Yes We Can! Long Island 2012Energy & Environment (E&E) topics for further reading and comments
• What is your opinion on current E&E issues? See the E&E BLOG POSTINGS.
• What are the causes/effects of Climate Change? What if we just do nothing? See “CLIMATE CHANGE.”
• Who are the worst pollution culprits? See “WHO ARE THE POLLUTERS?”
• What can you do/we do to be eco-friendly? See “BE GREEN.”
• What is the controversy about clean coal? How will it work? See “CLEAN COAL.”
• What’s wrong with a Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Island off the Long Island shoreline? See “LNG ISLAND TERMINAL.”
• Learn about Climate Change and Going Green from our 2010 conference recap.
The Yes We Can! LI Energy and Environment Committee advocates for and works on behalf of projects and policies at the national and local level that:
• Foster development and increase use of alternative, renewable, cleaner and more efficient energy sources;
• Reduce America’s addiction to foreign fossil fuels;
• Help mitigate the global climate crisis;
• Protect and preserve the quality of our environment; and
• Create new jobs in the “green” economy.
The Committee will analyze and formulate policy positions on issues that are relevant to its agenda, communicate its positions to elected officials and other policy makers, and engage in grassroots activities to educate the public and generate support for its positions. In addition, it will set an example in the local community through its participation in and support for local projects that protect and preserve our land, air, drinking water, waterways, open space, wildlife and marine life.
Addressing Energy and Environmental Challenges
America’s addiction to foreign oil not only is a national security threat and drain on the economy, but a major contributor to global warming, as well.
President Obama has a comprehensive energy plan that invests in alternative and renewable sources, ends our addiction to foreign oil, addresses the global climate crisis and creates millions of new jobs. Among its features: increased fuel economy standards, greater production of electricity from renewable sources and a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
Long Island must find ways to reduce its carbon footprint. We need to invest in alternative energy and adopt smart-growth strategies and transportation solutions that lessen our reliance on private cars. Additionally, we must preserve open spaces and address the challenges of solid waste disposal and wastewater management in environmentally responsible ways.
Yes We Can! Long Island believes the means to attaining a sustainable future on Long Island are at our disposal. All we need is the will to make it so.
I must thank you for the efforts you’ve put in writing this site. I’m hoping to view the same high-grade
blog posts by you in the future as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has inspired me to get my own,
personal site now ;)
Yes We Can! Long Island Environmental Service Project
Meadowbrook Parkway Woodlands Clean-up
10a.m. – 1 p.m. Saturday, June 6 (Rain or Shine)
In the spirit of President Obama’s call for public
service, the Yes We Can! Long Island Energy and Environmental Committee will join with local civic organizations and elected officials in a clean up of selected areas in this woodland corridor.
This effort is part of a series of public efforts dating back to 2003. It will help preserve one of the last major open spaces on the South Shore of Nassau County and demonstrate community involvement to government entities developing management plans for the corridor.
Please join us at one of these three locations:
1. Mulners Pond Park on West Avenue, just south of Jerusalem Avenue in North Merrick.
2. Woodlands behind Brookside School. (Enter from Washington Avenue just west of Meadowbrook Road in North Merrick.)
3. Merrick Reservoir. (Enter from Stuyvesant Avenue, just west of Babylon Turnpike in Merrick. Please do not park on the short block entering the Preserve as it tends to disturb the local residents.
Guidelines for Participants
You must sign in before participating. Please wear long sleeve pants and shirts. If you have gloves, please bring them. Otherwise, bags and gloves will be provided. Wear your YWCLI buttons as we expect press coverage.
Always use common sense precautions at events like this. For example, bring sunscreen, insect repellent and water, if you think you will need it. Avoid going into the water or engaging in behavior that may endanger yourself or others. Also, all minors must be accompanied by an adult.
Thank you for volunteering for this important event. If you have any other questions, please call 809-6766 ext.702
Legislator Denenberg on the proposed Natural Gas Project off Long Beach
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak at the Baldwin Democratic meeting on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 regarding the liquefied natural gas (LNG) island that is proposed to be built off the shores of Long Beach.
To reiterate, Atlantic Sea Island Group initiated a project titled “Safe Harbor Energy”, which proposes to build an artificial island 13.5 miles off the shore of Long Beach. It is the first of three liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities that are being proposed in this region. If accepted, it will set the precedent for industrializing our oceans.
This island will require disturbing 110 acres of the ocean’s floor in water that is 60-70 feet deep. Hurricanes commonly occur in this region with waves reaching 55 feet in height. Marine life will be affected. It will be situated in the only natural reef on the New York/New Jersey coast, which serves as a migratory ecosystem for several endangered species of fish and sea mammals, all subject to destruction if these plans are approved. Commercial fishermen claim that such drastic, invasive construction of an island off the shore of Long Beach will have a devastating effect on their industry that is experiencing waning fishing opportunities.
