Wednesday, September 26, 2012

GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 3

Corporate Structure & Responsibilty

September 26, 2012

Mr Tyler Schroeder, Whatcom County
Mr Randel Perry, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Ms Jeannie Summerhays,  Washington State Department of Ecology

Subject: Scoping for Draft EIS for Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, Cherry Point, Whatcom County

As a concerned Bellingham resident and former elected official, I am submitting these connected comments and questions for the careful consideration of the MAP Team:

The GPT ownership and operations responsibility hierarchy needs additional explanation, specifically to provide specific accountability for potential harmful accidents and cumulative degradation to the impacted environs in the broader zone of influence attributable to this Applicant's proposal, in two parts;

A. As described in the Application, the ownership of the terminal seems largely dis-associated from 'ownership' of any problems that may occur that damage either public resources, the existing built community or the health of human and fauna. 
Specifically, which entity or combination of entities will be responsible for either, human or environmental damages?

The applicant's proposal appears to limit its liability to successive, shelled layers of corporate structure, with no ultimate responsibility identified or committed to. 
Is this the Applicant's accurate intent ?   
If so, what guarantee(s) of responsibility is the Applicant willing to provide? 
If outside insurance is to be used for this purpose, to what limits? 
Will a public entity be able to control these funds and timely determine when and where they will be used?

B. As described in the Application, the Applicant appears to assume no responsibility for the actions of its supply chain partners, either Peabody Coal, BNSF Railway Co. or any of the various owners or operators of the Marine Vessels expected to transport bulk coal and other cargoes to foreign clients. 
Please explain exactly where does each supply chain party's responsibility begin and end? 

The Applicant asserts it will never 'own' any of the bulk commodities it will handle, but merely charge what amounts to a toll only for the unloading, materials handling and loading operations. 

Since some parts of these bulk commodities -primarily coal- will find their ways into the soils, waters, and air in -and outside- the vicinity of the proposed terminal, who will 'own' these fugitive particulates, liquids and gases? 
By means of example, please explain the following using and/or citing a recognized scientific basis:

• What will happen to coal and other 'dust' collected by various means, including bag-houses, onsite? 
Will it be considered a hazardous waste?
How will this be disposed? 

• What will happen to fine coal particles and other sediments collected by the various storm water and/or water treatment systems proposed? 
Which, if any, will be considered as hazardous waste?
How will these be disposed?
How will the stormwater and process water spray effluent be disposed, and to what standards?

• What methods are proposed to measure, monitor and control coal dust particles - especially PM 2.5 and PM 10 - generated from railcar unloading, materials handling conveyor system, and ship loading at the terminal from being carried offsite? 
At the coal railcar unloading facility, a pole building with roof and open sides, what does a vent stack 'opacity of 10%', equate to in terms of lbs per day of particulates?
How much is likely to be lost by wind blowing through this open shed?
What air pollution liability will be assumed by the applicant? How will this be amount be monitored, determined and paid?

GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 2

Scope of Project

This morning, the Cascadia Weekly's Gristle topic - Xwe' chi' eXen -  covered the Lummi Nation's recently stated opposition to the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, which together with growing linkage between Northwest communities demonstrates expanding concerns about GPT and its obvious, wide-spread potential adverse impacts.


Readers should take encouragement from this article and understand their concerns need to be expressed -during the next 3 months- directly to the MAP Team responsible for scoping the GPT EIS. 

Monday's blog gives essential details of how this can be done, plus an example comment I have submitted.

Remember, the more of us who speak up, the better chance we have to mitigate harmful impacts that may cost us far more than any benefits we derive from GPT being built and operated!
------------------------
Here is a second comment I submitted yesterday:

September 25, 2012

Mr Tyler Schroeder, Whatcom County
Mr Randel Perry, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Ms Jeannie Summerhays, Washington State Department of Ecology

Subject: Scoping for Draft EIS for Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, Cherry Point, Whatcom County

As a Bellingham resident and former elected official, I am submitting these concerns for careful consideration by the MAP Team:

The geographical 'scope' described in the GPT Application Document seems unusually -even grotesquely- small since the Applicant wishes to limit it to the immediate site's footprint, a total of only 350 acres. 

