(Chicago Sun-Times, 2/13/2011)
Monday, March 14, 2011
3rd Explosion at Fukushima Nuclear Complex: Reactor # 2
Tokyo Electric Power Company confirmed an explosion at the No. 2 reactor of its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. According to the Nuclear Safety Agency, the explosion was heard at 6:10 a.m. Tuesday.
(Chicago Sun-Times, 2/13/2011)
(Chicago Sun-Times, 2/13/2011)
EPA Proposes Deferring GHG Requirements For Biomass
EPA Proposes to Defer GHG Permitting Requirements for Industries that Use Biomass
Following through on a January 2011 commitment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to defer, for three years, Clean Air Act permitting requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources. This additional time will allow the agency to conduct a detailed examination of the science on this issue.
The Center is developing a biomass project in Mississippi and was perfectly prepared to conform to any GHG requirements.
Seeking advice of federal partners, states, a diverse group of expert scientists including industry and other stakeholders, and an independent scientific panel, will help to determine how these emissions should be treated under the EPA’s air permitting program. In July 2010, EPA issued a call for information seeking public comment.
New EPA guidance is also being provided to help permitting authorities determine that using biomass as a fuel can be considered the best available control technology for CO2 emissions from the large sources needing permits. The guidance can be used until EPA takes final action on the deferral.
Sources covered by this proposal would include facilities that emit CO2 from burning forest or agricultural products for energy, wastewater treatment, waste management (landfills), and fermentation processes for ethanol production. Facilities meeting the requirements under the agency’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting program will still need to report their CO2 emissions.
Beginning on January 2, 2011, the Clean Air Act required large plants and factories planning to make major modifications or build new facilities to obtain pre-construction permits addressing their GHG emissions. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants, are not covered by these permitting requirements.
EPA will accept comments on the proposed deferral for 45 days following publication in the Federal Register. (EPA)
More information
Following through on a January 2011 commitment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to defer, for three years, Clean Air Act permitting requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources. This additional time will allow the agency to conduct a detailed examination of the science on this issue.
The Center is developing a biomass project in Mississippi and was perfectly prepared to conform to any GHG requirements.
New EPA guidance is also being provided to help permitting authorities determine that using biomass as a fuel can be considered the best available control technology for CO2 emissions from the large sources needing permits. The guidance can be used until EPA takes final action on the deferral.
Sources covered by this proposal would include facilities that emit CO2 from burning forest or agricultural products for energy, wastewater treatment, waste management (landfills), and fermentation processes for ethanol production. Facilities meeting the requirements under the agency’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting program will still need to report their CO2 emissions.
Beginning on January 2, 2011, the Clean Air Act required large plants and factories planning to make major modifications or build new facilities to obtain pre-construction permits addressing their GHG emissions. Emissions from small sources, such as farms and restaurants, are not covered by these permitting requirements.
EPA will accept comments on the proposed deferral for 45 days following publication in the Federal Register. (EPA)
More information
2nd Nuclear Power Plant Building Explosion in Japan
Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex suffered a second explosion today, destroying an outer building at unit 3. Unit 3, a third reactor at the six-reactor facility, lost its cooling capacity just as Unit 1 did on Saturday. Engineers are flooding both units with seawater and boron to prevent a meltdown.
1st Explosion
3rd Explosion
The Center is concerned about the status of the spent fool pool, which contain used nuclear fuel. These explosions could have compromised that fuel and could have spewed it into the surrounding environment.
Just as with Unite 1, the explosion at unit 3 did not damage the core containment structure. These reactor vessel containment is quite robust, as is evident by remaining intact with a massive structural explosion right around it. Both explosions resulted from a hydrogen build-up. The hydrogen was produced by the exposure of the reactor’s fuel rods and their zirconium alloy casing to hot steam. In normal conditions, the fuel rods would be covered and cooled by water.
The blast injured 11 people, one seriously and Japan’s nuclear agency warned those within 12 miles to stay indoors. Trace amounts of radioactive elements cesium-137 and iodine-131 have been detected outside the plant.
The Fukushima Daiichi unit 3 was built by Toshiba, using a GE design. Last year, the unit began using some reprocessed fuel known as “mox,” a mixture of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide, produced from recycled material from nuclear weapons as part of a program known as “Megatons to Megawatts.” (Wash Post, 3/13/2011)
1st Explosion
3rd Explosion
The Center is concerned about the status of the spent fool pool, which contain used nuclear fuel. These explosions could have compromised that fuel and could have spewed it into the surrounding environment.
Just as with Unite 1, the explosion at unit 3 did not damage the core containment structure. These reactor vessel containment is quite robust, as is evident by remaining intact with a massive structural explosion right around it. Both explosions resulted from a hydrogen build-up. The hydrogen was produced by the exposure of the reactor’s fuel rods and their zirconium alloy casing to hot steam. In normal conditions, the fuel rods would be covered and cooled by water.
The blast injured 11 people, one seriously and Japan’s nuclear agency warned those within 12 miles to stay indoors. Trace amounts of radioactive elements cesium-137 and iodine-131 have been detected outside the plant.
The Fukushima Daiichi unit 3 was built by Toshiba, using a GE design. Last year, the unit began using some reprocessed fuel known as “mox,” a mixture of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide, produced from recycled material from nuclear weapons as part of a program known as “Megatons to Megawatts.” (Wash Post, 3/13/2011)
 |
| Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Complex |
Friday, March 11, 2011
Japan Tsunami Puts Nuclear Reactor(s) In Spotlight
1st Explosion at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station
The 9.0-magnitude earthquake in Japan is putting a spotlight on the nuclear power plants due to fears of a dangerous leak. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was crippled by today's earthquake and an explosion at the plant is very serious. Widespread evacuations have been implemented and officials declared a state of emergency. Fukushima Daiichi was built 40 years ago by General Electric.
2nd Explosion
3rd Explosion
The explosion was not nuclear [as in fission nuclear bomb explosion], but was created by hydrogen gas mixing with oxygen in the air. A spark ignited the hydrogen. The secondary containment structure around the reactor was partially destroyed, but the reactor itself remains embedded in concrete and steel. The nuclear plant's cooling system failed to function properly after the nuclear reactor lost power and automatically shut down. Japanese officials initially ordered 2,800 people living around the facility to evacuate their homes as a precaution. The Fukushima plant is near the city of Onahama, about 170 miles northeast of Tokyo.
Japan's nuclear safety agency, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) has reported that pressure inside one of the boiling water reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant had risen well beyond normal levels. Hours after the evacuation order, the government announced that the plant, in northeastern Japan, will release slightly radioactive vapor from the unit to lower the pressure. Pressure was rising inside the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear reactor after a backup generator also failed and the cooling system was unable to supply water to cool the reactor. The reactor core remains hot even after a shutdown. The explosion is serious, particularly if it involved the containment dome [see video of Japanese nuclear power plant explosion, above].
The Vienna-based U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency is reporting that the four other Japanese nuclear power plants closest to the quake have been safely shut down.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company. They initially evacuated about 1,800 residents living within 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 1 reactor as a precaution. According to the Emergency Information Center of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, residents within 10 kilometers were told to stay indoors. The earthquake and tsunmai forced the automatic shutdown of 11 of the country's 55 nuclear power plants.
