Enviroman No. 94

Another Reason to Oppose Nuclear Power.

Uranium mining threatens to destroy the Grand Canyon with pollution and destruction of parts of the grand cliffs.

Thanks to renewed interest in nuclear power, the United States is on the verge of a uranium mining boom, and nowhere is the hurry to stake claims more pronounced than in the districts flanking the Grand Canyon's storied sandstone cliffs.

On public lands within five miles of Grand Canyon National Park, there are now more than 1,100 uranium claims, compared with just 10 in January 2003, according to data from the Department of the Interior.

In recent months, the uranium rush has spawned a clash as epic as the canyon's 18-mile chasm, with both sides claiming to be working for the good of the planet.

This so-called rush to nuclear power is so stupid. And as we all know, it's also a pipe dream, as nobody is going to put up that kind of money to build nuclear plants, even with the very generous backing of the federal government—should it come full force, which seems unlikely.

While to be sure fossil fuel energy has it's problems that over-consumption of resources causes, it's problems are minor compared to the risk and actual damaged caused by creating and utilizing the most dangerous materials ever known to man or the earth as a whole. The planet could get a lot hotter, before it would be a greater threat then the current threat of all this nuclear material and waste we have currently produced.

Read Uranium claims spring up along Grand Canyon rim in the Los Angeles Times.

National Grid seeks $220 million for energy efficiency.

From the article:

National Grid is asking state regulators for permission to start a three-year, $220 million effort to reduce customers' energy usage.

The broad-based program would reduce the state's carbon emissions and help meet New York's goal of reducing energy consumption 15 percent by 2015, said Susan Crossett, vice president of energy solutions for Upstate New York.

The new program also would provide National Grid with a new way to make profits. The company hopes to keep 10 percent to 15 percent of the savings attributed to its programs if it meets certain performance targets. If the company falls short, it would pay a financial penalty.

National Grid has proposed 16 programs for residential electric and gas customers, and seven programs that target commercial and industrial customers.

Combined, the programs could save 394 million kilowatt-hours per year, roughly the amount used by 51,000 households. Natural gas consumption would be reduced also, the company said.

Some of the programs could offer significant savings to customers. One of the residential programs, for example, would offer rebates to cover up to 75 percent of the cost of insulating and sealing a home, up to a maximum of $5,000, Crossett said.

Customer bills will be increased to pay for the $220 million program. Grid officials estimated the average residential bill would increase $1.50 per month for electricity and $1.50 per month for gas.

If the Public Service Commission approves, National Grid could launch the programs beginning in October.

Read National Grid seeks $220 million for energy efficiency on syracuse.com.

Minnesota Legislators Complain About Bill Gates' Investment in the Big Stone Plant.

From the article:

Unlike his bridge buddy Warren Buffett, who recently canceled six planned coal projects, Bill Gates is still pushing coal. Cascade Investment Management, his personal investment company, is the largest stakeholder (9 percent) in Otter Tail Corporation, the lead sponsor of the controversial Big Stone II coal project.

Last week, eight Minnesota legislators, led by Rep. Jean Wagenius (DFL) of Minneapolis and Sen. Ellen Anderson (DFL) of St. Paul, wrote to Gates, asking him to visit Minnesota in order to investigate green investment opportunities that would "align the values of your foundation with your investment strategy."

In April, NASA's James Hansen appealed to Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty to oppose Big Stone II: "You can help inspire your state and the rest of the country to take the bold actions that are essential if we are to retain a hospitable climate."

Wait a minute legislators...

This plant will generate no more carbon dioxide then existing plants, if there is no demand for power. Coal plants go up and down, and can change their coal burning rate, based on demand. If this coal plant is more efficient by using less coal (therefore cheaper to run and with less CO2) then existing coal plants, then it will offset other coal plants that already on the grid.

Coal plants don't create carbon dioxide. The demand for and production of electricity does. If nobody wants electricity, or if all the demand is fulfilled by wind power, then Big Stone I and II will simply sit idle, releasing no emissions at all. Of course, if everybody turns on there air conditioners, and the wind is idle, then all of these beastly coal plants will have to churn through massive amounts of coal—otherwise the lights will go out.

Environmentalists should be fighting old and dirty coal plants, and not new ones that will help clean up the air. They also need to fight demand, and make it clear to people when they are turning on the air conditioner or leaving the TV on when they leave the room, they are polluting the air.