That claimed limitation grossly understates the actual zone of influence of the proposed GPT facility and needs to be greatly expanded to include not only much more of the immediate surrounding area, but also all the dozens of communities and hundreds of crossings through which the railroad rights of way pass in the supply chain to transport PRB coal to the proposed facility.
I am encouraged by the MAP Team's decision to hold seven public hearings at various locations along the railroad route through the State of Washington, and hope that signifies an intent to appropriately evaluate potential impacts in a wider area.

However, the estimated annual shipping traffic of four hundred and eighty seven [487] very large Panamax and Capesize Bulk Carriers will create unprecedented vessel traffic, not only in the scenic, narrow and sensitive Salish Sea, but in the Straits of San Juan de Fuca and major great circle shipping lanes through the Aleutians and on to Asia. 
That volume of vessel traffic brings with it all the risks of concentrated congestion, collisions, spills, interference with fishing and pleasure craft, and general degradation of the uniquely beautiful and highly valued San Juan Islands, a leading attraction to our area.

The proposed GPT facility is nothing more than a nexus, planned specifically to attract very heavy coal-carrying traffic, both incoming and out-going, thus spreading its zone of directly related impacts quite broadly.
For that reason, the EIS Scope needs to recognize this reality and evaluate these broader impacts commensurately.

At a minimum, a detailed evaluation needs to be performed which identifies all safety and Level Of Service impacts at each railroad track crossing, and suggests suitable mitigation and their associated costs. 
The communities affected can ill afford enduring either the impacts imposed or the costs of their mitigation - if indeed any mitigation is possible.

Evaluating potential marine vessel impacts is more problematic and will necessarily involve multiple stakeholders, including federal and state agencies among others. 
This effort will need to focus on problem avoidance, including emergency planning with emphasis on proven preventative measures to preclude accidents, plus requiring publicly accessible and adequate contingency funding -including mandatory insurance- to timely pay for any mishap that may occur.

Very truly yours,
John B Watts

Monday, September 24, 2012

Coal: GPT EIS Scoping Comment No. 1 - Adding Insult to Injury

Incomplete Application

Today begins the official public comment period for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal's Environmental Impact Statement [EIS].
These may be sent by mail to:

Mr. Randel Perry, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Care of: GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies, 1100 112th Avenue Northeast, Suite 400, Bellevue, Washington 98004 

or via e-mail to comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov.


I certainly hope every concerned citizen will take advantage of this one opportunity to be heard!

Personally, I plan to submit my first comment later today. 
[see below]

Copies of all documents will be available at this website: www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov  


The time for commenting will end on January 21, 2013, 120 days hence.

In between will come seven public hearings, with only two in Whatcom County:

• on Oct 27 at Bellingham's Squalicum High School from 11 AM until 3 PM, and

• on Nov 29 at the the Ferndale Events Center from 3 PM until 7 PM.

I take some encouragement from the fact that 5 public hearings are scheduled for other WA communities, including Mt Vernon, Friday Harbor, Seattle, Vancouver and Spokane.
This seems to acknowledge that impacts from heavy rail and ship traffic to and from GPT would be felt much more widely than just within the proposed terminal's footprint, as the proponents wish.
----------------------------

Last Friday marked another annual season change, the Autumnal Equinox.
That marks the time when cooler weather and shorter days means harvest time is approaching, a necessary prelude to enduring winter challenges.

The early harvest SSA-Marine reaped Friday at the Cherry Point beach seemed to exactly fit what they have sown, toxic weed seeds that threaten the very way of life [Sche Lang en] for the Lummi Nation.
The Lummi name for their former Cherry Point area village is Xwe'chi'eXen, which is considered a sacred ancestral site, located near traditional fishing waters.

Resolution #2012-060 of the Lummi Indian Business Council, certified on June 19, 2012, registered their opposition to the GPT project proposed by SSA-Marine.
That sentiment was strongly conveyed at the Lummi gathering, attended by about 200 people that I witnessed last Friday.

If the GPT project itself is considered an injury, then attempts to buy Lummi support for it adds insult.
That was the clear message conveyed by ceremonially burning a replica of a very large check marked NON-NEGOTIABLE in red paint, with SSA officials looking on.

