Blog Archive for September, 2011
The fake EPA story: More absurd than you thought
EPA headquarters undergoes expansion to accommodate its 230,000 new employees.
On Wednesday, we joined the numerous media outlets pointing out that an emerging myth that the EPA wants to hire 230,000 workers to enforce greenhouse gas regulations is based on a questionable story by the Daily Caller.
Despite the fact that media watchdogs and the EPA have pointed out that the Daily Caller’s claim is based on a misreading of a legal brief, the website is standing by its story.
But as a colleague (and attorney) points out, the real travesty here is a little less prominent.
Here’s how this all breaks down. The Supreme Court has ruled that greenhouse gases are a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, which means the EPA is required by law to regulate them.
But regulating every single source of greenhouse gases – including, for instance, cow farts – would be a monumental logistical challenge. That’s where the 230,000 number comes from – it’s the number of people the EPA would have to hire to do this.
To avoid this untenable scenario, the EPA establishes what’s called a tailoring rule to limit the regulation to the largest emitters.
Got it so far?
The Daily Caller’s claim at this point is that their story is basically still correct, because the tailoring rule is a temporary thing and the EPA really wants to eventually expand to regulate every single source of greenhouse gases in the U.S.
The fly in the ointment is that this “Tailoring Rule” may also be absurd, since it doesn’t seem to comply with the Clean Air Act. That law doesn’t allow the government to pick and choose which global-warming “polluters” to regulate and which to leave alone. So we may have an all-or-nothing scenario in which the EPA’s hands are tied, and so are taxpayers’.
This is where it gets even more ridiculous. Yes, there is a legal challenge to the tailoring rule, but, it’s industrial polluters that are targeting it (as Media Matters has pointed out). Overturning the tailoring rule forces the EPA back into a politically untenable position of having to hire those 230,000 bureaucrats.
So not only does the EPA not want to have to hire 230,000 people and expand its budget by $2 billion, they’re fighting it in court.
The Daily Caller is correct that the EPA can’t pick and choose which industries to regulate – only Congress can do that. So the tailoring rule has to be presented as a temporary postponement of the full implementation of the rule (remember, they’re required by law to do this), until Congress takes action.
How might Congress take action? One way would be to set up some sort of regulatory structure for greenhouse gas emissions.
You can stop laughing now.
The other way might be to repeal or weaken the Clean Air Act. Which would be a lot easier if you won your legal challenge that would make enforcing the Clean Air Act logistically impossible. Pretty clever, eh?
By declaring this to be “an all-or-nothing scenario in which the EPA’s hands are tied,” the Daily Caller has already ruled on the case. But we’ll see what the courts have to say.
Analysis deflates wind turbine health claims
A wind turbine near Pigeon, Michigan.
There’s no denying that wind turbines make noise. A giant rotor blade the size of an aircraft wing swooshing through the air is going to make a noticeable sound, particularly in a quiet, rural setting.
And it’s an often-repeated claim of wind farm opponents that this noise can lead to a whole host of health issues, including headaches, tinnitus, fatigue and sleep disturbances. Health fears, among other objections, have sometimes been cited by local governments as they establish large setbacks, moratoriums or other restrictions on wind farm development.
But a new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (PDF) suggests those claims are, at best, conflated. The analysis by four Swedish scientists reviews existing literature and finds that with the exception of some self-reported cases of sleep disturbance, there is no scientific or empirical basis to conclude that wind turbine noise causes health problems.
Among the works examined was Nina Pierpont’s oft-cited book Wind Turbine Syndrome, which relies on anecdotal evidence from 38 individuals living near wind farms, several of whom reported insomnia, tinnitus, nausea, dizziness and other symptoms. Pierpont concludes that the symptoms are a direct result of low-frequency noise from nearby turbines, but the Swedish researchers found the book “has several limitiations” which “make the conclusion unjustified.”
For example, the lack of acoustic measurements, no comparison group of people with no or low wind exposure and no investigation of the subjects prior to the wind turbines were constructed (prior health status was estimated retrospectively). In addition, the results, which are based on a very small sample, are contradicted by results from cross-sectional studies … which included a total of more than 1600 people.
The review did conclude, however, that the pulsating noise from wind turbines is more annoying to people living nearby than comparable sound levels from other sources, such as traffic. And because annoyance can lead to stress and sleep deprivation, it’s possible that wind farms can be blamed for indirect health issues.
Wind turbine noise is causing noise annoyance, and possibly also sleep disturbance, which means that one cannot completely rule out effects on the cardiovascular system after prolonged exposure to wind turbine noise, despite moderate levels of exposure.
