FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Toxic coal ash piling up in ponds in 32 states





icecool
wherever we look these days, new environmental disasters are looming.

Quote:
WASHINGTON – Millions of tons of toxic coal ash is piling up in power plant ponds in 32 states, a situation the government has long recognized as a risk to human health and the environment but has done nothing about.

An Associated Press analysis of the most recent Energy Department data found that 156 coal-fired power plants store ash in surface ponds similar to one that ruptured last month in Tennessee. On Friday, a pond at a northeastern Alabama power plant spilled a different material

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_go_ot/coal_ash;_ylt=ArdKrvyfOZLG.xkpGT5LVQnk4Z94

in our greed to see "progress" at the least cost to ourselves we are prepared to create situations that future generations will be pleased to inherit from us. with open eyes we plunder our resources and ignore our responsibilities of dealing with the effects we create.

Quote:
Over the years, the volume of waste has grown as demand for electricity increased and the federal government clamped down on emissions from power plants.

The AP's analysis found that in 2005, the most recent year data is available, 721 power plants generating at least 100 megawatts of electricity produced 95.8 million tons of coal ash. About 20 percent — or nearly 20 million tons — ended up in surface ponds. The remainder ends up in landfills, or is sold for use in concrete, among other uses.


Quote:
"There has been zero done by the EPA," said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W. Va., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Rahall pushed through legislation in 1980 directing the EPA to study how wastes generated at the nation's coal-fired power plants should be treated under federal law.

In both 1988 and 1993, the EPA decided that coal ash should not be regulated as a hazardous waste. The agency has also failed to take other steps to control how the waste is stored.


i find it amazing and shocking that according to this for 28 years the relevant agencies are AWARE of the dangers involved - and yet do NOTHING. just closing our eyes, looking the other way and declaring this kind of waste less dangerous than common household waste which is highly regulated does not alter the facts.

Quote:
Over the years, the government has found increasing evidence that coal ash ponds and landfills taint the environment and pose risks to humans and wildlife. In 2000, when the EPA first floated the idea of a national standard, the agency knew of 11 cases of water pollution linked to ash ponds or landfills. In 2007, that list grew to 24 cases in 13 states with another 43 cases where coal ash was the likely cause of pollution.


what has to happen that things change? when do WE realise that it is concerning ALL of us.
as consumers we demand everything NOW, CHEAP - and MORE, MORE, MORE.
then we blame the big boys:
Quote:
The agency, which had set 2006 as a target for issuing a proposed regulation, says it is still working toward a national standard. A top EPA official also said there has been no "conscious or clear slowdown" by Bush administration officials who have run the agency since 2001 and often sided with the energy industry on environmental controls.

just imagine the outcry IF they actually would listen just for once - and roll over the cost of proper dealing with all this onto US as consumers.

we ALL have to realise that this earth is not OURS to USE - it is only ours to keep for generations to come - and to keep it in a responsible manner.

we keep the house clean when we expect guests - yet we can't keep our world clean for OUR children.

Quote:
"The solution is readily available to the EPA," said Lisa Evans, an attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental advocacy group. "We wouldn't like it, but they could say that municipal solid waste rules apply to coal ash. They could have done that, but instead they chose to do absolutely nothing."


it's easy to point fingers and say "they". "they" are part of US - but pointing fingers at ourselves and taking responsibility for our actions never was a strong human point.
deanhills
icecool wrote:
it's easy to point fingers and say "they". "they" are part of US - but pointing fingers at ourselves and taking responsibility for our actions never was a strong human point.