According to the World Nuclear Association, Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to withstand specified earthquake intensities evident in ground motion. The plants are fitted with seismic detectors. If these register ground motions of a set level, systems will be activated to automatically bring the plant to an immediate safe shutdown. (ABC News International, 3/11/2011, Bloomberg, 3/11/2011, WNA, MSNBC, 3/11/2011)
The 9.0-magnitude earthquake in Japan is putting a spotlight on the nuclear power plants due to fears of a dangerous leak. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was crippled by today's earthquake and an explosion at the plant is very serious. Widespread evacuations have been implemented and officials declared a state of emergency. Fukushima Daiichi was built 40 years ago by General Electric.
2nd Explosion
3rd Explosion
The explosion was not nuclear [as in fission nuclear bomb explosion], but was created by hydrogen gas mixing with oxygen in the air. A spark ignited the hydrogen. The secondary containment structure around the reactor was partially destroyed, but the reactor itself remains embedded in concrete and steel. The nuclear plant's cooling system failed to function properly after the nuclear reactor lost power and automatically shut down. Japanese officials initially ordered 2,800 people living around the facility to evacuate their homes as a precaution. The Fukushima plant is near the city of Onahama, about 170 miles northeast of Tokyo.
Japan's nuclear safety agency, Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES) has reported that pressure inside one of the boiling water reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant had risen well beyond normal levels. Hours after the evacuation order, the government announced that the plant, in northeastern Japan, will release slightly radioactive vapor from the unit to lower the pressure. Pressure was rising inside the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear reactor after a backup generator also failed and the cooling system was unable to supply water to cool the reactor. The reactor core remains hot even after a shutdown. The explosion is serious, particularly if it involved the containment dome [see video of Japanese nuclear power plant explosion, above].
 |
| Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant |
The Vienna-based U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency is reporting that the four other Japanese nuclear power plants closest to the quake have been safely shut down.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company. They initially evacuated about 1,800 residents living within 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 1 reactor as a precaution. According to the Emergency Information Center of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, residents within 10 kilometers were told to stay indoors. The earthquake and tsunmai forced the automatic shutdown of 11 of the country's 55 nuclear power plants.
According to the World Nuclear Association, Japanese nuclear power plants are designed to withstand specified earthquake intensities evident in ground motion. The plants are fitted with seismic detectors. If these register ground motions of a set level, systems will be activated to automatically bring the plant to an immediate safe shutdown. (ABC News International, 3/11/2011, Bloomberg, 3/11/2011, WNA, MSNBC, 3/11/2011)
Lisa P. Jackson Testifies Before Congress
Testimony Before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Power and Environment and Economy
March 11, 2011
Excerpts
Without adequate funding, EPA would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect Americans’ health, livelihoods, and pastimes. Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and onto the ground. Toxic plumes already underground would reach drinking water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them would stop. There would be no EPA grant money to fix or replace broken water treatment systems. And the standards EPA is set to establish for harmful air pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources that is not static but growing.
I will address Chairman Upton’s bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act. The most extreme parts of that bill remain unchanged since I testified about it a month ago. It still would presume to overrule the scientific community on the scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers Americans’ health and wellbeing. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question – you might be remembered more for that than for anything else you do.
Testimony Before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture
March 10, 2011
Excerpts
I also believe an important part of that commitment is to dispel certain myths about EPA’s work and its impact on agriculture. These mischaracterizations are more than simple distractions; they prevent real dialogue to address our greatest problems. Let me give you five examples:
One is the notion that EPA intends to regulate the emissions from cows – what is commonly referred to as a “Cow Tax.” This myth was started in 2008 by a lobbyist and –quickly de-bunked by the non-partisan, independent group fact-check.org – it still lives on. The truth is - EPA is proposing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a responsible, careful manner and we have even exempted agricultural sources from regulation.
Another mischaracterization is the claim that EPA is attempting to expand regulation of dust from farms. We have no plans to do so, but let me be clear, the Clean Air Act passed by Congress mandates that the Agency routinely review the science of various pollutants, including Particulate Matter, which is directly responsible for heart attacks and premature deaths.
Another example involves spray drift. While no one supports pesticides wafting into our schools and communities, EPA does not support a “no-spray drift policy.” EPA has been on the record numerous times saying this, but the incorrect belief that EPA desires to regulate all spray drift persists.
Yet another mischaracterization is the false notion that EPA is planning on mandating Federal numeric nutrient limits on various States. Again, let me be clear: EPA is not working on any federal numeric nutrient limits.
And finally is the notion that EPA intends to treat spilled milk in the same way as spilled oil. This is simply incorrect. Rather, EPA has proposed, and is on the verge of finalizing an exemption for milk and dairy containers. This exemption needed to be finalized because the law passed by Congress was written broadly enough to cover milk containers.
March 11, 2011
Excerpts
Without adequate funding, EPA would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect Americans’ health, livelihoods, and pastimes. Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and onto the ground. Toxic plumes already underground would reach drinking water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them would stop. There would be no EPA grant money to fix or replace broken water treatment systems. And the standards EPA is set to establish for harmful air pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources that is not static but growing.
I will address Chairman Upton’s bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act. The most extreme parts of that bill remain unchanged since I testified about it a month ago. It still would presume to overrule the scientific community on the scientific finding that carbon pollution endangers Americans’ health and wellbeing. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question – you might be remembered more for that than for anything else you do.
Testimony Before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture
March 10, 2011
Excerpts
I also believe an important part of that commitment is to dispel certain myths about EPA’s work and its impact on agriculture. These mischaracterizations are more than simple distractions; they prevent real dialogue to address our greatest problems. Let me give you five examples:
One is the notion that EPA intends to regulate the emissions from cows – what is commonly referred to as a “Cow Tax.” This myth was started in 2008 by a lobbyist and –quickly de-bunked by the non-partisan, independent group fact-check.org – it still lives on. The truth is - EPA is proposing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a responsible, careful manner and we have even exempted agricultural sources from regulation.
Another mischaracterization is the claim that EPA is attempting to expand regulation of dust from farms. We have no plans to do so, but let me be clear, the Clean Air Act passed by Congress mandates that the Agency routinely review the science of various pollutants, including Particulate Matter, which is directly responsible for heart attacks and premature deaths.
Another example involves spray drift. While no one supports pesticides wafting into our schools and communities, EPA does not support a “no-spray drift policy.” EPA has been on the record numerous times saying this, but the incorrect belief that EPA desires to regulate all spray drift persists.
Yet another mischaracterization is the false notion that EPA is planning on mandating Federal numeric nutrient limits on various States. Again, let me be clear: EPA is not working on any federal numeric nutrient limits.
And finally is the notion that EPA intends to treat spilled milk in the same way as spilled oil. This is simply incorrect. Rather, EPA has proposed, and is on the verge of finalizing an exemption for milk and dairy containers. This exemption needed to be finalized because the law passed by Congress was written broadly enough to cover milk containers.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Do NOT Tap Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Influence Market
By Norris McDonald
About every ten years or so, the issue of tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) comes up as a tool for influencing rising oil prices. DO NOT DO IT. Never use the SPR to influence market prices. We have been consistent in this message over our quarter century existence. The reserve is just that, a strategic repository established to address a significant cut off in America's oil supply.
