I will post the correction “It’s Getting Hot In Here” published:
It saddens me to post a correction here — the AP stories and hundreds of news stories were overstating the victory against mountaintop removal yesterday. And they still are this morning, actually. What really happened is the EPA took action to put on hold two valley fill permits and indicated that hundreds of other pending applications would come under much more strict review.
That’s right, “review” not “moratorium.”
The confusion is so big the EPA put out this grumpy little press release–here’s a depressing clip for you:
EPA will take a close look at other permits that have been held back because of the 4th Circuit litigation. We fully anticipate that the bulk of these pending permit applications will not raise environmental concerns.
You can still call the White House and leave a message thanking President Obama for taking this important first step and then ask for a real moratorium on these permits. 202-456-1111
Even worse, Greenwire reports today:
The Army Corps of Engineers reinstated a permit yesterday for a controversial Kentucky coal mining project hours after U.S. EPA had announced a planned review of similar projects’ effects on water quality.
The move angered environmentalists, who saw EPA’s announcement as a step toward further restrictions on mountaintop removal mining.
“It flies in the face of the EPA announcement that new permits are going to get a careful environmental review,” said Joan Mulhern, legislative counsel for Earthjustice. “It appears the Army Corps is acting as a rogue agency.”
Army Corps spokesman Doug Garman said EPA merely expressed concern about two specific projects in its announcement. Neither of those — Central Appalachia Mining’s Big Branch project in Pike County, Ky., and Highland Mining Co.’s Reylas mine in Logan County, W.Va. — has received a permit.
EPA declined to comment on the corps’ reinstatement of the Leslie County, Ky., permit. Agency spokeswoman Enesta Jones said EPA would take a close look at mountaintop removal permits. She said the agency anticipates that most of the pending permit applications will not raise environmental concerns.
The permit for the International Coal Group’s Thunder Ridge mine in Leslie County was suspended in 2007 when the corps asked the company for additional information on ways to minimize debris going into streams and overall environmental impacts of the mine.
After the company provided that information last December and eliminated a valley fill and sediment pond, the corps concluded that mine discharges would not significantly damage water bodies.
Company spokesman Ira Gamm said the company has conducted a watershed-scale impact assessment and developed a procedure for minimizing debris going into streams.
Mountaintop mining involves blowing off summit ridges to expose coal seams and dumping debris into valleys, a practice EPA says is likely to pollute water and severely damage or destroy streams (E&ENews PM, March 24).
Mulhern called on EPA to prevent the Army Corps from issuing permits that could potentially harm water quality in mining areas. “The EPA has the ultimate authority under the Clean Water Act to determine what activities are permitted, and it’s up to EPA now to exercise that authority and ensure that the Army Corps is adhering to Obama administration policies,” she said.
EPA’s announced review has sparked controversy, with industry stakeholders saying it could delay permits.
Many permits already were stalled as the Army Corps waited for a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision on whether more extensive environmental review is required for mountaintop mining projects.
The Richmond, Va., court determined that the corps can issue permits for mountaintop mining without the more stringent review, overturning a lower court’s ruling that found the corps was not performing adequate environmental analyses before permitting mountaintop operations (E&ENews PM, Feb. 13).
Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) said this week that he was concerned about EPA’s review, as well, asking the agency to clarify its announcement.
“For some time, there has been a lengthy backlog of … permits awaiting action from the Army Corps of Engineers as a result of litigation and bureaucratic red tape,” Beshear said in a statement. “Those permits should be reviewed in a timely manner, regardless of the outcome of any one application for mining.”
An earlier letter from Appalachian voices, a North Carolina based grassroots organization, stated:
Community and environmental groups across Appalachia strongly applauded the EPA’s Tuesday decision to delay and review permits for two mountaintop removal coal mining operations. The EPA’s action calls into question over 100 pending valley fill permits that threaten to bury hundreds more miles of headwater streams.Mountaintop removal coal mining is an extreme form of surface mining where explosives are used to blast up to 1000 feet of mountaintop in order to reach thin seams of coal. The remaining rubble, or overburden, which contains toxic heavy metal particles, is dumped into adjacent valleys burying headwater streams. Over 1200 miles of streams and 500 mountains have been destroyed due to mountaintop removal.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama expressed concern over mountaintop removal, stating “we have to find more environmentally sound ways of mining coal than simply blowing the tops off mountains.”