After wondering what the Lummi position would be, I was encouraged by this gathering and the unmistakeable public message that was sent to SSA-Marine.
------------------------------
A few published articles describe these recent events:

http://www.nwcitizen.com/entry/lummi-nation-opposes-coal-terminal - Local blog report


http://crosscut.com/2012/09/21/coal-ports/110640/lummi/ - Floyd McKay's report on Lummi gathering at Cherry Point




http://www.coaltrainfacts.org - a valuable, one-stop resource

-------------------------------
Here is the comment I submitted today:

September 24, 2012

Mr Tyler Schroeder, Whatcom County
Mr Randel Perry, U.S. Corps of Engineers
Ms Jeannie Summerhays,  Washington State Department of Ecology

Subject: Scoping for Draft EIS for Proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, Cherry Point, Whatcom County

As a long time Bellingham resident and former elected official, I am submitting these comments for the careful consideration of the MAP Team:

From reading the GPT Application Document submitted to Whatcom County Planning & Development Services on Feb 28, 2011, it is apparent that much thought has gone into its preparation. 
However, it is also apparent that much more additional, important information is required before this Document can be reasonably considered complete and is therefore ready for any sort of final evaluation or approval. 

This EIS Scoping Process will undoubtedly provide a number of questions that thoughtful decision makers will need to have answered to their -and the public's - satisfaction.
For example, to be fair, impartial and complete, I wonder why several studies that are referenced in the Application have not already been completed? 

Some of these studies are quite important, such as the Vessel Traffic Analysis, the Aquatic Species Study for the local herring stock at Cherry Point, a detailed Storm Water Collection & Treatment Plan for the entire terminal, an Analysis of Meteorological Data as it applies to surrounding population centers, Noise Studies, Vehicular Traffic Impacts outside the immediate site footprint, and the like.

Without being able to actually examine these studies, there is no way for the public to know what they contain or whether the data and conclusions are accurately derived and used or not! Is the public to accept verbal promises on faith in lieu of reviewing the actual studies?

As an unpaid citizen with no professional staff, I expect to have this potentially critical information available to me in a timely fashion so that I can review it and develop any important questions I might have, without risking that the time for commenting will run out before I finish. 
I certainly hope the Applicant -and the MAP Team- values the type of stakeholder that I represent, especially when a project like this one has the clear potential for unduly weighing against a fair cost -versus- benefit analysis.

I can think of no way this particular situation can be remedied, short of making the substantial relevant information timely available before any Final EIS is attempted. 
Please commit to seeing this course of action is followed before allowing the Public Scoping period to become a pre-ordained charade.

Very truly yours,
John Watts
--------------------------

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Coal: GPT Calculations

From reading GPT Application and doing a little arithmetic, here's some GPT Bulk COAL Calculations: 
[weight in metric tons (mt) = 2205 lbs]

1 gondola car = 102 metric tons [mt]
125 gondola cars = 1 unit train [7000'] - (ultimately to 8500' long trains)
1 unit train = 12,750 mt

East Loop Stockpile = 2.75 to 2.90 million mt [say 3 million mt]
@ 8% of annual throughput: ~3 million mt / 12.750 mt / train = 235 trains to fill stockpile

235 trains / .08 = 2941 trains/year = 100%
2941 trains/year / 365 = 8 trains/day -[coal only]
-----------------------

Cargo Vessels: Large Bulk Carriers @ 180k dwt to 250k dwt [deadweight tons]

Cd = dwt/ Delta = 0.78 to 0.84 [Revenue Cargo Factor]

Panamax size vessels: 950' X 106' X 39.5' X 190' [Length, Breadth, Draft, Tallest Height]
Ships larger than these qualify as Capesize vessels.

Very Large Ships with 1 screw: speed = 11 to 16.5 knots; long stopping distance; wide turning radius

DWT [Revenue Cargo] Estimates:

250k dwt @ 0.84 load factor: 210k mt / 16.5 trains / 46.7 ship loader hours @10k lb/hr or 4.5 mt/hr

250k dwt @ 0.78 load factor: 195k mt / 15.3 trains / 43.3 ship loader hours
180k dwt @ 0.84 load factor: 151.2k mt / 11.8 trains / 33.6 ship loader hours

180k dwt @ 0.78 load factor: 140.4k mt / 11 trains / 31.2 ship loader hours

Since there are to be 3 berths, each with a dedicated ship loader, up to 3 vessels could be loading at the same time.
GPT estimates 487 vessels per year / 365 = 1.33 vessels per day [average, operating at full capacity]
---------------------------

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Energy: WAL-MART's Epiphany

It's been a while since I've written about WAL-MART, but here's a story that should appeal to those who consider our energy policy to be lacking and think big government policy incentives are the only way to fix it.
Guess what? 
Old fashioned good business sense can also begin to change our stupid reliance on only burning ever more fossil fuel. 