However, that can be true of any source of noise, from cars to airplanes to obnoxious neighbors, and will vary from individual to individual. Siting guidelines for wind turbines already typically have noise restrictions to minimize this impact.
Being annoyed is not the same thing as getting sick. And while this paper doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that wind turbines could have a health impact, it’s telling that after years of study, no one seems to have established a scientifically sound connection.
Photo by Jetta Girl via Creative Commons
A new EPA myth is born
Hey, did you hear that the EPA is going to have to hire 230,000 government bureaucrats in order to manage its burdensome new greenhouse gas regulations?
If you did, you may have thought to yourself, “Hmmm. That seems a little far-fetched. Especially considering the EPA only has 17,000 employees now.”
And you’d be correct to be skeptical, because it’s a myth, as Media Matters explains in great detail. But that’s not stopping certain media outlets from running with it anyway.
The myth originates in a Daily Caller post by Matthew Boyle, which misinterprets an EPA court brief on the impact of proposed climate rules. The 230,000 number refers to an outlier scenario that the EPA avoided by applying standards only to the largest polluters. Boyle, however, gets it completely backwards:
But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats — at a cost of $21 billion — to attempt to implement the rules.
Despite being debunked by Media Matters and dismissed by an EPA spokesman as “comically wrong,” the story remains on the Daily Caller website, as well as the National Review and Fox Nation. The myth was also repeated on Fox News and continues to bounce around on Twitter and other social media channels.
UPDATE: Politico reports that the editor for the Daily Caller is sticking by the story, on the grounds that “the EPA is well-known for expanding its reach.”
At Keystone XL hearings, expect out-of-towners
While TransCanada remains publicly confident that the State Department will approve the Keystone XL pipeline, they’re taking no chances as a series of hearings gets underway along the pipeline’s routes.
And neither are pipeline opponents.
In Topeka yesterday, pipeline opponents participated in a rally organized by the National Wildlife Federation, while TransCanada representatives and dozens of union members, some from as far away as Tulsa, Oklahoma, attended the hearing.
The New York Times reports that the tiny town of Atkinson, Nebraska, where a hearing is scheduled for Thursday, has called in additional officers from neighboring communities to buttress its police force of three. Amid rumors that TransCanada will be busing in supporters and union members to the hearing, a company spokesman confirms that “supporters from the pipeline industry and organized labor would also be in attendance.”
And today’s hearing in Lincoln, Nebraska, is expected to be so contentious that even the government of Alberta is sending a representative. David Sands, a provincial spokesman and oil sands booster, is in town for the hearing (or perhaps just to enjoy some chicken wings), according to his Twitter feed.
Whether the “listening sessions” will have any effect on the State Department’s decision is yet to be seen. But they will nevertheless provide a clear window into the political forces involved.
What’s next for solar?
This week’s episode of EnergyNOW! takes a look at the state of the solar industry post-Solyndra. It’s a great overview if you aren’t caught up on what’s happening, and it’s also refreshing to see a report on solar power that doesn’t get bogged down in the manufactured political debate over federal energy funding.
One of the success stories highlighted in the piece is the new solar array over the parking lot of the Cincinnati Zoo. Mark Fisher, the zoo’s facilities director, says the project overall provides about 20 percent of the and is important for its visibility to the 1.3 million visitors who use the parking lot each year.
More interesting though, is that on hot, sunny days, the solar array can actually provide all of the zoo’s power.
“On a day like today,” Fisher says, “every single building in the zoo is off the grid.”
The zoo buys the power for 10 cents per kWh from none other than Melink Corporation, a company that was profiled a couple of weeks ago by the NRDC’s Dylan Sullivan as “hiring like hot cakes.” The Milford, Ohio, based company has hired 30 people in the last six months.
Melink specializes in using renewable power and taking advantage of state and federal incentives to help companies save money on energy:
The third prong of its business—Melink’s eye on the future—is the development of renewable energy systems for companies and institutions, like the 1.5 megawatt solar canopy it built and opened this spring at the Cincinnati Zoo. “We provide financing, design,” Melink explains. “We’ll install it. We’ll even own it and operate it and sell the power back at a lower cost than the local utility.” If cloudy Germany, with less solar radiation than Ohio, can lead the world in installed solar capacity, Melink says, “we can create a market here in the Midwest.”
Does God want fracking in Ohio?
Here in Minnesota, we’ve heard the argument that coal was placed in the earth by God for us to use. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich, at his energy summit this week, is the latest to proclaim the divine providence of fossil fuel resources.