“This decision illustrates a dramatic departure from the energy policies that are destroying the mountains, the culture, the rivers and forests of Appalachia, and our most deeply held American values,” said Bobby Kennedy Jr., Chairman of the Waterkeeper Alliance. “By this decision, President Obama signals our embarking on a new energy future that promises wholesome, dignified, prosperous and healthy communities that treasure our national resources.”
Mountaintop removal coal mining, a heavily mechanized process, employs far fewer workers than underground mining. Coal mining once provided over 120,000 jobs in West Virginia alone, but that number has dropped to less than 20,000. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, counties with a high concentration of mountaintop removal mines are some of the most impoverished counties in the United States.
Groups in the region view the recent EPA decision as an acknowledgement of the destruction mountaintop removal coal mining inflicts on the environment and communities of central Appalachia. They hope that, with the halt of new mountaintop removal mining permits, there will be room for green industry and that the president’s green jobs stimulus and renewable energy development plans will reach the Appalachian coalfields.
“Not only does mountaintop removal coal mining destroy mountains, it also destroys the economic potential of Appalachia,” said Dr. Matthew Wasson, Director of Programs for the environmental non-profit organization Appalachian Voices. “This decision rekindles hope for a new economy in Appalachia built around green jobs and renewable energy,” Wasson said.
Carl Shoupe, a retired coal miner and member of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, echoed Wasson’s sentiment that this decision is a step in the right direction. “We finally have an administration in place that uses scientific reasoning to make decisions instead of ideology,” Shoupe said. “We fought for this for years. I hope the EPA comes through and permanently stops the permits in our community.”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Now let’s see if the EPA has the courage and clout to fight off the inevitable backlash from the coal interests and their pet politicians, in a large number of coal-producing states that include Democrats as well as Republican legislators.
Finding articles that can spark some hope are few and far between. Keep up the incredible work joe!
From what I’ve read over at:
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/03/25/mountain-top-removal-bummer-correction/
it sounds like this action is a halt on only two permits, with the promise to ‘strictly review’ the hundred+ others. Furthermore, in a press release, they say that:
“EPA will take a close look at other permits that have been held back because of the 4th Circuit litigation. We fully anticipate that the bulk of these pending permit applications will not raise environmental concerns.”
Unless my information is inaccurate, this is extremely disheartening. While still a step in the right direction, it doesn’t look nearly drastic enough. All the more reason to call your congressperson and urge their co-sponsorship and support of the passage of the CWPA.
-Joel
http://citizenobie.wordpress.com/
This was a pleasant surprise when I heard it on Amy Goodman’s show “Democracy Now!” but this is just one small victory in the long war to reduce and eventually eliminate production of energy using fossil fuels. BTW Joe, is it true that coal is not a hydrocarbon? I did a search yesterday and came up with Rutger University associate professor Amitabh Lath’s Physicis 104 exam and one of the questions was which one is not a hydrocarbon and there was a list:
a) Methane
b) Coal
c) Heating Oil
d) gasoline
e) They are all hydrocarbons.
and I chose e. So how is coal not a hydrocarbon? It has one of the longest hydrocarbon chains. Ooops never mind. I checked in wikipedia and it is mostly comprised of carbon. No wonder it’s so vile and nasty. Even if you remove the lead, mercury, radioactive radon, arsenic and other lovelies its still dirty.
Very thoughtful analysis. I’d like to have more of a bio about who wrote the post.
hayho Tar Sands!
This post is wrong. EPA did not put a “hold” on surface mining permits. It recommended the denial of a permit for a new W. Va. mine–based on irreversible water quality impacts–and recommended far stronger water quality protections at a new Ky. mine. Lisa Jackson signaled EPA will scrutinize Clean Water Act permit applications from surface mines far more than the Bush admin did, but in no way is EPA putting a moratorium on these facilities.
The exam is at http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/140/exam_solutions/exam1_with_solutions.pdf. I took it and it was fun. I especially enjoyed the math problems.
BTW I did a little calculation on the Honda FCX Clarity fuel cell car’s fuel efficiency in mpg gasoline equivalent.
