GoodLifeBottles - 728x90

Guardian Environment Network

Colorado river running on empty by 2050

July 28, 2009

There is a one-in-two chance of fully depleting reservoir storage by 2050, says University of Colorado study. From the Ecologist, part of the Guardian Environment Network

The lifeblood of the American west, the Coloradoc river, is running dry under current usage, according to a study from the University of Colorado.

Travelling almost 1,500 miles, the river supplies drinking and irrigation water for about 30 million people from Colorado to the Gulf of California.

The study looked at how water supplies would be affected by climate fluctuations and water demand.

Reservoirs low

In 2000 reservoirs fed by the river were at 95 per cent of capacity. In 2009 they had dropped to 59 per cent of capacity.

If climate change results in a 10 per cent reduction in the Colorado River’s average stream flows, as some recent studies predict, the chances of fully depleting reservoir storage will exceed 25 per cent by 2057.

If climate change results in a 20 per cent reduction, the chances of fully depleting reservoir storage will exceed 50 per cent by 2057, said the study.

Depleting supplies

‘On average, drying caused by climate change would increase the risk of fully depleting reservoir storage by nearly ten times more than the risk we expect from population pressures alone,’ said study author Balaji Rajagopalan.

‘By mid-century this risk translates into a 50 percent chance in any given year of empty reservoirs, an enormous risk and a huge water management challenge,’ he said.

Researchers warned against being ‘lulled into a false sense of security’ by the current high water capacity of the Colorado River system.

‘This study, along with others that predict future flow reductions in the Colorado River Basin, suggests that water managers should begin to re-think current water management practices during the next few years before the more serious effects of climate change appear,’ said Rajagopalan.

• This article appeared on the Ecologist, part of the Guardian Environment Network

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Mountaintop mining legacy: Destroying Appalachian streams

July 22, 2009

Scientists are now beginning to understand that mountaintop mining operations’ most lasting damage may be caused by the massive amounts of debris dumped into valley streams, writes John McQuaid from Yale Environment 360, part of the Guardian Environment Network

Laurel Branch Hollow was once a small West Virginia mountain valley, with steep, forested hillsides and a stream that, depending on the season and the rains, flowed or trickled down into the Mud River about 200 yards below. The stream teemed with microbes and insect life, and each spring it became a sumptuous buffet for the birds, fish, and amphibians in the valley.

But over the past decade, the Hobet 21 mountaintop removal coal mining operation has obliterated 25 square miles of surrounding highlands. From the air, the mine is a 10-mile-long, mottled gray blotch among the green, crisscrossed by trucks and earth movers, appended by black lakes of coal sludge.

The Caudill family has owned a house at the mouth of the hollow since the early 1900s. Many of their neighbors left, but the Caudills fought and blocked an attempt by Hobet to force them to sell their property. Unfazed, the mining operation simply steered around their land, and dumped a mountain’s worth of rocky debris into the Laurel Branch up to their property line.
When mountains are demolished with explosives to harvest their coal seams, the millions of tons of crushed shale, sandstone, and coal detritus
have to go somewhere, and the most convenient spots are nearby valleys. Mining operations clear-cut the hillsides and literally “fill” mountain hollows to the brim — and sometimes higher — with rocky debris. At the mouth of the hollow, the outer edge of the fill is typically engineered into a towering wall resembling a dam.

As I visited Laurel Branch recently with family members Anita Miller and her mother, Lorene Caudill, two bulldozers crawled back and forth over the peak more than 200 feet above us, sculpting it into a steep, three-tiered sloping form. When it can reach no higher, the coal company will seed the slope with grass and move on. But the valley fill’s impact on the environment will last much, much longer.

Of all the environmental problems caused by mountaintop projects — decapitated peaks, deforestation, the significant carbon footprint — scientists have found that valley fills do the most damage because they destroy headwater streams and surrounding forests, which are crucial to the workings of mountain ecosystems.

“There used to be pine trees, and it was a very pretty shaded area. There was a nice trail that went up the hollow and I used to take my granddaughter up there and we’d go ginsenging [harvesting ginseng roots, an Appalachian custom] on up the hill,” says Miller, whose grandfather built the family homestead in 1920. “She really misses not being able to do that. She said, ‘Can’t we go someplace else? There’s no hills to climb there.’”