Safe Harbor Energy intends to lay approximately 12.8 miles of pipeline four feet below the ocean’s floor from the terminal to meet an existing pipeline that extends from Morgan, New Jersey to Long Beach, Long Island. This existing pipeline is already being used at its capacity. Bringing in another pipeline to meet the existing one will not bring in more natural gas than it already can handle.
To irrevocably alter 110 acres of the ocean’s floor for an island and up to 12.8 miles of ocean floor for more pipelines requires the use of tremendous construction equipment invading our oceans. A construction project of this magnitude will alter marine life in this and its surrounding areas forever. This will be the first artificial island designed specifically for the import, storage, degasification and distribution of LNG in this country. A similar island was proposed off the coast of California, but the California Land Commission vetoed it because they found it extremely dangerous. Closer to home, the Broadwater project to situate a LNG barge 9 miles from the north shore of Long Island was rejected.
The purpose of this proposed island will be a depot for the importation of LNG from foreign countries. Environmentalists claim that natural gas is a fossil fuel that emits slightly less carbon dioxide than petroleum, but the process of converting it to liquid for transport would make LNG have a footprint that is nearly equivalent to coal. In contrast, the natural gas that is currently piped from New Jersey to Long Island is produced in the United States. The creation of this island depot will allow Safe Harbor Energy to import from the Middle East and Asia, including Indonesia, Russia and Iran. It is against our national interests to bring in foreign, dirty fossil fuels at a time when we are, or should be, seeking energy independence and alternative fuels.
These waters would be covered by large “security buffers” that would deny their use to the boaters, divers and fishermen who have enjoyed these areas for generations. New York is already a terrorist target. Why would be build a new target less than 14 miles off our shores and invite tankers from unfriendly nations to our ports? Why put this additional burden on our U.S. Coast Guard?
Atlantic Sea Island Group claims that importing LNG will bring the price down by making it competitive. LNG is priced according to world demand, which is three times the price of U.S. natural gas. The world LNG price levels that went up last summer with all the crude oil speculation have not dropped one penny even as the world petroleum markets plummet. New discoveries of natural gas in North America flood the regional pipelines that supply the entire nation, making LNG imports obsolete. Experts estimate that current North American reserves can supply more than twice the demand for natural gas over the next 60 years.
The environmental and aesthetic impact should not be downplayed. When we go to the beach and look out onto the horizon, our eyes will be drawn to it and we will see it. The Broadwater Project was rejected by the U.S. Department of Commerce because the project’s “adverse coastal impacts outweighed its national interest, in part because its location in an undeveloped region of the Sound would significantly impair its unique scenic and aesthetic character…” The ocean is our signature natural resource and our open space. It is our duty to protect and preserve it for future generations
The environmental impact study is underway. Before the study is complete, Long Islanders must be ready to voice strong opposition to this project.
If you are interested in writing against this project or speaking out against it, please contact my office at 571-6219 or ddenenberg@nassaucountyny.gov . You may also contact Claudia Borecky, President of the North Merrick Civic Association, who is coordinating and working with me on this issue at 972-6988 or wawbeek28@yahoo.com.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please call me at 571-6219 if you have any questions or concerns.
Very Truly Yours,
David Denenberg Legislator, 19th District
You may have noted that a survey taken at the Convention identified four issues that YEC LI membership will address as we look ahead to upcoming senate and congressional elections. YWC!LI is introducing four committees: Healthcare, Energy, the Environment, and Service. Members are encouraged to join one or more committees by sending an email to a committee’s chairperson. For updates and commentary on each of these committees view the ISSUES pages of our website.To join a the energy committee, contact:Energy: Phil Heckler: Pheckler@optonline.net
I really enjoyed the convention on March 26. I applaud you for all of your efforts. Especially since a survey was published yesterday stating that over 90% of people that voted for Obama for president are no longer involved in any activist activity. I noticed that four committees were formed: Heathcare, Energy,The Enviorment, and Service. I believe that was how breakout groups were put together at the convention. I strongly support that a diversity group be formed. Yeswecanli must be at the forefront of having a big tent. Yeswecanli needs to stand for diversity in all its various forms: racial, gender, party, religion, class, and all other forms I can’t think of right now. Diversity should be a group that includes the other groups that were formed ALSO. Please get back to me about this A.S.A P.
CARPE DIEM !
The Mid America CropLife Association (MACA) has a bone to pick with Michelle Obama. MACA represents chemical companies that produce pesticides, and they are angry that – wait for it – Michelle Obama isn’t using chemicals in her organic garden at the White House.
In an email they forwarded to their supporters, a MACA spokesman wrote:
“While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made[us] shudder.”
MACA went on to publish a letter it had sent to the First Lady asking her to consider using chemicals — or what they call “crop protection products” — in her garden.