Absolutely true! Yesterday when I was buying some groceries, I noted a lady who packed her own grocery bag, instead of using the plastic bags. It was a huge grocery bag, specially made for shopping. I remember my grandmother used to take those to grocery stores. Think the plastic bags, and plastic containers are the worst for garbage. There are so many ways we can take responsibility for less waste. Think we have all grown into massive consumers. In Vancouver they have stores where you can buy in bulk, obviating the need for fancy containers, so one can take your own containers and fill them up. Wish there could be more of this, but that would probably put quite a number of the large manufacturers out of business. We have moved into a society that thrives on take-outs and comfort foods, comfort living. Everything has become disposable and ready for garbage with a couple of times use. Even the clothes we wear. We are paying a great price for this disposable kind of living, think our sins are catching up with us very fast.
harismushtaq
Infact we have already started to spread waste in the universe outside earth. I heard of some news that rockets that carry space missions and settelites that are to be removed or replaced are actually destroyed in the space and thier debris orbit the earth and now is creating an area of debris that has become dangerous for other space vehicles that travel in orbits in the effected area.

However, there is a good notion of lets go green now a days in technology as well. Airbus for example is highly focused on environment friendly aeroplanes that produce less noise and fuel exhaust and are more closer to the natures echo system. Similar approach is required every where otherwise we will go towards a system imbalance and eventually a major disaster.
Nick2008
You mean "space junk"?'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_junk

Yes, it's unbelievable of how we treat ourselves better than our only place to live. We are naturally greedy and selfish, but, eh, hm.... the Earth is our only home.
harismushtaq
By the way, is coal ash toxic ? As far I know, good quality coal has very little sulphur and other poisonous chemicals and burned out ash should have some natural acceptance in the natural echo system.
ocalhoun
Nice to see some environmental outcry about some of the more urgent problems we have instead of the small and distant threat of global warming.
deanhills
I was thinking about this tonight after I had done shopping and was preparing my food. All the plastic wrappings. The plastic bag, then plastic around the food, the food in plastic within the plastic wrapping. And by the end of the meal how much trash I had generated, as I had a plastic bag full of trash. Think when one starts to think that way, and then multiply it with the number of people and their consumption, it will probably drive a person quite crazy in the head. It will be interesting to make a list of my daily, weekly and monthly consumption and generation of trash. Including all the clothes we are buying and that we do not really need in such quantities. So much waste ...
harismushtaq
There is a constant outcry by environment agencies against plastic bags. They say it has chemicals which are dangerous to the environment and that it is not recycleable. I accept it might be true but what is a good replacement of plastic bags. Plastis bags are strong and leak proof where as paper bags have neither of these qualities. If we stop using plastic bags, what should be the alternative.
deanhills
harismushtaq wrote:
There is a constant outcry by environment agencies against plastic bags. They say it has chemicals which are dangerous to the environment and that it is not recycleable. I accept it might be true but what is a good replacement of plastic bags. Plastis bags are strong and leak proof where as paper bags have neither of these qualities. If we stop using plastic bags, what should be the alternative.
Go back to using baskets? Or canvas bags? Or design something new. How about a large trolley on wheels that fit into a boot for big shopping? Something you can wheel from your car to your kitchen? Or creative things like that.
handfleisch
harismushtaq wrote:
There is a constant outcry by environment agencies against plastic bags. They say it has chemicals which are dangerous to the environment and that it is not recycleable. I accept it might be true but what is a good replacement of plastic bags. Plastis bags are strong and leak proof where as paper bags have neither of these qualities. If we stop using plastic bags, what should be the alternative.


In much of the world, people have brought their own cloth bags about the size of shopping bags to the market. For example, before about 1995 in Central and Eastern Europe it was common to bring your own bag to the store, and even after the fall of Communism it continued (because supermarkets charged for the plastic bags). But now bags are free at most of the supermarkets, and this is just one way that Capitalistic forms of waste and pollution have replaced the Communist forms of waste and pollution. We need a new system that prioritizes the earth first.
handfleisch
icecool wrote:
wherever we look these days, new environmental disasters are looming.

Quote:
WASHINGTON – Millions of tons of toxic coal ash is piling up in power plant ponds in 32 states, a situation the government has long recognized as a risk to human health and the environment but has done nothing about.

