31st January, 2012 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
A cattle feed lot in CA - Gary Kazanjian for The New York Times
The New York Times had this very interesting article by Mark Bittman. It reiterates why it’s good for the environment and your health to cut down on meat consumption. Some interesting excerpts from the article:
Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests….
To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius….
More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices.
This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops….
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics atStanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States….
Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems among the world’s wealthier citizens — heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes sense, if the quantities are small. But the “you gotta eat meat” claim collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat weren’t harmful, it’s way more than enough.
Check out the whole article here , it’s worth the read.
14th December, 2011 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
I saw this article on Fuel Fix today that says that:
The Texas Railroad Commission approved a rule Tuesday requiring oil and natural gas drillers to disclose most of the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing.
The rules also will require companies to disclose the amount of water used in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a process in which chemicals, water and sand are pumped at high pressure into underground rock formations to aid the flow of oil and gas to the surface.
Drillers will be required to disclose fracking chemicals and water volumes on a website, www.FracFocus.org.
Drilling companies, however, don’t have to list chemicals deemed trade secrets unless the Texas attorney general or a court determines otherwise, the commission said in a statement.
Check out the whole article! The article states that environmentalists are pleased with the rule. Hopefully it works as intended!
12th December, 2011 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
According to the Statesman:
The City of Austin is expanding a recycling program for old, power-guzzling refrigerators that costs the city about $325 per refrigerator.
The city’s electric utility gives rebates of up to $50 to customers who turn in their working refrigerators and freezers, and it will begin accepting window air-conditioning units, dishwashers, stoves and clothes washers in the coming year, Austin Energy officials said. Rebate amounts for those appliances haven’t been set yet.
Last week, the Austin City Council approved a $1,025,000 , one-year contract with Appliance Recycling Centers of America to pick up, recycle and pay the rebates for about 3,200 appliances turned in by Austin Energy customers.
The program is designed to encourage customers to switch to new appliances that use as much as three times less energy. That can reduce peak power use for the city, making rates less expensive overall for customers, said Austin Energy spokesman Carlos Cordova.
The article also explains:
Any Austin Energy customer can have an old appliance removed. Customers in single-family homes can recycle only two refrigerators and freezers a year, while multifamily customers and businesses can recycle any number of them, Leinweber said. Refrigerators and freezers must be between 14 and 27 cubic feet….
To have your old appliances picked up, contact Austin Energy at 800-452-8685 or email custinfo@austinenergy.com.
7th December, 2011 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
I received an Austin Climate Protection Program newsletter today, which had this story:
Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell started his re-election bid in November with an announcement that it is his intention to find a way to provide energy to the City of Austin without the use of any coal-generated electricity.
“Starting immediately, I’m going to begin a dialogue with the community, with Austin Energy, with the LCRA, and with state officials, about how to make Austin coal-free–and aggressively plan a date to achieve that goal,” the mayor said during his announcements.
Currently, Austin obtains coal-based energy from only one source, the Fayette Power Project in La Grange.
The 600 megawatt plant provides nearly 20 percent of Austin’s power, while the rest comes from natural gas, nuclear
and an increasing amount of wind power. As a start to getting off coal, all City of Austin facilities and operations are 100% powered by Greenchoice® energy, derived from entirely renewable sources.
17th March, 2011 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
I saw several articles today about the Japan nuclear disaster and the effect it is having on nuclear plans in the U.S. I have highlighted the parts I thought were interesting.
The Texas Tribune had this article about a hearing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission held yesterday to hear testimony regarding early-stage approval to a site for a new nuclear plant in Victoria Texas filed by Exelon. Here is an excerpt:
Exelon is not currently seeking a full permit to build a plant in Victoria County — an expensive proposition even before the Japanese tragedy. The purpose of the early permit is so officials can vet all of the safety and environmental concerns about a site before a company invests significant capital there…
TSEP [Texans for a Sound Energy Policy, a group opposed to the plant] is neutral on the use of nuclear energy but opposes the site chosen in Victoria County. The D.M. O’Connor family, landowners who have lived in Victoria for generations, has invested millions in TSEP to hire lawyers and engineers to conduct geological studies of the area.
A Nuclear Regulatory Commission attorney said the review of the permit application in Victoria is ongoing, and that “no final decisions have been made about the substance of that application.” Several other new reactors — including two at Comanche Peak in Somervell County — have also been proposed for Texas.
