A pipeline bringing natural gas produced by 'hydraulic fracturing' into New York City creates a new focus for environmental protest

A pipeline bringing natural gas produced by 'hydraulic fracturing' into New York City creates a new focus for environmental protest

Naomi Wolf

The Guardian

October 12, 2012

I saw an odd sight on a quiet, West Village street in New York City on Saturday 6 October. A group of about 30 young women and men – all naked or topless – were dancing about, with their flesh painted green.

Patrick Robbins, a 26-year-old native of Brooklyn who works on sustainable development at Cooper Union, is the spokesperson for the group, Occupy the Pipeline. He explained the purpose of the protest-art show hybrid:

"[We're] protesting the pipeline's construction on New York City's West Side Highway and Gansevoort, which is soon to be completed. The pipeline … is slated to bring hydrofracked gas from the marcellus shale – a bed that lies under Pennsylvania and New York State – into New York City's gas infrastructure."

While the health hazards at the point of fracking are well-known, I was not aware of hazards on the consuming end of using fracked gas. According to Occupy the Pipeline, the fracked gas threatens New Yorkers because gas produced from Marcellus shale has 70 times the average radioactivity of natural gas and very high radon content. The trouble with the noble gas (meaning that it is an inert gas) is that it was not one of the issues looked into by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when it analyzed the pipeline project. The commission asserted that radon risk assessment was "outside their purview", said Robbins. But the element has been linked to increases in the risk of lung cancer among non-smokers, claims Occupy the Pipeline, and poses a special risk to New Yorkers with immuno-compromised systems the moment the gas is burned – dispersing the radon.

Other health and safety concerns with fracking are linked to precedent, such as the undrinkable groundwater at Dimock, Pennsylvania, or the explosion from a pipeline of similar size and pressure in San Bruno, California in 2010 that claimed the lives of eight people.

The activists of Occupy the Pipeline assert that the pipeline's construction was part of an anti-democratic process. A moratorium on fracking in New York state has expired; now, Governor Andrew Cuomo is discussing a pilot program for fracking in the five counties of the southern tier in New York state. He refuses to say he will ban fracking altogether, a goal of the activists. As for Councilwoman Christine Quinn, a contender in the New York City mayoral race, she has also kept mum on the pipeline; she did not even send a representative to listen in on the hearings, says Robbins.

"Occupy the Pipeline and the Sane Energy Project have approached her office countless times … NYH20 sent her a petition letter requesting hearings on the Radon issue; representatives from Food and Water Watch, United for Action and multiple enviro groups met with her a month ago to remind her of the request … why is Christine Quinn ignoring calls to protect public health?"

There is a government-mandated legal buffer zone between the area to be fracked and the watershed for drinking and household use – but it is one that Department of Environmental Protection scientists have called inadequate. Fracking involves pumping underground a chemical cocktail that, according to a New York City government report (pdf) about the chemicals, comprises 58% known immune system suppressants and other toxins:

"Significant percentages contain one or more chemicals that are associated with negative health effects: cancer (33% of products contain one or more chemicals associated with cancer), endocrine disruption (41%), reproductive problems (34%), immune suppression (58%), genetic mutation (43%), and other adverse health impacts."

As for the rest, we don't really know what it may contain since that information is protected by "the Halliburton Loophole" – a Bush administration rollback of environmental regulation under the Clean Water Act. Comments Robbins:

"So they can pump carcinogens into our land and they don't they don't have to tell us what is in it because they say it is 'proprietary information'."

Given all these data, how can New York officials keep silent?

Well, the energy companies, and the major banks that finance them, all donate to the Quinn, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Cuomo campaigns. Occupy the Pipeline claims that the entities profiting from fracking are "the same old cast of characters", namely: Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America. Economists Jeanette Barth, president of JM Barth and Associates, an environmental and economic consulting group, and Deborah Rogers, another energy consultant formerly of Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch, both spoke at a lecture this past April entitled "Frackonomics". They pointed out that in times of crisis, such as we have at present, new growth industries are hyped. Investment companies are parroting the hype around natural gas, claiming that investors will make enormous profits from hydrofracking – despite the fact that these wells are almost certainly not going to live up to economic promises now being made. The economists' message was:

"We have a word for this, and it is a bubble."

In light of all this – with politicians turning a deaf ear to their people's concerns, and companies blinded from the dangers by their greed – I asked Robbins, "What do you say to people who say Occupy is dead?"

"Occupy has given birth to a thousand more extremely important projects that are all still doing the work of transforming society. The environmental working group, from which Occupy the Pipeline sprung, have participated in all aspects of democratic process – from NVDA [nonviolent direct action] to attending hearings and submitting testimony."

As I write, natural gas companies are scouting upstate counties, trying to build, for instance, an expansion to a storage facility for natural gas in a salt cavern that sits on the edge of the Finger Lakes area, in New York. But that plan, too, has met with resistance. The Seneca Three are residents of Seneca County who were arrested for blockading a compressor station this past September by chaining themselves to its gates. On 15 October, Occupy the Pipeline will stage a protest event in solidarity with those arrested for protesting the tar sands pipeline (one notable arrestee being actress Daryl Hannah) and other pipeline activists.

"Occupy can no longer be considered outliers. Occupy groups are what democracy looks like!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/12/occupy-pipeline-battles-fracking-threat-new-york 

U.S. Panel to Hear Opponents of Indian Point Nuclear Plant

By MATTHEW L. WALD

New York Times

October 11, 2012

The Indian Point nuclear plant is going on trial.

On Monday, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission will open a hearing to determine whether opponents, among them the Cuomo administration, have valid arguments against a 20-year extension of operating licenses for the Westchester County site’s reactors.

Three administrative law judges from the commission will take up an unusually long list of issues at the hearing, which will take place at a hotel in Tarrytown, N.Y., on 12 days in October and December.

In granting license extensions for reactors around the country, 70 to date, the commission has usually agreed to hear arguments on only a few technical issues. But in the case of Indian Point, the judges will hear at least 14.