Now the Obama administration is considering releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help Americans facing a spike in oil prices as a result of unrest in the Middle East and Africa. White House Chief of Staff William Daley stated Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press" that, "The issue of the reserves is one we're considering. It is something that only is done -- and has been done in very rare occasions. There's a bunch of factors that have to be looked at. And it is just not the price."
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve contains 727 million barrels of oil. The caverns are designed as a storage facility to tap domestic reserves in case of a national emergency. In 2005, President Bush authorized the Department of Energy to approve loans of 13 million barrels of oil to refineries in Louisiana whose supply was cut off after Hurricane Katrina. This was an appropriate use of the reserve. (FOX News, 3/6/2011)
Crash of Another Climate Satellite Hurts Earth Science
 |
| Glory Satellite Rendering Image: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory |
The incident is a blow for climate science and the space agency's efforts to rebuild an Earth observation program weakened by years of lean budgets. It also comes during a protracted spending fight on Capitol Hill in which science agencies have become prime targets for House Republicans' budget ax.
Both satellites were considered key missions for NASA's Earth observation program. NASA's decision to build and launch a copy of the failed Orbiting Carbon Observatory has taken money away from other key Earth and climate satellite missions, he said, and the loss of Glory could compound that problem.
In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences warned that the nation's Earth observing capability was "at great risk" after cumulative rounds of budget cutting. According to the NAS, the nation's ability to monitor severe weather, fresh water shortages and climate change all depended on increasing NASA's Earth science budget.
Glory was carrying two instruments that scientists hoped would improve the accuracy of climate models. One, the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM), was designed to extend a 32-year record of fluctuations in the sun's energy output. Those fluctuations can influence Earth's climate over the long term. The amount of sun that reaches Earth, for instance, helps determine the amount of energy that is trapped in Earth's atmosphere by greenhouse gases.
Glory's crash could create a gap in that decades-long record. Glory's TIM was three times more accurate than the instrument it was designed to replace. The older TIM is flying aboard NASA's SORCE satellite, now in its eighth year in space. SORCE was designed to last just two and half years, and its batteries are now failing. (Scientific American, 3/7/2011)
Hydrocarbon Fuels Are Fossil Fuels That Run America
According to Mr. Nansen G. Saleri, president and CEO of Quantum Reservoir Impact in Houston, former head of reservoir management for Saudi Aramco:
According to a 2007 study by National Petroleum Council, at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy, approximately 61% of energy produced is lost due to factors such as poor insulation, gas-guzzling vehicles or suboptimal power plants. On average, only one out of three reservoir barrels is recovered, which translates to an overall efficiency of only 13% for oil that is converted to a usable form. Improving energy efficiency should be a top priority, not just in our surface usage but also at the point of extraction.
The planet is endowed with plentiful sources of natural gas and oil, conventional and unconventional. Some estimates place global unconventional gas resources at about 33,000 trillion cubic feet, or about five times the amount of proven reserves at the end of 2009. At current rates of global consumption, there are sufficient oil and gas supplies to last well into the next century. (WSJ, 3/9/2011)
Global petroleum production is approximately 85 million barrels of oil per day. According to various estimates, consumption is about 82 million barrels per day. Fossil fuels make up about 85% of total U.S. energy demand, which is estimated at about 45 million to 50 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Energy imports, mainly crude oil, account for 20% of the total U.S. energy requirements."...the Obama administration's approach to U.S. domestic oil and gas production can be characterized as a strategy of ambivalence, an uneasy equilibrium between desire to lessen the role of fossil fuels and the reality of their necessity in a functioning U.S. economy."
Nansen Saleri
The planet is endowed with plentiful sources of natural gas and oil, conventional and unconventional. Some estimates place global unconventional gas resources at about 33,000 trillion cubic feet, or about five times the amount of proven reserves at the end of 2009. At current rates of global consumption, there are sufficient oil and gas supplies to last well into the next century. (WSJ, 3/9/2011)
Massive Sardine Kill in Southern Calif: Case of Suffocation?
It is being speculated that a million dead sardines in a Southern California harbor (Redondo Beach) came from suffocation as the fish crowded together in shalllow water and depleted the oxygen supply. Officials from the California Department of Fish and Game believe the fish kill is the largest in California history. that officials could recall—appeared to be a fluke natural occurrence. Officials tested the waters for oil or chemicals and discovered nothing unusual. There also wasn't any visual evidence of "red tide," an accumulation of algae that cuts off oxygen—a big one hit Redondo Beach five years ago—though scientists were conducting more tests.
Experts theorized that fierce winds Monday night may have driven the sardines into the harbor in search of safety from the roaring ocean. The fish then may have swum to the northern corner of the harbor at the Kings Harbor Marina in search of an exit; so many fish in a small space could have depleted oxygen and killed them. (WSJ, 3/9/2011)
Experts theorized that fierce winds Monday night may have driven the sardines into the harbor in search of safety from the roaring ocean. The fish then may have swum to the northern corner of the harbor at the Kings Harbor Marina in search of an exit; so many fish in a small space could have depleted oxygen and killed them. (WSJ, 3/9/2011)
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
EPA Updates Database on Impacts of Electricity Generation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency updated its database that helps Americans understand the health and environmental impacts of electricity generation. EPA’s Emissions and Generation Integrated Resource Database (eGRID) and Power Profiler now include data from 2007, an update from 2005.
eGRID is a comprehensive database of emissions from almost all electric power generated in the United States. The data are widely used to show the impacts of electricity generation as well as the benefits from reduced electricity demand. eGRID contains emissions information for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) which contribute to unhealthy air quality and acid rain in many parts of the country. eGRID also contains emissions information for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), which are greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.
Power Profiler is a user friendly online application that uses eGRID data to show air emissions information and the type of electricity generation, such as coal or nuclear, in various regions of the country. By simply entering a zip code and selecting a utility, users can learn more about where their electricity comes from and what impact it has on air quality and the environment. (EPA)
More information about eGRID
More information about Power Profiler
Power Profiler is a user friendly online application that uses eGRID data to show air emissions information and the type of electricity generation, such as coal or nuclear, in various regions of the country. By simply entering a zip code and selecting a utility, users can learn more about where their electricity comes from and what impact it has on air quality and the environment. (EPA)
More information about eGRID
More information about Power Profiler
EPA Says Chevy Volt Gets 93 Miles Per Gallon
You can plug the Volt into any standard electrical outlet for eight to 10 hours to charge up its batteries and the car will operate on electric power alone for miles. With current average U.S. electric rates GM estimates it will cost roughly $1.50 per day to travel 35 miles. After that, considering mpg in the mid to high 30s, will depend on gasoline rates. GM has chosen LG Chem of Korea to supply the lithium-ion cells. The electric motor powers the Volt at all times, the gas engine is just a generator for making electricity once the battery is depleted. (GM Volt, Biz Smart, 3/11/2011, GM Volt)
Monday, March 07, 2011
Obama Nominates Gary Locke as Ambassador to China
 |
| Gary Locke |
Friday, March 04, 2011
Rupert Murdoch Is Carbon Neutral
News Corporation Achieves Its Carbon Neutral Goal and Looks To Become More Efficient
According to Rupert Murdoch, his News Corporation has achieved the goal, set nearly four years ago, of becoming carbon neutral by the end of 2010. News Corporation owns the Fox News Channel, 20th Century Fox, Harper Collins, Wall Street Journal, MySpace and the National Rugby League. The company also introduced other short-term and long-term goals to guide its environmental efforts moving forward.