The remaining length of Laurel Branch, running past the house into the river, has become a sluice for contamination: As rainwater runs down Hobet 21′s dismantled mountainsides and fills, it picks up minerals and pollutants that damage delicate stream chemistry for miles downstream. Laurel Branch and multiple valley fills like it feed the Mud River, which is heavily contaminated with selenium, a heavy metal that works its way up through the food chain in ever-greater concentrations. One study has associated it with deformities — including curved spines and two eyes on one side of the head – found in fish larvae in a downstream reservoir.

When the Obama administration announced last month it would toughen its oversight of mountaintop removal rather than ban it or otherwise crack down, environmental groups that had hoped for decisive action were outraged. In West Virginia, local activists launched protests employing civil disobedience. Actress Darryl Hannah and NASA scientist James Hansen, an outspoken advocate of immediate action to address global warming, were among 31 people arrested at one anti-mountaintop protest in Sundial, W.Va.

But the scientific picture of mountaintop removal now emerging — from, among other things, the study of valley fills like the one in Laurel Branch —
is, in its way, far more dramatic than any protest. The spread of mountaintop removal through central Appalachia in the past 15 years has given scientists the opportunity to study environmental destruction on a previously unthinkable scale: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that by 2013 a forested area the size of Delaware will have been destroyed and that more than 1,200 miles of streams have already been severely damaged. As that footprint has grown, so has the evidence, outlined in peer-reviewed scientific papers and ongoing investigations, showing that the damage is far more extensive than previously understood.

The Obama administration’s approach puts pressure on coal companies to compromise with regulators to limit some of the more egregious impacts of mountaintop removal. That may have some effect, but it will be limited by the government’s balkanized regulatory scheme for coal mining, which dates to the 1970s and never contemplated the vast damage that results when mountains are demolished.

In the case of valley fills, for example, only the EPA has ecosystem-wide responsibility through the Clean Water Act which governs what may be dumped in streams and waterways. But the agency’s power is circumscribed; it shares authority with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which actually grants the dumping permits and has taken a much more sympathetic view of the practice. The Interior Department, meanwhile, oversees mountaintop projects via another law, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

Nevertheless, the White House is betting that mountaintop mining can be managed and the damage ultimately repaired. But the science indicates that such an incremental approach may never be effective. Mountaintop removal does damage on both vast and microscopic scales, from hydrological changes over hundreds of square miles to effects on the life cycles of the tiniest stream microbes. Overseeing the repair of such damage is beyond the capabilities of any government agency; the most serious impacts — to streams — may be all but impossible to fix.

Margaret Palmer, a biology professor at the University of Maryland, was part of a team of scientists that compiled a comprehensive database of 37,000 U.S. river and stream restoration projects. She found no record of any mining-related stream-building project that could be called ecologically successful.

“Can you create these streams de novo, from scratch? There’s no evidence,” says Palmer, who testified on behalf of West Virginia environmental groups in a suit faulting the Army Corps of Engineers’ stream management. “Over thousands of years, I think you could do it. You have to have erosion of the land, get the hydrology back. I’m a restoration ecologist — I hope it can be done. But given how much damage they’ve done, right now I don’t think so.”

Take a big step back for a moment. Mountain ecosystems developed over millions of years in tandem with evolving patterns of snow and rainfall. On an unspoiled mountain, some rain is immediately absorbed by the soil, while the remainder trickles into stream beds and eventually flows into larger waterways. Between rainfalls, mountain soil acts as a kind of sponge: Some of its water is taken up by trees and other plants, some gradually released into streams. This system creates a steady flow in the spring and summer that sustains entire watersheds and the surrounding ecosystems that depend on them.

Surface mining destroys those ancient interrelationships and disrupts them for many miles around. Keith Eshleman, a scientist at the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Studies Appalachian Laboratory, runs an ongoing study on the impact of strip mine sites on the mountains of western Maryland. Using satellite imagery and data collected in the field, Eshleman and other scientists have documented significant changes in hydrology and the ecosystem functioning on sites that have been reclaimed — i.e., restored to the satisfaction of government agencies, typically by bulldozing the mined land smooth and replanting it with grass.

Eshleman took me out to one of his Maryland study sites, a reclaimed mine on Big Savage Mountain he calls the “site from hell.” It’s not a mountaintop removal site but a former highwall mine: One slope had been vertically stripped away and the coal mined in the early part of the decade. Like many reclaimed sites, it’s now mostly pastureland. Eshleman and his colleagues monitor runoff from the site with a small catch basin near the bottom. It’s about 10 feet across, with an attached depth gauge and a flume emptying onto a small valley fill. Their observations show there is a lot more runoff and erosion from the mine than from an unspoiled mountainside or sites that are more carefully reclaimed.