The geology of the proposed South Texas site in Victoria County has been called into question by TSEP, which argues that geologic activity, combined with the lack of an adequate water supply, could pose a threat to safety. The area is not prone to earthquakes or tsunamis, but Victoria County has another sort of fault, called a growth fault, that can still shake things up. Unlike the sudden, jarring shift of tectonic plate movements, the shift of growth plates happens slowly over time. They won’t abruptly topple buildings, but they do create cracks in the sidewalk, for example.
There’s also this article by Fuel Fix, comparing the Fukushima plant to 2 existing South Texas Project plants (located about 90 miles southwest of Houston near Bay City; STP has also proposed building 2 additional nuclear plants in the same area):
On Location: “Fukushima is on the coast in one of the most active seismic zones in the world, while STP is about 11 miles inland from Matagorda Bay in a seismic zone rated zero – signifying the lowest earthquake probability. Fukushima’s coastal location probably contributed to the catastrophe there. Officials reported that diesel generators responsible for providing backup power to cooling pumps were swamped by tsunamis that followed last Friday’s massive earthquake.The South Texas Project is about 29 feet above sea level, spokesman Buddy Eller said, and appears capable of withstanding the extreme storm events that are most likely for the region.
A study looking at the possible impacts of a combined Category 5 hurricane storm surge and a 100-year flood on the Colorado River that runs adjacent to the plant site found water levels would rise to just under 28 feet.”
Age: “There’s also an age difference. The Fukushima units are 30 to 40 years old. South Texas Project Unit 1 went online in 1988 and Unit 2 in 1989, making them the sixth- and fourth-youngest units in the U.S.”
Reactor Designs: “The Japanese and Texas plants also use different reactor designs. In Fukushima’s Boiling Water Reactors (BWR), water runs through the nuclear reactor and boils into steam that turns power generation turbines. In STP’s Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), reactor water is heated under pressure but does not boil, and moves in a closed loop. The hot water in the loop boils water in a separate vessel into steam that runs the electric turbines.
In both designs, steam flows from the turbines to a condenser that cools it into a liquid to repeat cycle.”
Finally, there’s this Wall Street Journal article, noting that the Japan crisis is putting focus on plants in the US that have the same reactor design:
Japan’s nuclear crisis is drawing attention to aging U.S. reactors, especially the 23 most similar to reactors at the Japanese plant where workers are racing to avoid a full-scale meltdown.
Eleven U.S. utilities, including industry giants such as Southern Co., Entergy Corp. and Exelon Corp., own similar reactors in 14 states. Most of them are operating beyond their initial 40-year licenses and have been granted 20-year extensions by federal regulators.
The Japanese crisis, in which problems at four reactors have led to dangerous releases of radiation in the surrounding area, could lead to safety-related changes at similar U.S. plants. Operators said that, even if they’re not ordered to make changes by regulators, they might do so to restore public trust.
U.S. regulations require plant owners to make sure plants can survive any expected threat, even if that means they have to retrofit facilities that already have licenses.
“If there’s a change in a significant safety rule, it can be imposed retroactively,” said Richard Meserve, a physicist and former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Plant operators already are pledging to learn from Japan’s accident.
“We want to look at our systems and procedures and operator training to prevent a complete loss of power to our units” in a natural disaster, said Jeff Gasser, executive vice president of Southern Co.’s nuclear division. Its Edwin Hatch plant in Georgia has two reactors similar to the Fukashima Daiichi plant’s reactors.
Some critics say the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission should rethink the way it assesses risks and create even more conservative safety standards.
One former nuclear plant operator who opposed the license extension at Entergy Corp’s Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont, one of those similar to Japanese units, thinks the NRC and utilities will have to take a hard look at the “design basis threat”—or the maximum threat—that plants face.
“What used to be considered a non-credible threat is now credible, given what’s happened in Japan,” said Arnie Gundersen, a former senior vice president of Nuclear Energy Services, a provider of engineering and technical assistance to nuclear plants. He said he thinks safety margins should be increased.
15th March, 2011 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
Today KUT and the Statesman both have articles about the nuclear disaster in Japan and the implications it has for the use of nuclear in Texas. The Statesman article focuses in a little more detail on the financial uncertainty of Japanese investment in the South Texas Project (a nuclear power plant near Matagorda Bay that currently has two reactors, with the building of another two additional reactors under consideration) while the KUT article is more general (the KUT article states “Currently Austin gets about 27% of its power from the nuclear plant. Over the years the city has flirted with the idea of increasing nuclear power’s percentage in Austin Energy’s portfolio. Karen Hadden is executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development or SEED Coalition. Her group has been battling against nuclear expansion in Austin and Texas. She points to the earthquake as an example of what can go wrong. ‘In Texas we may not have the risk of earthquakes at least at the South Texas Project site, but we do have hurricanes and we do have droughts that could impact our ability to cool reactors,’ said Hadden.”)
