Sue Sturgis's Climate Chronicles

New Orleans-based power giant Entergy is in hot water following revelations that its Vermont Yankee nuclear plant has leaked radioactive contamination to the environment — and its trouble isn't limited to Vermont.

The Mississippi State Attorney General is also taking aim at the company, questioning Entergy's recent transfer of more than $1 billion from its parent company that oversees its Mississippi operations to its troubled nuclear division.

The generator from the unit at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant that suffered a meltdown in March 1979 has found a new home at a nuclear plant in North Carolina -- a move that's sparking concerns among nuclear industry watchdogs.

FirstEnergy, the Ohio-based company that owns TMI, sold the Unit 2 generator to Siemens Power Generation, a division of the German conglomerate Siemens AG. Siemens in turn sold it to North Carolina-based Progress Energy, which plans to install the equipment at its Shearon Harris nuclear plant near Raleigh, N.C. to boost power capacity. Progress is selling the generator that's currently at the Raleigh plant to Siemens for resale to the nuclear industry.

While the equipment from TMI reportedly is not contaminated with radioactivity -- it was on the non-nuclear side of the plant and isolated by block valves during the disaster -- the move is causing other worries.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has promised to more strictly regulate coal ash, but it's still promoting use of the toxic waste on food crops as a soil amendment.

This month, the EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture enter the final year of a three-year partnership that's part of a larger effort by the American Coal Ash Association, the Electric Power Research Institute and others to "promote appropriate increased use of" coal ash in agriculture, according to documents released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

The agencies say coal ash can improve the texture and fertility of soil, but environmental advocates raises concerns about its toxic elements. Created by the burning of coal for power, coal ash contains contaminants including arsenic, lead and mercury.

"USDA should pull out of the coal ash business tomorrow morning," says PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, who obtained the documents under the Freedom of Information Act. "USDA does American agriculture no favors by duping farmers into spreading hazardous wastes across their fields."

Read More

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Add new comment

After a dam burst at its Kingston, Tenn., power plant last December and dumped more than a billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge into a nearby community and river, the federal Tennessee Valley Authority decided to change the way it stores its coal waste, transitioning from wet landfills like the one that failed to dry storage of ash.

Now, a company is pushing a plan to use dry coal ash from the Kingston plant to fill an abandoned coal mine in Tennessee, but environmentalists are raising concerns about the proposal's health risks.

Smith Mountain Solutions, a company owned by the principals behind Wright Brothers Construction of Charleston, Tenn., has proposed taking dry ash from TVA's Kingston plant and using it to fill a former surface mine 20 miles away atop Smith Mountain in Cumberland County.

An in-depth review of monitoring data from coal ash ponds located next to 13 coal-burning power plants in North Carolina has revealed that all of them are contaminating groundwater with toxic metals and other pollutants — in some cases at levels exceeding 380 times state groundwater standards.

The contaminants reported include arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead — metals known to cause cancer, neurological problems and other serious illnesses.

The analysis was conducted by Appalachian Voices' Upper Watauga Riverkeeper team based on data submitted to state regulators by Duke Energy and Progress Energy, the state's two largest investor-owned electric utilities. The companies conducted the tests as part of a self-monitoring agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"The results of this data are very alarming, and we now know that some of these ponds have been leaking into the groundwater for years," said Upper Watauga Riverkeeper Donna Lisenby.

Read More

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 1 comment

While Louisiana struggles to restore coastal wetlands ravaged in large part by decades of oil and gas drilling, its senior senator is leading the effort to lift the ban on drilling off Florida's Panhandle.

U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) is a co-sponsor on legislation by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to open up new areas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas development. Introduced last month, Senate Bill 1517 would allow drilling in federal waters 45 miles off the Panhandle's coast. Current law bans drilling within 125 miles of Panhandle beaches and 235 miles of Gulf Coast beaches south of Tampa.

Opposing the Murkowski-Landrieu plan is U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), a longtime foe of offshore drilling. He joins other Florida leaders worried about drilling's impact on the state's lucrative tourism industry, which in 2008 alone generated more than $65 billion for Florida's economy and $3.9 billion for the state in tax revenue.

"This isn't even thinly veiled," Nelson said. "It's an oil industry bailout plan. And it's Alaska and Louisiana's senators plan to boost their own revenues in tough economic times. But even in the toughest of times, there are some things states shouldn't sell out, like Florida's economy and environment."

Why is Landrieu pushing the plan?

She says it's out of concern for rising oil prices, though the U.S. Energy Information Administration says drilling in areas that are currently restricted would result in negligible savings to consumers.

Meanwhile, Landrieu and Murkowski are among the top congressional recipients of campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry.

Following in the footsteps of the corporate-backed protest movement against health care reform, a group founded and funded by business interests opposed to regulating greenhouse gas pollution is planning a series of rallies to oppose the climate legislation being considered by Congress.

The Wall Street Journal reports that EnergyCitizens -- an astroturf alliance funded by the American Petroleum Institute -- is holding rallies in 20 states over the August congressional recess. Other groups that are part of the alliance include the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Farm Bureau.

Power companies pursuing construction of new nuclear plants may find it harder to get credit, meaning ratepayers could end up shouldering a greater financial burden for the costly projects.

Moody's Investors Service, a leading independent credit rating firm, recently released a report that says it's considering taking a "more negative view" of debt obligations issued by companies seeking to build new nuclear plants.

Titled "New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing," the report raises concerns that investing in new nuclear plants involves significant risks and huge capital costs at a time when national energy policy is uncertain. Yet companies investing in new nuclear projects — cost estimates for which are hovering in the $6 billion range — haven't adjusted their finances accordingly, according to Moody's:

"Few, if any, of the issuers aspiring to build new nuclear power have meaningfully strengthened their balance sheets, and for several companies, key financial credit ratios have actually declined. Moreover, recent broad market turmoil calls into question whether new liquidity is even available to support such capital-intensive projects."

Read More

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 5 comments

U.S. lawmakers are considering legislation that would create a new independent federal agency to promote government investment in clean energy.

But watchdogs are raising questions about the way the proposed agency is structured, and whether it would be unfair to taxpayers and bad for the environment. Among their concerns are its bias toward nuclear power — a critical issue for the South, which is at the center of the nuclear industry's planned revival.

"We support the financing of clean energy technologies to promote the domestic development and deployment of technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the most efficient, environmentally sound manner possible," stated a recent letter to lawmakers signed by 17 environmental groups.

"However, the proposed Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) will not achieve these important goals and will in fact, as drafted, pose unnecessary and potentially enormous risks to our environment and to the U.S. taxpayer."

Read More

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Add new comment

When you hear the phrase "alternative energy," what comes to mind?

Solar power? Wind? Hydroelectric?

Not for West Virginia's political leaders. They think a little differently.

In the recent legislative session, Gov. Joe Manchin championed and state lawmakers approved an energy portfolio standard requiring 25 percent of generation to come from "alternative and renewable" sources by 2025.

But the new standard, which goes into effect this month, defines "alternative" in an unusual way to include natural gas, old tires, coal gas and even waste coal – energy sources that emit significant quantities of climate-warming greenhouse gases, as well as toxic, health-damaging pollutants.