors. The founding group of the Leave No Trace program is known as NOLS which stands for National Outdoor Leadership School. This school takes people out into the outdoors and teaches them how to recreate in the outdoors while abiding by the principles of Leave No Trace so that the values are instilled in them and can their use can be continued after the course is over.

So while outdoor recreation is a lot of fun and is very unique, it is important to understand that they can have negative impacts on the surrounding environment. However, as long as the recreator follows some sort of outdoor ethics program, such as Leave No Trace, then the activities that are engaged in can be done in the safest way possible to both the person as well as to mother nature.

Drugs From the Tap

Doctors do it, pharmacists do it, and even the bottles that the medication comes in do it. They all ask what other medications we are taking before they add a new one to our bodies. We all know that certain mixtures of drugs can cause uncomfortable or even deadly consequences. But when we drink water no one is around to ask us and why should they. The tap water we drink is supposed to be clean and pure, right? Every time we take a swig of water, we gulp down a low dose cocktail of pharmaceuticals. Drugs that are in random concentrations and that are not suppose to mix. Where do they come from? How do they affect us? What can we do about it?
Where do the drugs come from? There are many sources but the primary ones are from households and farms. The pharmaceutical companies and stores are pretty tightly regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. However when the drugs leave the register, there is very little that keeps them away from Mother Nature. Most pharmaceuticals find their way into the environment through the excretion of the user (Human or Animal) or after being thrown out once they are no longer needed. The drugs that we take are never completely absorbed by our bodies and when we go to the bathroom, those extra chemicals leave our bodies and go down the commode. This then either goes to a water treatment plant or a septic tank where it then enters the environment. On farms the drugs in the animal excrement is simply washed away by rain water and soaks into the ground water. Drugs that are dumped down the drain or thrown away are even more concentrated when they enter the environment. This drug laced water is then sucked in to our water supply goes through filtration and into our glass. But wait don’t we have filtration plants and water treatment plants to make sure that chemicals and organisms don’t leave us or enter into our water? Most of our water treatment and filtration methods date back date back 40 to 50 years and were never intended to face this problem. Most of these molecules just flow past the filters and other chemicals with the water. However even with all this the concentrations being found are still small.
If the levels in the water are low, is it harmful? In short we don’t know. The chemicals pharmaceuticals make are designed to work in low concentrations However in order for the right amount to be absorbed by the body the dosage administered has to be several times higher. The dosage of these chemicals has been linked to several issues in fish communities. Several studies show how estrogen from birth control is causing a feminization of many fish species. This is where the estrogen in the water causes male fish to have hormonal imbalances and sometimes they produce eggs. Studies have also shown problems in frogs and mussels. The other problem that is occurring is when antibiotics enter the environment and because they are in low dosages, super germs are created. The EPA states that to date, no evidence has been found of human health effects from these chemicals in the environment. But if these chemicals are affecting other organisms and we are constantly being exposed to them, are we not also at risk?
So what can we do about it? In terms of disposal of unused medication, many communities and pharmaceuticals have buy back or drop off policies that take these chemicals to places that can safely dispose of them. We should encourage the EPA and state officials to educate people and regulate house hold pharmaceuticals. For the ones we take, for right now not much. Except for cutting back on how much we use, we have no systems that will remove these chemicals from our sewage or drinking water. Without extensive studies, we don’t know which chemicals we need to worry about and which ones we don’t. This does not mean we give up and forget what’s happening; we should push for updated water treatment facilities that can handle the worst of these chemicals. We should keep an eye out for the new drugs. By keeping up with the research and the treatment of these chemicals we can avoid the mess that we are in now.

Pristine Patagonia in Peril...

      Chilean Patagonia is one of the most pristine and least polluted places in the world. Chile is on the verge of making a critical decision about the future of Patagonia.  The country is under intense pressure to develop new solutions of how they will meet their power needs and Patagonia has become large target for hydroelectric power schemes. These schemes would destroy Patagonia forever, flooding thousands of acres of wildlife habitat and destroying the natural beauty of this great region.

     During the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet, Chile's fresh-waters became privatized under the Water Code.   It defined the country's fresh water resources as "a national good to be used publicly and over which private individuals are given usage rights." This lead to large corporations, especially energy and mining companies, to quickly become interested in Chile's waterways for their hydroelectric dams as well as using the water for mining.  

     A Spanish Energy Company called Endesa has been methodically moving through Chile developing energy projects in the form of these dams on the scenic and pristine rivers.  There has been a large local resistance against the damming of the rivers.  The power drawn from the hydroelectric dams wouldn't be used for the towns nearby it would gets transported off to the far away city of Santiago or to the mining projects in northern Chile, where most of the country's water goes.  The energy would travel through a series of 1, 400 miles transmission lines and disrupt several national parks and wildlife reserves and sanctuaries.  Two studies have been conducted by National Resource Defense Council showing that energy alternatives other than mega-dams can be introduced to help Chile meet its future energy needs.  