New Corporation made the commitment in 2007 to embed the values of energy efficiency and environmental sustainability into all of their businesses. Making News Corp.'s operations more efficient will save the company millions of dollars. Consolidating its data centers will save News Corp. $20 million a year and reduce related emissions by 15 percent once fully implemented.
The Center hereby requests that News Corporation donate some of its carbon offset credits to our Carbon Mercantile Exchange (CMX).
The investments in energy efficiency yield an average of $180 per ton of carbon avoided, according to Liba Rubenstein, the company's global energy initiative director. News Corporation's absolute emissions in fiscal year 2010 were 2 percent lower than 2006 levels, and 9 percent lower than peak emissions in 2008. The company offset 110 percent of its FY 2010 carbon footprint by investing in emissions reduction projects that include capturing landfill gas and destroying potent refrigerants. Rubenstein's team will now work toward a series of measurable 2015 goals, including:
• Reducing absolute greenhouse gas by 15 percent, compared to 2006 levels
• Reducing greenhouse gas intensity by at least 15 percent
• Investing in clean energy equal to 20 percent of electricity used
• Engaging its 100 largest suppliers on improving their environmental impacts
• Measuring its waste footprint and developing a strategy to reduce it
News Corp. also created a set of intentionally broad long-term goals with no time horizon:
• Power all of its operations with clean energy
• Grow its business without growing its greenhouse gas emissions
• Minimize the amount of solid waste sent to landfill from its production operations
• Continue to engage its readers, employees and customers on sustainability
Its News Unlimited arm in Australia, for example, developed an internal brand and program called One Degree that helped reduce its carbon footprint by 18 percent. Fox Home Entertainment joined forces with Walmart to make DVD packaging lighter, which helped to reduce raw material and transportation emissions.
The initiative also launched a series of efficiency projects that, as Murdoch noted, delivered a return on investment of less than two years. Such a fast ROI seemed unbelievable in the case of a massive solar energy system being built at a Dow Jones campus in New Jersey (pictured at left). The project will supply up to half of the site's energy needs when completed and will be the largest system at a single commercial site in the U.S. (Climate Biz, 3/1/2011)
 |
| Rupert Murdoch |
New Corporation made the commitment in 2007 to embed the values of energy efficiency and environmental sustainability into all of their businesses. Making News Corp.'s operations more efficient will save the company millions of dollars. Consolidating its data centers will save News Corp. $20 million a year and reduce related emissions by 15 percent once fully implemented.
The Center hereby requests that News Corporation donate some of its carbon offset credits to our Carbon Mercantile Exchange (CMX).
• Reducing absolute greenhouse gas by 15 percent, compared to 2006 levels
• Reducing greenhouse gas intensity by at least 15 percent
• Investing in clean energy equal to 20 percent of electricity used
• Engaging its 100 largest suppliers on improving their environmental impacts
• Measuring its waste footprint and developing a strategy to reduce it
News Corp. also created a set of intentionally broad long-term goals with no time horizon:
• Power all of its operations with clean energy
• Grow its business without growing its greenhouse gas emissions
• Minimize the amount of solid waste sent to landfill from its production operations
• Continue to engage its readers, employees and customers on sustainability
Its News Unlimited arm in Australia, for example, developed an internal brand and program called One Degree that helped reduce its carbon footprint by 18 percent. Fox Home Entertainment joined forces with Walmart to make DVD packaging lighter, which helped to reduce raw material and transportation emissions.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
EPA Seeks Extension of Permit Requirements for Pesticides
EPA Requests Extension on Clean Water Act Permit Requirement for Pesticide Discharges
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting an extension to allow more time for pesticide operators to obtain permits for pesticide discharges into U.S. waters. EPA is requesting that the deadline be extended from April 9, 2011 to October 31, 2011. During the period while the court is considering the extension request, permits for pesticide applications will not be required under the Clean Water Act.
EPA is developing a pesticide general permit in response to the 6th Circuit Court’s 2009 decision, which found that discharges from pesticides into U.S. waters were pollutants, and, therefore, will require a permit under the Clean Water Act as of April 9, 2011. The final permit will reduce discharges of pesticides to aquatic ecosystems, thus helping to protect the nation’s waters and public health.
The extension request is important to allow sufficient time for EPA to engage in Endangered Species Act consultation and complete the development of an electronic database to streamline requests for coverage under the Agency’s general permit. It also allows time for authorized states to finish developing their state permits and for permitting authorities to provide additional outreach to stakeholders on pesticide permit requirements.
EPA’s general permit will be available to cover pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. in MA, NH, NM, ID, OK, AK, DC, most U.S. territories and Indian country lands, and many federal facilities.
More information
EPA is developing a pesticide general permit in response to the 6th Circuit Court’s 2009 decision, which found that discharges from pesticides into U.S. waters were pollutants, and, therefore, will require a permit under the Clean Water Act as of April 9, 2011. The final permit will reduce discharges of pesticides to aquatic ecosystems, thus helping to protect the nation’s waters and public health.
EPA’s general permit will be available to cover pesticide discharges to waters of the U.S. in MA, NH, NM, ID, OK, AK, DC, most U.S. territories and Indian country lands, and many federal facilities.
More information
Fluorescent Lamp Disposal & Recycling
Click on Image to Enlarge
The problem is that the lamps contain a toxic material: mercury. The average household probably throws them in the trash can. But large firms with hundreds or thousand of lamps face violating state and federal environmental regulations by simply tossing them in the trash. If violations are found, government officials issue citations for fines ranging from the tens to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In August of 2009, the U.S. EPA fined New York City $50,000 for violating environmental regulations, including improper disposal of mercury containing lamps. The city was also required to launch a $300,000 recycling program [Source: Waste & Recycling News].
The mercury contained in every fluorescent lamp is potently toxic; just one gram is capable of polluting a 20 acre lake for an entire year. Once polluted, a mercury tainted environment can contaminate wildlife, including human food sources such as fish. All told, about 650 million mercury containing lamps burn out each year, creating a major potential for mercury contamination if lamps are not recycled [Source: IFMA Daily.].
Such programs can also support green marketing initiatives.
Key data points for facility assessment include: facility square footage, fixture and lamp count, types of lamps in use, regulations governing the facility, relamping schedule, and rate of lamp burnout.
For facilities of less than 150,000 square feet, fms may wish to consider lamp and ballast recycling containers. This approach allows fms to fill the appropriate container as lamps or ballasts wear out and mail it back when full. All the fm has to do is use the included, prepaid shipping label.
