When this country was colonized by Europeans, ten thousand years of Buffalo migrations across the Great Plains left some 6 feet or more of the world’s most fertile soil in America’s bread basket region.
Now that legacy is down to 6 inches, and a lot of what was lost found its way into the Mississippi and down the the Gulf of Mexico, where those nutrients, along with other agricultural and industrial effluents, have created a “dead zone”, anoxic area where life does not survive.
Scientists have determined this year’s Gulf of Mexico “dead zone,” an area of low oxygen that can kill fish and marine life, is 8,776 square miles, an area about the size of New Jersey. It is the largest measured since dead zone mapping began there in 1985.
The annual forecast, generated from a suite of NOAA-sponsored models, is based on nutrient runoff data from the U.S. Geological Survey. Both NOAA’s June forecast and the actual size show the role of Mississippi River nutrient runoff in determining the size of the dead zone.
This large dead zone size shows that nutrient pollution, primarily from agriculture and developed land runoff in the Mississippi River watershed is continuing to affect the nation’s coastal resources and habitats in the Gulf.
These nutrients stimulate massive algal growth that eventually decomposes, which uses up the oxygen needed to support life in the Gulf. This loss of oxygen can cause the loss of fish habitat or force them to move to other areas to survive, decreased reproductive capabilities in fish species and a reduction in the average size of shrimp caught.
The Gulf dead zone may slow shrimp growth, leading to fewer large shrimp, according to a NOAA-funded study led by Duke University. The study also found the price of small shrimp went down and the price of large shrimp increased, which led to short-term economic ripples in the Gulf brown shrimp fishery.
A team of scientists led by Louisiana State University and the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium collected data to determine the size of the dead zone during a survey mission from July 24 to 31 aboard the R/V Pelican.
“We expected one of the largest zones ever recorded because the Mississippi River discharge levels, and the May data indicated a high delivery of nutrients during this critical month which stimulates the mid-summer dead zone,” said Nancy Rabalais, Ph.D., research professor at LSU offsite linkand LUMCONoffsite link, who led the survey mission.
“Having a long-term record of the size of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone is vital in forecasting its size, trends and effects each year,” said Steven Thur, Ph.D., acting director of NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. “These measurements ultimately inform the best strategies for managers to reduce both its size and its impacts on the sustainability and productivity of our coastal living resources and economy.”
Previously the largest Gulf of Mexico dead zone was measured in 2002, encompassing 8,497 square miles. The average size of the dead zone over the past five years has been about 5,806 square miles, three times larger than the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force target of 1,900 square miles.
Toxins from manure and fertiliser pouring into waterways are exacerbating huge, harmful algal blooms that create oxygen-deprived stretches of the gulf, the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay, according to a new report by Mighty, an environmental group chaired by former congressman Henry Waxman. Continue reading “Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone Largest Ever. Our Meat Addiction has a Role.”
In listening to politicians talk about climate change, we are often encouraged and hopeful when one who previously said, “it isn’t real” changes their tune to “it might be, but even if it is, it isn’t bad”.
I am usually a pretty positive person, but I am sorry to say this does NOT make me hopeful. Why? Because it’s just one more stage in the Five Stages of Climate Denial, as follows:
STAGE ONE: Climate isn’t changing – you scientists are faking/cherrypicking/manufacturing the data and we will continue to investigate you until we prove it.
STAGE TWO: Okay, climate IS changing–but not because of humans. Everyone knows it’s [insert favourite cause: natural cycles, volcanoes, the sun, cosmic rays, or we should study it more because scientists still don’t know].
STAGE THREE: It’s changing, and it’s us, but hey – who wouldn’t prefer warmer weather and higher carbon dioxide levels? It’s all good. Pass the margaritas.
STAGE FOUR: It’s changing, it’s us, and some of the impacts might be bad; but it’s far more expensive to fix it than it is to live with the consequences. At least for my donors, that is.
STAGE FIVE: Oops! It’s too late to do anything about it now. You scientists really should have tried harder to warn us. Your bad.
Though some of these stages may sound more benign than others, they don’t make me hopeful because they all lead to the same conclusion -> that any action to fix climate change is a Bad Idea.
That’s why, when it comes to politics, what gives me true hope is the Citizens Climate Lobby Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. Currently boasting 50 members, exactly half Republican and half Democrat (because you can’t join unless you have a partner from the other party), it focuses ACTION.
The startling effects of the passage of time come into sharp focus in aerial images taken of Fukushima’s “difficult-to-return zones” in the seventh summer since the March 2011 nuclear disaster.
Tetsuro Takehana, an Asahi Shimbun photographer who lived in Fukushima Prefecture for 10 years in his childhood, takes photos of the desolate areas designated as “difficult-to-return zones.” The film was taken in late July. (Video taken by Tetsuro Takehana and Shigetaka Kodama)
Love it or hate it, this is what is for the US nuclear industry, right now.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP, WLTX) – South Carolina’s two largest utility companies have pulled out of a project to build two billion-dollar nuclear reactors.
The reactors were set to be among the first new nuclear reactors built in the U.S. in decades. First, Santee Cooper’s board voted on Monday to stop construction. A short time later, SCE&G also said they’d abandon the project as well.
Santee Cooper owns 45 percent of the project, while South Carolina Electric & Gas owns 55 percent. That utility planned to update state regulators on Tuesday.
SCE&G said they made the decision based on the additional costs of the project, as well as other factors. It’s estimated about 18 percent of SCE&G customers’ bills went to financing the effort.
The project has been shrouded in doubt since earlier this year, when primary contractor Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy protection.