Click on the above articles for more details. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, with some arguing that when all goes as planned, nuclear can be a much cleaner energy source than other options such as coal , but can obviously have very disasterous consequences when things go wrong.
22nd February, 2011 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
ABJ had this short article last week about Austin City Council’s decision last Thursday to implement a $46 per year car charging rate for customers with a subscrption to the “Plug-in Everywhere” program. There will be public electric charging stations through out the city for Austin Energy customers, and if you have purchased the subscription you get unlimited charging for the whole year – sounds like a pretty good deal if you are fortunate enough to have an electric car. I couldn’t find any info about it on Austin Energy’s website, but I had thought I heard on KUT that AE is offering the subscriptions for this low price in order to help AE learn about customer’s charging patterns.
28th January, 2011 - Posted by katherine - 1 Comment
This article from today in Test Country says that:
Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia occupied the top four spots in a list that ranked mercury emissions by state, according to a feature on Bloomberg Businessweek.
In a report released Wednesday by Environment America, the aforementioned states led the nation in mercury emissions, which carries with it associated impacts to the environment and human health. Group spokeswoman Lauren Randall said that their findings were based on the Toxics Release Inventory, which contains pollution data provided by power companies annually to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The article goes on to state the following about West Virginia’s mercury listings, but doesn’t go into any detail about Texas’ high listing:
Environment America attributed West Virginia’s fourth-place ranking in the list to the mercury emissions from the state’s coal-fired power plants. The state is the second-largest coal-producing state in the country, and a significant portion of the coal that is produced is used to generate electricity, through coal-fired power plants. According to Environment America, Dominion’s Mount Storm power station is ranked 9th of the Top 10 power plants that emit the most mercury.
In 2009, the 12 coal-fired power plants in West Virginia released 6,795 pounds of mercury.
26th January, 2011 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) today approved an air quality permit for construction of a coal-fired power plant in Corpus Christi. Previously, two adminsitrative law judges had concluded that the permit should be denied. The Houston Chronicle has this summary:
The administrative law judges initially found fault with the way the Las Brisas developers had conducted air pollution modeling, saying the emissions estimates in the permit application were done in a “reckless manner.”
Despite the concerns, TCEQ urged the judges to complete a second review of the project in time for the commission to grant the air permit before Jan. 2, when new federal rules for carbon dioxide and other climate-altering gases took effect. The judges returned a decision — another recommendation for denial – 10 days before the TCEQ’s deadline, but the commission was unable to get the permit on its agenda until today.
The developers have said in legal filings that the project could suffer financial harm if it didn’t have an air permit in advance of the greenhouse gas rules…
In its second ruling, the judges, Tommy Broyles and Craig Bennett, concluded that TCEQ improperly helped the developers with the required modeling for tiny airborne particles linked to respiratory ailments and heart disease.
TCEQ executive director Mark Vickery, in written responses to the judges’ ruling, said its modeling was not done as a substitute for the developers’ analysis. He also turned away other technical arguments made by the public and environmental groups.
The Statesman also had an article on this issue today, following the decision by TCEQ. Here is an excerpt:
The EPA asked the Texas commission earlier this week to deny the permit application so that the two agencies could work together to resolve various issues. The federal agency wrote in the letter dated Monday that it was concerned about a lack of consultation with them and that the plant could violate federal clean air standards.
The EPA wrote that it has “strong concerns about the public health and environmental impacts” the plant would pose.
(TCEQ Chairman) Shaw said the EPA’s letter could not be considered because it was not part of the official record of Wednesday’s proceeding so it had no impact on their decision…
“This is just another example of why Gov. (Rick) Perry’s appointed commissioners are nothing but a rubber stamp for industry,” said Jennifer Powis, the Sierra Club’s senior regional representative.
“It’s really Gov. Perry standing in the way of federal law. That’s a problem on multiple levels. You can’t have a state cherry pick which law they want to apply,” Powis said.
Texas is home to 19 coal-fired power plants, more than any other state.
The $3 billion Las Brisas project that will “provide much-needed low-cost, reliable electric power for users throughout Corpus Christi and South Texas at competitive prices,” according to the company’s website, which also touts economic and job benefits. “It will be a state-of-the-art facility utilizing highly sophisticated equipment to generate clean energy and protect the region’s environment.”