Environmentalists have been hoping—since the 1960s—that if people don't invest in new power plants, that the old ones will just go off in the woods and die like animals do. At the same time, states and the federal government have been vigorously insisting that there be power capacity to prevent the lights from dimming on the hottest days of the years. So the old plants live on, and new ones are built—regardless of their impact—just to meet the mandate to ensure no brownouts.

Read Minnesota to Bill Gates: No new coal! on Grist.

Small Dam Owners Versus The Big Dams.

From the Daily Gazette:

Schoharie Valley activists and officials were loaded with testimony Friday about potential devastation if New York City’s giant Gilboa Dam broke, but they were outnumbered at a state hearing by owners of small dams worried they can’t afford tighter regulations.

“All dam owners shall contribute to a state-administered fund to provide for independent engineers to perform periodic dam safety inspections,” recommended Middleburgh resident Sherrie Bartholomew, vice president of Dam Concerned Citizens.

Proposed state Department of Environmental Conservation regulations covering about 5,500 dams statewide leave paying for inspection engineers up to owners.

For thousands of people in Schoharie, Montgomery and Schenectady counties, the 20 billion gallons of water behind the masonry Gilboa Dam at the Schoharie Reservoir, plus another 5 billion gallons downstream behind the New York Power Authority’s earthern dam in North Blenheim, loom as “two sleeping giants,” said Gail Shaffer.

So the dams that can kill us all still aren't safe, but the small dam owners are being taxed out of existence. That's usually how it works in our great state.

Read Small dam owners balk at tighter rules in the Daily Gazette.

Goldman Sachs: $200/Barrel Oil By Summer 2010.

That's the grim new prediction that Goldman Sachs is making this morning.

Oil could shoot up to $200 within the next two years as part of a "super-spike" driven by poor growth in oil supplies, investment bank Goldman Sachs said in a research note.

"We believe the current energy crisis may be coming to a head, as a lack of adequate supply growth is becoming apparent," Goldman said in the note made available to Reuters on Tuesday.

Oil hit a new record near $121 a barrel on Tuesday, continuing an advance which has seen it double over the past 12 months.

"The possibility of $150-$200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next six-24 months, though predicting the ultimate peak in oil prices as well as the remaining duration of the upcycle remains a major uncertainty," Goldman said.

Goldman, which was one of the first to point to a triple digit oil price more than two years ago, said it believed the market was approaching the crunch in the "super-spike."

The "super-spike" theory argues that a lack of adequate supply growth along with price-insulated demand growth in non-OECD countries will lead to a dramatic and continuous rise in oil prices that will ultimately lead to a sharp correction in oil demand.

Goldman analysts said the underlying drivers of the rise in oil prices remained firmly in place, noting poor growth in non-OPEC supplies, low OPEC spare capacity, restriction on foreign investment in key oil producing nations and healthy demand growth in non-OECD economies.

"In our view, a gradual rally in prices is likely to be longer lasting than a sharp, sudden spike," the note written by U.S.-based analyst Arjun Murti said.

Goldman said it had raised its spot oil price forecasts for U.S. WTI crude for 2008 through to 2011 to $108 rising to $110 and $120 a barrel, up from from $96 rising to $105 and $110 respectively in its earlier forecast.

"We see risk to our 2008 and 2009 forecasts as distinctly to the upside," it said.

A barrel of oil is pegged at 42 gallons, a bit smaller then those 55-gallon drums that food and chemicals like newspaper ink come in. That makes about 20 gallons of gasoline, although more can be made by further refining. The other unused parts of crude are fully used from asphalt to diesel to other fuels, so it's not like that part of the barrel is wasted. Therefore to divide the cost of crude going into gasoline, divide by 42 gallons in a barrel.

So following the EIA own numbers at $36.98 a barrel (2004) the crude cost $0.86. The final gasoline product was $1.85 a gallon.

At $121 a barrel, crude costs $2.88 a gallon. Add in refining, taxes, the cost of hauling gasoline and paying the gas station clerk, and your up to around $3.75 a gallon. As you can see, refiners, tax agents, gas bulk truckers, and gas stations are big losers here.