Some of the issues from parties in the case are mechanical. Has Entergy, the plant’s owner, properly accounted for the possibility of corrosion in old pipes? What is the condition of the plant’s electrical cables, some of which are submerged in water and cannot be easily inspected? Has the plant been adequately monitoring buried pipes, some of which have already leaked, that carry radioactive materials?

Others are more slippery, like calculating the potential human costs of a major release of radioactive materials from the plant, in Buchanan, about 35 miles north of Midtown Manhattan.

James Steets, a spokesman for Entergy, suggested that the plant’s opponents would try “to throw as much mud against the wall as they can and hope some of it sticks.”

“But by the same token,” Mr. Steets added, “it’s a process that allows for those who seriously have concerns to raise issues in a very public process.”

Either way, the tug of war over Indian Point’s future will probably go on for years. Ordinarily, the commission’s decisions on extending licenses take two and a half years. But Indian Point’s renewal application is now more than five years old, and the hearings have not even started.

The 40-year licenses of the plant’s two reactors are set to expire in September 2013 and December 2015. But under agency rules, the licenses will remain in effect until the commission makes a final ruling.

Since his days as the New York State attorney general, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, has been arguing that the plant should be closed — that the reactors have safety problems and are vulnerable to terrorism. He has cited their proximity to nine million people in the New York metropolitan region.

The current attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, whose office represents the state in the hearings, has been slightly less emphatic.

“Whatever it is that the state determines to do, I’m the state’s lawyer and I will defend that,” Mr. Schneiderman, a Democrat, said last summer in an interview with WMHT, a public television station in Albany. “But I think they have a pretty steep hill to climb given the location of the plant and the population density around it and some of the problems that have come up with the plant.”

In a way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is on trial, too, given that its staff has already concluded that relicensing is warranted.

After the three administrative law judges — two engineers and a lawyer — rule on the challenges, the losing side is expected to appeal directly to the five-member commission in Washington. If the commission upholds a challenge, Entergy will have to change hardware or procedures at Indian Point to solve the problem unless it decides that the cost makes retiring the plant more prudent economically.

Expert testimony from Entergy and the plant’s opponents has already been filed, so much of the hearing will consist of cross-examination of witnesses and questions from the judges. The state is pressing for additional opportunities to cross-examine witnesses, and the commission plans to rule on that request on Friday.

Another avenue the state is pursuing to shut down Indian Point, the denial of a state water-use permit, could threaten the plant regardless of the commission’s final decision. The state contends that the plant’s cooling water technology kills too many fish when it draws water from the Hudson River and that Entergy should build cooling towers.

But a court could reverse that decision if it found that the state’s real motivation was nuclear safety, a federal responsibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/science/earth/hearings-set-on-renewing-indian-point-reactors-licenses.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

Fiscal Woes, Long-Held Fears Spur Waste-to-Energy Debate

New York is thinking about diverting garbage from out-of-state landfills and using it to generate electricity locally. The plan pits concerns about city spending and carbon emissions against fears of environmental injustice.

By Bill Hughes
City Limits Magazine

In the years since a tugboat nosed the last barge full of garbage into the massive Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island when it was officially closed back in March of 2001, the tax burden and environmental impact of dealing with New York City's trash have increased dramatically. City officials estimate that in a single year, tractor-trailers log 40 million miles to haul 3 million tons of trash from the five boroughs to out-of-state landfills, mostly in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The flat cost of shipping trash to landfills has risen from $62 per ton in 2001 to $92 per ton last year. A recent report by the Citizen's Budget Commission concluded that, "The waste that New York City sends to landfills generates about 679,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year – the equivalent of adding more than 133,000 cars to the roads."

To address the growing problem, Mayor Michael Bloomberg included a partial solution in his 30-year master plan for the city, PlaNYC, which calls for the construction of a new Waste-to-Energy (WTE) facility to process trash that cannot be recycled. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in March of 2012 to the private sector to build a facility, "…using reliable, cost-effective, sustainable and environmentally sound waste to clean energy technology."

Among the requirements in the RFP was a mandate that the pilot facility be located either in the five boroughs or within an 80-mile radius of the city. It would have to begin by processing 450 tons per day, with the city making no capital investment but paying a tipping fee once it starts sending trash. The 450-ton per day capacity would have to double if the pilot is successful. The bid went out in March, applications were due by June 5th and the award was supposed to be announced in early September. A Bloomberg spokesman last week said the proposals were still under review and an announcement might be made in November. The administration estimates that over 30 years if expanded facilities could accommodate two million tons of trash annually, the city would save about $119 million dollars per year and combined greenhouse gas emissions would be cut by 240,000 metric tons per year.

Almost immediately, environmental justice advocates began protesting, saying the writing on the wall leaned toward a WTE process called thermal processing, which many feel is a fancy code for incineration. The New York Public Interest Research Group reacted to the RFP's announcement by organizing protests and labeling thermal processing as unsafe, unproven and inequitable to communities of color.

Worries about impact on recycling, neighborhoods

The advocates also feel strongly that devoting resources to WTE technology will take away from recycling efforts, where New York lags, ranking 16th out of 27 major U.S. cities in a recent survey. San Francisco, which recycles 77 percent of its household waste, ranked first in the nation, while New York recycled only 15.4 percent in 2011.

"That's just disgraceful," said Eddie Bautista, executive director of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. "How can it be that with all the wealth and technology available to this city that we can't manage to do better than we're doing today?"

Bautista also worries about who'll be affected most if the city locates a thermal processing facility within the five boroughs: "There are only so many neighborhoods zoned for this type of activity. They're typically located in low-income communities and they're already over-burdened with industrial polluters."

Bautista took part in a protest back in April when city officials took prospective bidders on a tour of potential sites, including the Fresh Kills landfill. And he was not alone.

