http://news.google.com/news?q=tva

So a week ago a billion gallons of coal sludge spilled into the surrounding areas of a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant. The media has been pretty slow to report on it, and I haven't seen it mentioned on here either, but this is a pretty huge environmental disaster. I know there's a few people from the Knoxville area on here, anybody have any firsthand accounts of the situation? Also, what is this going to do to all the recent talk about clean coal technology? Is it still going to happen and is it safe enough?

12/29/2008 3:11:34 PM

Quote :

"Also, what is this going to do to all the recent talk about clean coal technology?"

no such thing as clean coal.

12/29/2008 3:30:25 PM

There is such thing as finding ways to make coal less of a polluter.

12/29/2008 3:34:18 PM

I dont know if there is a "real clean coal technology". But i do know my company has been making a shit load of money building these SCR/FGD Systems.

12/29/2008 3:47:01 PM

as i understand it, clean coal is basically pumping and storing the CO2 emissions underground, so it seems this would have little effect on that aspect of development, political implications notwithstanding.

12/29/2008 3:48:36 PM

clean coal has to do with intended emmisions not a poorly designed waste pond.

Anything can be cleaned up with enough money. Its not nuclear. (cleaned, not returned to previous state)

[Edited on December 29, 2008 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/29/2008 3:52:19 PM

Unless the fly ash is seeping into the local water table at a rapid pace, I doubt this is all that serious.

12/30/2008 2:24:56 PM

Quote :

"I dont know if there is a "real clean coal technology". But i do know my company has been making a shit load of money building these SCR/FGD Systems. "

yep, all of these technologies, including ESPs and JBRs, are doing a lot to clean up burned coal remnants before they enter the atmosphere. Some have been proven to remove 99% of emissions. There are also technologies emerging that treat coal in a stoker-fired furnace as it is being burned.

CO2 sequesterization is still a ways away

12/30/2008 2:39:39 PM

I've also been trying to figure out why this has received so little attention. Seems like a big deal to me... I'd rather know about this than Larry King w. Chris Angel.

12/30/2008 2:42:01 PM

my stepdads bro lives in tn near kentucky and said something about this over christmas...he was like they aint saying it but it happened blah blah blah...i thought he was just a nut or something but i guess he knew what he was talking about

[Edited on December 30, 2008 at 2:58 PM. Reason : said something how coal was in the water but they werent admitting it yet]

12/30/2008 2:57:52 PM

I live in Huntsville which is only a few hours south of Knoxville and I haven't heard anything about this...

12/31/2008 9:13:52 AM

its not nearly as big of a deal as they are making out of it, it wasn't toxic waste, it was oversaturated fly ash from all the rain lately, hell, we sell ours to local farmers to spread out on the fields around here, its not toxic, not even in large amounts, its basically a mudslide

12/31/2008 9:40:27 AM

they're not making a big deal out of it - that was kind of the point of this thread

12/31/2008 11:02:31 AM

Quote :

"CO2 sequesterization is still a ways away"

Good thing its just a harmless component of the atmosphere then.

12/31/2008 11:04:59 AM

a component that traps heat in the atmosphere.

12/31/2008 11:05:57 AM

This spill is massive, the largest ever of its kind. More than thirty times larger than the Exxon Valdez. Over 400 acres of land are under 6 FEET of sludge. The sludge has flowed into the Emory River which provides drinking water to millions of people downstream in Tennessee, Alabama and Kentucky. The spill caused a "tidal wave" of water and ash that covered 12 homes, pushing one entirely off its foundation, rendering three uninhabitable, and caused some damage to 42 residential properties. It also washed out a road, ruptured a major gas line and destroyed power lines.

Coal contains heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium, chromium and carcinogens.
Which all can cause serious health issues/problems leading to cancer, respiratory problems etc... when ingested or breathed in.
Right now it's sludge but what happens when the muck dries out and becomes airborne and breathable???
I cannot believe that this hasn't received very much national attention. Not to mention, little has been said about the dangers to nearby residents. Coal ash is supposed to be buried in lined landfills NOT in an earthen embankment (next to a river).

My husband is there working on the spill with his company. His company estimates it is going to take 6 months to a year+ to clean up.
Total costs for this cleanup should exceed $5 billion.

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 11:09 AM. Reason : ugh]

12/31/2008 11:09:02 AM

Quote :

"a component that traps heat in the atmosphere."

That is orders of magnitude less powerful than methane and water vapor.

12/31/2008 11:14:20 AM

^^I WOULD ACT LIKE COAL ASH SPILLS WERE A BIG DEAL TOO IF THEY WERE BUYING ME HANDBAGS AND SHOES.