In an address at the summit at Ohio State University, Gov. Kasich enthusiastically describes the economic potential of the Marcellus and Utica shale formations, exploration of which Chesapeake Energy estimates could create more than 200,000 jobs over four years:
“The Lord may have placed deposits in the eastern part of this state … that can bring great prosperity to people who don’t have much.”
The governor goes on to point out that one out of every four children in Ohio lives in poverty, and offers an image of a child shivering at a school bus stop in a “paper thin coat.” Exploration of the shale gas reserves “can lift people and lift families and provide jobs,” and “that in and of itself is worth it.”
While some environmentalists oppose hydraulic fracturing at all cost, the fact is, we need natural gas, at least for the short-term. If it can be extracted safely, and can provide jobs for people who desperately need them, well, that’s a hard thing to argue against.
So maybe the Lord is on to something.
But what about wind and solar power? Was the sun also put in the sky by God to create job opportunities in Ohio?
“Oh, they’re all trying to get me to say we don’t need renewables … of course we need solar and of course we need wind … but we’ve got to be realistic about it,” the governor says. Solar power is fine for places like California and Nevada, he explains, but not so much for cloudy Ohio.
“But,” Kasich says, “we don’t want to shut these advanced ideas out, because you don’t know where they’re going to lead.” Many Ohioans were “born to make things,” so “why not make parts for solar and wind and geothermal, and sell them all over the world.”
Just so we’re clear, then: Energy that comes from the ground? God. Energy that comes from the sky? Not God (or at least not necessarily God).
To be fair to Gov. Kasich, this week’s summit was an effort to bring together a wide range of interests to try to forge ahead with an energy policy based on the public interest. Whether or not the effort is successful, that’s a bold undertaking that shows real leadership.
Also, it’s not my intention to criticize anyone’s religious beliefs. But mixing faith with public policy can bring up some uncomfortable question.
Mine is: How does Gov. Kasich, or anyone else for that matter, determine which naturally-occurring energy resources are part of God’s master plan, and which aren’t?
Feel free to offer up your own theories…
Tackling transmission
A conference in Ypsilanti, Michigan this week is devoted to finding ways to expand wind power in the Great Lakes states. And one of the biggest barriers is transmission.
The problem is twofold. First, areas with the strongest wind potential don’t necessarily overlap with existing transmission infrastructure (i.e., existing power plants or major cities). You can get a rough sense of this from the maps below. On the left is wind power potential, on the right are existing coal plants:
The second has to do with reliability. As critics of wind power frequently point out, a single wind farm can’t duplicate the power output of a coal, gas or nuclear power plant because of the variability of the wind. However, you can achieve reliability by connecting multiple wind farms across the grid. From the news release:
Noting the environmental advantages of wind compared to other forms of energy production, GLWC Co-chair Terry Yonker challenged the meeting participants to “redefine wind power as a baseload capacity when it is integrated into a geographically diverse smartgrid.”
That is, of course, easier said than done. But in a post in May, Grist’s David Roberts explains how Germany is moving toward a renewable-based baseload system, with natural gas “peaker” plants (that can start up and shut down quickly and inexpensively) as backup.
The conference, sponsored by the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative, wraps up today.
Homemade electric motorcycle sets record
Kevin Clemens, who wrote yesterday’s story on nickel mining in Minnesota and Michigan, is also a bit of a gearhead.
Clemens, an engineer and writer, has also been building an electric motorcycle in his garage in Lake Elmo, Minnesota, with which he recently set a national land speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah.
A caveat – the bike set a record in its weight class, which is under 150 kg. While some streamliner motorcycles can top 300 mph on the flats, Clemens was able to put his Honda in the books with an average speed of only 61 mph.
Still, that’s pretty fast for what is essentially a giant battery on wheels. But is Clemens satisfied?
“I’m already trying to figure out how to go back next year and go faster. 100 mph has a nice sound to it.”
Helmet-cam footage of the record run below.
Could Nebraska stop Keystone XL?
Memorial Stadium, hallowed ground for many Nebraska football fans, is not a friendly place for TransCanada.
Increasingly, the focus on the Keystone XL debate is shifting from Washington D.C. to Lincoln, Nebraska.
Despite the arrests of more than 1,000 protesters in front of the White House, and a letter from the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu and others opposing the pipeline, a greater impact is likely to come from another group of constituents:
Nebraska football fans.
You may recall the story last week from the Lincoln Journal Star, which described fans at Nebraska’s Memorial Stadium booing as a TransCanada-sponsored “Husker Pipeline” video played on the big screen. The outcry prompted athletic director Tom Osborne to end the sponsorship agreement.
To be clear, Osborne wasn’t taking a position on the pipeline itself, he was merely acting on a policy to “avoid ads of a political nature” inside the stadium. “The athletic department has no position, either pro or con, regarding the proposed TransCanada Pipeline,” Osborne said in a statement.