"We've suffered enough out here and we've suffered disproportionately," said City Councilman Vincent Ignizio of Staten Island at a September meeting of the council's Solid Waste and Sanitation Committee. "When Robert Moses opened Fresh Kills in 1948 it was only supposed to be for three years. It took 50-plus years for us to finally get it closed, and toward the end we were the only dumping ground for all the city's garbage." Ignizio added that he grew up within smelling distance of Fresh Kills and remembers many nights sleeping in his parents' bedroom because they had the only air conditioner which could mask the odor of the dump.

The outcry from residents and Staten Island elected officials was loud enough that the Bloomberg administration removed the entire borough of Staten Island from consideration in the RFP. But the other boroughs are still in the mix.

Technology has defenders

Proponents of WTE technology argue that thermal processing is a form of recycling and that new technologies and EPA regulations have eliminated the odor and air pollution many people connect with the process of incinerating trash. Professor Nickolas J. Themelis, director of the Earth Engineering Center at Columbia University, said he thinks that much of the opposition to creating WTE plants in the city stems from people's memories of the bad old days.

"At one point New York had 30 municipal incinerators and about 15,000 residential incinerators with no regulation at all. It was a mess," said Themelis. "There is this kind of animus among people who have been exposed to incinerators in the past. They associate them with black smoke and horrific pollution. But the truth is, those are all gone now. The pollution generated by trucking waste to landfills can't compare to how little a modern WTE facility produces. The people who oppose these technologies are like the Flat Earth Society, they are holding back progress."

Themelis recently completed work on a large collaborative study for the Inter-American Development Bank to recommend the best WTE technology for waste management in Latin America. "Regrettably, we came to the conclusion that the technology we use now is the best to use. Over the past decades roughly 125 plants have been built around the world using thermal combustion … with increasingly strict emissions standards. The data we have collected is, I think, unassailable. These systems produce far less emissions than landfilling."

There are currently 10 WTE facilities statewide licensed by the Department of Environmental Conservation to burn municipal waste and convert it into steam and electricity. One is located in Peekskill, about 50 miles up the Hudson River. The facility is owned by Wheelabrator, a subsidiary of Waste Management, the country's largest waste processor, which serves more than 20 million residential, commercial and municipal customers nationwide.

The Peekskill facility processes approximately 700,000 tons of waste per year, or about 95 percent of the household trash generated by Westchester County, according to Operations Manager Brett Baker. Three, nine-story tall boilers burn about 2,250 tons of pre-recycled trash per day, using the trash as fuel. The heat (over 2,000-degrees Fahrenheit) drives a turbine which generates electricity—60 megawatts of electricity per hour.—which is sold to Con Edison via a direct feed to its grid. The ash is cooled and sifted for recyclable metal and the remains, about 10 percent of the initial volume, are sent to landfills. The emissions are forced through a series of filtering systems until they are below state and federal guidelines for pollutants, then released through one large stack.

"We have about a 90 percent reduction rate in the waste stream," Baker told a reporter in September. "And as you can tell when you drove up here, we burn clean. There's virtually no odor at all coming out of the stack and everything is well within EPA guidelines." Waste Management officials claim they operate enough WTE facilities across the U.S. to power 1 million homes and they expect to double that output by 2020.

Of course, not everyone shares a rosy outlook on the plant. A December 2010 report by the Peekskill Environmental Justice Council identified the facility as, "A major source of air pollution." A state permit issued in March 2012 listed the wide ranges of toxic pollutants the plant is permitted to release, including up to 10 tons per year each of dioxins, mercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium.

Newer technologies and emissions controls were recently approved at a facility run by one of the likely bidders for the NYC contract, Covanta Energy, which currently burns some of New York's trash for $66 per ton at its facility in Newark. Environmental activists believe those changes would not have been made without public pressure. Industry analysts point out that waste processors are trying to find an economic "sweet spot," where new technology implementation costs don't swallow up potential profits.

Searching for viable options

New York's RFP identified several different WTE technologies that companies could propose besides thermal incineration—like plasma gasification, hydrolysis and anaerobic digestion.

In early September The New York Times profiled a non-profit company with a plasma gasification facility in Florida, one that burns municipal waste at more than 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit then electrifies it. The promoters of the technology claim the process breaks down the chemical bonds of carcinogenic material like PCB's, asbestos and medical waste, rendering them harmless without creating dioxin or other harmful byproducts. But opponents point out that pushing such technology will hinder recycling and the development of ecologically friendly products and policies. Others point out that the plasma gasification consumes roughly half the energy it creates to feed its own power requirements. 
The other technologies in the city's RFP, anaerobic digestion and hydrolysis, deal mainly with organic materials and would only handle a small percentage of the city's waste, meaning thermal processing might be the most effective alternative to landfilling.

Proponents of the technology point to several European cities like Vienna, Paris and Copenhagen which have built thermal processing WTE facilities inside their city limits and incorporated them into the cityscape.

But critics like the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives say the higher a country's incineration rate, the lower its recycling rate. The group released a report tracking waste treatment strategies across the 27-member European Union. According to the report, while Denmark had the highest rate of WTE incineration at 54 percent of the country's total waste stream, it only recycled 23 percent. "It is necessary to implement a system that reduces waste generation, reuses and recycles waste, and phases out both incineration and landfilling," the report concluded.

On Oct. 5 San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee announced that the city had reached an 80 percent landfill diversion rate through aggressive recycling, reuse and composting initiatives making it the "greenest" city in North America and moving it closer to the goal of "zero waste"—a target of which Themelis is skeptical.

"There are people who talk about ‘zero waste,' but zero waste is not a reality, it's a fantasy. True, we should recycle as much as is practical, but you cannot neglect that you must do something with what can't be recycled."Themelis added that America's comfort level with landfill arises partially from an excess of open space that few other countries enjoy. "New York City sends 100,000 truckloads of landfill out of state every year, but sooner or later the state borders will be closed, that's not going away."

According to recent EPA data, there are currently 87 facilities in the U.S. burning trash to generate electricity. The combined output of these facilities amounts to approximately 2,500 megawatts, or 0.3 of total national power generation. The agency cites the high construction cost of such facilities as one reason that the public will and financing to build them has been lacking.