An Associated Press analysis of the most recent Energy Department data found that 156 coal-fired power plants store ash in surface ponds similar to one that ruptured last month in Tennessee. On Friday, a pond at a northeastern Alabama power plant spilled a different material

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_go_ot/coal_ash;_ylt=ArdKrvyfOZLG.xkpGT5LVQnk4Z94


Obama's stimulus package is aiming at fixing this. Next time you hear someone bashing the stimulus plan, point out that after many years of do-nothingism, the new administration in Washington is rolling up their sleeves and getting to work:

Quote:
Obama administration focuses on clean coal practices

March 16th, 2009 by Jennifer Walker-Journey

obama1 100x100 Obama administration focuses on clean coal practicesPresident Obama’s new energy policies are pitting mining companies and environmentalists against each other as the federal government explores new ways of storing carbon emissions. Mining companies and the lawmakers who support them say that establishing these new measures could cost billions while environmentalists say the price is not important in comparison to the ecological damage of continuing common practices.

According to Kentucky.com, “The Department of Energy will soon announce whether it will use $1 billion in stimulus funds to resurrect FutureGen, a proposal to create in Illinois the world’s first coal-fired power plant designed to capture and bury carbon emissions underground.” The Bush administration decided against building the plant because it would cost more than $1.8 billion. The Government Accountability Office says that price tag is more like $1.3 billion. Proponents of “clean coal” argue that not building that plant put the effort back a decade.

Renewable resources are front-and-center with lawmakers these days, after a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) coal ash pond failed last December, dumping more than a billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge on to an east Tennessee community. Previously unregulated by the federal government, coal ash ponds and storage units will soon have to follow standards outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for regulating coal ash.


http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/03/16/obama-administration-focuses-on-clean-coal-practices/
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
icecool wrote:
wherever we look these days, new environmental disasters are looming.

Quote:
WASHINGTON – Millions of tons of toxic coal ash is piling up in power plant ponds in 32 states, a situation the government has long recognized as a risk to human health and the environment but has done nothing about.

An Associated Press analysis of the most recent Energy Department data found that 156 coal-fired power plants store ash in surface ponds similar to one that ruptured last month in Tennessee. On Friday, a pond at a northeastern Alabama power plant spilled a different material

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_go_ot/coal_ash;_ylt=ArdKrvyfOZLG.xkpGT5LVQnk4Z94


Obama's stimulus package is aiming at fixing this. Next time you hear someone bashing the stimulus plan, point out that after many years of do-nothingism, the new administration in Washington is rolling up their sleeves and getting to work:

Quote:
Obama administration focuses on clean coal practices

March 16th, 2009 by Jennifer Walker-Journey

obama1 100x100 Obama administration focuses on clean coal practicesPresident Obama’s new energy policies are pitting mining companies and environmentalists against each other as the federal government explores new ways of storing carbon emissions. Mining companies and the lawmakers who support them say that establishing these new measures could cost billions while environmentalists say the price is not important in comparison to the ecological damage of continuing common practices.

According to Kentucky.com, “The Department of Energy will soon announce whether it will use $1 billion in stimulus funds to resurrect FutureGen, a proposal to create in Illinois the world’s first coal-fired power plant designed to capture and bury carbon emissions underground.” The Bush administration decided against building the plant because it would cost more than $1.8 billion. The Government Accountability Office says that price tag is more like $1.3 billion. Proponents of “clean coal” argue that not building that plant put the effort back a decade.

Renewable resources are front-and-center with lawmakers these days, after a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) coal ash pond failed last December, dumping more than a billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge on to an east Tennessee community. Previously unregulated by the federal government, coal ash ponds and storage units will soon have to follow standards outlined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for regulating coal ash.


http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/03/16/obama-administration-focuses-on-clean-coal-practices/

Talk is cheap. I will be the first to cheer Obama if the clean-ups have taken place. Right now it is talk only. Obama has lots of good talk, but I think in the end it is action that will count.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:



Obama's stimulus package is aiming at fixing this. Next time you hear someone bashing the stimulus plan, point out that after many years of do-nothingism, the new administration in Washington is rolling up their sleeves and getting to work:


It's great that he's trying to fix this... But it is the most horrible example of pet-project pork spending I've seen yet. If he wants to fix it, he should make an independent bill to fix it, NOT add it into a bill supposedly only intended to fix the economy.