Michelle Obama and has done America a great service by publicizing the importance of nutritious food for kids (she’s growing the garden in partnership with a local elementary school class) as well as locally grown produce as an important, environmentally sustainable food source.
I just signed a petition telling MACA’s board members to stop using Michelle Obama’s garden to spread propaganda about produce needing to be sprayed with chemicals. I hope you will, too.
Please have a look and take action.
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/wh_garden/?r_by=3450-91259-kwXKEjx&rc=mailto
Attn: All concerned parties,…I am passing around an online petition in reference to shortening the current extension to daylight saving time. I encourage you to sign it. Whether or not you agree with the issue just simply pass it on to other people to read it and sign it. The address to click onto is–http://www.petitiononline.com/edst/petition.html. Thank You!
Phil has hit the nail on the head. Some of the nonsense thinking that has already gotten us into trouble is like worrying about dinner table location on the Titanic. One of the basic problems we face is the inability of so many politically active people to think analytically, and the feeling among too many of the politically vocal that the laws of physics can be bypassed with clever rhetoric. Unless the ivory tower dwellers realize that even the best solution to a problem can be far from perfect they better start apologizing to their children and grandchildren for the degradation of the American way of life that will be their legacy. Energy and the environment dwarfs all the other issues listed on this web site, and YWC!LI can only have a meaningful positive impact if it actively seeks the participation of people who have a true understanding of the technological issues involved.
YECLI really need to get moving and take positions or risk missing out influencing important decisions. For example in today’s Huffington Post, in an article by Robert Redford, it has been recommended by NRDC and others that wind and solar power can not be developed on in parks or wildlife areas of the West, see link to their map. : http://www.nrdc.org/land/sitingrenewables/default.asp
Their basic argument is that energy sources don’t have to conflict with preserving wildlife and wildlands. Others have said we can’t despoil great views like the ocean off the south shore of LI or off the coast near Nantucket Island Certainly there are areas that need to be protected but if every interest group blocks their favorite areas will anything be left? These issues need to be put in perspective. Will we save the view but not the climate? If the drastic predictions about climate change come true there may not be wildlife or habitat, as we know it, to worry about.
The proposed LNG Island’s sole purpose is to import foreign dirty fossil fuels from countries such as Russia, Iran and Indonesia — countries that use energy as a power play and are a serious threat to our security. This island will be built 13.5 miles off the shores of Long Beach, take up 110 acres of the oceans floor -destroying species of fish and thwarthing sea mammals that use this area as a migratory path. For security reasons, there will be a buffer area surrounding the island as well. Plus they will destory another 12 miles of the ocean’s floor to run a pipeline from the island to an existing pipe that goes from New Jersey to Long Island, where we get relatively clean natural gas that is Domestic and plentiful. We get 95% of our natural gas from North America, 86% being from the United States. The U.S. has so much that they are seeking to export it because it costs three times as much in Europe and Asia. However, the process of changing natural gas to liquified natural gas in order to be shipped here in tankers requires a process that has a carbon footprint as dirty as coal. President Obama clearly states that he wants to take measures to lessen our dependence on foreign energy. This sole purpose is for a private invester to import foreign fossil fuels, regasify it at the island and pipe it back to an existing pipe that is already full to capacity. It just doesn’t make sense.
Re Comment #23 above. Energy and the Environment should be getting the most attention because it is by far the most important issue. Go to “http://news.aol.com/article/climate-changes/376821″ to see why. (I couldn’t put a direct hyperlink into this message, so you will have to copy and paste or type it in.) As you will see, compared to this one, all the other issues are, at best, secondary. How important will education be when we no longer have the energy to power a light bulb, let alone a computer? How important will diversity be when society no longer exists? How important will health care be when everybody is dead? I urge everybody to check out that link. See what will happen if we do not do something dramatic, and do it soon, to deal effectively with the environmental problems the world faces. Understand how criminally immoral it is for somebody to oppose windmills because he or she does not want to occasionally see them or how foolish it is to oppose nuclear power, the only known technology upon which we can rely to significantly cut greenhouse house gases while maintaining our way life, because it might have some risks. Nuclear power could cause problems, although it has only been know to do so on two occasions, but the alternative most certainly will, and the damage not going nuclear will cause will make the effects of any possible, but unlikely, nuclear accident seems trivial. We have three options: 1) go nuclear; 2) revert to medieval conditions of life; or 3) destroy human life. For me, the choice is easy, but, unfortunately, the choice isn’t mine.
Neil,
It seems that our breakout session on Energy at the Founding Convention is providing a great opportunity for people to share their thinking on a most critical issue. I look forward to the discussion.