For even simpler recycling, fms may wish to join special programs where a replacement recycling container is automatically shipped for every container returned. This approach can save time and minimize paperwork for fms. (Today's Facility Manager, Daniel Krall, Feb 2011 Issue)
Renewable Portfolio Standards
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) or Renewable Electricity Standards (RES) are being used by states to force utilities to development renewable power resources. These regulations require utilities to source a specified percentage of their power from qualified renewable sources. States adopt RPS programs to incentivize the development of new capacity, reduce their carbon footprints and mitigate volatility in fossil fuel prices. While such regulations have cost impacts to ratepayers, proponents argue that their benefits exceed their costs.
In the U.S., roughly 30 states have adopted such regulations. Each jurisdiction's program varies depending on local policy objectives and political climates. The U.S. has no national RPS. In recent years, House and Senate initiatives have failed to obtain support.
There are serious concerns about cost impacts. The 2007 Lawrence Berkeley report suggests that existing state RPS programs resulted in rate increases of less than 1.2 percent. A 2008 California study predicts that a more ambitious 33 percent RPS combined with significantly expanded energy efficiency would increase costs 4 percent.
Massachusetts developer Cape Wind Associates recently reached an agreement with utility National Grid to sell 50 percent of the output from its 454 MW offshore wind project at a price starting at 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, escalating 3.5 percent annually for the 15-year life of the contract. The contract, which has been approved by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, is projected to add $1.50 to the average residential consumer's monthly bill. This proposal, driven largely by Massachusetts' ambitious RPS, strikes many as a high price for power. The average U.S. retail rate for electricity across all sectors is just less than 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, with consumers in many states paying 7 cents or less.
The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission's approved the National Grid and Deepwater Wind's proposed Block Island Wind Project contract at 24.4 cents per kilowatt-hour.)
Other regulatory approaches include federal and state tax credits, feed-in tariffs and long-term contracts for renewable projects' output that encourage power developers to build new renewable projects. These measures are not mutually exclusive with portfolio standards.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is asking lawmakers to underwrite a plan for Maryland to generate some of the nation's first offshore wind power. His plan would incentivize a $1.5 billion field of giant turbines about 11 1/2 miles off Ocean City. It would require Maryland utilities to buy power from the wind farm at a price far above the current market rate and at which its developers agree they could turn a profit.
According to the governor's office, the cost of the subsidy would be spread among all Maryland electric customers in the form of monthly surcharges. The fee has been estimated at $1.44 a month for residential customers, but an analysis released by legislative budget analysts Wednesday night pegged the initial fee at $3.61 a month. For the state's largest industrial power users, the surcharges would add up to tens of thousands of dollars a month.
O'Malley's offshore wind proposal would essentially force the start of a new energy market in Maryland. Under the governor's plan, utility companies would be required to buy wind power at one fixed price for at least 20 years. That price would be set by the state's Public Service Commission next year. The plan assumes that developers will be awarded federal leases late this year or early in 2012, that construction would begin in 2014 and that the first turbines would begin spinning in 2016.
According to cost modeling by the governor's office, which assumes the PSC signs a 25-year contract, Maryland pegs offshore wind costs when the power comes online at about 16.4 cents per kilowatt hour, or more than 60 percent higher than the rate at which most utilities in the state are buying power. Like Delaware, the model assumes the developer receives an annual price increase of 2.5 percent to cover inflation.
But Maryland's budget analyst says the governor's model doesn't factor in all of the costs. The analyst's report estimates an "effective rate" of 21 cents per kilowatt hour for Maryland offshore wind power in 2016, rising to 23 cents by 2040.
By comparison, long-term projections released in January by the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast that traditional electric power costs - now at an average of 11.1 cents - will fall slightly over nearly the same period.
There is also disagreement on how much residential utility bills would likely increase as a result of the wind project. The state originally forecasted an increase of $1.61 a month, but adjusted that downward by 17 cents, saying transmission charges would decrease. Utilities, however, say transmission charges are unlikely to decrease for very long and probably not by that much. The budget analyst projected the cost at $3.61 a month, or $43.31 a year, in 2016. The amount would decrease significantly over the life of the contract, to $1.91 a month, or $22.95 a year, in 2040.
The prospect of building wind farms off Maryland's shores has lured companies such as Bluewater, a wind power firm now owned by NRG, one of the country's biggest utilities. Bluewater has proposed building an offshore wind farm that would provide energy for as many as 136,000 households from turbines 12 miles off the Maryland shore. The company also has proposals for New Jersey and Delaware.
Bluewater has bid on 175,000 acres off Maryland. There were seven competitors, including Maryland Offshore LLC, a joint venture of Apex Wind Energy, based in Charlottesville, and Beowulf Energy LLC of Easton, Md., which employs Enright.
In the U.S., roughly 30 states have adopted such regulations. Each jurisdiction's program varies depending on local policy objectives and political climates. The U.S. has no national RPS. In recent years, House and Senate initiatives have failed to obtain support.
There are serious concerns about cost impacts. The 2007 Lawrence Berkeley report suggests that existing state RPS programs resulted in rate increases of less than 1.2 percent. A 2008 California study predicts that a more ambitious 33 percent RPS combined with significantly expanded energy efficiency would increase costs 4 percent.
Massachusetts developer Cape Wind Associates recently reached an agreement with utility National Grid to sell 50 percent of the output from its 454 MW offshore wind project at a price starting at 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, escalating 3.5 percent annually for the 15-year life of the contract. The contract, which has been approved by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, is projected to add $1.50 to the average residential consumer's monthly bill. This proposal, driven largely by Massachusetts' ambitious RPS, strikes many as a high price for power. The average U.S. retail rate for electricity across all sectors is just less than 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, with consumers in many states paying 7 cents or less.
The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission's approved the National Grid and Deepwater Wind's proposed Block Island Wind Project contract at 24.4 cents per kilowatt-hour.)
Other regulatory approaches include federal and state tax credits, feed-in tariffs and long-term contracts for renewable projects' output that encourage power developers to build new renewable projects. These measures are not mutually exclusive with portfolio standards.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is asking lawmakers to underwrite a plan for Maryland to generate some of the nation's first offshore wind power. His plan would incentivize a $1.5 billion field of giant turbines about 11 1/2 miles off Ocean City. It would require Maryland utilities to buy power from the wind farm at a price far above the current market rate and at which its developers agree they could turn a profit.
According to the governor's office, the cost of the subsidy would be spread among all Maryland electric customers in the form of monthly surcharges. The fee has been estimated at $1.44 a month for residential customers, but an analysis released by legislative budget analysts Wednesday night pegged the initial fee at $3.61 a month. For the state's largest industrial power users, the surcharges would add up to tens of thousands of dollars a month.
O'Malley's offshore wind proposal would essentially force the start of a new energy market in Maryland. Under the governor's plan, utility companies would be required to buy wind power at one fixed price for at least 20 years. That price would be set by the state's Public Service Commission next year. The plan assumes that developers will be awarded federal leases late this year or early in 2012, that construction would begin in 2014 and that the first turbines would begin spinning in 2016.