Fixing the environment is great, and fixing the economy is great (when done right...). But don't tell us you're fixing the economy in order to sneak in your environmental agenda along with it. The political process should be able to evaluate and approve/disapprove of each separately.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
If he wants to fix it, he should make an independent bill to fix it, NOT add it into a bill supposedly only intended to fix the economy.
Agreed. Think things are so bad environmental pollution wise that we are long past the stage of "adding on" environmental considerations. They should be an objective in their own right in order to be really meaningful. But again, platitudes, although they look great and sound very benevolent won't do anything. It is action that counts, and it is a pity that it needs to take a Bill to do it. Would be nice if there could be immediate tax benefits for expenditure on cleaning up environments, and penalties for certain kinds of pollution, such as contamination of rivers (I think some of it exists, but probably it needs to be policed more actively by Government along "action" lines).
icecool
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
If he wants to fix it, he should make an independent bill to fix it, NOT add it into a bill supposedly only intended to fix the economy.
Agreed. Think things are so bad environmental pollution wise that we are long past the stage of "adding on" environmental considerations. They should be an objective in their own right in order to be really meaningful. But again, platitudes, although they look great and sound very benevolent won't do anything. It is action that counts, and it is a pity that it needs to take a Bill to do it. Would be nice if there could be immediate tax benefits for expenditure on cleaning up environments, and penalties for certain kinds of pollution, such as contamination of rivers (I think some of it exists, but probably it needs to be policed more actively by Government along "action" lines).


the us is one of the biggest polluters in the industrialised world - both in terms of global impact and domestic. why? because the economy is purely profit driven.

if we have to accept that as a given fact - which we can't avoid - then the only way to tackle environmental issues and clean up the act of industry is to make it a profit driven exercise.

make being "clen" profitable and "dirty" not and the big money boys will soon get their act together. if it takes incentives under the current packages then this is money well spent - not only will it generate a short term impact but also a long term benefit.
deanhills
[quote="icecool"]
deanhills wrote:
the us is one of the biggest polluters in the industrialised world - both in terms of global impact and domestic. why? because the economy is purely profit driven.

if we have to accept that as a given fact - which we can't avoid - then the only way to tackle environmental issues and clean up the act of industry is to make it a profit driven exercise.

make being "clen" profitable and "dirty" not and the big money boys will soon get their act together. if it takes incentives under the current packages then this is money well spent - not only will it generate a short term impact but also a long term benefit.
Very good point. So far however clean-ups have been costly. If the Government could throw in special incentives, such as making the cost of clean-ups tax deductible, that could be a good start. Alternatively, if people could find uses for that which is creating pollution, such as using carbon monoxide for purposes of heating, etc. that would be great too. Would be also good if there could be tax benefits for that too.
icecool
[quote="deanhills"]
icecool wrote:
deanhills wrote:
the us is one of the biggest polluters in the industrialised world - both in terms of global impact and domestic. why? because the economy is purely profit driven.

if we have to accept that as a given fact - which we can't avoid - then the only way to tackle environmental issues and clean up the act of industry is to make it a profit driven exercise.

make being "clen" profitable and "dirty" not and the big money boys will soon get their act together. if it takes incentives under the current packages then this is money well spent - not only will it generate a short term impact but also a long term benefit.
Very good point. So far however clean-ups have been costly. If the Government could throw in special incentives, such as making the cost of clean-ups tax deductible, that could be a good start. Alternatively, if people could find uses for that which is creating pollution, such as using carbon monoxide for purposes of heating, etc. that would be great too. Would be also good if there could be tax benefits for that too.