This isn’t surprising, since there is little vegetation and no topsoil — instead, mining companies use crushed rock for reclamation, which doesn’t absorb much water. In mountain streams, there is a steady flow that swells during rains; in this system, there is barely any steady flow, but rather sudden, extreme pulses during storms. During a recent three-inch downpour, for instance, the catch basin filled up and briefly overflowed. Loose rocks, sand and other signs of recent erosion were still visible up and down the reclamation site. The gauge showed that of 90 millimeters of water that fell, 60 mm — or two thirds — ran off; on forested mountainsides, the figure is typically less than half.

This phenomenon is one source of the frequent flash floods near mine sites throughout Appalachia and is a serious safety risk for nearby communities. Eshleman and his colleagues recently expanded their study area to include mountaintop removal areas of West Virginia. They expect the findings will be similar to those from the Maryland sites.

The environmental impacts of massive alterations in water flow and the loss of soil and vegetation can be catastrophic for the carbon and nitrogen cycles and other basic functions that sustain life. A 2008 paper by Eshleman and several colleagues found many signs of impaired ecosystem health at reclaimed strip mines, including low levels of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous. “Currently the goal of mine reclamation is simply the establishment of permanent vegetative cover,” the authors wrote. “This approach is shortsighted and does not take into account the importance of ecosystem processes like nutrient cycling nor the potentially harmful conditions created, like high soil and stream temperatures. As a result, recovery of comparable ecosystem function will take decades to centuries.”

Some scientists say that those problems are, at least theoretically, manageable. “Reclamation does not fully restore the natural communities and processes that are lost when land is mined for coal; but, when done right, it can establish conditions that allow many of those communities and processes to return to the mined landscape over time,” Carl Zipper, a professor of environmental science at Virginia Tech, wrote in an email exchange with me. Zipper runs the Powell River Project, which researches and tests reclamation techniques (and is funded largely by coal interests).

The problem, however, is that “good” reclamation is expensive, and mining operations that prefer to do it on the cheap outnumber those willing to spend the necessary time and money. Federal law requires that a mined-out site be restored to the “approximate original contour” and planted with “a diverse, effective, and permanent vegetative cover.” But it’s virtually impossible to rebuild many mountain peaks, so “approximate” is interpreted quite liberally. Replanting is similarly erratic – complete reforestation is rare; many sites end up as grassy pastures. Those problems are straightforward compared to those that mining poses for streams. The “intermittent and ephemeral” valley streams appear and disappear with the seasons and rains. But they are the headwaters for steady-running “perennial” streams below, and the foundation for the broader forest ecosystem: most notably a breeding ground for insects that provide the biomass to sustain birds and other animal life. When those streams are destroyed, the effects are felt far beyond the immediate vicinity of the valley fill, and scientists say they are irreplaceable.

Below Eshleman’s basin, repeated torrents had cut a deepening rut into the small valley fill. The fill ended abruptly at the trees where the remaining natural stream bed sat, dry. “This is their ‘stream,’” Eshelman said. “This is meant to replace the native stream that was here. Does this look like a mountain stream to you?”

This is a typical problem on mountaintop removal sites. In most cases, Margaret Palmer says, mining drainage ditches are repurposed as streams to move water across reclaimed areas. “In fact, they have created a gutter or a ditch,” she says. “If you look at what organisms are in it, it’s not similar at all to natural streams.”

Moreover, when stream ecosystems are destroyed, trouble flows downstream with the runoff. Scientists at the EPA Freshwater Biology Lab in Wheeling, W.Va., began studying the downstream effects of valley fills in the early 2000s as part of a major, court-ordered environmental impact assessment of mountaintop mining. Their 2008 paper on the topic drew the attention of regulators, coal companies, and scientists because it demonstrated that streams outside of mine sites suffer from pollution, altered chemistry, and biological damage. “Our results indicate that [mountaintop mining] is strongly related to downstream biological impairment,” the study said.

