Blog Archive for February, 2011
‘Gasland’ and the great fracking debate
A fracking wastewater pit in Pennsylvania (you won't get away with this in Michigan).
Over the weekend, my boss emailed me to ask how I thought the film “Gasland” came out after this detailed fact-check by Greenwire.
Unfortunately, I haven’t seen the film (I have a crippling Milk Dud allergy, and don’t get to the movies much), but my impression from surrounding coverage was that it had some factual problems, which Greenwire confirmed.
But it really doesn’t matter a whole lot what I think of the film. Depending on who you ask, “Gasland” is either an urgent call to action over a serious environmental problem, or a cynical attempt to overhype the risks of natural gas drilling. While the film has clearly succeeded in drawing attention to the issue, it’s been equally effective in polarizing it.
The question, “is fracking safe?” isn’t really the right one to ask. All industrial processes carry varying degrees of environmental risk. Whether hydraulic fracturing endangers water supplies involves a lot more variables than the drilling technique itself – geology, as well as the presence and purity of existing groundwater supplies, differs widely from place to place.
A better question is whether we’re taking appropriate safeguards – at federal, state, and local levels – to protect our water supply.
A story in Sunday’s New York Times (which I hope you’ve read by now) concludes that the answer is, unequivocally, no. The Times, after sorting through thousands of documents, found that there is basically no oversight of how the wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operations is processed. The water is sent through sewage treatment systems that aren’t designed to handle the chemicals present (both those in the drilling fluid as well as naturally occurring contaminants picked up along the way), and the effluent is winding up in rivers and drinking water supplies.
While not nearly as exciting as watching some guy set his kitchen sink on fire, the Times paints a far more convincing picture of an industry quickly outpacing the regulations needed to keep us safe. House Democrats have already called for stricter oversight of the process.
Does the Times report vindicate “Gasland”? Again, not the right question to ask. “Gasland” focused on allegations of groundwater contamination in the immediate vicinity of drilling operations, the Times investigated what happens to wastewater after drilling – completely different topics.
Can these problems be addressed through regulation? Last week, we looked at the steps that Michigan is taking to prevent such contamination. Strict construction standards for gas wells are intended to protect groundwater from drilling operations, and aggressive storage and disposal rules for wastewater (including a requirement that the “flowback” be stored in stainless steel tanks rather than open pits) are designed to help avoid the problems that the Times uncovered.
This process is moving forward because, rather than reflexively demonizing hydraulic fracturing, conservation groups in Michigan instead focused on the real problem – protecting water. It’s too soon to tell whether the state will end up with all the safeguards it needs, but the important point is that a productive conversation is taking place between environmentalists and state regulators.
From the looks of things, it’s one we desperately need at the federal level as well.
Photo by Ari Moore via Creative Commons. And no, I’m not really allergic to Milk Duds.
National spotlight on refinery chemicals
Today’s story from the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism on the use of hydrofluoric acid in oil refineries was part of a nationwide investigation by the Center for Public Integrity and ABC News.
Here’s the report from ABC:
Wisconsin to reconsider wind rules
A Wisconsin legislative committee has scheduled a meeting on March 1 to discuss suspending the state’s new uniform standards for wind farm siting, according to AWEA.
The meeting takes place on the same day that the new Public Service Commission rule, PSC 128, is scheduled to take effect.
The new standards, which we reported on in January, are a first-in-the-nation attempt to create a consistent set of standards for wind developers to follow, potentially avoiding local-level regulatory fights.
Burning down the car
"Thank god it's not an electric car. Those things are a fire hazard!"
One of the reasons a car is so appealing is that it’s a big, glossy, powerful machine that responds instantly to minor movements of our hands and feet.
But the very idea that this contract between man and machine might be broken, nevertheless, terrifies us.
Automakers know, for instance, that “range anxiety” is largely psychological. Most drivers don’t travel very far on an average day, and actual electric car owners don’t seem to be nearly as worried about it as non-owners are.
Still, an electric car with a dead battery isn’t very empowering. For a lot of people, that’s scary.
And take, for example, this driver in Atlanta. When his car fails to respond to his commands and starts spinning its wheels on an icy road, he panics, and engages in the time-honored approach of stomping down on the accelerator as hard as he can until the car does what he wants it to do:
Unfortunately, the car has other ideas, and rather than charge gallantly up the icy hill, it instead catches on fire (mere feet from a gas station, but thankfully, downwind).
I actually didn’t realize until today was that this is a fairly common thing. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported yesterday that about a dozen cars caught on fire in St. Paul during Sunday’s snowstorm, and there were 20 car fires during our last major snowstorm in December.
The cause? As people stomp on the gas and rock their cars back and forth trying to get unstuck from the snow, the automatic transmission heats up, causing a fuel line or perhaps the oil and other flammable muck caked onto the bottom of the car to catch on fire.