But some residents questioned the company’s positive view, expressing concern that the plant would emit high levels of toxic substances like mercury.
The Statesman also notes that “[a]lthough the permit is important for clearing the way to building the plant, other permits are still needed, including a water discharge permit from the state and possibly a greenhouse gas permit from EPA.”
25th January, 2011 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
The Texas Tribune has a good article that lays out where Texas is getting its power from. It states that 39.5% of our power comes from coal, and 7.8% comes from wind. Here’s an excerpt:
When Texans turn on their lights, run their air conditioning or plug in their iPads, they are getting an increasing amount of power from the wind — and from coal plants.
Figures released earlier this month show that last year, nearly 8 percent of the power on the state’s electric grid was generated by wind. That’s more than three times the national average. And because Texas recently added several coal-generating units, coal plants — for the first time in recent memory — produced more power than any other electricity source. Nuclear power’s contribution held about steady, at 13 percent of generation.
The big loser was natural gas. While natural gas is abundant in Texas, less polluting than coal and substantially cheaper than it was jut a few years ago, it is also easily replaced by the wind. The percentage of power on the grid generated from natural gas dropped from 42 percent in 2009 to 38 percent in 2010; coal, at 39.5 percent, slightly edged it out.
Check out the whole article for more info on natural gas and to see a neat chart of the different types of power sources.
20th December, 2010 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
Today begins the 2nd round of rebates for energy efficient appliances such as air-source heat pumps, central air conditioners, clothes washers, dishwashers, freezers, refrigerators, room air conditioners and water heaters. The state’s website says “The new $18.5 million Texas Appliance Mail-in Rebate Program is a traditional mail-in rebate program, and Texas consumers do not reserve funding for an appliance rebate. Rebates are available on a first-come, first-served basis until all funds are distributed.”
Check out the state’s website here to learn more about the program and download the form to participate.
5th October, 2010 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
Check out ABJ, which had an article today stating:
Austin Energy has restarted its solar rebate program, making another $4 million available for installation incentives…
Commercial and multi-family applicants are eligible for performance-based incentives up to 14 cents per kilowatt of energy produced over 10 years. The typical customer receives as much as $5,000 a year on systems that cost about $130,000, according to the press release.
You can read more about the program form AE’s website
here.
5th October, 2010 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
I got an email today from the Austin Climate Protection Program which states that “Austin’s tree planting season is from October 1st through March 31st because weather conditions are cool and allow plants to establish roots in the new location before spring rains and summer heat stimulate new top growth.” I also noticed on Austin Energy’s website this tip:
A/C units shaded by trees or other means work more efficiently and use up to 10% less electricity
So if you’re thinking of adding trees to your yard, now is a great time, and being mindful of your AC location may save some cash in the summers to come.
photo credit
24th August, 2010 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
A few weeks ago there was this story about planned net-zero developments in East Austin. In more housing news, over the weekend the Statesman had this article about a new neighborhood in South Austin named Las Casas Verdes, near Brodie Lane, which will feature 20 semi-custom single-family homes that use the sun to generate electricity and heat water. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
David Martin, the architect, builder and developer of the project, set out to show that mid-priced, ecologically responsible, solar-powered homes are a realistic option. He says Las Casas Verdes will be the first all-solar development in Texas. One home, which has received a five-star rating from the Austin Energy Green Building program, is complete. Construction is expected to begin on a second home this month…
The home’s airtight design and energy-efficient systems earned it a home energy rating of 31, which means it is 69 percent more energy-efficient than a conventional comparable-sized home, Dochen says…
“We are moving toward zero energy,” Martin says. “This was a good opportunity to show Austin what could be done in a middle-income neighborhood. It’s a working model. It looks like any other home, … it’s just that this house works for you … to help pay your utility bills. It has passive and active solar. The collected rainwater is saving you water and sewer bills. If (you) are in a house that has basically zero energy bills, you could apply that (savings) to the mortgage – and you’re saving the environment by not using natural resources.”
Prices range from $335,000 to $385,000.
Photo from the Statesman. See more of the Statesman’s photos of the completed house here.
18th August, 2010 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
Austin Energy Power Savers is a cool program a coworker was telling me she had signed up for. According to AE’s website,when you sign up to be a Power Saver Volunteer, Austin Energy will contact you up to ten times during the summer(you pick the method of contact – telephone, email or text message). When they contact you, they will ask you to take four actions to use less electricity between 3:00 pm and 7:00 pm:
- Switch off unnecessary lights
- Delay washing and drying clothes, and using your dishwasher
- Cook dinner in your microwave oven, rather than with an electric range
- Turn up the AC thermostat by two to three degrees
It’s completely voluntary, so there’s no penalty for signing up and then running your dishwasher when they ask you not to, it’s just a nice way to try and help decrease electricity usage. The website also explains that by joining the program and helping to reduce peak demand, Power Saver Volunteers are helping to put off building new power generation plants (which would make be bad environmentally, but also would make rates go up).