      The Chilean Government required an Environmental Impact Assessment of the dams that are in consideration.  Upon completion the government received an insufficient document providing no scientific evidence behind these assessments.  The Government officials ordered that the company create a sufficient and accurate EIA of the dams that were going to be built rather than reject the plan entirely because of strict government scrutiny.   The failure to complete an accurate and adequate EIA has slowed the construction of the dams past the 2009 start date. 

      Environmentalists from all over the world are working to help preserve this precious natural land.  The Chilean Government is now working on nationalizing the freshwater in the country.  This seems like it would be the only way to stop the building of future dams because of the large influence the mining and energy companies seem to have over government officials.   It would enable the government to give the deserved protection as well as save these wonderful places from this unsustainable and destructive development.  

       

The Myth of “Clean” Coal

As a response to demands to address the acid rain problem in the United States, the Clean Coal Technology Program was begun in 1985. The program, led by the Department of Energy in partnership with government, state, and private agencies began taking several steps to make coal “cleaner”. One of the simplest methods of preparing the coal to be burnt cleaner is to prepare it by cleaning it. The process, also called coal beneficiation, separates unwanted materials and impurities from the coal. An often used technique is called gravity separation. This method involves passing water through a tank of ground-up coal, where the heavier impurities, such as sulfur and coal ash will sink to the bottom, leaving the cleaner washed coal which will then be prepared for burning. This process has been proven to make the burning of coal cleaner; and when combined with scrubbers installed at power plants does reduce harmful emissions. However, what is often neglected to be mentioned is what happens to the waste produced from cleaning the coal?

Two principal methods of dealing with the waste are employed, coal slurry injection and coal impoundments. Coal slurry injection occurs when the waste is pumped directly into old abandoned underground mine sites. The dangerous chemicals contained in the slurry have a high potential of leaching into the groundwater, negatively impacting anyone who lives near these sites and relies on that water. Currently this process has been banned in West Virginia, where more than 100 lawsuits accusing coal companies of poisoning the water supply are pending. However, this isn’t stopping coal companies from searching for new places to dump the waste, and Illinois is now being targeted for potential injection sites.

The second method involves constructing above-ground coal slurry impoundments. The problem with these impoundments is their awful track record and potential for accidents. Residents of Coldwater Creek, Kentucky know all too well the dangers these impoundments pose. Impoundments tend to fall into the NIMBY mindset and are generally constructed in areas of Appalachia where poverty is prevalent and where people do not have the money or resources to oppose their construction. For example, there are roughly 110 impoundments in poverty-stricken West Virginia alone.

When it first began, I believe the effort to seek out more environmentally friendly ways of burning coal was a noble one. However, knowing what we do now about the process and cost of “cleaning coal”, one can see that the whole concept is an oxymoron. I believe that the process of cleaning coal is creating more problems than it is solving. It is time that we help step up and help become a voice for the people whose lives are being ruined by these coal companies’ greed and blatant disregard for human life. Clean coal is not clean, and it certainly isn’t worth the human and environmental costs.

.

Electric Cars Don't Solve Anything.

As automakers prepare to adapt to a changing market, many have made enormous strides towards developing a new, “environmentally friendly” electric car. Although the intentions are good, Electric cars do not solve the problem, but rather prolong it.

However, the idea of an electric car is not necessarily a new one. In fact electric cars were first established in the mid-nineteenth century and hit the streets of New York over a decade before Henry Ford completed his first gasoline powered-model T. Due to federal subsidies for gas powered cars and the low cost of oil, Ford soon overwhelmed the market with vehicles and destroyed any hope for the electric car. Sparked by the rising costs of oil, GM released the first mass produced electric car in the late 1980’s but the movement was short lived as gas prices fell soon after along with the former USSR. Finally, after over a century of failed efforts the market seems to be swinging around for one last effort. Nissan just released the “Leaf”, a fully electric car for just over 30K and Chevrolet is following soon after with the hybrid gas-electric “Volt”.

The electric car, however is not practical and offers a band-aid to a bullet wound. Mankind does not need to change the type of car we drive, but rather the fundamental beliefs we hold on private and public transportation. Not only is it not practically cost effective, but it does not solve the environmental degradation that comes along with private transportation today.

As Peter Van Dorn points out, to compensate for the 12,500 miles the average American drives per year, every electric car would need 3 MW/hrs of electricity. However, with much of the energy lost in inefficiencies of the generator, transmission inefficiencies and transportation of electricity, it would take nearly 11 MW/hrs to generate 4 MW/hrs for the electric car. This is comparable to a 38 miles per gallon of gasoline, far exceeded by most hybrid cars today. In addition, their fixed costs far exceed those of gas powered cars with batteries having a much shorter life and higher cost than combustible engines. “To be competitive batteries would have to cost on third of what they do now or gas would have to increase to five dollars a gallon”

Its not all about the cost though, many advocates argue the environmental benefits far exceed any cost to the consumer. This issue is more complicated than it may seems. While electric cars preach zero emissions, we forget where this electricity is coming from. About half of the United States’ energy comes from coal fired power plants. While coal is still an abundant resource it releases 2.17 lbs of C02 per kWh produced. When compensating for the other half coming from natural gas and renewable energy resources, one study suggests electric cars only release 28-58% less C02 than combustible engines per kWh. This may have been an impressive feat 30 years ago, but in 2010 we must work on eliminating GHG emissions rather than just minimizing them. In addition, they still require a massive amount of resources to produce and dispose of.