Granted, 20 cars is a tiny proportion of the however-many million there are in the Twin Cities. And it’s something that’s easily avoided by using a shovel and some common sense to get your car free rather than putting the hammer down and hoping for a miracle.
But can you imagine the wall-to-wall media freakout that would ensue if it was electric cars stuck in snowbanks that were suddenly bursting into flames?
Sure – electric motors and batteries can get hot, creating a fire risk. But EVs typically don’t have other major heat sources, like transmissions or exhaust pipes, nor do they carry large supplies of flammable liquids like gasoline on board. Plus, electric car makers, cognizant of the PR disaster that would come from even a single vehicle fire, equip their cars with all sorts of sensors to prevent overheating.
So, while I’m not an automotive engineer, it seems far less likely that an electric car in those circumstances would spontaneously combust the way a gasoline-powered car would.
I don’t mean to gloss over the fact that electric cars have limitations. But the fact that they’re a relatively unknown quantity is causing people to freak out over potential outcomes that their current internal combustion cars are already quite susceptible to (we talked about the panic over electric cars and cold weather a couple of weeks ago).
For instance, when Neil Young’s electric Lincoln caught on fire in November, it became “a bigger worry when it comes to consumers’ concerns that electric vehicle technology is not yet proven.”
One would think that fire might also be a concern in a vehicle that’s carrying around a big tank full of gasoline, too. In fact, every year, there are hundreds of thousands of car fires in the U.S., resulting in hundreds of deaths. But, of course, they rarely make the news unless someone’s there to catch it on video.
So the fact that an electric car might catch on fire, while clearly something to be aware of, doesn’t seem all that remarkable to me. The gasoline car in my garage right now might catch on fire, too, as could my house or even my office.
Pretty sure my bike’s safe, though…
Photo by Peter Galvin via Creative Commons
‘The Coca-Cola of frack sand’
A Minnesota Public Radio story today about the cost-competitiveness of natural gas contains an interesting detail.
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” requires sand (among other ingredients). And some of the best sand for fracking comes from a mine near Ottawa, in south central Minnesota.
The sand, known as Ottawa White, is sought after for its “exceptional properties in sphericity, conductivity, structural integrity, and crush strength,” according to a vendor’s website. In other words, it’s smooth, hard and ideal for breaking apart rocks.
Grey Lusty, a mining manager in Ottawa, told MPR that the sand is “sort of the Coca-Cola of the frack sand industry.”
Study: Iowa coal ash site not affecting groundwater
This quarry near Waterloo, Iowa, is used by three state universities for disposal of coal ash. (Photo courtesy Plains Justice)
Despite concerns raised by environmental groups, a new study shows that the groundwater near a coal ash disposal site used by three of Iowa’s universities is safe.
Plains Justice identified the former quarry near Waterloo as one of four unlined, unmonitored ash disposal sites in the state that pose a strong potential threat to groundwater. Coal ash contains lead, mercury, arsenic and other elements that are harmful to human health.
The universities that use the site – the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa – contracted a voluntary analysis of groundwater at the site to determine if any of these harmful elements exceeded state or federal standards.
The study (PDF), performed by Barker Lemar Engineering Consultants, measured monthly samples from five wells near the Waterloo site, testing for 23 different pollutants. All of the samples were well within allowable standards for these elements.
The study cautions, however, that there is no information about the water’s safety prior to the opening of the ash dump, so the data can’t tell us either way whether concentrations of these toxins have increased or stayed the same.
The numbers are quite low, however, and the charts in the report don’t show any pattern of change over the course of a year.
According to a news release, the universities plan to use the report as a baseline for continued monitoring of the site.
Keystone XL: What it’s really all about
While discussions of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline tend to revolve around environmental impact of the oil sands and America’s need for a stable, secure oil supply, they tend to overlook the real reason projects of this scale are built: Money.
It’s been reported before that one of the main reasons Canadian oil producers want the pipeline built is because they’re currently oversupplying the markets they’re shipping to – primarily the Midwest – which suppresses the price they’re able to charge for it.
In a post on the Energy Collective this week, David Livingston takes a closer look at the market forces surrounding the pipeline:
Perhaps most salient, however, is the possibility that the pipeline will only marginally increase the overall supply of Canadian oil while delivering significant benefits to producers by boosting the market price of Canadian heavy crude. …
The significance of Keystone XL, then, is that it would allow oil to flow to the DOE administrative district known as “PADD 3”, including the gulf coast, where it then has the ability to be refined and/or shipped onwards to other markets.
In other words, “the Keystone XL drama is much more of a routing – rather than production – decision.”
Livingston cites a TransCanada report that estimates oil sands producers could see revenues increase by nearly $2 billion as a result of higher prices commanded by these new markets. Meanwhile, the U.S. would not necessarily have access to more Canadian oil, and the impact on emissions would be negligible.