If you do sign up, you get a free home weatherization kit, including:
- Weather stripping
- Outlet sealers
- Two compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs)
- An energy saver nightlight
Check out the link above to sign up.
photo credit
11th August, 2010 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
Check out this KUT article, which says that Texas reached a new energy consumption record yesterday afternoon, at 63,830 megawatts. An Austin Energy representative Carlos Cordova said that “An air conditioner can only offset about 20 degrees from the outside temperature to the inside temperatures…so if you’re setting your thermostat at 75 or lower your air conditioner will run virtually all day long because it cannot cool that house down.” Cordova also recommended avoiding washing dishes or clothes during the day.
Photo credit
10th August, 2010 - Posted by katherine - 1 Comment
According to this Austin Business Journal article:
The city of Austin this week is installing 500 solar-powered parking meters.
The project is part of the transportation department’s comprehensive parking technology upgrade that commenced last August. The new meters accept coins and credit cards and began going in Monday with 120 posts in the University of Texas area. The project will be completed early next week.
Read more: City of Austin installs 500 solar-powered parking meters – Austin Business Journal
5th August, 2010 - Posted by katherine - No Comments
The Statesman had a good article today about the temperatures verious Austin businesses keep their thermostats set at. The article notes that:
Businesses and institutions around Austin consistently cool their spaces to temperatures lower than one recommended by Austin Energy, according to a survey conducted by the Austin American-Statesman.
Lower temperatures at barber shops, video stores, record stores, movie theaters, schools, post offices and restaurants mean higher energy consumption as Austin grapples with how to provide electricity to a growing population. The city consumes more electricity in the summer than in the winter, largely because of air conditioning. Last year, nonresidential customers consumed 41 percent of their electricity in June, July, August and September.
Austin Energy recommends Austinites set their thermostats no lower than 78 degrees during the summer. Each degree cooler than 78 increases energy use by 3 percent, the city-owned utility calculates.
The article goes on to notes that:
Austin Energy spends about $700,000 a year marketing residential and commercial energy efficiency programs, which consistently mention setting the thermostat to no lower than 78 degrees in the summer to reduce air-conditioning use.
“It’s not going to be maximum comfort, but it may be a reasonable temperature if you’re focused on your energy bill,” said Ed Clark, a spokesman for Austin Energy.
Temperatures in the lobby of Austin Energy headquarters on Wednesday registered between 73 and 77 degrees.
29th July, 2010 - Posted by carsi - No Comments
KUT has a story today on electric charging stations for cars, which will become important in November when Chevrolet starts selling its all-electric vehicle, the Volt, in Austin (for $41k). The car will be able to go about 40 miles on one charge, but it also has a generator to run on gas if needed. Still, some people are worried that consumers will get “range anxiety,” or a feeling of nervousness about having enough charge to get to their destinations. As of now, there is only one public charging station in Austin at the Whole Foods on 6th and Lamar, but the City is planning to add 100 more stations in the next two years. Right now, it’d take about eight hours to fully charge a car at that station, but that will be cut to three hours in the future.
Many people are also worried that, if the Volt takes off, all this charging will drain the electric grid, but some say there is enough power in clean energy to meet the demand. For example, wind power from East Texas is highest at night, when most people are expected to be charging their vehicles. Additionally, Austin Energy is working on incentives to promote charging at non-peak times. It should be interesting to see if the public is ready to purchase an all-electric vehicle and if the city is ready to support the accompanying electricity demand.
The Chevrolet Volt
photo credit
23rd July, 2010 - Posted by carsi - No Comments
Paul Robbins, creator of the Austin Environmental Directory and local environmental activist, discussed on KUT this morning the possibility of zero energy suburbs. The idea is to create energy efficient houses that would use up a net of zero energy. Robbins says that by using newer, efficient appliances, good insulation, CFL light bulbs, and solar rooftop panels and water heating, it’s possible to have a net zero energy home. He also states that it would be about $500 more per month for an average family to reach this goal, including energy efficient changes to the family cars. He says this is feasible for some of the population at this time, but as solar energy and electric vehicles become cheaper in the future, net zero homes will become more and more attainable.
photo credit
Older Entries