The EPA scientists found that an unusually high concentration of ions from dissolved metals and sulfates from mine sites was killing off entire populations of mayflies, an important indicator of broader ecosystem health. “What was alarming to us is in some of these streams we were losing the whole group of mayflies,” says Greg Pond, the lead scientist on the study. “Of the eight to 10 species you’ll find in a small sample, often, we were getting only one or zero.” Other studies have shown that such chemical changes linger on for decades, meaning the mayflies and other affected species won’t come back without major intervention. The EPA study concluded that the ecological damage was bad enough to trigger a provision of the Clean Water Act requiring the state to take steps to monitor and reduce the pollution, though that may not be sufficient for the wildlife to recover.

At the Laurel Branch Hollow valley fill, a rectangular pond filters sediment and chemically treats the water running off before it pours into the remaining stream bed and then the Mud River. Studies have shown, however, that the ponds do an incomplete job of filtering chemicals, and the Mud River has been especially hard hit.

The most ubiquitous form of downstream contamination may be the heavy metal selenium, a common element associated with coal seams. Selenium is an essential nutrient in small amounts, but it bioaccumulates in tissue, and in high enough concentrations can cause health and reproductive problems in wildlife and humans. In 2003, the EPA’s environmental impact assessment found significant elevations of selenium downstream from valley fills.

The Mud River, which wends through the Hobet 21 site, has become notorious for its high selenium levels. A. Dennis Lemly, a biologist with the U.S. Forest Service who specializes in selenium contamination, found very high selenium levels in the Upper Mud River reservoir, about 10 miles downstream from the Caudill home, and documented the deformities among bluegill fish larvae. In 2007 the state issued an advisory telling people to limit their consumption of fish from the reservoir. After the state filed suit, Hobet agreed to pay $3.5 million to the state and to take steps to reduce selenium leaching from its operations.

Before mountaintop removal, cases of severe selenium contamination were mainly limited to coal-fired power plant discharges. Now they’re appearing across Appalachia near mountaintop mines, says Lemly, who recently wrote a report outlining his findings for an environmental group challenging mountaintop removal.

Lemly believes that without major changes, the Mud’s contaminated fish populations may simply collapse. “In case of the Mud River, those [fish populations] are quite a few miles downstream of the mining operations — 20 to 30 miles or more,” he says. “That’s a long way. Selenium just moves with the water.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

India says no to emission reduction

July 21, 2009

Ramesh suggests a three-pronged approach for India–US collaboration on climate change as a way forward. From SciDev.net, part of the Guardian Environment Network

India’s minister for environment and forests Jairam Ramesh has ruled out the country’s agreeing to specific targets for reducing carbon emissions.

“There is simply no case for the pressure that we [India] — who have among the lowest emissions per capita — face to reduce emissions,” Ramesh told visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday (19 July).

“And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours,” Ramesh said. These tariffs are charges levied on companies for the carbon dioxide they produce while manufacturing goods.

Ramesh says that detailed modelling studies carried out in India show that even if gross domestic product grows by 8–9 per cent over the next two decades, India’s emissions will be below that of developed countries.

He also said India sees “a critical role for international technology cooperation in enabling countries like India to adapt to climate change”. India, in collaboration with the UN, will host an international meeting on climate change technology issues on 22–23 October, in New Delhi, which is expected to culminate in a statement for inclusion in any agreement to be reached in Copenhagen in December.

Although developing countries expect a concrete adaptation fund to be put in place in Copenhagen, developed countries have not yet committed themselves to any specific contributions, Tove Maria Ryding — a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Denmark and chair of a coalition of 92 nongovernmental organisations — told journalists from developing countries last month (June).

Technology transfer is being linked to how willing developing countries — especially Brazil China, India and South Africa — are to commit themselves to reducing emissions, she says.

A press release from India’s environment ministry on 19 July says Ramesh suggests a three-pronged approach for India–US collaboration on climate change as a way forward. The first is to set up an India–US forum on climate change technology, with initial funds from the two governments to kickstart it. The two countries could engage in joint research in solar energy, biomass, clean coal, high-voltage power transmission, smart grids and wastewater utilisation, he suggests.

The second is building institutional capacity for climate change research and its impacts, and the third is collaboration between the two countries on environmental planning, regulation and management.

India’s future plans in this area include establishing a science-based national environmental protection authority and a national ‘green tribunal’ to serve as an environment court — a specialist court for environmental issues.

• This article was shared by our content partner SciDev.net, part of the Guardian Environment Network

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Prius takes a ride to the US aboard solar-powered container ship

July 20, 2009

Green freighter makes maiden Japan-US voyage to deliver Toyota hybrids. From BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network

As the manufacturer of the world’s most famous hybrid car, it seems only fitting that Toyota has now begun shipping its Prius cars to the US using a container ship that could also qualify as a hybrid.