Livingston’s conclusion?
As with any complex system, this is vulnerable to change – especially if Canadian supply quickly finds a means to link to Asian markets. Until then, however, there does not seem to be a compelling rationale for laying down pipe for the sake of allowing our northern neighbors to earn more for the oil that they already plan to sell.
Another effort to standardize wind farm setbacks
A wind farm near Syracuse, New York.
In January, we took a detailed look at Wisconsin’s new law creating uniform statewide standards for wind farm siting. The rules, assuming they survive a challenge from Gov. Scott Walker, would provide a common set of ground rules for wind developers, potentially avoiding messy fights at the local level.
A different approach to the same problem is taking shape in New York. Earlier this week, Columbia Law School released a draft ordinance (PDF) that, among other things, outlines specific setback rules for wind turbines. Rather than seeking a uniform state standard, the draft is intended to offer recommendations and provide a template for municipal governments to build their own policy around wind farms.
Columbia’s recommendations include a maximum turbine height of 500 feet, a setback distance of 1.5 times the tower height to residences of non-participating property owners, and no more than 45 decibels of audible noise.
That would effectively create a maximum setback of 1,500 feet, which is comparable to Wisconsin’s 1,250 feet.
Columbia reached their recommendations by studying similar ordinances around the state, and discovered the same patchwork of laws that create moving goalposts for wind developers in the Midwest.
The biggest difference, though, is that Columbia’s draft ordinance is only a recommendation, and whether it succeeds in creating uniform standards will depend entirely on whether it is adopted by local governments.
“Obviously,” Columbia’s Michael Gerrard told the Watertown Daily Times, “we don’t have the power to dictate anything to anyone.”
Photo by Wayne Surber via Creative Commons
A brief history lesson
By now, you may have heard that Rep. Fred Upton’s efforts to gut the Clean Air Act are opposed by the majority of his constituents.
And now, according to Politico, California Sen. Barbara Boxer says Upton, who chairs the House energy committee doesn’t fully understand the history and importance of the law he wants to undo.
“All those bills he’s going after, the Clean Air Act, that was signed by Richard Nixon. I don’t think he gets the fact we have had our greatest period of expansion since our landmark environmental laws were passed.”
Upton’s response doesn’t inspire a whole lot of confidence:
“Nixon? The Clean Air Act was like 1990,” he said.
Reminded there was indeed a 1970 Clean Air Act, he replied, “Oh, right. I was in junior high school.”
Upton was probably thinking of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Those rules, which tackled ozone depletion, acid rain and other types of pollution, were based on proposals made by President George H.W. Bush (who, legend has it, was also a Republican) and passed with broad bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.
Either way, Upton’s dismissal of both the 1970 and 1990 legislation manages to prove Boxer’s point that he wants to “reverse decades of bipartisan compromise on making sure our families are healthy.” Not once, but twice, in a single sentence.
EVs and car-sharing: A match made in heaven
Don't worry. He's housebroken.
Electric cars, while a smart choice for a lot of people, aren’t going to be a practical transportation solution for everyone, at least at the moment. If you live in an apartment, for instance, and park on the street, you probably won’t have a place to charge up. Or perhaps you’re a one-car family that needs to be able to travel long distances once in a while.
Sure, the Chevy Volt and other plug-in hybrids address those concerns, but until battery technology dramatically improves and charging stations proliferate, purely electric vehicles are going to have limited application.
There are, however, situations where an electric car makes a lot more sense than one powered by gasoline. Car-sharing, for example.
Services like Hourcar in the Twin Cities, I-GO and Zipcar in Chicago, and Community Car in Madison are popping up all over the country. Chicago’s car-sharing services are playing a major role in that city’s effort to expand electric car infrastructure.
Car-sharing eliminates the logistical problems that may come with private ownership of an EV. Since the cars need to be kept at specific locations, they can always be stored near a charger. The services are designed for short trips, eliminating “range anxiety.” And EVs don’t have to be filled with gas or taken to the shop for regular oil changes.
Adam Aston, writing for OnEarth Magazine, discovered another advantage. EVs used for car sharing can also be small and relatively spartan, requiring fewer batteries and smaller motors. They’re typically used by a single driver in a big city, making a tiny car like a Smart ForTwo ideal. Aston also found the electric ForTwo a better performer in traffic than its gasoline counterpart, as well as being more spacious.
Smart’s dimensions will never offer the tank-like comforts of an SUV, but as I dart through holes in traffic that no other car could fit and nimbly dodge potholes, even on slushy roads, I’m grinning. The ED may be pint sized, but it’s got great self-confidence, a plus for any newcomer to New York.
And perhaps more importantly, the EVs used by car-sharing services will provide an incentive for public-private partnerships to install charging stations, making private ownership of electric cars more practical.
Photo by harry_nl via Creative Commons