It's unclear if the city's fiscal challenge and growing concern about its carbon footprint will create the political support necessary for WTE in New York. Councilwoman Letitia James, who chairs the Sanitation and Solid Waste Committee, said she supports the RFP initiative, but under the conditions that minority communities are not disproportionately impacted and the economics make good sense. "I'm open to examining it," said James during a recent interview. "Not necessarily supporting it, but examining it. Because there's just no way we can continue to afford to ship millions of tons of garbage out of the state." 

http://www.citylimits.org/news/articles/4638/fiscal-woes-long-held-fears-spur-waste-to-energy-debate

From Rooftop to Alleyway, Chicago Fights Extreme Urban Heat With Greener Ideas

Boris Johnson should prioritise anaerobic digestion in London

05 Oct 2012, Jenny Jones

BusinessGreen

Questions have to be asked why not a single Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant is in operation, or currently in construction in London, despite strong backing from both the previous Mayor of London and the current Mayor, whose revised strategy says AD is the optimal treatment method for food waste, after waste reduction.

The emergence of AD in the capital has finally started, with two plants granted planning permission, but this painfully slow progress raises doubts about the effectiveness of the Mayor's Waste and Recycling Board as it enters its second term.

Has it allocated enough resources to advancing this technology, which could end the deplorable practice of sending hundreds of thousands of tonnes of food waste to landfill each year, where it rots producing the potent greenhouse gas methane?

Once operational, these two plants will have a combined capacity to deal with roughly 90,000 tonnes per year of food and green waste. Whilst extremely welcome, they will only be able to deal with one fifth of London's annual 460,000 tonnes of food waste.

According to Mayor of London Boris Johnson, the reasons for AD proposals failing to be realised include project financing, planning, guaranteeing feedstock, and agreeing gate fees.

Another threat that was lurking on the horizon for AD was the Government's proposal to block energy installations smaller than 5MW from the Renewables Obligation Scheme (ROC). Fortunately, the Department of Energy and Climate Change responded to the major concerns raised by the renewable sector and the detrimental impact it was likely to have on the renewables industry and this week announced that ROC's will remain available to new AD projects.

The lack of delivery of AD plants over the past decade, which depends on uncontaminated feedstock, is probably one of the reasons why so few boroughs have to date provided all or most of their residents with food caddies for separate food waste collection schemes. However, landfill tax will rise until at least 2014, when it will be £80 per tonne, putting up London's annual bill for sending municipal waste to landfill from about £265m to roughly £300m.

In the absence of AD capacity, councils with shrinking budgets may just divert food waste from landfill to new 'energy from waste' facilities, circumventing AD, the most beneficial method of dealing with food waste.

But the benefits of AD are numerous. It turns food waste into biogas for generating heat and electricity, or into bio-methane for injection into the national gas grid or conversion into transport fuel, and produces a rich fertilizer for garden and agricultural use.

The benefits don't stop there. Using food waste productively can also create jobs and help exceed composting targets.

Data obtained from WRAP earlier this year showed that nine London councils were not providing separate food waste collection schemes: Barking & Dagenham, Hammersmith & Fulham, Havering, Hillingdon, Kensington & Chelsea, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge and Wandsworth.

This leaves residents with the choice of either composting food waste in their gardens, if they have one, or putting it into the black waste bag. Although a small proportion of this black bag residual waste may then be segregated, the vast majority is collected by the council and sent to landfill, or incinerated.

In contrast, councils like Bromley, Croydon, Camden and Richmond were providing almost all or nearly all of their households with separate food collection schemes, which they then composted or sent to an AD plant outside London. Some notable recent improvers were Southwark, which rolled out a food collection scheme to around half of their residents, and the City of London, which doubled its food collection scheme to reach all its residents.

The Mayor has stated that his proposals for anaerobic digestion capacity of 260,000 tonnes in London are being progressed, but it is unclear how his target will be achieved, at the rate of progress so far.

I would like to see the Mayor review the resources, and the priority his London Waste and Recycling Board gives to AD, and then draw up measures to help fast track AD and make it the preferred treatment method for large scale food waste.

Unless sufficient AD capacity is delivered, I fear less beneficial waste treatment technologies and facilities will be built in London, and become the council option to ever dwindling and costly landfill, keeping AD small scale and mainly aspiration in mayoral strategies and government press releases. 

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/opinion/2214288/boris-johnson-should-prioritise-anaerobic-digestion-in-london

Midtown Developer Accuses Con Ed of Overcharging

By PATRICK McGEEHAN

New York Times

October 9, 2012

It is not easy being green and trying to keep the electric company from raising your rates.

The owner of the Bank of America Tower in Midtown Manhattan is learning that lesson. For the second time in less than a year, it has accused Consolidated Edison of trying to overcharge for the sophisticated power plant in the building, which it has heralded as the most environmentally advanced skyscraper in the country.

Last November, the developer, the Durst Organization, persuaded state utilities regulators that Con Edison had overbilled it by more than $290,000. Now, the developer is asking the regulators to prevent the utility from increasing the annual gas bill for the tower by more than $85,000.

The disputes provide a glimpse into the underbelly of a 55-story building that the Durst Organization has called an icon for its efficient use of energy. The tower contains a cogeneration system that produces electricity to run the lights and computers in its offices and trading floors.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo have called for more buildings to generate their own electricity to reduce demands on the power grid and reduce waste. The Durst Organization argued in its complaint to the state Public Service Commission that the tower was meant to serve as “a demonstration project” for such plants, but that Con Edison’s billing practices could have a “chilling impact” on the development of others.

The current dispute centers on what the building does with some of the fuel it obtains from Con Ed. Most of the natural gas piped into the building from beneath 42nd Street near Bryant Park fires the power plant. Rather than waste the exhaust from that combustion, the system feeds it into a boiler that produces steam to heat and cool the tower.

But that equipment, known as a heat recovery steam generator, is not always sufficient. When it is not, a gas-fired backup system produces additional steam to help with the heating or cooling.