I am sorry, Marvin, but entry #24 just doesn’t ring true. A claim that “efficiency can be more than doubled and pollution can be reduced over 90%” cannot be made without explanation of how it it would be done. I don’t believe it. I refuse to believe that the National Grid generating system is using more than twice the fuel that “modern” generators use for the same output. If that were true they would have made the changes themselves. The economic drive to do so would have been overwhelming. That kind of statement cannot be accepted without explanation. Also, the doubling of efficiency, if such a technological miracle could be achieved, would only reduce “pollution” by 50 percent. I have no doubt that minor improvements can be made, and that doing so might even be economic, but the numbers presented defy credibility, at least without substantiation.
Neil
Received this email today from Mark Seratoff, Coordinator, Sustainable Energy Alliance of LI (Markenprod@aol.com)
Economic Stimulus via Power Plants
Bailout Detroit. Bailout Wallstreet. Unemployment. Sounds bleak, but there is a silver lining: federal funds for infrastructure and economic stimulus.
Long Island is positioned well for various projects, having know-how, materials, tools and manpower (personpower?) to get the job done. An excellent win-win is modernizing (repowering) the antiquated National Grid fleet of generators. These dinosaur clunkers have been sputtering along since the mid-20th century. Advances in design, materials and function make updating them mandatory.
For example, their efficiency can be more than doubled and pollution can be reduced over 90%. There would be less reliance on foreign oil. Breakdowns would decrease. Furthermore, generated capacity can be more than doubled, taking care of our future needs for decades without building a new power plant (which is almost impossible due to NIMBY).
But one of the greatest benefits is job creation. Power industry expert Dr. Matt Cordaro said, “Almost 1,000 high-paying jobs would be created in many industries,” including electricians, boilermakers, plumbers, steamfitters, carpenters, teamsters, insulation workers, laborers, engineers, ironworkers, painters, sheet metal workers and suppliers of components.
And these aren’t short-term jobs. Also, their wages are injected directly into the local economy. James Castellane, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau and Suffolk Counties agreed: “This [repowering] is long overdue. This is a necessity where money spent will be made back.
Where else can that be said?”
Donald Fiore, Business manager for Electrical Workers Local 25 concurred:
“It’s a home run and a win-win. It will cut tons of pollution and stop many carcinogenic particles. LI benefits in the short and long-term with new jobs that are sorely needed and municipalities by increasing their tax revenue. It will reinfuse money into the LI economy. It’s a no-brainer.”
Suffolk County legislator Jon Cooper said repowering “…….dovetails perfectly with the administration’s objectives of helping the environment and creating jobs.”
So there it is for the short and long term: cleaner air, more electricity, less foreign oil, job creation, tax benefits, more reliability, bolstering the economy. What’s the delay?
Clearly, energy and the environment is the issue that has generated (pardon the pun) the most interest on our website in it most formative stage.
I am learning better, almost daily, what is behind the issues and why people prefer a particular strategy.
I am glad to see Eileen join the discussion. Will you be joining us at YWC!LI’s Convention next weekend?
Good observations, Phil.
We can only do what we can do. One little test that you can run is see how many people arrive at the convention in SUV’s and how much car pooling is done.
We need to be educated. We need to understand that electric only cars do NOT help the environment as much as we think as long as the electric energy comes from the burning of fossil fuels. One of the most fundamental things that we need to learn is that, in general, technologists understand technical matters better than people without technical backgrounds, however much influence such non-technical people have.
Long Island currently ships about a million tons a year of solid waste off island to places about 300 miles away. Attempts to site a new WTE plant have been successfully blocked by NIMBY-ism. It is interesting that the largest such plant, the Covanta Hempstead plant, is located in affluent and politically active Garden City and there are no complaints. Incidentally, that plant, which now processes about 950,000 tons per year, is seeking a 40% expansion which should reduce by about 1/3 the waste shipped off island. The permitting process is totally transparent so anybody interested can learn as much as he of she wants to know. Anybody who would want to discuss this or anything else out of the public eye can contact me at the e-mail address in message #12 above.
I agree that L.I. will never generate electricity by nuclear reaction. Those who opposed it in the past and cost us the Shoreham plant will never admit to the environmental damage shutting that plant has caused. On the other hand, global warming is truly a global problem, so if the rest of the country, and other large consumers, do not start converting to nuclear soon, sometime in the lifetimes of people now alive civilization as we now know it will cease to exist.
Sleep well.
Neil
Thanks, Eileen,
Thanks for the link. The technology shown is one variation of a family of technologies that is pretty old. The real question is “Are they practical?” Until somebody does the numbers that question isn’t answered. There is a big difference between a very qualitative description like the one in the link and something with the numbers worked up based on realistic solutions to the technical problems. I have seen things like that described as “practical” that depended on the use of a mass of material that exceeded the world’s known supply by a factor of ten.