According to cost modeling by the governor's office, which assumes the PSC signs a 25-year contract, Maryland pegs offshore wind costs when the power comes online at about 16.4 cents per kilowatt hour, or more than 60 percent higher than the rate at which most utilities in the state are buying power. Like Delaware, the model assumes the developer receives an annual price increase of 2.5 percent to cover inflation.
But Maryland's budget analyst says the governor's model doesn't factor in all of the costs. The analyst's report estimates an "effective rate" of 21 cents per kilowatt hour for Maryland offshore wind power in 2016, rising to 23 cents by 2040.
By comparison, long-term projections released in January by the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast that traditional electric power costs - now at an average of 11.1 cents - will fall slightly over nearly the same period.
There is also disagreement on how much residential utility bills would likely increase as a result of the wind project. The state originally forecasted an increase of $1.61 a month, but adjusted that downward by 17 cents, saying transmission charges would decrease. Utilities, however, say transmission charges are unlikely to decrease for very long and probably not by that much. The budget analyst projected the cost at $3.61 a month, or $43.31 a year, in 2016. The amount would decrease significantly over the life of the contract, to $1.91 a month, or $22.95 a year, in 2040.
The prospect of building wind farms off Maryland's shores has lured companies such as Bluewater, a wind power firm now owned by NRG, one of the country's biggest utilities. Bluewater has proposed building an offshore wind farm that would provide energy for as many as 136,000 households from turbines 12 miles off the Maryland shore. The company also has proposals for New Jersey and Delaware.
Bluewater has bid on 175,000 acres off Maryland. There were seven competitors, including Maryland Offshore LLC, a joint venture of Apex Wind Energy, based in Charlottesville, and Beowulf Energy LLC of Easton, Md., which employs Enright.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
New Senior Adviser on the Chesapeake Bay
Before joining Region 3 in January 2010, Jeff was appointed assistant secretary of natural resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia by then-Governor Tim Kaine. Earlier, he spent almost a decade with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, ultimately serving as its Virginia deputy director and senior scientist. Jeff also worked as an environmental geologist and water quality specialist for the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission during the early 1990s. He began his career as an environmental chemist with the Science Applications International Corporation. He has a master’s degree in oceanography from the University of Rhode Island and a bachelor’s degree in marine science from the University of South Carolina.
Jeff is a Coast Guard-licensed small vessel captain and a certified scuba diver with 30 years of experience. (EPA)
Lisa Jackson Testimony Before Senate Environment Committee
 |
| Barbara Boxer |
Testimony
Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
As prepared for delivery.
Madame Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting me to testify about President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency.
 |
| Lisa P. Jackson |
Congress gave EPA the responsibility of implementing and enforcing those laws. And, each year, Congress appropriates the money that makes EPA’s implementation and enforcement work possible.
If Congress ever gutted that funding, then EPA would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect Americans’ health, livelihoods, and pastimes. Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and onto the ground. Toxic plumes already underground would reach drinking water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them would stop. There would be no EPA grant money to fix or replace broken water treatment systems. And the standards that EPA is set to establish for harmful air pollutants from smokestacks and tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources that is not static but growing.
So if Congress slashed EPA’s funding, concentrations of harmful pollution would increase from current levels in the places Americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike, and hunt. The result would be more asthma attacks, more missed school and work days, more heart attacks, more cancer cases, more premature deaths, and more polluted waters.
Needless to say, then, I fervently request and deeply appreciate continued bipartisan support in Congress for funding the essential work that keeps American children and adults safe from uncontrolled amounts of harmful pollution being dumped into the water they drink and the air they breathe.
President Obama believes that our federal government must spend less money. Decreasing federal spending is no longer just a prudent choice; it is now an unavoidable necessity. Accordingly, the President has proposed to cut EPA’s annual budget nearly thirteen percent from its current level.
That cut goes beyond eliminating redundancies. We have made difficult, even painful, choices. We have done so, however, in a careful way that preserves EPA’s ability to carry out its core responsibilities to protect the health and wellbeing of America’s children, adults, and communities.
You have been reviewing the budget request for more than two weeks now, so I will not march through all its details. Rather, I will provide just a few examples of the difficult choices we have made while preserving fundamental safeguards.
This request provides 2.5 billion dollars, a decrease of 947 million, for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Future-year budgets for the SRFs will adjust, taking into account repayments. EPA, the states, and community water systems will build on past successes while working toward the Fiscal Year 2012 goal of ensuring that over 90 percent of the population served by community water systems receives drinking water that meets all applicable health standards.
This budget requests an additional 6.4 million dollars to conduct integrated pilot projects in several communities, including disadvantaged ones, to evaluate and reduce risks from toxic air pollution through regulatory, enforcement, and voluntary efforts. An additional 3.7 million dollars will improve our monitoring of toxic air toxic pollution and our dissemination of that data to state, local and tribal governments, and to the public.
The budget contains 350 million dollars for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. That represents a cut of 125 million dollars from Fiscal Year 2010, which was the first year of the initiative. We will implement the most important projects for Great Lakes Restoration and achieve visible results.
With this budget’s 16 million dollar investment in the Enhancing Chemical Safety Initiative, we will take action to reduce chemical risks, increase the pace of chemical hazard assessments, and provide the public with greater access to information on toxic chemicals. We will use the funds to implement chemical risk reduction steps that address impacts on children’s health and on disadvantaged, low-income, and indigenous populations.
Thank you, Madame Chair. I look forward to the Committee’s questions
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Rare Earth Elements
Approximately 13 million metric tons of rare earth elements REE exist within known deposits in the United States, according to the first-ever nationwide estimate of these elements by the U.S. Geological Survey. At recent domestic consumption rates of about 10,000 metric tons annually, the US deposits have the potential to meet our needs for years to come REE are a group of 16 metallic elements with similar properties and structures. Despite their name, they are relatively common within the earth’s crust, but because of their geochemical properties, they are not often found in economically exploitable concentrations. Hard-rock deposits yield the most economically exploitable concentrations of REE. [See USGS]
 |
| 17 Important Elements |
China has 30 percent of the world's rare-earth deposits, but the United States, Australia and others stopped mining their own a decade ago because it was cheaper to buy Chinese ores. There are concerns about the the supply of REEs because China produces about 95 percent of them. (Wash Post, 2/19/2011, Wash Post, 2/14/2011, USGS)
Take Down Scaffolding at Old Executive Office Building
The building is supposedly getting an exterior restoration of the granite, slate and cast iron details. But a decade? Come on President Obama, take the scaffolding down. It is an eyesore. (The White House)
Friday, February 25, 2011
EPA Hearing on Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide
WHEN: Monday, Feb. 28, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST
WHERE:
EPA’s Potomac Yard Conference Center
First Floor Conference Center South (S-1204-06)
2777 Crystal Dr.
Arlington, Va.
The public may register in person on the day of the hearing. EPA also will accept written comments on the proposed standards until April 12, 2011.
More information and instructions for submitting written comments.
Maryland Legislature Considers Marcellus Shale Drilling Bills
Delegate Heather Mizeur, D-Montgomery, is sponsoring separate legislation that would require drilling companies to demonstrate that wetlands, forests, critical habitats and existing communities would not be put at risk before wells are built and operated.