Until now, Con Edison had been giving the building a discount on the gas used by the backup system. But after another customer proposed using a similar system, Con Edison executives said they should not have been applying that discount to the Bank of America Tower. The lower rate is only for gas used to generate electricity, relieving some burden on the citywide grid, not for producing steam, they said.

“If the machine is being used to do essentially the same thing as a boiler would, we think that is not eligible for this rate because it’s not helping with the electric system,” Margarett Jolly, manager of distributed generation for Con Edison, said in an interview on Tuesday.

She said a decision by the regulators in Durst’s favor would set a precedent just as in-building power generation is catching on in the city and could shift more cost onto other customers. Durst estimated that the loss of the discount would cost the building $86,129 per year.

The developer likened the billing dispute to the one that it took to the commission in November. Durst said then that Con Ed’s overestimation of the building’s peak demand for electricity had resulted in improper charges of more than $290,000. The regulators agreed, but Con Edison has asked them to reconsider.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/nyregion/con-ed-is-accused-of-overcharging-in-midtown-skyscraper.html

Sewage for heat, trend within a trend

October 4, 2012

Column | Korky Koroluk

Daily Commercial News

We’re hearing more and more about mining sewage systems to recover heat. They’re far from common so far, but they are cropping up here and there around the world.

There’s one in a condominium building in Vancouver, several in China, a few in Paris, one in Philadelphia —the list goes on.

It’s clearly a trend, but it’s a trend within a trend.

Tapping sewers to obtain heat is just like geothermal energy, but instead of using the ground or a lake as a source, you use the sewers, which is why it’s become known simply as sewage geothermal.

Most of us never think about the sewage being carried in pipes right beneath our feet. It’s usually pretty warm, and we can capture that heat through heat exchangers, just as ground-source geothermal system uses exchangers to bring heat into our homes.

In Philadelphia, a firm called NovaThermal Energy LLC is doing something similar. It has built a plant at a sewage treatment plant for easy access to wastewater. The company also plans to market a Chinese system that’s somewhat like the one in Vancouver. They plan to sell it to any large buildings located near a major trunk sewer that carries a steady flow of wastewater still warm from its previous uses.A Vancouver firm, International Wastewater Heat Exchange Systems Inc., has a system that filters suspended solids, and then sends the filtered wastewater to a heat exchanger. There, heat is either extracted from the wastewater (for heating) or transferred to the wastewater (for cooling). Then the wastewater is discharged back to the sewage main pipe.

Many industrial processes use hot water, which is one reason wastewater is usually pretty warm. International Wastewater says it can reach an average temperature of just over 25°C where it leaves buildings. In septic drains, the average is about 15°C.

What we’re seeing is part of a larger trend: district heating and cooling. And we’re going to see more and more of it as construction costs climb, as energy costs soar, and more ways are sought to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

District heating and cooling is hardly new. In Northern European countries district energy systems are an important part of heat production. Well over half of Denmark’s buildings are on district energy systems. In its capital, Copenhagen, 98 per cent of buildings are supplied by district energy. Even in North America, it’s not uncommon to see entire industrial or academic campuses heated from a central plant. In Ottawa, a central plant heats the government buildings on and around Parliament Hill.

At one time it could be even be found in small towns.

Growing up in small-town Alberta, I was familiar with the gas-powered steam plant that provided heat to the small central business district. But it was shut down in the name of progress, and individual buildings had to install their own small gas boilers.

In recent years, we’ve seen the growth of Enwave Energy Corp., which now provides district heating and cooling to something like 140 buildings in Toronto’s downtown core. And just north of Toronto, Markham District Energy now has three combined heat and power plants in service, with a fourth under construction.

District energy is growing, so it makes sense for the systems to tap in to any energy source that’s handy, and that often means a sewage plant or a large sewer main.

All this will mean that an increasing share of our heating and cooling needs will met by small facilities serving a relatively small area—a subdivision, an industrial park, a neighbourhood, a town.

It will mean more work for electrical and mechanical engineers and contractors as a changing climate forces us to seek out new ideas to replace those that have become too shop-worn to keep.

http://dcnonl.com/article/id52194/--sewage-for-heat-trend-within-a-trend

Sustainable Urban Energy for Dhaka City

by Md. Zahidur Rahman and Saeed Ahmed Siddiquee
October 5, 2012

Blitz

Our entire way of life and all of our economic projections relies on more energy. Howbeit, the world is now facing most serious challenge in energy supply which could be a more devastating crisis than world wars. Global energy depletion has already begun, although few countries have realized it. The peak energy affects the future of the entire global economy. Presently the energy producing resources like fossil fuel, gas, coal, and uranium has placed in peak position. It is predicted that those non-renewable energy is going to be declined position in every place of the earth.

Dominant consumption of non-renewable energy for electricity is leading to Green House Gasses (GHG) emission into the atmosphere. According to the International Energy Agency (2011), approximately 901 grammes of CO2 or equivalent are released per kilowatt hour of electricity that generated from coal. Presumably, global urban populations are principle responsible for GHG emissions due to the consumption of bulk amount of energy for the aristocratic lifestyle. While on the contrary, Renewable World stated that still 1.3 billion people in the world still live without access to electricity and 2.7 billion people have no access to clean cooking facilities. Admittedly, energy crisis will happen in future and then urban inhabitants will be more sufferer compare to rural people. In this situation, global economic wheel may be plummeted and thus leading to global inevitable poverty. Indeed, a concerning era has already arise in front of the global leaders to make them busy thinking alternatively about how to overcome this energy crisis?

At present, what is the overview of Bangladesh's energy situation? Currently, around 43% population belongs to electricity facilities with per capita consumption of 140 kilowatt hour. The electricity consumption rate has increased gradually due to the demand of overwhelmed growing population. Reported by the country power system Master Plan 2010, the forecasted demand would be 19,000 megawatt by the year 2021 and 34,000 megawatt by 2030. Till now majority of our energy come from non-renewable sources which are facing challenges in order to growing energy demand for mostly electricity generation. Presently, Bangladesh has 20.5 TFC recoverable natural gas reserve and 420 million tones of coal reserve. Noticeable gas fields are already facing multifaceted crisis for gas supply for electricity generation. For example, Sangu gas field has reduced the supply of gas from a well. In addition, day by day oil prices have increased in the global market schemes which lead to raise prices per unit cost of electricity.