I refer anyone interested in the practical applications of solar power to this Docudharma post: “The Best Green Power You Might Have Never Heard Of”.
http://www.docudharma.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12352
A survey taken at the Convention identified four issues that YEC LI membership will address as we look ahead to upcoming senate and congressional elections. YWC!LI is introducing four committees: Healthcare, Energy, the Environment, and Service. Members are encouraged to join one or more committees by sending an email to a committee’s chairperson. For updates and commentary on each of these committees view the ISSUES pages of our website.To join a the energy committee, contact:Energy: Phil Heckler: Pheckler@optonline.net
Neil should not despair. From what I’ve read the majority of Americans believe that we must do something about global warming. The key is coming up with recommendations that people will accept. I suggest that, as an organization, we try to develop specific recommendations for Long Island, as well as national policies that we can support.
For Long Island perhaps we can come up with specific recommendations, as well as generic recommendations. For example we could potentially support national polices on conservation, wind, solar, WTE and transportation. We could suggest or support specific targets or at least polices statements.
For very specific examples we need to be creative and recommend projects that we could help implement on Long island. Perhaps a specific W-T-E facility, a new one or an expansion of an existing. Our members may be able to help point to a Town or village that is struggling with garbage costs and perhaps is ready for a new direction. Perhaps an old landfill could be mined and the energy recovered at an existing WTE facility. As I understand it, landfills if left alone will decompose an release methane, which is about 20 more global warming impact than CO2. But I’m not sure if this has even been pilot tested anywhere.
Or we could use less “wild eyed ” ideas that have already been successfully implemented by others. For example helping to convert old gas guzzling taxi fleets, such as the one at the Hicksville train station, to purchase hybrids or even electric vehicles, similar to what has been accomplished recently in NYC. If we could help obtain grants, perhaps it could help improve the taxi operators economic conditions, making them willing participants.
Another example. The Hicksville LIRR parking garage is too be rebuild by the TOB. We could try to make sure it incorporates features that would facilitate the smart grid, when it goes on line in the next few years. This could allow people with electric cars tie into the grid and buy or sell energy, from their batteries, when it is most cost effective.
And of course there must be many ways we can help encourage / facilitate energy conservation. Perhaps by influencing NYPA or the PSC.
Perhaps we could challenge the (energy and transportation) industry or our members to make recommendations and than at some point we could vote on them and follow up with plans to make them happen via such activities as events at train station or malls or a letter / petition campaign to our representatives.
Perhaps every member could commit to some individual act such as purchasing an electric car as soon as they are available. Think globally but act locally.
Yes we can! Long island.
Sadly, too much of what Phil writes is true. Politics, NIMBY-ism, selfishness, ignorance, arrogance, close-mindedness, stupidity, and greed will continue to interfere with what needs to be done, probably until it is too late. The general public does not understand the threat to our way of life that we face due to the damage we are doing to the environment; they resist learning from those who do understand; and as long as they keep their heads in the sand we will continue down the path to destruction we are currently following. The nuclear waste probelm is a red herring. Compared to the damage to life that the burning of fossil fuel has done, and will continue to do in the future with ever increasing severity, the nuclear waste problem is almost trival. So far we know of nobody who has died from nuclear waste, whereas millions die each year because of the pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and, if we do not do something dramatic, and do it soon, as the increasing effects of global warming hit us things will be a lot worse.
If we are to help the Obama administration implement their energy program we’ll need to be creative. Wind and solar energy currently account for about 1-2% of electrical power generation. But surprisingly NIMBY will help thwart achieving modest goals such as reaching even 5% of the total national electrical demand. No one said it would be easy. We’ll need to put together like-minded groups to support these projects.
But there are promising signs, even on Long Island. Solar roof panels are beginning to show up on individual private homes. I noticed 2 recent projects in my neighborhood of Hicksville. However large projects are still hitting resistance. For example most everyone has heard of Teddy Kennedy battle against solar power off the coast of Massachusetts in Nantucket Sound. And I was shocked to learn that the one of my environmentally conscious groups the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) was opposed to a wind farm that was within sight of a section of the trail in Maine. But they (including me by default since I am a member) had the nerve to say they supported wind farms elsewhere in the state! We’ll need to help convince such groups that they need to be supportive even when it is in their backyard.
We need to help explain that conservation need not mean giving up luxuries. For instance the energy star program is based on providing the same level of service as is currently provided but with more efficient appliances. Across the board adoption of energy efficient appliances and light bulbs can reduce household electrical demand by almost 50%. For example today’s appliances by some estimate use only 1/3 of appliances that are a decade old. Today’s light bulbs are even more efficient. Together appliances and light bulbs account for the bulk of household electrical usage.
The key conservation is to empower the Utilities, or power authorities such as LIPA, to truly support such conservation programs. They need to be able to profit from declining sales, due to conservation, not just by building more power plants or by building power lines to bring in new power, even if it is based on W&S. Beyond individual energy efficient appliances the smart grid can help make users think is terms of when electricity demand is low thus can theoretically be purchased for less. For example at night when demand is down you can charge the electric cars that are expected to be on the market in the next 2 years. This also means less gasoline is needed without impacting peak electrical demand on the already over taxed Long Island grid. Only smart grid technology can make that happen.