The Marcellus Shale is a natural gas-rich geological formation that extends from New York to Virginia. (AP)
House Bill 411
House Bill 415
House Bill 852
National Audubon Society & Toyota Seek Community Projects
TogetherGreen, a conservation alliance between the National Audubon Society and Toyota, is now accepting applications for 2011. Applications are currently being accepted for the Conservation Leadership Program and the Innovation Grants Program. The deadline for all applications is May 2nd.
Through TogetherGreen Conservation Fellowships, 40 promising individuals will be chosen for their demonstrated leadership, as well as leadership potential, skills, and commitment to engaging people of diverse backgrounds in conservation action. Fellows receive a $10,000 grant to conduct a conservation action project in their community, as well as specialized training and support to help shape and implement their projects. They also become part of a dynamic alumni network of conservation professionals from across the country.
TogetherGreen Innovation Grants annually provide essential funding that enables Audubon groups and their partners to inspire, equip, and support activities that engage new and diverse audiences in conservation action and create healthier communities. A minimum of 40 projects will receive funding, totaling more than $1 million dollars of support—with grants ranging from $5,000-$80,000. Grants will be reviewed by an expert advisory panel, and the average grant awarded will be around $25,000.
Since the program’s inception in 2008, more than 135,000 individuals have participated in community-based TogetherGreen projects in 49 states and more than 150 cities around the country. More than 130 environmental projects have received Innovation Grants totaling more than $3.5 million, which was then matched 100%. The inaugural class of 40 TogetherGreen Fellows recruited more than 3,400 individuals who spent 37,000 hours on conservation activities.
Candidates for the TogetherGreen Fellows program must have at least six years experience in some aspect of the environment, a passion for conservation, the desire to learn and grow, and an interest and ability to reach diverse and previously underrepresented audiences.
Innovation Grants funding will be awarded to groups in Audubon’s national network, including state programs, Centers, and local Chapters– working in partnership with one or more external organizations. Recipients will be chosen for innovative ideas that achieve conservation results focused on habitat, water, and energy. Applicants will also need to demonstrate how their project will reach new and diverse communities and directly engage people in conservation action.
Selection of the TogetherGreen Fellows and Grants will be made upon the recommendation of a national advisory board of conservation leaders, with expertise in education, evaluation, diversity, conservation biology, and other disciplines.
To apply for a 2011 TogetherGreen Fellowship, visit www.togethergreen.org/fellows. The site includes application guidelines, selection criteria, eligibility, benefits, and an online application. If you require additional information, contact Eddie Gonzalez or 202-861-2242, x3065.
To apply for a 2011 TogetherGreen Innovation Grant, visit www.togethergreen.org/grants. The site includes application guidelines, selection criteria, benefits, and an online application. Interested organizations not affiliated with Audubon should contact Florence Miller or 802-505-0839 to learn about partnership possibilities.
The deadline to apply for both the TogetherGreen Fellowship program and the Innovation Grants program is 11:59 p.m. PDT on May 2, 2011. Fellows and Grant applicants will be notified in July 2011 and August 2011 respectively.
About TogetherGreen: Audubon and Toyota launched the five-year TogetherGreen initiative in 2008 to build the promise of a greener, healthier future through innovation, leadership and volunteerism.
About Audubon: Now in its second century, Audubon connects people with birds, nature and the environment that supports us all. Our national network of community-based nature centers, chapters, scientific, education, and advocacy programs engages millions of people from all walks of life in conservation action to protect and restore the natural world.
About Toyota: Toyota (NYSE: TM) established operations in the United States in 1957 and currently operates 10 manufacturing plants, including one under construction. Toyota directly employs nearly 30,000 in the U.S. and its investment here is currently valued at more than $18 billion, including sales and manufacturing operations, research and development, financial services and design.
TogetherGreen Innovation Grants annually provide essential funding that enables Audubon groups and their partners to inspire, equip, and support activities that engage new and diverse audiences in conservation action and create healthier communities. A minimum of 40 projects will receive funding, totaling more than $1 million dollars of support—with grants ranging from $5,000-$80,000. Grants will be reviewed by an expert advisory panel, and the average grant awarded will be around $25,000.
Since the program’s inception in 2008, more than 135,000 individuals have participated in community-based TogetherGreen projects in 49 states and more than 150 cities around the country. More than 130 environmental projects have received Innovation Grants totaling more than $3.5 million, which was then matched 100%. The inaugural class of 40 TogetherGreen Fellows recruited more than 3,400 individuals who spent 37,000 hours on conservation activities.
Candidates for the TogetherGreen Fellows program must have at least six years experience in some aspect of the environment, a passion for conservation, the desire to learn and grow, and an interest and ability to reach diverse and previously underrepresented audiences.
Innovation Grants funding will be awarded to groups in Audubon’s national network, including state programs, Centers, and local Chapters– working in partnership with one or more external organizations. Recipients will be chosen for innovative ideas that achieve conservation results focused on habitat, water, and energy. Applicants will also need to demonstrate how their project will reach new and diverse communities and directly engage people in conservation action.
Selection of the TogetherGreen Fellows and Grants will be made upon the recommendation of a national advisory board of conservation leaders, with expertise in education, evaluation, diversity, conservation biology, and other disciplines.
To apply for a 2011 TogetherGreen Fellowship, visit www.togethergreen.org/fellows. The site includes application guidelines, selection criteria, eligibility, benefits, and an online application. If you require additional information, contact Eddie Gonzalez or 202-861-2242, x3065.
To apply for a 2011 TogetherGreen Innovation Grant, visit www.togethergreen.org/grants. The site includes application guidelines, selection criteria, benefits, and an online application. Interested organizations not affiliated with Audubon should contact Florence Miller or 802-505-0839 to learn about partnership possibilities.
The deadline to apply for both the TogetherGreen Fellowship program and the Innovation Grants program is 11:59 p.m. PDT on May 2, 2011. Fellows and Grant applicants will be notified in July 2011 and August 2011 respectively.
About TogetherGreen: Audubon and Toyota launched the five-year TogetherGreen initiative in 2008 to build the promise of a greener, healthier future through innovation, leadership and volunteerism.
About Audubon: Now in its second century, Audubon connects people with birds, nature and the environment that supports us all. Our national network of community-based nature centers, chapters, scientific, education, and advocacy programs engages millions of people from all walks of life in conservation action to protect and restore the natural world.
About Toyota: Toyota (NYSE: TM) established operations in the United States in 1957 and currently operates 10 manufacturing plants, including one under construction. Toyota directly employs nearly 30,000 in the U.S. and its investment here is currently valued at more than $18 billion, including sales and manufacturing operations, research and development, financial services and design.
California Climate Change
Marten Law
Mandatory Cap-and-Trade
California’s Air Resources Board (CARB), on December 16, 2010, adopted an historic cap-and-trade program to cap emissions at 600 facilities. The regulation is divided into two phases: an initial phase beginning in 2012 that will include major industrial sources and utilities; and, a second phase that starts in 2015 and brings in distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas and other fuels. The goal of the program is to achieve a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 2012 levels. However, a San Francisco Superior Court recently issued a tentative decision that could delay the January 2012 commencement of the cap-and-trade program.