Remember the 'WAL-MART effect'? 
You know, the one which resulted from WAL-MART buying into the energy efficient light bulb idea, then switching its corporate policy to be the de-facto leader in that effort?
It worked! 
And its competitors followed -almost overnight.

Now, why do you imagine WAL-MART made that decision? 
Think it had anything to do with saving itself major electrical utility costs, like on the order of 30%?
Here's a flash; self-interest motivated WAL-MART, which then led to the idea that other companies might follow for the same reason. 
But, by trailblazing this inherently good idea, WAL-MART got the immediate attention of not only its customers, but its competitors, who seemed to need a little more motivation than just doing something smart because it was smart.

After that resounding success, WAL-MART -always cost conscious- followed by reducing its huge consumption of diesel fuel by making more smart changes, like shutting down its truck engines instead of leaving them to idle as had been the widespread custom.
That little idea saved 20% of fuel costs for WAL-MART's huge truck fleet.

The latest change in WAL-MART thinking is to generate its own energy from solar and wind power, as is reported in this recent article.
Read it if you dare!
Maybe WAL-MART can convince even more doubters that alternate energy makes both sense and dollars!

While I still don't shop at WAL-MART except occasionally, you can bet I'm getting closer to it.
Because when a company, already so good at optimizing its supply chain, begins to turn its attention at other effective ways to cut costs, watch out!
The reported 27% less cost for a typical grocery basket at WAL-MART isn't something to sneeze at, and neither are economies of scale.

Now, maybe the company will focus more on providing better wages & benefits and a greater selection of American made goods; when that happens, maybe I'll become a more regular customer.
These folks are not stupid; they're smart!
I'd like to see more businesses just get with this program.
Not only will it work for them, it'll work for all of us.
-----------------------------------

Thursday, August 23, 2012

GPT: Benefactor or Malefactor?

First, here are a couple of articles published recently about grandiose Coal export plans affecting our area; read 'em and weep:
http://earthfix.opb.org/energy/article/american-coal-companies-look-to-the-west-coast-for/
The second article quotes Bellingham's own Craig Cole, who notes that projects like this actually benefit the whole country and its economy. 
Do you agree with that? 
Wonder if he might also agree with associated harms that are caused, like environmental degradation and displaced societal investments and plans? 
Go ahead, ask him!
------------------------------
The sheer enormity and certain potential for major, permanent degradation is discouraging. 
Surely, there are better uses for this property. 
But, this GPT scheme is the proposal we have before us.

I have now added another link to allow access to the public information application the applicant submitted to Whatcom County Planning & Development Services [PDS] on February 28, 2011. 
This attempt to externalize costs and impacts onto to 'others' is very obvious from a reading of this application.
BTW, what degree of 'opacity' do you assign to GPT's public statements so far? 

It is a pdf document over 200 pages in length, which I have now reviewed pretty completely.
Predictably, I do have some fairly extensive questions and clarifications that need to be answered. These will be posted in due course, as specific concerns directly related to this application.
To date, the GPT conversation has been essentially one-sided, with the big money sponsors and their coterie of automatic cheering sections loudly touting the benefits while remaining silent on deleterious impacts. 
These are highly paid professionals whose goal it is to maximize corporate profits while minimizing the costs that will need to be paid from public coffers. 
Just understand that up front.

A large part of that strategy is simply limiting the scope to the basic footprint on the immediate property, while the entire logistics route, plus the mines and atmosphere are to be included.

Then, also, the mindset that GPT is that they are only a small of the assemblage of partners. 
This again, tests credulity!
GPT wants to be seen as a simple trading company tolling station that transfers products they will never own from one mode of transportation to another, with both representing potentially extraordinary impactful threats.
That also seems to apply to the financiers like Goldman Sachs who will only be interested in a quick assured payback with interest. 
Just take the money and run with no care about what ill effects the project may bring.

No one, single entity is identified that wants to accept responsibility for the totality of this operation, only its part of the profits and cost avoidance.
That is a pretty plain formula for fleecing the public; Baaa-a-a to that!
At a minimum, this secretive and devious consortium needs to be required to provide adequate insurance coverage to pay for any unplanned- but likely unavoidable- catastrophic mishaps. 
These can be single events or an accumulation of events and impacts that add up to unacceptable degradation to public lands, waters and air.