most good business is profit generating within its own process - this is what makes it sustainable without outside interference. unfortunately, consumer demand generated by the producers through marketing and fierce competition in form of overproduction means that any expense that can be avoided will be avoided.

being environmentally responsible is a cost - it is cheaper to throw something away than dispose of it responsibly - look at yourself as a consumer. if you can get away of just dumping your garbage on the roadsied - i'm not saying that YOU do it personally - instead of having to drive it to the local dump or pay somebody to do it, most people would just throw it. expand that to a commercial scale - that what happened in the past.

all the rubbish and pollution that has happened in the past and still is happening is only happening because we the people - through our legislators - have let it happen by not being strict enough with industry. why? bacause we like cheaper goods - see above. it IS a vicious circle and until we ALL take responsibility NOTHING will change that.
handfleisch
icecool wrote:


all the rubbish and pollution that has happened in the past and still is happening is only happening because we the people - through our legislators - have let it happen by not being strict enough with industry. why? bacause we like cheaper goods - see above. it IS a vicious circle and until we ALL take responsibility NOTHING will change that.


Rock on! It's what's wrong with the free market extremist, anti-regulation, accountant-driven, short-term-profit oriented, constant-expansion-aiming, living-on-credit business model that the US has been worshiping for decades.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
icecool wrote:


all the rubbish and pollution that has happened in the past and still is happening is only happening because we the people - through our legislators - have let it happen by not being strict enough with industry. why? bacause we like cheaper goods - see above. it IS a vicious circle and until we ALL take responsibility NOTHING will change that.


Rock on! It's what's wrong with the free market extremist, anti-regulation, accountant-driven, short-term-profit oriented, constant-expansion-aiming, living-on-credit business model that the US has been worshiping for decades.

Strange that you should say this when the current Government has just voted a loan of 1.2-trillion US dollars with no collateral attached to it other than "good faith"! I can't imagine any other President incurring so much debt so quickly within a month of taking office. It would be interesting to see how things are going to balance out budget wise at the end of Obama's first year. Maybe we should mark this space for future reference purposes.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
icecool wrote:


all the rubbish and pollution that has happened in the past and still is happening is only happening because we the people - through our legislators - have let it happen by not being strict enough with industry. why? bacause we like cheaper goods - see above. it IS a vicious circle and until we ALL take responsibility NOTHING will change that.


Rock on! It's what's wrong with the free market extremist, anti-regulation, accountant-driven, short-term-profit oriented, constant-expansion-aiming, living-on-credit business model that the US has been worshiping for decades.

Strange that you should say this when the current Government has just voted a loan of 1.2-trillion US dollars with no collateral attached to it other than "good faith"! I can't imagine any other President incurring so much debt so quickly within a month of taking office. It would be interesting to see how things are going to balance out budget wise at the end of Obama's first year. Maybe we should mark this space for future reference purposes.

Oh, and what's worse is that one of the main purposes of doing that was to get the "short-term-profit oriented, constant-expansion-aiming, living-on-credit, business model" going again!

Instead of trying to make financial institutions sane and stable, he just gives them scads of money.
Instead of trying to get people to live responsibly within their means (which would greatly reduce poverty and bankruptcy, and make job loss less devestating), his goal is to 'get them spending again', so that they'll buy new cars they can't afford and give a few people jobs.
Related topics
[php scripts ] phpweather&email
Argentina tops Brazil for World Cup spot
What is the best antivirus progrem?
Help with Firewall and Antivirus
The Average Age Here?
china russia brazil or india ?
Reasons why you should visit Philippines. =)
Japan urges world to cut emissions 50% by 2050
How many US states have you visited?
Toxic substance in BEAD Toy :(
Online Dating Application
Historicity of the nt , its gospels and its Jesus
get paid to be right wing troll!
Canadians - Bill C-32
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.