Surprisingly, the capital city of Dhaka itself consumes almost 41.22% of the total generated electricity while the demand of electricity is approximately 12000 megawatt and only 5493 megawatt is on pipeline. Stated by DESA, the demand for power in Dhaka city has increased by around 10% a year. As the supply is not adequate to meet the demand in the city, so either we have to adopt it or think alternative path way to solve the power crisis. If we consider Thailand, we can see that almost 28% electricity comes from the renewable sources. Bangladesh also has plenty of renewable energy sources to innovate and mainstreaming it to the main grid.

In Dhaka city we have not enough wind speed for windmill, neither enough River current for hydroelectric power plant nor even any suitable peri-urban places for nuclear power station installation. Nuclear power plant might be a suitable option for bulk amount of power generation and also it has no carbon emission but it is supposed to be risky in terms of earthquake frequency. Surprisingly, Dhaka is situated in the solar radiation receiving zone on the earth with almost 335 sunny days a year. Hence, solar photovoltaic energy generation is the best option for Dhaka city to face the present energy crisis.

According to CDMP's Urban Risk Reduction Specialists, there are 3,26,000 (appx.) buildings in Dhaka City. If we consider introducing a 5m² solar panel for each building, it might produce about 222 megawatt (5*136W*326000) electricity. Another expert from the same domain said that, we have almost 20000 shopping malls in Dhaka city and where we could introduce renewable energy for electricity generation. Furthermore, the growing real estate companies could also use environment favorable architectural design like Council Building-2 (Solar energy capturing building) in Melbourne where produce a substantial amount of electricity locally for every building. Apart from this, solar technology also reduce GHG emission rate by absorbing around 20% solar radiations that might balance the inner city heat. Cutting down of existing load shading, long term health and financial benefits are also might be ensured and even people could get installation cost back within three years.

From renewable energy sources, Bangladesh government has set a target to meet 5% by the year 2015 and 10% by 2020 of total power demand (RENDEV). However, our government has already been taken some effective initiative for enhancing efficiency of electricity through energy saving distribution within urban communities. Bangladesh has an extensive renewable energy policy. Few governmental offices, institutions and common places are now being implemented solar power installation for the purpose of alternative power generation.

Energy is one o f the most important ingredients required to alleviate poverty, realize socio-economic and human development. Energy returned on energy invested, banning of profligate users, increase people awareness, policy implementation, generation of individual or household level options, community or private sector initiative along with investment, zero interest bank loans for renewable energy and enforcement of law and order situation are required to overcome the present condition. Furthermore, we need feasibility study of those technologies aiming to adopt suitable technology for electricity production from renewable resources. For an instance close your eyes and think, what will be the situation without or insufficient electricity supply of Dhaka? Completely become dead city!

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/2626/sustainable-urban-energy-for-dhaka-city

How Bicycling Creates Economic Impact: A Tale of Two Cities

By Leon Kaye | October 4th, 2012

Triple Pundit

The conventional wisdom assumes that massive transportation projects are far more economically strategic than bike lanes. But the release of two studies from two very different cities – Portland, OR and New York City – reveals that bicyclists and pedestrians may spend more than their peers who arrive at the same neighborhoods via automobile or public transportation.

Whether businesses reached out and made their locations more bicycle friendly, or streets were redesigned to include bike lanes, the overall outcome has been increased spending in local neighborhoods. Shoppers who arrive in urban neighborhoods via cars may spend more in one sitting–but overall those who arrived on foot or by bicycling spent more month to month. The results indicate that neighborhoods and business districts that seek a healthier bottom line should work with municipalities and support such features as protected bike lanes, bicycle racks and pedestrian safety improvements.

A study that New York-based Transportation Alternatives completed demonstrates the positive impact of bicycling in Manhattan’s East Village. Newly created bike lanes on First and Second Avenues led to a sharp increase in bicycle ridership in the study’s focus area. Such improvements are particularly important to women because they are less likely to commute by bicycle if a route lacks dedicated bicycle lanes. The result is a 24 percent rate of residents bicycling in their neighborhood; the average in all of New York City is only one percent. But those who traipse about the East Village by bike spend the most week-to-week at an average of $163 a week. Car users, on the other hand, fall behind with average expenditures of $111 a week.

Kelly Clifton, a civil and environmental engineering professor at Portland State University, found similar conclusions in her study of bicycling trends in the Rose City. Portland is one of the most bicycle friendly cities in the U.S., but business owners often have the perception that auto access equals dollars–and anything that possibly impedes auto access, capacity or parking will hit their revenues. Clifton, through surveying residents at various neighborhoods throughout the city, found the opposite. While customers who drive to various establishments may spend more money per visit, bicyclists visit the same venue more often, and spend more overall.

The findings of both surveys, particularly the one in Portland, show that bicycling is a win-win all around. Such benefits as exercise (in a country with a morbid obesity rate) and reduced emissions are obvious. But as is the case with many business initiatives with a focus on sustainability, targeting, welcoming and marketing to bicyclists makes solid business sense. The lessons of neighborhoods in cities from Fresno to Missoula, and neighborhoods in cities with established bicycle networks in Chicago, is that welcoming all visitors, instead of excluding some, strengthens communities–and bank accounts. The business case for bicycling has become an even easier one to make.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/10/economic-impact-bicycling/

C40 Partners with Global Cool Cities Alliance to Tackle ‘Heat Island Effect’ in Cities

The urban ‘heat island effect’ is a term perhaps little known outside policy circles, but the phenomenon will be familiar to city dwellers the world over. Cities are up to eight degrees Celsius warmer than rural areas; this is because built environments absorb more of the sun’s heat, while also emitting heat from air conditioning and other building energy use. Warmer temperatures brought by climate change exacerbate the issue – and its knock-on effects on local air quality – posing a serious threat to the health and well-being of urban populations.