The Auriga Leader, the world’s first freighter to be partly powered using solar energy, has made its maiden voyage to the US from Japan, arriving at California’s Port of Long Beach earlier this month with a consignment of Prius cars and other Toyota vehicles.

Launched in December, the ship is equipped with 328 solar panels on its car carrier which can generate up to 40kW of energy.

The Auriga Leader’s solar array provides a supplementary source of clean energy to the ship, helping to reduce the load on its auxiliary engines. They also serve a double duty by helping to protect the vehicles from salt water, wind pressure and vibrations while at sea.

The freighter is a joint project from Japanese companies Nippon Yusen Kaisha and Nippon Oil Corp – which invested $1.68m (£1m) in the solar panel system – and is contracted exclusively to Toyota.

The Japanese automaker will use the Auriga Leader, which can carry up to 6,400 vehicles, to make bi-weekly trips between Japan and California.

In addition to having a green mode of overseas delivery, most Prius cars are produced in a solar-powered factory in Tsutsumi, located in central Japan. Its rooftop array produces 2MW of electricity per hour, meeting about half the plant’s energy requirements.

The latest version of the iconic car, which was launched in Japan in May and is expected in the UK this summer, also features a rooftop solar panel designed to provide power for the car’s cooling systems.

• This article was shared by our content partner BusinessGreen.com, part of the Guardian Environment Network

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →

Is the clean energy cashback tariff high enough to stimulate investment?

July 16, 2009

After months of deliberation, the UK government has announced a range of illustrative figures for feed-in tariffs. From Carbon Commentary, part of the Guardian Environment Network

After months of deliberation, the UK government has announced a range of illustrative figures for feed-in tariffs (FITs), which it’s calling a Clean Energy Cashback scheme. FITs are fixed payments made to the owners of small generating stations for the electricity that they export to the grid. Micro-generators need high payments to justify their expensive investment in buying and installing green generation.

The proposed levels of FIT vary by the type of technology. The principal ones covered are biomass combustion (burning wood to generate electric power), hydro, solar photovoltaics, and wind turbines. Of these, the most appealing are likely to be wind and PV. If my estimates in the following paragraphs are correct, the government’s proposal for payments to rooftop PV are too low to generate much new investment. On the other hand, the payments for rural wind are good enough to make decent returns. If the figures survive unchanged through (yet another) consultation process, we should see thousands of small wind turbines in windy British fields.

Solar
The proposal is for a FIT of 36.5 pence per kilowatt hour for a domestic rooftop system for installations in financial year 2010/2011. A typical UK installation is about ’2 kilowatts peak’, a figure for the maximum output in the middle of the day in mid-summer. Such an installation will generate about 1,800 kilowatt hours (kWh) a year in a sunny location in Devon or Cornwall on a south-facing roof. No more than half this electricity would be fed into the grid, the rest would be used in the home. In this case, the revenues are approximately as follows:

2 kilowatt peak installation in the English south-west:

The cost of such an installation today would be about £10,000, meaning a running return of about 7% for the 20 years of the guaranteed life of the FIT scheme. A PV installation is likely to last 25 years or more, so the installation pays back its cost, but with only a little to spare. In the north of England, the figures would be even less good. PV is nice, but it isn’t a money-spinner. To attract large-scale investment, the FIT might have had to be 50p or more.

Wind is better
A 15 kW turbine at the end of a large rural garden or on a village green would cost about £50,000 (source: Proven Turbines: £41,000 for the turbine and my estimate of £9,000 for installation and grid connection). This machine would generate perhaps 25,000 kilowatt hours on a windy and exposed site with minimal turbulence created by trees. All this would get pumped into the grid. (This is good – you get more cash from exporting the electricity than you would save by using it yourself.)

15 kilowatt wind turbine in a good location:

If these estimates are correct, the return on a 15 kilowatt turbine would be 12% p.a. A machine should last twenty years or more. It isn’t a return that would excite Goldman Sachs, but it isn’t bad. Go for a wind turbine, not for the more glamorous solar panels.

It is conventional wisdom in Germany and elsewhere that a near-guaranteed return of 6% is sufficient to spark interest in renewables from ordinary families. At the proposed levels for FITs, this figure will be clearly achieved in the UK in good locations.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read the full article →