At $200 a barrel crude costs $4.76 a gallon. Assuming a slightly tighter margin all around for refiners, gas stations, tax agents, bulk haulers, your still talking around $5.50 or so a gallon. That's a lot of money, especially if your burning a gallon or two a day—or making any trip of distance.

In a 20 MPG car it would mean that 28¢ a mile driving. That's quite a bit of money.

Read Oil could top $200 in two years: Goldman in Reuters.

Where Energy Will Most Likely Come From In the United States.

The EIA has several interesting graphs that you can take a look at below such as energy consumption, type, and per capita consumption—assuming all other factors remain equal.

Franklin County Plans 600 Acre Landfill Expansion.

While they may only be planning to add some 300 acres of trash capacity to their relatively small landfill to make the county a lot more money. The other 300 acres would be the required buffer.

300 acres is a fairly big landfill, especially for a county the size of Franklin County, population 51,134. Albany wants to build a 52 acre landfill for their next 20 years of trash dumping. In other words, they are building something like 100 years of capacity or much less depending on how much trash they can import and make the county wealthy.

The expansion project is massive—it makes little tiny existing Franklin County Landfill look, in comparison, to a little tiny dump that you might find on the bankside of a farm somewhere. If you have a fast internet connection, a massive P°F map of the proposal will display below.

From Franklin County SWA:

A Draft Public Scoping Document has been approved by the County of Franklin Solid Waste Management Authority (CFSWMA) and is now available for public comment. Comments regarding specific environmental issues or areas of concern are being solicited at this time. Public comments must be received by May 30, 2008, in order to be accepted. A public scoping meeting will be held at the Franklin County Courthouse in Malone on May 22, 2008, at 7:00 P.M.

If not attending the meeting, comments may also be made in written form and submitted to Mr. George Eades, CFSWMA, 828 County Route 20, Constable, New York, 12926. In addition, electronic submissions are also being accepted during this review period.If submitting an e-mail comment please be sure to include your first and last name and your full mailing address. Submissions that do not include this information will not be considered as a substantive comment.

They provide these documents on the web:

• Proposed Area Expansion Map (P.D.F 5 MB)
• Landfill Scoping Document (P°F 50 KB)

Here is a map of it's location on Google Maps:

View Larger Map

A good arterial photograph of the existing landfill is on Microsoft Live Maps. I can not embed that picture into the web page.

Abu Dhabi Aims to Build First Carbon-Neutral City.

This proposed city in oil rich UAE is quite impressive.

In Abu Dhabi, there's an area of nothing but wind-swept desert. But 10 years from now, if all goes according to plan, a city of 6 square kilometers housing 50,000 people will rise in the United Arab Emirates — and it will be carbon neutral.

The project, called Masdar City, will burn no gas or oil, so its contribution to greenhouse gases will be minimal. Masdar is the centerpiece of emirate Abu Dhabi's plans to get into the renewable energy market, a hedge against the day its oil wells run dry.

It sounds an awful lot like Brasilia—except this city is carbon neutral and energy efficient. It sounds neat, assuming that it is built. Of course, I'm sure it will have real environmental impacts we haven't yet even started to think about.

Read Abu Dhabi Aims to Build First Carbon-Neutral City on NPR.

EPA Tells the Pentagon Don't Worry About Cleaning Up Your Mess.

The EPA says they plan to tell the public about the dangers of perchlorate rocket fuel, but doesn't plan any restrictions on it's use.

An EPA official said Tuesday there’s a “distinct possibility” the agency won’t take action to rid drinking water of a toxic rocket fuel ingredient that has contaminated public water supplies around the country.

Democratic senators called that unacceptable. They argued that states and local communities shouldn’t have to bear the expense of cleansing their drinking water of perchlorate, which has been found in at least 395 sites in 35 states — or the risk of not doing so.

The toxin interferes with thyroid function and poses developmental health risks, particularly to fetuses.

I would agree that's not acceptable. If you make the mess, you should be responsible for cleaning it up. The defense department has a massive budget, and even if this inconveniences them a little bit, they should take the effort to take care of the problem.

Read EPA might not act on polluted water on MSN NBC.

Ethanol Plant Great For The Environment.

That's what the New York League of Conservation Voters has to say about it.

In Niagara Falls, a Toronto-based firm building an ethanol plant in the city will provide 500 construction job, and over 100 full time positions. This all depends on the if the project is accepted in the state brown-field cleanup program.