“We arrived at this very difficult but necessary decision following months of evaluating the project from all perspectives to determine the most prudent path forward,” said SCE&G Chairman and CEO Kevin Marsh. “Many factors outside our control have changed since inception of this project. Chief among them, the bankruptcy of our primary construction contractor, Westinghouse, eliminated the benefits of the fixed-price contract to our customers, investors, and other stakeholders.”
The utilities announced last week that Westinghouse’s parent company, Toshiba Corp., agreed to jointly pay them $2.2 billion regardless of whether the reactors are ever completed.
The reactors were planned for the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station north of Columbia in the town of Jenkinsville. SCE&G says they’ll likely have to pursue natural gas as a way to generate the power that the nuclear plant was to have created.
A decade ago, industry officials were predicting a “nuclear renaissance” in a country that had not broken ground on a new reactor since the 1970s.
The South Carolina utilities selected an advanced reactor design from Westinghouse Electric Company, the AP1000, reported to have more safety features than earlier models. The utilities planned to build the two reactors next to an existing nuclear unit at the V.C. Summer plant in Fairfield County.
But pitfalls soon followed. Construction began before Westinghouse, a subsidiary of Toshiba of Japan, had finalized its AP1000 design, and several safety changes had to be made midway through the process. Engineers struggled with the complicated, novel project, as various components needed to be reworked.
“This was a first-of-a-kind project, so it was always going to be hard,” said Rich Powell, executive director of the ClearPath Foundation, a clean-energy group in Washington. “But you can also see this as a symptom of a broader problem. We’ve let our nuclear industry atrophy for 30 years, and we’ve lost the robust supply chains and expertise needed” in building reactors.
Important to note – at no point in any reporting is there any indication that dirty hippies carrying signs made the utilities pack it in. Cold fact is, Nukes are hard to build, and every time another one blows up, it gets harder.
Let it be written that environmentalists didn’t kill the nuclear power industry, economics did.
South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. and partner Santee Cooper abandoned work on two new nuclear reactors this week, not because of public protests, but because the only way to pay for them was to overcharge customers or bankrupt both companies.
The decision comes after the main contractor, Westinghouse, has completed a third of the work at the V.C. Sumner Nuclear Station. Of course, the project has already bankrupted Westinghouse due to missed deadlines and costs spiraling out of control. Westinghouse parent Toshiba Corp. had to pay $2.7 billion to get out of its contract.
The project was supposed to cost only $5.1 billion, but to actually finish the work would have cost $11.4 billion. By abandoning work, the utilities said they will save about $7 billion in charges they would have had to pass on to customers.
That leaves only one new nuclear project under construction in Georgia, where Westinghouse has also gone over budget and missed deadlines. Georgia Power says it has taken over construction of the two new reactors at the Vogtle plant through Southern Nuclear.
The cost of building the only nuclear power plant under construction in the U.S. has ballooned to more than $25 billion, but chief owner SouthernCo.SO -1.15%said it isn’t ready to throw in the towel on the project.
The company released the new cost estimate for Georgia’s Vogtle Electric Generating Plant on Wednesday, adding that it expects completion of the plant, which has already seen years of delays and rising costs, to be delayed by another 18 months until February 2021 at the earliest. Continue reading “Nuclear “Renaissance” Slips back to Dark Age”
Tesla Model 3 has hit the streets, but it’s only one of a rapidly expanding fleet of EVs, that are aimed at changing how the world moves.
On the horizon, driverless EVs are the true paradigm shifter.
Let’s get right to the punch line: a very strong case can be made, and will be below, that within 15 years virtually all vehicular traffic in the US will be by autonomous electric vehicles (A-EVs). And that in turn will fundamentally change how our society works, largely for the better — if we don’t blow the transition, that is. Because that statement has such profound implications, let’s unpack it bit by bit.
EV’s are cheaper. Period. Which means we’re going to use them. A lot.
Fewer parts means less wearing out. Which means less replacing, and higher use factors. The NTSB says the average ICE will last around 150,000 miles. An EV? At least 500,000, maybe as much as 1,000,000. Or put another way, as much as you will ever drive in your lifetime. Then there’s the fuel — to drive 15,000 miles costs about $1,400 using gas, but only $540 using electricity. At the same time, the cost of electricity from solar is plummeting, dropping 90% in the last ten years with no floor in sight — meaning every mile is just going to get cheaper to drive.
So: cheaper to maintain, cheaper to use. But what about the upfront cost? Previously, EVs were expensive. But there are now more than 143 models of EVs either for sale or on the road by 2022, and in five years a high performing all EV car with at least mid level autonomy will cost less than $20,000. Which means you’ll have to pay MORE to own an ICE ( which has an average price of $33,000). Everyone who will do that, raise your hand. Thought so.
Demand is growing fast, and will only accelerate. Which is fine, because the cars will drive themselves.
That plummeting cost and increased value is driving such strong interest it’s hard to keep up with the predictions of EV growth — this one by OPEC grew 500% in just one year:
The real reason for the incumbents to be worried though is the shift to automation. If a car can drive itself, it can go from sitting in your driveway 90% of the time to being on the road 90% of the time — which means we need a lot less cars. Perhaps surprisingly, with so many fewer parts it’s relatively easy to make an electric car drive themselves, and a plunging cost curve for the LIDAR technology that enables it — from $150,000 per car in 2012 to $250 in 2016 — has removed any price barrier.
So, that seems pretty persuasive. But I am not so sure. The enthusiasts, investors, and experts—and these groups overlap considerably—may be exactly right. But I am also struck by how similar what I am hearing now about AVs is to the way people were talking about electric vehicles (EVs) not that long ago. Continue reading “Intelligent EVs: Sooner or Later?”