As far as nuclear power goes I don’t think it can be sold it on Long Island. On Long Island people are still concerned about cell towers and power lines. I recently heard a community in Lindenhurst is fighting a cell tower near an elementary school. And last I heard cell phone reception is still poor on the north Shore of Nassau County because many villages won’t allow cell towers due to health concerns. I think we would be making a mistake if we become a supporter of nuclear on Long Island. Westchester County is still trying to close the Indian Point plant and will probably succeed because they say escape routes are too difficult in the event of an emergency and due to fear of terrorist. Those fears are magnified on Long Island where traffic is even more restrictive due to the nature of the Island, only one way off. And personally I believe the disposal problem needs to be resolved before we can resume a national program.
Wind, solar, and especially conservation are things that need to be vigorously pursued, but we need to know their characteristics and their limitations. The literature tells us that wind, because it is irregular and unreliable, should never by more than 10 to 20 percent of an electric grid. A truly national grid might help a little but even then a greater reliance would be impractical. Solar has the same kinds of limitations but I haven’t seen anything quanitiative. Because solar shuts down completely at night and the entire country is in darkness at roughly the same time, I suspect that an even lower reliance is recommended. If we truly want to eliminate greenhouse gases from electric power generation the only realistic approach is nucler energy. Even the Sierra Club has suggested that this country needs to reconsider nuclear power. The French experience has demonstrated how badly the US has done in protecting the world from the potential devastating effects of climate change, and how much better it could have done if technological reality had prevailed. Unfortunately, those who have opposed nuclear power for political, NIMBY, or worse reasons will be difficult to move from past positions, however clear the need is. Until all of our electricity is generated by non fossil fuel burning means, and we have a plentiful supply, things like electric cars and electric heating will do nothing for the general environment.
Increased conservation is obvious needed, but on an individual basis people will resist. Too many will take the position that their personal contribution is not necessary. Too many will be otherwise unwilling to give up their energy guzzling luxuries,
Neil
The Obama administration is pushing wind and solar (W&S) power combined with a smart grid network for several good reasons. To start W&S do not produce global warming emissions. Second W&S power can be used to generate electricity that can be feed into the existing electrically distribution grid to replace coal, oil and gas generated electrical power. Third in the very near future W&S generated electrical power can be used to power electric cars, which are anticipated to be on the market in 1-2 years. And finally when tied into a smart grid they can help launch a comprehensive energy conservation program.
Energy conservation is one critical means to address both short term and long-term demands. Electrical generation currently accounts for 40% of CO2 emissions nationally. Transportation accounts for another 30%. Conservation can provide immediate benefits reducing current emmsions and it can free up power for the new electrical vehicles that will come on the market in the next few years.
In the past LIPA and other power authorities have been focused on providing all the energy LI wanted and got paid a profit for their success. The more power LI asked for, the more they generated and the more they profited. But now LI needs a new model, one that rewards conservation. LI needs a smart grid system combined with a comprehensive conservation program driven by the market; making a profit doing it, that’s the American way. So one policy YEWLI needs to support is pushing the regulators to set appropriate polices and empowering our Utilities to save energy. These polices need to better push energy star programs for A/C units and other appliances, and to encourage the installation of wind and solar. We need to reward utilities when they help Long Islanders achieve these critical goals.
Marvin,
Yes, there is no doubt that the French are way ahead of us on nuclear energy, and we should learn from them. Almost all of France’s electricity is generated by nuclear reaction, not, as in the US, by the burning of fossil fuel. Their electric power is plentiful, reliable, inexpensive, and non-polluting. Because it is cheap and plentiful, it is used more extensively (than us) for other things, such as residential and industrial heating. By going nuclear they have dramatically reduced CO2 emissions compared to the US on a per capita basis. Because global warming is probably the single most important problem facing the world today the French approach to energy supply is far more responsible than ours has been. This applies to more than just their use of nuclear energy. Our biggest challenge is teaching the public how serious the global warming problem could be. If we could do that most of the objections to the various ways of producing energy that don’t produce greenhouse gases would seem relatively minor.