The main reason I argue electric cars are not the answer is the principle behind the electric car. The electric car does not fix the fact that 77% of daily commuters drive alone, but rather pushes the problem to the next generation. The massive amount of money it will cost to create hundreds of thousands of electric car hubs could be used at educating and improving upon our broken public transportation system. One greyhound bus takes on average 34 cars off the road and city busses replace even more. In addition, money could be well spent on developing efficient high speed trains for distant travelers (who shouldn’t have to travel so far daily in the first place) and bike-share hubs for city dwellers.

As stated, electric cars help only in the short run, but in the long run we still face the same problems. Electric cars still support the notion that dispersed or satellite communities are acceptable and “minimizing” greenhouse gas emissions is enough. We must do more in order to promise a more sustainable future.

New Mexico Adopts Cap and Trade to some Resistance

New Mexico has recently approved two different environmental measures. The first is a proposal to include New Mexico in a regional cap-and-trade program with other Western states that make up the Western Climate Initiative. The second was a petition by New Energy Economy which calls for large polluters to lower their carbon dioxide emissions by three percent each year.

Both measures have the similar goal of decreasing carbon emissions in order to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, the plans are not supported by everyone in the state. Leaders in Farmington, a community in northwestern New Mexico, have decided to challenge the state, specifically on the plan involving cap-and-trade. The Farmington mayor, Tommy Roberts, has stated that regulation “needs to have a rational foundation behind it” and the state “can’t afford to take symbolic acts at the expense of real jobs.” Other critics of the plan have argued that New Mexico’s emissions are only a fraction of the worldwide problem and reducing emissions is not worth handicapping businesses. They also contend that the Environmental Improvement Board that approved the plan did not have the authority to adopt these regulations.

Farmington is obviously concerned about the jobs in the natural gas operations throughout their region that support their economy, as well as rising energy costs being put on the residents. However, New Mexico has the second best potential for producing solar power in the US. This cap-and-trade system could help solar power business in New Mexico seriously increase, bringing lots of jobs to the area. Also, the argument of Farmington’s mayor that decreasing New Mexico emissions is simply a symbolic act is absurd. As has been proven by the failure of the recent cap and trade bill in Congress, decreasing emissions in the drastic ways needed is up to the states, and so this kind of action is necessary. Also, it is very frustrating when people make the argument that their small change does not make a difference. If everyone adopted this attitude positive change would never happen. New Mexico’s greenhouse gas emissions jumped 20% from 1990 to 2000, and seven percent from 2000 to 2007. These new measures will stop that rise and set New Mexico on the right path to mitigating climate change.

Overall, the new policies adopted by New Mexico are great examples for what other states should be doing. The plans even include a cap on how much businesses have to spend to comply with the new plans, a lenient measure. Communities like Farmington should adapt to the changing energy atmosphere now before climate conditions and availability of resources force them to.

Lack of labels for GMO

Since the first genetically modified tomato, theFlavrSavr, became commercially available to the general public in 1994, for a longer shelf life, the adoption of genetically engineered seeds by American farmers has grown enormously. Public policy has been unable to keep up with the growing development of genetically modified organisms (GMO). These products are genetically engineered, in order to enhance the natural characteristics of that organism. GMO’s contain an array of bizarre chemicals, such as herbicides, pesticides, antifreeze, etc. Frankly, the full effects of GMO's are still unknown to the public.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for providing regulations on food label laws in the United States. The current policy does not require products to be labeled as long as there is no huge difference between the genetically engineered product and the non-genetically modified product. However the FDA does require these foods be labeled if there are ingredients of a potential allergen or there is an alternation in the nutritional properties of the food.

StarLink corn is the best case of a genetically engineered crop causing allergies. Interestly enough, the StarLink corn was not intended for human consumption. In 2000, fragments of StarLink was found in taco shells and other food products.

Monsanto claims that consumers can easily avoid their products by simply not purchasing them. However, on today's grocery stores, about 70% of all processed foods found on the shelves contain genetically modified organisms. The main ingredient in these processed foods is generally some form of corn or soybeans. With more foods containing GMO’s, it is becoming more important that public policies regulate the potential effects of GMO’s. Consumers have the right to know what is in their food.

Biotechnology is a relatively new industry, only a few decades old. Therefore the information readily available of how to detect allergies or the proper methods are unknown. Although there is a large presence of control in this market by the seed industry, there is hope for a brighter future. Between 2000-2004, manufacturers introduced more than 3,5000 products that were explicitly labeled ‘GE-free’. The purpose of the labels on food is to make the consumer aware of the health and safety of that product. Each and every day that passes by without labels on genetically modified organisms, is another day of injustice towards the American consumer. Take a stand and request from your local representative that labels are required on genetically modified organisms. If not, there may be a day, where you are a victim of the unknown effects of GMO’s.