To tackle this issue, C40 has partnered with the Global Cool Cities Alliance to advance policies and actions in cities that increase the solar reflectance of building roofs and pavements. These measures tend to be low-cost, for example coating a roof surface white, but are highly effective, making them a viable solution for emerging cities in developing regions. By cooling cities, we not only reduce climate risks, but also cut greenhouse gas emissions through lower energy demand.

“C40 is excited about collaborating with the Global Cool Cities Alliance, a leader in its field, which brings a wealth of knowledge and experience, as well as a comprehensive tool-kit for tackling the heat island effect in global cities. Through our partnership, we will go far in helping C40 cities develop solution-oriented approaches to lowering urban temperatures”, said C40’s JT McLain who is leading the creation of a global network of C40 cities focused on this issue.

There is a great opportunity for knowledge sharing and collaboration among C40 cities – learning from the experiences of early-adopting cities and accelerating the worldwide dissemination of successful strategies to mitigate urban heat islands.

New York City has taken a comprehensive approach that includes volunteer efforts, a law requiring that new roofs be cool, and a program to monitor progress and results. To date, the city has coated more than 3.2M square feet of rooftops across 388 buildings and engaged nearly 4,000 volunteers. It estimates that every 1,000 square feet of coated rooftop reduces CO2 emissions by 1 ton; and these efforts could save residents $100 million per year in energy costs alone by reducing urban temperatures by as much as 1 degree. New Delhi recently announced that most new flat roofs would have to be reflective in order to qualify for a building permit. Other cities such as Houston, London, and Tokyo have also undertaken measures to reduce the impact of urban heat islands.

“These local efforts have a global impact,” said Kurt Shickman, Executive Director of the Global Cool Cities Alliance. The warming effect of 500 coal power plants-worth of carbon dioxide emissions can be cancelled by transitioning to white roofs where it makes economic sense to do so. Reducing urban heat with cool surfaces helps “These local efforts have a global impact,” said Kurt Shickman, Executive Director of the Global Cool Cities Alliance. “The warming effect of 500 coal power plants-worth of carbon dioxide emissions can be cancelled by transitioning to white roofs where it makes economic sense to do so. Reducing urban heat with cool surfaces helps mitigate the effects of climate change while making our cities more resilient, enjoyable, and healthy. We are very excited to support C40 cities’ efforts to deploy this strategy.”

The two organizations have already begun to work together. This week, they are co-presenting at a the Cool Buildings and Community Conference in New Delhi, India, hosted by the US Department of Energy and the Indian Bureau of Energy Efficiency, and drawing cities from the region to share best practices and experience. Going forward, C40 and the Global Cool Cities Alliance will provide interested C40 cities the tools and resources to assess the issue at the local level and design successful policies and programs.

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/04/c40-partners-with-global-cool-cities-alliance-to-tackle-heat-island-effect-in-cities/

Mayor warns solar tariffs 'may hurt' American jobs

US tariffs on imports of Chinese-made solar cells for electricity could put American jobs at risk and discourage investment by China, the mayor of a small Arizona city told federal regulators on Wednesday in support of a Phoenix business group's complaint.

The Greater Phoenix Economic Council, or GPEC, which represents about 160 companies, filed a letter of protest with the US Commerce Department and the US International Trade Commission in July over the duties on Chinese-made photovoltaic cells and modules.

More than 9,000 jobs in Arizona are related to renewable-energy companies and utility-scale power projects.

The state was ranked third in the US for installed solar capacity by the Department of Energy.

On Wednesday, Mayor Georgia Lord of Goodyear, Arizona, who is a member of the GPEC board, was the elected public office-holder at the hearing.

"Many of Goodyear's economic development efforts center on solar or foreign direct investment," she testified. "As a small city located in a foreign-trade zone, we want more Suntechs — not less."

China-based Suntech Power Holdings Co, the world's biggest maker of solar panels by output, has a manufacturing plant in Goodyear, a city of fewer than 70,000 people. The plant employs more than 100 engineers and technicians.

According to GPEC, Suntech each month produces 15,000 solar panels, which are used in providing electricity to about 10,000 American homes per year.

The ITC has been investigating whether the US solar-cell industry has been harmed by alleged dumping and unfair subsidies of Chinese-made panels.

The commission has said it will announce it's final decision in November.

In May, the Commerce Department announced preliminary tariffs of up to 250 percent on imports of Chinese solar cells.

The US government also slapped subsidy-fighting duties on Chinese solar producers in March, following allegations from SolarWorld AG of Germany that Chinese producers were able to sell their goods cheaply because of government subsidies.

A study by consulting firm the Brattle Group found that the duties will affect US demand for solar energy, resulting in substantial job losses. The report estimates that a 100 percent tariff would result in nearly 50,000 job losses in the US by 2014.

The GPEC fears that the tariffs could create the perception in China that the US doesn't welcome its investment. According to the group, about 12 Chinese companies have identified the Phoenix area as a possible location for their solar projects with an investment of $400 million.

Tom Gutierrez, CEO of GT Advanced Technologies Inc, a New Hampshire-based company that supplies China with equipment used in manufacturing solar panels and their polysilicon components, said the tariffs artificially raise prices and do not help the long-term goal of reducing costs."

It damages the long-term future of the solar industry," said Gutierrez.

About 90 percent of GT's business is in Asia, mostly China. Its customers include leading Chinese solar companies such as Yingli Green Energy Holding Co and LDK Solar Co.

In late 2011, a group of US companies formed the Coalition for Affordable Solar Energy, or CASE, to oppose the tariffs. CASE mainly consists of companies that install Chinese-made solar panels.

http://www.china.org.cn/business/2012-10/05/content_26706262.htm

Will crowdfunding solar projects work?

Sylvie Barak

10/3/2012 6:41 PM EDT

It’s an Indian summer here in San Francisco, so what better time for some good news about solar energy?