I know projects like this one are very expensive, but do carry the promise of creating jobs and wealth, because I have been involved in such proposals myself for many years during my corporate professional life. 
Unlike this proposal, the ones I was involved with assumed all responsibility for the operations and impacts, as affected governments and public entities realized the necessity for the venture.

There is no necessity for GPT, only the wish for quick profits from transferring enormous quantities of a domestic natural resource into 'black gold' for foreign competitors. 
This kind of motivation is no justification for it to happen at all, especially since it also brings the prospect such ruinous impacts to existing communities, our waters and atmosphere.

In the spectrum between wants and needs, this is clearly a want! 
Where on that scale would you rate it?
That also goes for the phalanx of fawning toadies who think they stand to benefit from this venture going forward. 
They are clearly thinking of themselves first, and not for what may be best for our collective lives together on this planet.

As far, as opposition to GPT goes, that has been either discouraged [think Whatcom County Prosecutor's Office] or derided as simple NIMBYism. 
What is that about? One side is allowed free acceptance and unlimited bloviation, while opponents are discredited, even though their arguments need to be heard.

Like a growing proportion of people who live here, I was drawn as much by by the area's breathtaking beauty as I was by the prospect of a local job. 
The job was a means to an end, not the end itself! 
Even that job was a victim of excessive corporate greed and unsustainable mis-management! 
When it ended, I elected to stay here anyway because my situation allowed it. 
Now, I'd like to stay here longer, but developments like GPT do tempt me to move somewhere else; wouldn't that be convenient? 
But whether I live here or not, this is my neighborhood and I have very serious doubts that GPT will be good for anyone's backyard in the long run!

Mark Twain lived in the Gilded Age, and loved it because -gifted as he was- he liked getting rich quick. 
He liked that so much he did it several times, often losing everything by gambling on a risky scheme. That was the latter half of the 19th century, the period of robber barons and industrial titans, who could care less about anything other than their own wealth, opulent and wasteful livestyles and power. 
Is that what we want to happen again? 
Isn't that type of excessive selfish motivation at the root of many of our current problems? 

That was also the time when railroad tycoons did what they wanted and were richly rewarded by our government with land and riches beyond belief! 
Guess what? Surprise, surprise, they want to continue that status! 
That was the time when corporations -then called 'trusts- began to be considered as people. 
Look where that idea has gotten us. 
Of course, the roots of the idea that money was 'speech' was also the wish of the tycoons. 
Some even used their money to buy seats in our Congress. 
Imagine that!
Like the idea of money from somewhere else determining what happens in your backyard? 
If so, you'll probably also love GPT!

What will happen to all that capital spent to finance GPT? 
Will it be repaid with handsome interest to wealthy individuals who may decide to invest it outside our tax laws, in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas? 
How will that help us finance our essential services and other needs for the future? 
Does anyone really believe that the taxes generated from operation of GPT will be even close to sufficient to pay for the increased public services required, or the infrastructure costs? 
How did Judas spend his 30 pieces of silver? 
Think he enjoyed it? 
How about his offspring -if he had any?

GPT estimates its 'life' at 50 to 75 years, which may become shortened by a number of reasons; no more coal supply or demand, lower than anticipated prices and profit margins, global climate events that convince us that fossil fuels are the source, catastrophic accidents that destroy or materially damage important ecosystems, war & terrorism, public dissatisfaction with having to pay for private gain with public resources, improved regulations, poor business decisions, [you fill in the blank].

The point is, when GPT's time is up, the deleterious impacts will remain; just like we've seen happen before at Georgia-Pacific on our downtown waterfront. 
A Superfund type mess for us to deal with at public expense. 
When the herring, salmon and Orcas are gone, then where will the fishermen and tourists go? 
When railway communities become modern versions of shanty towns, who will buy the real estate? When the spike in economic activity based on resource extraction winds down - again, where will people find work? 
And, when this area becomes known as no longer so breath-takingly beautiful, who will care? 

But, maybe, just maybe, none or not all of these dire predictions will come true? 
Are we willing to take that chance? 
We will be doing that unconsciously unless we fight GPT now and hold it to the highest standards possible!