Neil
I would like to offer some rough numbers on Waste-to-Energy vs landfill for Long Island. The Town of Hempstead sends its solid waste to a WTE plant in Garden City. It is a nearby facility and one that invites visits by the public. It takes about 2500 tons per day of waste and generates about 75 megawatts of electric power. It reduces the use of scarce fossil fuels by about 2500 barrels per day of oil or the coal or gas equivalent. Reducing the fossil fuel use either helps preserve a dimishing resource or reduces the need to import. Importing that much energy would cost the US about 400 to 500 jobs. The alternate would have been sending the waste to a landfill about 300 miles away. At 20 tons per truck that would be about 125 trucks per day making a 600 mile round trip. The full trucks get about 3 miles to the gallon and the empty trucks get about 5 miles per gallon. A round trip would consume about 150 gallons of gasoline; 125 daily roundtrips would consume about 18,750 gallons per day, with, of course, its attendant CO2 (and other)emissions. (The effluent from a modern WTE plant is far cleaner than the admissions from a packer truck.) That import would probably cost the US another 100 or so jobs. By any criterion, for the Long Island situation, WTE is superior to landfill.
Neil
Robert,
Yes, burning trash creates CO2, but every pound of CO2 produced by burning trash to produce usable energy reduces by about a pound the CO2 that would otherwise be produced by burning something else to produce that energy. So, if there were no downsides to expanding landfill operations it would be an environmental break even. However, there are two major downsides to landfilling trash produced on Long Island. The first is that landfills produce methane (natural gas) which escapes into the atmosphere, and my environmental science professor tells me that methane as a greenhouse gas is about 30 times as effective as carbon dioxide. More importantly, however, is that the closest landfill that will aceept LI trash is about 300 miles away, and the trash would have to be hauled there, as some already is, in trucks that average 4 miles per galon of gasoline consumed in the 600 mile round trip. Modern waste to energy furnaces operate at 1500 degrees F and above and destroy to undetectable limits any organics about which anybody is concerned. If you would like to discuss this further off line so as not to buden the others with the details feel free to contact me at NCCSeniorObserversClub@yahoo.com.
Neil
Neil: About burning trash: I would be surprised if that ended up being better with all factors considered. When you burn it, you are, as with any burning, putting CO2 into the air. Now if it were much more efficient than burning, say, natural gas, one could argue that it was a better way to obtain energy. But I am pretty sure that burning trash is pretty inefficient. Also, all sorts of pollutants get put into the air, especially if the furnace isn’t hot enough.
The way I look at a landfill is that it is terrible, but not as bad as putting its contents into the air. A landfill is in effect a carbon sequestration scheme (if the alternative is burning).
So I would not be in favor of expanding trash burning.
Time marches on and we learn new things all the time. We now learn that whereas landfill do, indeed, sequester some carbon, enough would be expected to escape as methane, even if the landfill is being “mined” to recover methane, to be worse than incineration with respect to greenhouse gas pollution of the atmosphere. That is because methane is about 30 times as bad as carbon dioxide as a GHG. According to a recently published EPA report, one published under the Obma administration, and exclusive of all the transporation pollution associated with trucking the wastes to the remote locations to which urban wastes would need to be sent, landfills produce about half again MORE greenhouse gas contamination than incineration. So, at least for Long Island, and the NYC metropolitan area, WTE is clearly better than landfills for GHG control; it is certainly better for US energy independence; so it is overall better for America.
Price Carbon Campaign: Sign a citizens’ petition for carbon pricing legislation
The peril to our planet from runaway global warming creates an urgent need for the United States to enact broadly applicable, transparent and easily enforceable climate legislation to sharply curtail greenhouse-gas emissions.
Since pricing carbon creates powerful incentives that will reduce emissions, generate green jobs and promote economic and social equity, we hereby petition Congress and the incoming Obama Administration to make an economy-wide carbon tax a central component of comprehensive climate legislation to be enacted within the first hundred days of the 111th Congress.
We endorse a progressively increasing carbon tax on producers and importers of coal, oil and gas to discourage fossil fuel use while putting energy conservation and renewable energy on an increasingly favorable footing. To avoid dragging down the economy and unfairly burdening low and middle-income people, we support dedicating carbon tax revenues to reduce regressive taxes and/or to provide regular distributions to individuals on an equitable basis. Any carbon tax revenue directed toward developing green energy must be for truly renewable sources.
By enacting such a carbon tax, the United States can re-establish the moral and political authority needed to negotiate a new global climate treaty strong enough to begin bringing Earth’s climate into balance.
Go to: http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/
Neil,
I respect the expertise you bring, as an engineer, to issues concerning energy and environment. No question that politics often prevails over science ad logic. Thank goodness for an administration that respects science and will make decisions based upon knowledge rather than faith.
It is my hope that you will join us at our Founding Convention and bring your knowledge to one of the two breakout groups on energy and environment.
Sometimes, concerns for the environment are somewhat easier for the layman to understand. Steven Chu, Energy Secretary, announced his intention to remove Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a place to store highly radioactive nuclear waste. Meanwhile thousands of tons of used reactor fuel will remain at existing power plants and remain there until a plan–a new approach–for waste disposal has been agreed upon.
Robert Garisto, who will be presenting at our Convention, has written to me that the French focus on reprocessing nuclear waste to reduce waste and generate power They seem to have a pretty good handle on the situation.