Northern Ethanol , the name of the power plant has the option to purchase 70-acre parcel of land from Praxair Inc. for the construction of the million dollar plant. Natalie Horrell spokeswoman of Northern Ethanol said on Monday, "The land is quite contaminated, and that acceptance is the key to the project going ahead." According to the Buffalo News the state Department of Environmental Conservation imposed a 90-day moratorium on new applications to obtain tax credits in return for cleaning up and redeveloping contaminated sites. City and county leaders have backed the project and want it approved.

Read Ethanol Plant Great For The Environment on the NYLCV EcoPolitics Daily.

Smart Grid Interest is Growing.

From the article:

It will stop being merely a passive supplier of juice. Instead, power companies will be able to cue us, like those amber lights in Tsapoitis' house, to make choices about when and how we consume power. And most likely, we'll have our computers and appliances carry out those decisions for us.

Done right, the smarter grid should save consumers money in the long run by reducing the need for new power plants, which we pay off in our monthly electric bills. However, if people fail to react properly to conservation signals, their bills could spike.

And certainly a smart grid that can encourage us to conserve will feel different. Envision your kitchen appliances in silent communication with their power source: The fridge bumps its temperature up a degree on one day, and the dishwasher kicks on a bit later on another.

Smart-grid technologies have had small tests throughout North America, as utilities and regulators scout how to coax people to reduce their demand for power. But there's little doubt it's coming. The utility Xcel Energy Inc. plans to soon begin a $100 million smart grid project reaching 100,000 homes in Boulder, Colo.

That makes a lot of sense. When the power demand goes up, the dirtiest sources of power are utilized to keep the lights from dimming or the grid from failing from overload. Older plants that are normally too expensive to run come on to keep the grid running, even though they are normally offline 350 days a year.

Then there is all this wasted energy that isn't used because some sorts of generators crank out power at night when there isn't a heavy demand. Nuclear plants, hydro, and other renewables, provide energy all the time, regardless of demand. Even big fossil fuel generators can't instantly change their output, often taking 24 hours to go from full bore to off line in case of big coal plants.

Read Smarter electric grid could be key to saving power in The Journal News.

A City Committed to Recycling Is Ready for More.

From the article:

SAN FRANCISCO — Mayor Gavin Newsom is competitive about many things, garbage included. When the city found out a few weeks ago that it was keeping 70 percent of its disposable waste out of local landfills, he embraced the statistic the way other mayors embrace winning sports teams, improved test scores or declining crime rates.

The San Francisco Recycling Center processes about 750 tons of recyclables a day, and Mayor Gavin Newsom wants to add to that total.

Workers sort plastics at the San Francisco Recycling Center. The city, with 7,800 tons of waste a day, keeps 70 percent of it out of landfills. Mayor Gavin Newsom is shooting for 75 percent.

But the city wants more.

So Mr. Newsom will soon be sending the city’s Board of Supervisors a proposal that would make the recycling of cans, bottles, paper, yard waste and food scraps mandatory instead of voluntary, on the pain of having garbage pickups suspended.

“Without that, we don’t think we can get to 75 percent,” the mayor said of the proposal. His aides said it stood a good chance of passing.

How does he describe his fixation with recycling dominance? “It’s purposefulness that could otherwise be construed as ego,” Mr. Newsom said. “You want to be the greatest city. You want to be the leading city. You want to be on the cutting edge. I’m very intense about it.”

Read A City Committed to Recycling Is Ready for More in New York Times.

Watch AMD, Speakers Urge.

From the Daily Gazette:

The town must take a role in monitoring whether the proposed Advanced Micro Devices computer chip plant complies with environmental protection rules, speakers said at a public hearing Monday.

“You really need to hire someone to monitor what’s going on there, because nobody else will look out for yourselves like yourselves,” said resident Carol Henry.

Henry was among eight speakers at a Town Board hearing on an updated environmental impact statement being done by AMD, and also on zoning changes being sought by the company.

Read Watch AMD, speakers urge in the Daily Gazette.

Lake area positioned well for wind power.

From the article:

President Bush said in his 2006 State of the Union speech that the country could meet 20 percent of its electricity needs in 2030 through wind power.

Right now, wind power accounts for just under 1.5 percent of that need.

