| |
|
Sunday, October 28, 2007
|
|
Here's an update on the $23 billion water package facing President Bush's veto, from The New York Times. From the article:
Democratic leaders in Congress have sent President Bush a veto-proof bill to authorize spending $23 billion in water projects, having waited more than a month to request his signature on a measure he has threatened to veto. Democrats have more than the two-thirds majority votes in both chambers of Congress needed to override Bush if he vetoes the bill. The Senate passed it on Sept. 24 by a vote of 81-12; the House passed it Aug. 1 by a vote of 381-40. An override would mark the first such loss for Bush and could cast him in a more politically vulnerable light.
''This congressionally approved bill authorizes more than 200 projects to protect lives and livelihoods in our communities from the devastating impacts of flooding by building and repairing floodwalls and levees, as well as by restoring wetlands that absorb floodwaters,'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and four other top House Democrats wrote Bush in a letter Friday urging him to sign the bill they sent to him on Tuesday.
The bill funds work to restore the hurricane-ravaged Louisiana coast and Florida's Everglades, projects the Bush administration supports. But the president threatened a veto after the bill's anticipated cost ballooned by $9 billion as projects were added in negotiations between the House and Senate.
The legislation authorizes $3.6 billion for major wetlands and other coastal restoration, flood control and dredging projects for Louisiana, a state where coastal erosion and storms have resulted in the disappearance of huge areas of land.
"2008 pres"
8:26:11 AM 
|
|
Just when you thought that endocrine disruptors were all you needed to worry about in your water supplies perchlorate shows up in the water of 250,000 toddlers across the country, notably in water from the Colorado River, according to Associated Content. From the article:
At least a quarter-million American one-year-olds are taking in unhealthy levels of rocket fuel with the food and water they drink, according to a new analysis from the Environmental Working Group (EWG). By analyzing food testing data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the EWG found that about 1 in every 16 one-year-olds in the country is exposed to levels of perchlorate, the explosive ingredient in solid rocket fuel, higher than the government's safety limits.
How does an ingredient in rocket fuel end up in food and water? While some perchlorate can occur naturally, the rest enters food and water supplies via contaminated farm irrigation water. Much of the nation's perchlorate-tainted water comes from the Colorado River, which flows near a defense industry contractor site close to Las Vegas. However, perchlorate has also been found in tap water in 28 states, according to the latest tests reported by the Government Accountability Office in 2005.
A study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 2006 found that exposure to perchlorate in levels lower than those deemed safe by the government significantly lowered thyroid hormone levels in many women. Pregnant women exposed to perchlorate might therefore have reduce hormone levels that affect their fetus' healthy development. Furthermore, it's unknown how much direct perchlorate exposure might interfere with toddlers' health, according to the EWG.
The EWG blames defense industry pressure for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) failure so far to establish safety standards for perchlorate in tap water. While the EPA sets a general safe exposure limit of 0.7 micrograms of perchlorate per kilogram of body weight per day, the agency this April decided to indefinitely put off development of safe limits for tap water...
Two states -- California and Massachusetts -- have already established their own standards for safe levels of perchlorate in tap water. And a committee in the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote shortly on a bill that would require the EPA to set a similar federal standard.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"2008 pres"
7:54:47 AM
|
|
Many are looking to push geothermal energy for its extremely low carbon footprint and abundance. Here's a look at the potential from The Denver Post. From the article:
Proponents see it as a near-perfect source of clean energy with virtually no carbon emissions. The resource is abundant, renewable and gentler on the environment than fossil fuels. Still, geothermal energy has its own unknowns and limitations. Colorado is reported to have one of the nation's larger geothermal resources, thanks to geologic formations that allow Earth's molten core to work its way closer to the surface. The state's abundance of hot springs is the most visible evidence of the phenomenon. Experts say that within the next decade, Colorado is likely to become the site of electric power plants that use geothermal steam, effectively harnessing the energy of underground Old Faithfuls.
Yet even today, homeowners and businesses are taking advantage of "geoexchange" systems that use the soil's constant year-round temperature to cool buildings in the summer and heat them in the winter. Geoexchange employs a loop of pipes buried a few feet underground, filled with a solution of water and antifreeze. After circulating below the surface, the fluid is sent through a heat exchanger to deliver either warm or cool air. The residential systems carry typical costs of $10,000 to $20,000, making them relatively expensive when compared with conventional heating and cooling using natural gas and electricity. But if fossil-fuel prices rise - considered likely by many analysts - geoexchange becomes cost-effective. The Delta-Montrose Electric Association has been a particularly big proponent of geoexchange, helping customers install about 600 mostly residential systems...
But like other renewable-energy sources such as wind and solar, geothermal has limitations and unknowns that leave it short of becoming a clean-energy panacea.
Preliminary studies of Colorado's geothermal resources by state and federal agencies have provided only a partial picture - not enough solid data for power-plant developers. Mapping the resource more completely will require expensive drilling tests and time-consuming analysis. In addition, developers would need to link prospective plants with high- voltage transmission lines - at a cost of $1 million or more per mile. Experts peg the average cost of building geothermal power plants at about $4 million per megawatt. That's more than twice the cost of the estimated $1.7 million per megawatt that Xcel is spending to build its 750-megawatt Comanche coal-fired plant near Pueblo. One megawatt supplies about 1,000 homes. Supporters note, however, that coal-fired power faces future costs if carbon emissions are taxed or regulated. The U.S. Department of Energy has calculated that geothermal power emits less than one-tenth the carbon dioxide of coal-fired electricity. Until power plants take off, Colorado's chief use of geothermal will be hot springs and the heat that can be captured from them, and small-scale geoexchange systems.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"2008 pres"
7:00:15 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 1:38:06 PM.
|
|
|