Still, the rebuff by Osborne, who coached the Cornhuskers for 25 years and is one of the state’s most revered public figures, is not to be taken lightly.
Two weeks ago, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman sent a letter to the State Department calling for the pipeline to be rerouted around the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides irrigation and drinking water for much of the Great Plains. Because of the potential threat to this critical groundwater supply, a broad, bipartisan coalition is emerging in the state to oppose the pipeline.
So can Nebraska stop the pipeline? InsideClimate News, which has been covering the issue extensively, has an excellent overview of how the process could play out in the state. While the state’s Congressional delegation differs over whether it’s a state or federal issue, the State Department has said that “individual states have the legal authority to approve petroleum pipeline construction in their states, including selecting the route for such pipelines.”
Nebraska, however, has no state agency assigned to regulate pipelines, and the legislature isn’t scheduled to reconvene until January, after the State Department is expected to issue its final decision on the pipeline. Some state lawmakers are pushing for an unprecedented special legislative session to deal with the issue.
The State Department’s most recent environmental impact statement estimated that rerouting the pipeline could increase costs by as much as 25 percent, potentially rendering the project economically unfeasible. Which means the Nebraska legislature could have as much power as President Obama to determine the pipeline’s fate.
The recent “Husker Pipeline” incident reveals that TransCanada may be as reviled as (dare I say it) the Colorado Buffaloes inside the walls of Memorial Stadium. While it’s not a scientific poll, it’s clear evidence that a lot of Nebraskans are concerned about the pipeline’s potential impact.
Whether this will force the issue in the legislature remains to be seen. But I’d be surprised if state lawmakers aren’t paying a lot more attention now to where their constituents stand on the pipeline.
Photo by Katrina Wiese via Creative Commons
Do people support efficiency? Depends on how you ask
Did you hear? The government is going to ban our traditional lighting!
Back in July, Rasmussen Reports conducted a poll that found 67 percent of Americans oppose new efficiency standards for light bulbs (Yes, I know, another light bulb post. Bear with me). But yesterday, a poll conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council found a similar percentage in three Midwest states actually support the law.
What’s going on?
If you guessed that the discrepancy is because the questions were worded differently, score yourself five bonus points.
Here’s the Rasmussen question:
While effectively banning the sale of traditional light bulbs, a new law will allow only more expensive light bulbs that are expected to last longer and be more energy efficient. Should the sale of traditional light bulbs be banned?
I’m just speculating here, but I’d be willing to wager that whenever you tell someone a new law will “ban” something “traditional” in favor of something “more expensive,” they are going to react negatively.
And besides the accuracy problem of labeling the law a “ban,” what makes a light bulb “traditional”? Is it the shape? The light spectrum it gives off? The tungsten filament?
The word “traditional” is also loaded with political freight. The bride throwing the bouquet, singing “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” in the seventh-inning stretch, apple pie — those are all “traditional” things, too. Would anyone support a law banning those things?
Public Policy Polling, working on behalf of the NRDC, framed the question differently. While the NRDC is hardly dispassionate on the issue, the question they posed contains a bit more background information:
In 2007, Congress set higher energy efficiency standards for lighting that will go into effect next year. This will result in more energy-efficient light bulbs on store shelves, including brand new incandescent bulbs that are 25 to 30 percent more efficient. The standards will save Ohio residents more than $360 million a year and consumers nationwide $10 billion a year. Do you support or oppose these minimum energy efficiency standards for light bulbs?
When the question is posed this way, the majority of respondents in each state said they support the law: 60 percent in Ohio, 64 percent in Michigan and 69 percent in Illinois.
The NRDC question fails to mention that the new bulbs will be more expensive. Rasmussen, while acknowledging the bulbs will last longer, doesn’t explain that they’re expected to result in long term cost savings. That question comes next:
The Energy Department says that the new light bulbs will cost more up front but save money in the long-run. How likely is it that the new light bulbs will save money in the long run?
In this case, more than half (57 percent) think the bulbs will save them money.
If you set emotions and politics aside, there are really very few drawbacks to energy efficiency. Ultimately, it’s cheaper to not use electricity in the first place than it is to build or upgrade power plants.
But because opponents of this law have successfully framed it as a question of personal liberties, i.e., taking away your right to buy inefficient light bulbs, many Americans don’t see it that way. It’s understandable. No one wants the government taking something away from them.
It’s a trade off. And what both of these polls seem to indicate is that it’s a trade most people are willing to make, because they believe they’ll benefit in the long run.
Photo by dok1 via Creative Commons