Mosaic, an online marketplace connecting investors to solar projects, announced it has come up with funding for its 6th large solar project in rather unusual fashion… by crowdsourcing it, Kickstarter style.

Mosaic’s latest project, a 47 kW solar installation on the roof of the Youth Employment Partnership (YEP) in Oakland was funded in less than a week by members of the general public donating micro amounts through the click of a mouse button.

The concept may sound novel, but it is not new.

Crowdfunding site Kickstarter launched in April, 2009,  revolutionizing investment, turning the internet into an online hub for raising money in small increments from the general public in support of a cause, product or project. Suddenly, backing startups wasn’t just for VCs, it was for everyman (and woman).

Kickstarter’s business grew rapidly from inception. In 2010 the website had 3,910 successful projects, $27,638,318 pledged, and a project success rate of 43 percent. In 2011, the corresponding figures were 11,836, $99,344,381 and 46 percent. The success spawned a string of copycats, the latest of which is Mosaic with its mass funded solar projects.

The success of opening the investment up to the online masses surprised even Mosaic itself.

“The speed at which we were able raise the $40k to fully fund the YEP project gives us hope that our new model will grow into a significant source of solar financing while offering great returns for investors,” said Mosaic’s President Billy Parish.

During Mosaic's first phase, hundreds of people invested more than $350,000 at zero-interest to finance five rooftop solar power plants in California and Arizona.

All of the first five projects went online and Mosaic said some investors had already received back the full amount they put in.



The beneficiaries of these early projects included People’s Grocery, a food justice organization in Oakland, CA and 18,000 homes without electricity on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona.

The solar installations are predicted to save community organizations over $600,000 on utility bills, which is nothing to sniff at.



To make its effort more long term, Mosaic has also submitted an application to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to offer Solar Power Notes to the public, with those proceeds going to fund other solar projects.

The firm said thousands of people have signed up to be notified when that initiative launches.

Currently, around 25 percent of the price of solar installations comes down to financing and customer acquisition costs, or soft costs. By crowdfunding a project, Mosaic says it can reduce these soft costs while enabling millions of Americans to own a piece of the clean energy economy.

“Our mission is to create shared prosperity through clean energy” said Mosaic’s CEO Dan Rosen. “We see a huge opportunity in transitioning our world to clean energy, and we want to make it possible for people and communities to prosper and be a part of this massive transformation.”

Combined, Mosaic’s first five projects are said to have created 73kW of solar energy and produced over 2,700 job hours for local laborers.

The firm was also recently awarded $2M from the U.S. Department of Energy and raised another $3.4M from venture capitalists to bring its clean energy marketplace to scale.

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/other/4397804/Will-crowdfunding-solar-projects-work--

LEED rating system for green building grows into global phenomenon

By Dana Hull

San Jose Mercury News

10/01/2012

Twelve years ago, the U.S. Green Building Council launched a rating system called LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, hoping that architects, engineers, designers and real estate firms would improve energy efficiency and increase the use of recycled materials and nontoxic paint in their projects to win LEED-certified recognition.

Now LEED has grown into a powerful brand and global phenomenon. There are 14,044 LEED-certified commercial projects, covering more than 2 billion square feet, in 140 countries. Another 34,601 projects are in the pipeline. Northern California is home to hundreds of LEED buildings, including San Jose City Hall, San Francisco International Airport's Terminal 2, the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco and the Oakland Public Library branch on 81st Street.

"Green building is not a curiosity anymore -- it's a huge market," said Aditya Ranade, a senior analyst with Lux Research in Boston. "The green building sector will be a $280 billion global industry by the end of the decade. LEED is dominant around the world, but there are other standards. Malaysia has its own Green Building Index, and China has developed its own three-star-rating system."

The Green Building Council offers four levels of LEED certificates. They range from certified, in which 50 percent of the requirements are met, to platinum, in which at least 80 percent are met. Facebook's data center in Prineville, Ore., for example, achieved LEED gold status.

But as LEED has grown and green building technology evolves, so has the need to update the rating system. The Green Building Council, a nonprofit with 14,000 member companies, on Tuesday will release proposed changes known as LEED v4 that member companies can comment on. The draft changes, which will be subject to a public comment period through Dec. 10, include increased technical rigor for energy performance and new categories that focus on integrated design, life cycle analysis of materials used and issues like indoor air quality.

"In order for LEED to be relevant, it has to evolve," said council spokeswoman Ashley Katz. "In 2000, people didn't know what low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paint was. Now it's what everyone uses."

Lux Capital notes that venture capitalists have pumped more than $4 billion into green building since 2000. Several Silicon Valley companies, including digital lighting startups Redwood Systems and Adura Technologies, are considered ripe acquisition targets for larger companies focusing on building sensors and controls.

The original idea behind LEED was to make buildings more energy efficient and reduce the carbon footprint of the built environment. But LEED-certified buildings, which are often filled with natural sunlight and access to fresh air, have proved to be popular with employees, improving concentration and boosting productivity.

Hospitals, schools and universities are increasingly turning to LEED standards: The University of California has 100 LEED-certified facilities, followed by Harvard, which has 75. And leading companies increasingly see LEED-certified buildings as a way to recruit top talent.

In June, the Green Building Council's Northern California chapter launched the "California Best Buildings Challenge." Thirteen companies, including Adobe Systems (ADBE), Genentech, Google (GOOG), Prudential Real Estate Investors, SAP and Zynga, have signed on and committed to a 20 percent reduction in energy, water and waste by 2014.

"Improving the environmental performance of our buildings not only helps us reduce waste, save energy and water and improve indoor air quality, but also positively impacts the health and productivity of our employees around the world," David Radcliffe, vice president of real estate and workplace services at Google, said in a statement. "Through our early participation in the California Best Buildings Challenge, we hope to inspire companies of all shapes and sizes to implement innovative approaches to reducing their environmental footprint."

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21673213/leed-rating-system-green-building-grows-into-global