In the meantime, please remember the warning that President Teddy Roosevelt -a Republican- gave us a century ago when he was faced with the mounting power of the corporations -combines & trusts in gentler talk- in his time. 
He used the term 'malefactors of great wealth' as representing a serious threat to our entire system of government, then took strong action to curb that power.
That particular problem has the characteristic of periodically reappearing from time to time, as it has again now. 

So, you decide, does GPT look more like a 'benefactor' or a 'malefactor' to you? 
Maybe some of both? 
If so, let's make sure we balance the beneficial factors against the harmful factors, before allowing this ambitious get rich scheme to come to fruition in our time. 

Do they seem completely clear and honest? 
Does their application need to be seriously conditioned? 
If so, in what ways?
And, most important, what is going to be your role in making sure the EIS is scoped exceptionally well? 
Will you submit a concern? 
Will you monitor the proceedings to the best of your ability? 
Will you make sure your elected officials understand your expectations?
I hope so, because that is about all we can count on to insure what happens is above board, well considered and the best decision we can reasonably expect.
-------------------

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Coal: The Ant & The Elephant

Some may remember the dilemma faced by the ant when it discovered a dead elephant.
The good news; food for life!
The bad news; where to take the first bite?
------------------
I have shared some of that same dilemma when faced with the daunting task of how to get an enormous number of concerns to be actively considered as part of EIS scoping for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal [GPT].

In the greater scheme of things impacting our area and its many healthy attractions, the idea of exporting millions of tons of American coal to China through a deepwater port that hasn't even been permitted or built, ranks right up there near the top in my book.
That means the decisions that are made regarding this issue will bind us to a future we may come to seriously regret. 
That is why it is critical that we, the citizens, speak up and be heard! 

So, rather than trying to figure out a big comprehensive set of concerns before beginning to register specific comments, I've decided to just begin and proceed in bite-size chunks.
That way, the job just seems easier, plus progress can be readily measured and gaps filled in later.
With that direction set, the job becomes one of practicing the skill required to craft effective concerns and then distributing those ideas to not only the agencies involved, but with as many other citizens as possible to facilitate their active participation.
------------
Here's an idea shared by someone else that can begin to help us develop templates that can be readily used by citizens who wish to express their own concerns:
I think diversity in samples is going to be a strength - different formats, styles, organizations, voice, etc. - yet all adhering to the same criteria (e.g. does not state an opinion, asks a question, is supported by reasonably foreseeable [result] and significance, etc.).... every sample [provided as an example] should have the disclaimer:
"This sample letter is not a good letter to copy, because it was not written by YOU." 
And, here's a short and sweet sample concern also sent to me recently by another concerned citizen:
The EIS should provide a more detailed explanation of the purpose and need for the project than is provided by the proponents application. 
Evaluate in detail the impact the operation will have on other industries, agencies and entities ability to start, develop and grow new projects that are dependent on quality of life environment to train, attract and retrain experienced employees.
Maybe these two ideas will help get other folks started in developing their own submissions to share soon with the agencies as well as other citizens. 
I expect another website will soon become available to collect and disseminate as much of this information as possible.
In the meantime, I'll be glad to accept citizen's comments also.
----------------
In case, folks want to use material from former blogs, here is a summary of links to the 53 previous blogs I've dedicated to this subject, to date:

1. Those Thrilling Days of Yesteryear... Sunday, March 27, 2011


3. Good Mornin' America, How Are Ya? Wednesday, June 8, 2011


5. Making Tracks To Where? Friday, July 15, 2011


7. Coal Terminal: Trains & Infrastructure Saturday, July 30, 2011


9. Coal Terminal: Update on Developments Monday, August 1, 2011

10. Coal Terminal: Another Update Tuesday, August 2, 2011

11. Coal Terminal: Playing Defense Wednesday, August 3, 2011


13. Coal: A Global Perspective Thursday, September 1, 2011

14. Coal: Floyd McKay's Latest Crosscut Article Wednesday, September 28, 2011

15. Coal: Green versus Gold? Wednesday, October 19, 2011

16. Coal: The Role of Politics Wednesday, October 19, 2011

17. Coal: National Geographic Article Friday, October 21, 2011

18. Coal: NPR Weighs In With Two Articles Thursday, October 27, 2011

19. Big Coal meets Cherry Point's tiny herring Friday, October 28, 2011

20. Coal: Where Does Bellingham Really Stand? Sunday, October 30, 2011



23. Coal: Possible Good News? Thursday, November 10, 2011


25. Impacts: Coal Versus Oil Sands Thursday, November 17, 2011

26. Trains: 'Here's Mud In Your Eye'Thursday, December 15, 2011


28. Coal: Specific Actions Bellingham Must Take Sunday, January 1, 2012

29. Coal & Climate Friday, January 27, 2012

30. Constitution, Corporations & Coal Wednesday, February 22, 2012



33. Coal: Updating Public Concerns Thursday, March 29, 2012

34. Coal: Expanding Concerns  Monday, April 30, 2012


36. Coal: Shanty Town, USA?  Friday, May 18, 2012

37. Coal: May 31 Update  Thursday, May 31, 2012

38. Coal: "Cold Ironing" & Other Stuff  Monday, June 18, 2012

39. Coal: The City's Citizens Need To Be Heard!  Wednesday, June 20, 2012

40. Coal: Latest Developments  Saturday, June 30, 2012

41. Coal: Before the Council Meeting  Monday, July 2, 2012

42. Coal: After the Council Meeting - Sorta  Tuesday, July 3, 2012

43. Coal: A Few More Lumps  Saturday, July 7, 2012

44. Coal: Manna or Mammon?  Sunday, July 8, 2012

45. Coal: The Beat Goes On  Friday, July 13, 2012

46. Coal: SEPA Information  Monday, July 16, 2012

47. Tomorrow, HamsterTalk is 5 Years Old!  Thursday, July 26, 2012

48. Coal: Shipping in the Salish Sea  Monday, July 30, 2012

49. Coal: Part 1 - A Reporter At Large  Tuesday, July 31, 2012

50. Coal: Part 2 - A Reporter At Large  Wednesday, August 1, 2012

51. Coal: SSA Marine Info  Thursday, August 2, 2012


53. Coal: A Window of Opportunity for Citizens  Thursday, August 16, 2012

54. Coal: The Ant & The Elephant  Sunday, August 19, 2012
------------------

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Coal: A Window of Opportunity for Citizens

Some new required reading has now been published online that helps ordinary citizens make their voices heard by voicing their concerns about the GPT proposal .
James Wells' article Scoping Season: Making Our Voices Heard in the August issue of Whatcom Watch provides very useful information that outlines the EIS process which will be officially begun soon.
Additionally, Wells provides some Useful Links:
Whatcom County Planning and Development Services has a special page about GPThttp://www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/plan/current/gpt-ssa/index.jsp
Most complete all around information, Coal Train Facts: http://www.coaltrainfacts.org
Best information about scoping: http://protectwhatcom.org
Best information about economic and development issues: http://www.communitywisebellingham.org
-------------------
Stay tuned for some examples of how citizen concerns can be framed in a way that maximizes their likelihood of being duly considered in the EIS process.
These will be developed and posted soon.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Energy: Tilting at Windmills?

Mitt Romney's remark that 'you can't put a windmill on your car' meant ... what?
I'm sure he agrees you certainly can put a propeller on an airplane, right?

But, everyone knows a plane must burn refined fuel pretty rapidly to make that propeller turn fast enough to overcome gravity and fly.
Where does that fuel come from?
Mostly from underground deposits of petroleum, that's where.

Of course, cars use fuel, too, mostly from underground.
But things are changing pretty quickly as the heretofore artificial costs of refined fossil fuels are rising in response to what?
For you economists out there; supply and demand!

I should know a little about this subject, because 8 years ago, I bought a so-called hybrid vehicle with much higher fuel efficiency than I had ever owned before.
Part of the reason for that increased fuel efficiency is applied technology that allows electrical power to be generated from the car's own momentum while it's not being accelerated.
That may not sound like much, but it does add about 10% to rated horsepower.

More importantly, there are vehicles now being developed, sold and driven that have much higher efficiencies thanks to even newer applied technologies. [WWU's solar vehicles are a good example]
One of those technologies uses electrical power stored in high-tech batteries that can be recharged by simply plugging into the power grid.
Granted, much of the existing power grid also relies upon fossil fuels from underground, but that is changing due to smart applied science as well.

Ever heard of solar power? Of course you have!
That's where we get nearly all of our energy to grow things, heat things and light things, whether in real time or stored underground from earlier centuries.