The difference between those numbers probably explains why organizers were wondering whether they had enough information packets for all the people attending the first meeting of the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative in the Hyatt Regency Buffalo on Tuesday.

Several hundred people — advocates, businesspeople, government representatives, scientists and others — crowded into a meeting room to be briefed on what is a rapidly expanding form of power generation.

Read Lake area positioned well for wind power in The Buffalo News.

An Online Tour of Seneca Meadows.

Interested in how the biggest landfill in our state works, and what it looks like?

Go to this Live Search Map.

Head west Salcman Rd to the weighing station. Look at the hundreds of long haul tractor trailers filled with trash, contaminated soils, coal ash, and many other waste materials being hauled to the biggest landfill in New York.

Head North past the weighting station to the tipping area. Look at the "active face" compared to the rest of the landfill. Scroll around, it's pretty breath-taking. And see the Seneca Meadows Tour on their website.

And see Wendy Skinner's Dumped article.

Notes from the Albany City Council Finance Committee Meeting.

They discussed the future of the landfill, including routine big purchases and the landfill expansion last night.

Here are some brief notes that I took down during the meeting. All of these ordinances relate to the bonding for big purchases, relating to the landfill.

Ordinance Number 26.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $35,000.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE LEASE FINANCING OR THE ISSUANCE OF $35,000.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (ONE TON PICKUP- LANDFILL)

Sano stated this was a routine replacement of end of lifespan equipment.

Ordinance Number 27.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $56,650.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $56,650.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (FLARE GAS ANALYZER)

Sano stated this would be used to implement flare gas monitoring per agreement with the DEC. Sano asked Nitido about the status of the flare gas contract. He said that negogations where continuing. Conti asked D’Antonio about whether or not they could convert landfill equipment over natural gas/methane.

D’Antonio stated it would be difficult to store, compress, and convert the gas, so currently it would be impractical to get permitted. D’Antonio agreed with Conti’s concerns about high diesel prices, and said the city was taking various steps to conserve energy at the landfill.

Ordinance Number 28.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $120,000.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $120,000.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (SCADA SYSTEM LANDFILL)

Sano stated this would be used for remote monitoring of gas well pressure equipment. D’Antonio said this would increase productivity and save on fuel by reducing the number of trips running around to the 15 or so wells “several” times a day.

Ordinance Number 29.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $205,000.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $205,000.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (CAES GPS LANDFILL GRADING SYSTEM)

Sano stated that this would help the city maximize their landfill. D’Antonio explained this system puts a series of indicator lights on bulldozers and graders, to tell operators whether or not they are grading the landfill too steep or shallow. Too steep can cause engineering problems such as excessive run-off, while too shallow wastes valuable space taken up later by landfill cover.

D’Antonio described this system as high-tech and is used by the newest landfill systems in our country. It works by a plan developed in the central office to DEC specs, and ensures that the landfill is built exactly to engineering specs, rather then by a series of estimates by equipment operators.

D’Antonio described this system as potentially earning the city millions of dollars. He said if this technology had been available a decade ago, they would not be discussing a landfill expansion currently.

Ordinance Number 30.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $155,000.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $155,000.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (POSISHELL EQUIPMENT LANDFILL)

Sano responsed that this would be used purchase Posishell applicator equipment that they use to apply the daily cover. Right now the city leases this equipment from the Posishell Corporation per their former agreement. The city has recently changed their agreement with Posishell to be able to purchase the equipment.

City operators, according to D'Antosio operate Posishell equipment. This bonding will allow the purchase of the equipment, at a much cheaper rate then leasing.

Ordinance Number 31.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $6,991,000.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $6,991,000.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (LANDFILL EXPANSION)

Sano said this was necessary to ensure that the city could afford, at a reasonable price, to start their expansion by 2010 at a reasonable price if the city would be granted permission by DEC. Calsolaro asked D’Antonio for a status update with the DEC. D’Anonitio stated that negogations are ongoing, but they do not have a definite answer yet. He said he would not state on the record what the odds where of approval.

Sano said that while they will pass this ordinance out of the committee, he would rather wait to send them to the whole body for a vote until it seemed likely that the DEC would approve their permit.

Nitido explained the necessity of floating these bonds when the city went to the bond market on July 1st. If the city did not float the bonds they could still get a short term notes from the market, but it would make bonding the $6 million “dramatically” more expensive.