According to Honda’s own specifications the car can go 280 miles on 4.1 kg of hydrogen in a 5000 psi storage tank. (Note: don’t rupture the tank.) So dividing 280 by 4.1 gets you 68.3 miles per kg. OK now you find that there are 120 Megajoules in a kg of hydrogen and 45 Megajoules in a kg of gasoline. Since a gallon of gasoline is 128.16 Megajoules we begin to put this into terms we can understand. To get the proper proportional difference between the energy density of hydrogen to gasoline we used the weight in kilograms and divided the energy density of hydrogen by the amount in Megajoules of a kilogram of gasoline and got a ratio 2.67 times greater energy density of hydrogen over gasoline. Now multiply that mileage in kilograms by 2.67 and you get 182.36 mpg gasoline equivalent.
Wow sounds great doesn’t it?! Wait there’s a problem though. Hydrogen is not a fuel source it is an energy carrier. So we know it takes 60 Kw-hrs of electricity to gin 1 kg of hydrogen. So how many kw-hrs of energy are in a gallon of gasoline? It’s about 36.6 Kw/hrs to a gallon of gasoline. So now what’s the ratio of energy density when you factor in the 60 KW hours or 216 Megajoules of electricity to gin 120 Megajoules of hydrogen, Ouch! So it takes 1.8 times as much energy to get 120 Megajoules of hydrogen. That’s a conversion efficiency of 55%. Let’s see how terrific those mileage figures are now. So we take that 182.36 mpg gasoline equivalent and multiply by our conversion efficiency factor of 0.55 and we get:
100.3 mpg. Still impressive but not as impressive as 182.36 mpg. Still there’s another small problem. Electricity isn’t exactly an energy source is it? It’s usually generated by the heat from some fuel source. Since the subject of this article is coal we’ll go with coal. Since the average efficiency of a coal fired electrical plant is 31% we have to factor in this conversion loss too. So we multiply 100.3 mpg by the coal plant’s conversion efficiency of 31% or .31 and we get:
31 mpg. That’s right in the end the Honda Clarity FCX is only getting 31 mpg if the energy source the hydrogen is ginned from is coal.
BTW, I just got 32.3 mpg average city driving in a Camry that I hypermiled. It’s a 2.2 liter 5 speed manual transmission car that I just drove sensibly. Its EPA rated city at 24 mpg so I got a 35% increase in fuel efficiency that beat the Honda Clarity FCX fuel cell car by one 1 mpg.
OK so before I get flamed you’re going to tell me that you can only get the car in California and California does not use coal. OK fair enough so let’s just, for now, assume the source is natural gas. OK so an efficiency conversion factor of 40 % or .40 means that the Honda Clarity FCX will get:
40 mpg.
Rick -
How about scratching some numbers together? Start with the cost of manufacturing a fuel cell car and then the cost of building the infrastructure to fill its tank.
Here’s the benchmark against you results will be judged.
The BYD F3DM, a PHEV with a 60 mile electric-only range. It’s coming to market at approximately $22k and the infrastructure to fuel it is already in place.
We’re seeing developments in battery technology which suggest we will see much greater range and rapid recharging in the near future.
Now, please gen the cost of fuel numbers.
For the 60 electric miles the F3DM will probably use less than 0.3 kWh per mile. (The all electric Tesla and the Cal Car PHEV Prius conversion use 0.26 kWh per mile.) At 0.3 kWh per mile and average US electricity retail prices it would cost only a tad more than three cents per mile for fuel.
Then when you’re done take a moment to reflect that PHEVs will be available to purchase during the next three years and are likely to become market dominate.
Once a technology becomes widely accepted it takes a significant reason for another technology to replace it.
true
thanks..
Bob,
With regard to plug-in hybrids the unmodified gen II Prius beats it in terms of energy efficiency hands down and at a cost of around $24,000.00 its certainly affordable to most people of average means than the Honda FCX Clarity which is and will always remain a demonstration vehicle for Honda to say, “See this is the car of 20 years in the future (and will always be).”
Personally I love the Volt and I will have to wait and see what the proven electric range of the BYD F3DM is in actual driving conditions but so far so good. If they don’t deliver I’ve got schematics for an 3 phase AC inverter controller for a 3 phase AC motor that I’m contemplating construction of. If I build it myself I “own” the product and if something goes wrong I can get replacements or modify it if parts suppliers change a part I need.