Of course, the enormous solar energy the earth receives is free of cost.
It is available to use, collect, store and transmit in various ways, including photovoltaic [PV] arrays.
Did you know that if we were to invest 1% of surface area in solar panel farms, we could produce ALL the electrical power we need?
Let me repeat that; ALL our electrical power needs can be supplied by solar farms covering 1% of our land surface.
Does that surprise you?

Of course, a smart grid system would be required to accomplish this and that would take time and investment, plus be a long term game changer for all those interests who benefit from the status quo.
But a smart grid needs to happen anyway, for several reasons; reliability, efficiency, national security, normal replacement of aging infrastructure, distribution improvements, among others.

It's normal to resist something so big and daunting, but you know its going to happen anyway so why deny the necessity for eventual change?
And, remember, big, gradual and natural changes also have the potential to create jobs, investment opportunities, certainty and the type of innovative R&D development this country prides itself upon.

A smart grid is something that is inherently American, too. It can't be simply outsourced.
Two role model examples of this type of game change are NASA and our space program -which has spawned all sorts of new technology and thinking- and the Internet -which has transformed the way we do business and live our lives.

There is no question that finding ways to harness solar energy more effectively into our fuel needs not only brings many desirable benefits, but very few -if any- downside risks.
A side benefit could be to conserve increasingly scarce underground resources for more important purposes than simply burning, while also decreasing damaging trends in our atmosphere that contribute to Greenhouse effects.

So far, the USA has made scarcely a dent in the potential solar power has for our future.
Yet, other countries are embracing the concept willingly and aggressively.
That should be troubling for a society that is used to thinking of itself as privileged and advanced.
We're simply not acting like the progressive leaders the world has come to expect.

In 2006, I made a decision to install a small [1.5kw] PV array on my garage roof and sell the electrical power it generates back to Puget Sound Energy.
Fortunately, the State of Washington -compliments of Federal incentives- provided some financial incentives to help me justify fronting the cost.
Almost six years later, I decided to triple the size of my PV array installation, again with modest financial incentives from the State of Washington.
Now, I produce fully two-thirds of the power I use in my home.
I feel good about that, because it gives me the chance to tangibly contribute to some goals and ideals I support.
It also provides Puget Power with power it doesn't need to produce from fossil fuels; which they gladly pay me for.
And, it provides jobs to fine local people, plus sets a small example that others may wish to emulate.

One small step at a time is always necessary to begin any campaign for change.
After a while momentum will begin to build and the next thing we know, things are happening!

OK, I got off on a little solar tangent, but wind power is also free.
All we have to do is harness it, just like the solar energy from which it derives.
Remember Mitt Romney's statement, 'you can't put a windmill on your car'?
Well, literally, he's right, but directionally he's wrong; here's why:
 Since plugging into a power grid now can fuel a high-tech car, where that power came from doesn't have to be just fossil or solar, but also wind.

I expect folks in Lynden know that already, with their Dutch heritage and history of harnessing wind for beneficial purposes.
Heck, a large part of Holland was reclaimed from the sea by pumping water from behind dikes using windmills.
Farmers used windmills before electricity was available to mechanically pump water for livestock and crops.
It ain't exactly a futuristic high-tech concept, it's an established method that's been used a long time.

Of course, modern wind turbines and their towering supports have now been refined and adapted to power generation purposes, so that electric grids can transmit it to multiple uses.
Above ground wind power is an alternative to underground fossil fuels. 

That wind turbines are already established technology can be easily demonstrated by driving through windy gorges or viewing windy ridges where wind farms have been established.
Admittedly, there is controversy over locations that are appropriate, but wind turbines remain a viable alternate to burning fossil fuels, as well as opportunities for income generation, investment and jobs. Why not embrace this new, more efficient concept?

Not long ago, I heard of a potential investment opportunity that was local in nature.
It hasn't happened yet, mainly because the Whatcom County Council can't seem to get its collective head around what policy it ought to adopt regarding permitting.
I guess its just not yet a big enough deal for them to consider important, but maybe there are other reasons.
Anyway, it's a shame that not much progress is currently thought necessary for wind power to become a reality, especially so near a place like Lynden.

Two wind power articles appeared recently, one in the latest issue of Whatcom Watch on this very subject.
This one is from the Oregonian.

Sorry to be so windy........