Nitido stated the city’s preferred method would be to take out the bonds, and if they are unused invest them in the market. He said that was not a perfect solution, and would have costs. Nitido said the city could not take in any profits from putting those bonds on the market after receiving the payments, and would have return any money gained in excess of what is necessary to pay back the bonds or risk paying a significant fine from the IRS, which has ruled it illegal for municipalities to bond then put the proceeds on the market and take in the profit.

Calsolaro pressed Nitido to delineate the costs of taking the bonds and then investing them in the markets. Nitido stated that he fully expects to make enough off the market to easily make debt service payment. However, due to the IRS ban on municipalities profiting off their bonds, the city would have to forfeit the costs of floating the bonds in the first place. He estimated those costs to be the in the several thousands of dollars range. The board seemed to concur that was a risk they where willing to take.

Sano pressed Nitido on the last possible date the council would have to decide on floating these bonds. Nitidio initially said by the last common council meeting of the month, but on Sano’s pressure he looked at his calendar and said it should be okay if the city decided by June 2nd. Sano told D’Antonio that he wanted him to personally pressure the DEC to give them more information on how they are leaning with the expansion. Sano stated that he would be willing to go forward floating the bonds without DEC approval, but he would like to better know the likelihood of DEC approval before investing taxpayer money in such a potentially risky investment.

Calsolaro asked Nitido about net revenue projection for landfill this year. Nitido responded $2.5 to 4 million. Calsolaro asked if this was after debt service. Nitido responded this number was after all expenses where factored in.

Ordinance Number 32.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $1,700,000.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $1,700,000.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (PINE BUSH RESTORATION)

Sano stated that they would have to pay for this – the first phase of the restoration, regardless of the city’s choice, as it was the only realistic way that the city could get an expansion permit from the DEC.

Ordinance Number 33.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $287,400.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE LEASE FINANCING OR THE ISSUANCE OF $287,400.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (EXCAVATOR-LANDFILL)

D'Antonio stated the purpose was to purchase an additional excavator to replace an older one. The older one would remain in commission until it became too expensive to maintain, however its primary function would be as a backup machine should the newer excavators fail.

Ordinance Number 34.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $123,600.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $123,600.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (VIBRATORY ROLLER LANDFILL)

D'Antonio stated that this was another “efficiency” upgrade for the landfill. This would better compact the trash face for building roads on the landfill by vibrating the surface and applying downward pressure, rather then the conventional bulldozer which just pushes across. This would mean more landfill space would be available.

Ordinance Number 35.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $329,600.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE LEASE FINANCING OR THE ISSUANCE OF $329,600.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (ARTICULATED DUMP TRUCK-LANDFILL)

Sano said this was simply a routine purchase to replace end of age equipment.

Ordinance Number 36.42.08: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PROJECTS BY THE CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK AT A MAXIMUM ESTIMATED COST OF $750,000.00 AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $750,000.00 SERIAL BONDS OF SAID CITY TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. (PROFESSIONAL FEES LANDFILL)

Colasaro asked Nitido about whether or not these bonds would be used to pay legal services. Nitido stated that these would be “used for contracts for engineering services”. Colasaro pressed on asking whether or not those would be used in efforts relating to the expansion of the landfill. Nitido essentially dodged this question, responding that “it would make no sense to change engineers at this point in the game.”

Colasaro asked of all these items where on budget. Nitido stated that all of these items where in the mayor’s budget.

Nitido requested that all resolutions be amended to include the option of lease for all landfill bonding ordinances excluding the “two big ticket items” – the expansion, the Pine Bush reconstruction. They later added “professional fees” landfill also to that list as that can not be leased.

Nitido said it was the city’s policy to include the option of lease in all new vehicle or equipment purchases. This way if the item could not be purchase immediately, proceeds from the bond could be used to lease in the interim.

Sano responded that as he had previously understood it that the lease provisions only applied to the purchase of vehicles and not equipment, but would consider amending the aforementioned resolutions to include such a provision.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: No public comments where given on the landfill purchase despite being an “open” period to do as such. There where only two other people there to discuss another bill.

It will be interesting to see if they proceed on the bonding of the landfill expansion. If they pull the bonds, assume the landfill expansion is basically dead. A decision will have to be made in the next two or three weeks, and we will have to be watching very carefully.