Renewable Portfolio Standard
California’s renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, mandates that utilities replace a portion of their hydrocarbon-based electricity with clean power sources.[3] In late 2010, the California Air Resources Board approved Resolution 10-23, which increased the state’s standard for the proportion of electricity generation by eligible renewable sources from 20 percent to 33 percent.[4] Approving the rule as a directed executive order became necessary when Senate Bill 722, which could have codified the 33 percent standard, failed to pass in both 2009 and 2010.
Coordinating GHG Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles
California had been expected to announce its 2017-2025 greenhouse gas standards for light-duty vehicles as early as March 2011, but will now delay the release until Sept. 1, 2011. The delayed date accommodates the release of EPA’s and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks built between 2017 and 2025. California is permitted under the Clean Air Act to implement its own rules, but it agreed in the fall of 2010 to comply with federal greenhouse gas standards that required a fleetwide standard of 35.5 miles per gallon, creating the first coordinated national program.
(FULL ARTICLE)
2012 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality in Maryland
In compliance with Sections 305(b), 314(l) and 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is currently compiling data for the 2012 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality in Maryland.
Data submitted under this request may be used to assess the water quality of Maryland’s surface waters for regulatory purposes, including Total Maximum Daily Loads development. All data for the 2012 IR must be submitted no later than April 30th, 2011. For additional details on submitting data, please read the attached data solicitation memo or visit MDE's Web site.
Matthew M. Stover
Natural Resources Planner
Science Services Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
Montgomery Park Business Center
1800 Washington Blvd, Suite 540
Baltimore, MD 21230-1718
Phone: 410-537-3611
Fax: 410-537-3611
mstover@mde.state.md.us
Data submitted under this request may be used to assess the water quality of Maryland’s surface waters for regulatory purposes, including Total Maximum Daily Loads development. All data for the 2012 IR must be submitted no later than April 30th, 2011. For additional details on submitting data, please read the attached data solicitation memo or visit MDE's Web site.
Matthew M. Stover
Science Services Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
Montgomery Park Business Center
1800 Washington Blvd, Suite 540
Baltimore, MD 21230-1718
Phone: 410-537-3611
Fax: 410-537-3611
mstover@mde.state.md.us
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Xoom
The Xoom has a more potent processor than the current iPad; front and rear cameras versus none for the iPad; better speakers; and higher screen resolution. It also can be upgraded free later this year to support Verizon's faster 4G cellular data network (though monthly fees may rise.) Motorola is taking aim at the iPad just as Apple is expected to announce a second-generation of its tablet. Little is known about this second iPad, but it's widely expected to take away at least one of the Xoom's advantages over the original iPad—cameras—and is rumored to be thinner and lighter, since weight was one of the most common complaints about the generally praised first iPad.
While iPads come in a range of models priced all the way up to $829—none of which requires a cellphone contract—Apple's entry price for the iPad is just $499. By contrast, the base price of a Xoom without a cellphone contract is $800—60% more. And even with a Verizon two-year contract at $20 to $80 a month—depending on the data limit you choose—the least you can pay for a Xoom is $600, or 20% more before counting the contract costs. The iPad model with the same memory as the Xoom and a 3G cellular modem like the Xoom's is $729, which is a closer comparison. But it is still less than $800, and consumers still focus on that $499 iPad entry price (for a Wi-Fi-only model.)
A battery test on the Xoom playing video constantly with the connectivity turned on and the screen at almost full brightness until the battery dies shows the Xoom gets 7 to 10 hours. By contrast, on the same test, the iPad, which also claims logs about 11.5 hours, or four hours more. The Xoom's battery is sealed, and it only comes with 32 gigabytes of memory, versus a range of between 16 and 64 GB for various models of the iPad. However, it has a slot for a memory card that Motorola says will work after a software upgrade to add more memory. There is also a removable back and a SIM card slot that would be used only if you chose to upgrade to 4G in the second quarter of this year. (WSJ, 2/24/2011)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
EPA Finalizes But Will Reconsider Boiler/Incinerator Standards
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued [sort of] final Clean Air Act standards for boilers and certain incinerators that achieve significant public health protections through reductions in toxic air emissions, including mercury and soot, but cut the cost of implementation by about 50 percent from an earlier proposal issued last year.
Mercury, soot, lead and other harmful pollutants released by boilers and incinerators can lead to developmental disabilities in children, as well as cancer, heart disease, aggravated asthma and premature death in Americans. These standards will avoid between 2,600-6,600 premature deaths, prevent 4,100 heart attacks and avert 42,000 asthma attacks per year in 2014.
In response to a September 2009 court order, EPA issued the proposed rules in April 2010. The agency received more than 4,800 comments from businesses and communities across the country in response to the proposed rules. Public input included a significant amount of information that industry had not provided prior to the proposal. Based on this feedback, and in keeping with President Obama’s executive order on regulatory review, EPA revised the draft standards based on the requested input to provide additional flexibility and cost effective techniques.
About 200,000 boilers are located at small and large sources of air toxic emissions across the country. The final standards require many types of boilers to follow practical, cost-effective work practice standards to reduce emissions. The types of boilers and incinerators covered by these updated standards include:
· Boilers at large sources of air toxics emissions: There are about 13,800 boilers located at large sources of air pollutants, including refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities. These standards will reduce emissions of harmful pollutants including mercury, organic air toxics and dioxins at some of the largest pollution sources. EPA estimates that the costs of implementation have been reduced by $1.5 billion from the proposed standard. Health benefits to children and the public associated with reduced exposure to fine particles and ozone from these large source boilers are estimated to be $22 billion to $54 billion in 2014.
· Boilers located at small sources of air toxics emissions: There are about 187,000 boilers located at small sources of air pollutants, including universities, hospitals, hotels and commercial buildings that may be covered by these standards. Due to the small amount of emissions these sources are responsible for, EPA has limited the impact of the final rule making on small entities. The original standards for these have been dramatically refined and updated to ensure maximum flexibility for these sources, including for some sources, revising the requirement from maximum achievable control technology to generally available control technology. The cost reduction from the proposed standard to the final is estimated to be $209 million.
· Solid waste incinerators: There are 88 solid waste incinerators that burn waste at a commercial or an industrial facility, including cement manufacturing facilities. These standards, which facilities will need to meet by 2016 at the latest, will reduce emissions of harmful pollutants including mercury, lead, cadmium, nitrogen dioxide and particle pollution. The cost reduction from the proposed standard to the final is estimated to be $12 million.
 |
| Sludge Incinerator |
EPA has also identified which non-hazardous secondary materials are considered solid waste when burned in combustion units. This distinction determines which Clean Air Act standard is applied when the material is burned. The non-hazardous secondary materials that can be burned as non-waste fuel include scrap tires managed under established tire collection programs. This step simplifies the rules and provides additional clarity and direction for facilities. To determine that materials are non-hazardous secondary materials when burned under today’s rule, materials must not have been discarded and must be legitimately used as a fuel.
The agency recognizes that secondary materials are widely used today as raw materials, as products, and as fuels in industrial processes. EPA believes that the final rule helps set protective emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.
The emissions standards for sewage sludge incinerators and the definition of solid waste are not part of today’s reconsideration.
More information
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)