President Obama has committed to finding an alternative to Yucca Mountain. I do not understand what McCain is ranting about so lots of luck with Republican lawmakers committing meaningfully to a solution.
As with many environmental concerns, there will be less emphasis on science than on NIMBY-ism. So that takes us back to wind power off Long Island and other potential solutions to our nation’s need for sustainable, renewable, clean enargy.
Hi Marvin,
With respect to the “gas island,” you need to be aware that you are asking for answers on a very complex question requiring knowledge few lay people have. While there might be some science behind the objections – and I am not sure that there is any – the primary driver is emotion, the kind of emotion that often denies technological reality that is inconsistent with that emotion. It is the same kind of emotion that killed the environmentally friendly use of wind power on Long Island. All too often people who call themselves “environmentalists,” and think of themselves as such, simply do not have enough scientific knowledge to take positions that are best for the environment. Those who successfully fought the windmills have added millions of tons of carbon dioxide to the future atmosphere that could have been avoided. The gas island is more complex, but some of the same arguments are being made by those in opposition, and those about the effect on marine life do not jibe with what I, at least, think I learned in my oceanography class. I have no bottom line opinion on the “gas island,” but I get concerned that what might be a good thing is stopped based on what appear to me to be arguments, and there are others beyond the marine life issues, that just do not make sense.
Neil
Some of these issues are complex and difficult, but others are relatively simple. Solid waste managment, at least for Long Island, is relatively simple, because currently there are only two real options, and one is definitely better than the other for our situation. The options are landfill and waste-to-energy, and WTE is the better for Long Island. We have a good example of how it should be done in the Town of Hempstead, which I think should be used as a general model for high population areas where available landfill space is far away. In sparsely populated areas with landfill space nearby the situation may be different but for us WTE is clearly the way to go. Needless to say, with either option upstream recycling must be maximized.
Neil
Thanks, Robert. There is no question that global warming is a very grave threat, and addressing that threat should be all of mankind’s highest priority.
Hi: I basically agree with Neil. Burning any hydrocarbon has the form
C & stuff + O_2 = CO_2 + stuff. In the case of natural gas, it is
CH_4 + 2O_2 => CO_2 + 2H_20 (the “_” here means subscript).
In words, methane + oxygen yields carbon dioxide + water
In general, if you are burning something, you are putting C0_2 into the air and contributing to global warming. (Exceptions: things which take CO_2 out of the air in the course of their processing, e.g. biofuels.)
If you think that global warming is a grave threat (and I do), creating a new hydrocarbon infrastructure would not seem to be the answer.
Burning natural gas produces less carbon dioxide than buring gasoline, but it does produce some. If we convert our cars and trucks to natural gas the supply will not last nearly as long as it otherwise would. Natural gas is a limited resource and must be used selectively, that is, only where it is the only thing availaible to do the job. The long term solution is to use hydrogen or electric energy to power as much of our transporation system as possible, and to provide as much of our other energy needs as possible. The hydrogen must come from water, which is done by electrolysis, so everything focuses on the production of electric power by processes that do not require the burning of carbon containing fuels. Converting coal to natural gas without producing a lot of carbon dioxide will also require hydrogen, so the bottom line, again, is electric power.
Energy should never be discussed without mentioning that conservation should always be an immediate and ongoing focus.
Neil
Glenn,
What is your position on the Atlantic Sea Island Group’s proposal to construct and operate a liquefied natural gas “island” to receive, store and distribute lng?
For those of us unacquainted with this issue:http://www.newsday.com/news/local/nassau/ny-bzhear306016793jan30,0,386377.story
A first but most beneficial step for oing island and the nation as a whole is the conversion of our automobiles to compressed natural gas (CNG). 85%+ of all the natural gas consumed in the US is from the US and we have sufficient reserves to last us well in to this millenium. Our other great energy resource, coal can be converted to compressed natural gas. intrernal combustion engines burn virtually carbon dioxide free producing water as a by product. the technology is available to convert existing cars to be able to burn either gasoline or natural gas at selection of the driver; should you find your self in a location without fill up of natural gas. a device can be installed on homes with natural gas to allow you to fill at home. At current prices cost per mile for natural gas is between 50 and 60%of gasoline and40% of biofuels.
the major oil companies have marginally invested in natural gas (except BP), so are reluctant to put cng stations in their gas stations, particularly when there are no cng cars on the road. county or state legislation requiring the installation of CNG fillup stations at gas stations plus tax incentives for car conversions would break the roadblock toward getting cng cars on the road. JObs would burst fort in the auto repair business in conversions; a new indusrty in house terminals.
The counties have already converted their busses with great success, it is time for the public to be given the cost savings while cleaning our air.
If you are interested in joining the Energy, or the Environment committee, please contact:Phil Heckler: Pheckler@optonline.net