Diesel Fuel in a Bottle of Water.

It takes a ton of diesel to bring all that bottled water to your tap:

An article in today’s local newspaper explained now Nestl� plans to tap some local springs near Nathrop (between Buena Vista and Salida in Chaffee County, Colo.) for its Arrowhead bottled water.

The company proposes to collect 0.3 cubic feet per second (about 135 gallons) and transport the water by truck to its bottling plant in Denver. That works out to 194,400 gallons per day. A gallon of water weighs 8.35 pounds, so that’s 1,622,268 pounds, or about 811 tons, to be hauled from Nathrop to Denver every day.

The newspaper article said there would be 20 truckloads a day, but if Nestl� is really taking 0.3 cfs, then it will be more like 30 trucks. I called a local trucking company, where the manager told me that the maximum legal weight on the relevant highway, U.S. 285, is 85,000 pounds, or 42.5 tons. An empty semi tractor and tank weigh about 15 tons, she said, so the maximum payload would be 27.5 tons. Divide that into the 811 daily tons of water, and you get 30 loads per day.

Nathrop is about 125 miles from Denver, so the round trip would be 250 miles. With 30 round trips, full loads to Denver and empty runs back to Nathrop, that’s 7,500 miles per day.

The trucking manger said the big diesel rigs get 4.5 miles per gallon on average, which includes both loaded and empty. So just getting the water from the springs to the bottling plant would burn 1,667 gallons of diesel fuel every day, or more than 600,000 gallons per year.

And that doesn’t count the petroleum used to make the plastic bottles, or the fuel used to transport Arrowhead water from the bottling plant to the cooler in your neighborhood convenience store, or the energy used by that refrigeration.

Read The diesel fuel in the water bottle on GOAT - A High Country News Blog.

Suppressed Aviation Report Forecasts 'Massive Environmental Damage'.

ENS News reports that airplanes may be the most destructive growing technology out there:

Climate change emissions by the airline industry, airport noise, and local air pollution are all trending sharply upwards, according to a suppressed report based on information contained in U.S., European and UK government databases maintained by regulatory agencies.

The technical report was submitted to the 7th US/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar held in Barcelona, Spain last summer.

But it was not accepted for publication by seminar organizers and remained unpublished until released to the public on April 24 by the Aviation Environment Federation, the principal UK nonprofit concerned with the environmental effects of aviation.An Airbus A380 departs from London's Heathrow Airport. (Photo by Ian Britton courtesy FreeFoto.com)

Calling it a "shock report," the Aviation Environment Federation says that between the years 2000 and 2025 the rapid growth in aviation globally is set to generate "massive environmental damage."

I'm not on the whole surprised. Airplanes consume massive amounts of energy, and spew out all kinds of toxic chemicals.

We as a society should be looking towards more efficient ways of moving people around quickly, including combining rail and air together. Rather then have an airport in Albany, it would be much cheaper and sensible to merge with JFK and have high-speed trains take people directly from Albany to their terminal at JFK.

Read Suppressed Aviation Report Forecasts 'Massive Environmental Damage' on ENS News.

Portrait of an oil-addicted former superpower.

From Grist:

Nineteen years ago, the fall of the Berlin Wall effectively eliminated the Soviet Union as the world's other superpower. Yes, the USSR as a political entity stumbled on for another two years, but it was clearly an ex-superpower from the moment it lost control over its satellites in Eastern Europe.

Less than a month ago, the United States similarly lost its claim to superpower status when a barrel crude oil roared past $110 on the international market, gasoline prices crossed the $3.50 threshold at American pumps, and diesel fuel topped $4.00. As was true of the USSR following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the USA will no doubt continue to stumble on like the superpower it once was; but as the nation's economy continues to be eviscerated to pay for its daily oil fix, it, too, will be seen by increasing numbers of savvy observers as an ex-superpower-in-the-making.

That the fall of the Berlin Wall spelled the erasure of the Soviet Union's superpower status was obvious to international observers at the time. After all, the USSR visibly ceased to exercise dominion over an empire (and an associated military-industrial complex) encompassing nearly half of Europe and much of Central Asia. The relationship between rising oil prices and the obliteration of America's superpower status is, however, hardly as self-evident. So let's consider the connection.

Read Portrait of an oil-addicted former superpower on Gristmill.