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 11:15 AM. Reason : ^^]

12/31/2008 11:14:53 AM

troll

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 11:17 AM. Reason : up]

12/31/2008 11:15:38 AM

wow, I had no idea this spill was so bad. I don't watch the news much but I'm surprised I haven't seen it mentioned on there.

^what?

12/31/2008 11:17:18 AM

I've been hearing about it since it happened so I was shocked when most people I've talked to had no clue.
Granted, spills like this are rare but they are very dangerous.
My husband will be wearing head to toe protection with a full face mask when working around the coal. It's scary stuff. So yea it bothers me when people say that it's not toxic and harmless.

12/31/2008 11:20:17 AM

Quote :

"That is orders of magnitude less powerful than methane and water vapor."

but orders of magnitude more abundant than methane.

Water vapor does trap a good amount of heat too, but is not orders of magnitude more "powerful" than CO2.

12/31/2008 11:22:04 AM

^^Danielle I'm talking about CO2, not this coal sludge.

^yes methane isn't as abundant as CO2, but water vapor is thousands of times over and yes it is much stronger than CO2

And most people are unaware that CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere anyway.

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 11:24 AM. Reason : k]

12/31/2008 11:24:19 AM

water vapor is not thousands of time more abundant than CO2.

water vapor makes up about 0.4% of the atmosphere.
carbon dioxide makes up about 0.04%.

that is 10x less.

12/31/2008 11:28:06 AM

regardless, i don't see your point. the fact that water vapor heats the planet more than CO2 is irrelevant.

12/31/2008 11:32:07 AM

no no, it doesn't.

You've signed yourself up for the CO2 AGW bandwagon and there is no proof given anywhere that shows that increased CO2 is warming our planet.

Anyway I don't want to derail a thread about an environmental issue that actually deserves our attention. You want to keep arguing we can revive the threads in TSB.

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 11:36 AM. Reason : and yes, i mixed my numbers on WV]

12/31/2008 11:36:10 AM

I never mentioned AGW.

It is a fact, however, that carbon dioxide (among other gasses) keeps heat in the atmosphere.

12/31/2008 11:39:16 AM

yes, and I don't disagree with that at all.

12/31/2008 11:45:14 AM

no big deal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-gzhW10WA

12/31/2008 11:51:59 AM

Quote :

"I've also been trying to figure out why this has received so little attention."

TVA is a government owned corporation, much like Amtrak, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. The cynic in me says the government would be all over this shit if it happened at any other utility.[/conspiracy theory]

12/31/2008 12:21:53 PM

TVA was going to cut their rates in January. I guess they won't be doing this now so that they can pay for the cleanup that will cost more than an $arm and $leg.

12/31/2008 12:25:00 PM

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/31/drop-in-tva-rates-on-way/

The upcoming rate cut should stick, though they say future rate changes may be impacted by clean up costs.

12/31/2008 12:32:01 PM

another reason i am extremely exremely unbelievably relieved that we finally have some high IQ leadership...

the sooner we commoditise access to wind and solar energy, the sooner we begin to live in a better world. i'm not saying the energy silver bullet is the promise land -- we'll still be clusterfucking over mining for minerals, sustainable water desalination, and other future challenges

12/31/2008 1:17:22 PM

did you just create a new verb?

12/31/2008 1:21:22 PM

Srubonics: a pseudointellectual vernacular that hybridizes popular slang and attempts to incorporate it into intelligent conversation

12/31/2008 1:29:53 PM

hahah

12/31/2008 1:33:02 PM

damn, I can't believe this isn't getting more coverage than it is, considering all that shit just dumped into a major river. The Coast Guard is saying that the river is impassible now because of debris in the channel.

In a month or two, we'll probably be seeing high levels of heavy metals all the way downstream into the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. When that happens, we'll be hearing a lot more media attention to this disaster.

12/31/2008 5:56:09 PM

It's pretty bad. It took a few days for some Environmental Agency even came down to test the water. Luckily we are upstream from this disaster but it displaced a lot of people right before Christmas. It's the number one story on the local news channels here since it happened, for a few days straight they talked about not suing TVA, now since it hit CNN there's a lawsuit in the works.

It's pretty awful for a company as large as TVA to have this sort of disaster.

12/31/2008 9:15:36 PM

this could have been avoided with more nuclear power plants

and no carbon emissions too! for you people that are up tight about that shit

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 12:53 PM. Reason : 

1/1/2009 12:52:41 PM

Quote :

"You've signed yourself up for the CO2 AGW bandwagon and there is no proof given anywhere that shows that increased CO2 is warming our planet."

Taken from the EPA's Climate Change Website

Quote :

"Are human activities responsible for the warming climate? Careful measurements have confirmed that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing and that human activities (principally, the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use) are the primary cause. Human activities have caused the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane to be higher today than at any point during the last 650,000 years. Scientists agree it is very likely that most of the global average warming since the mid-20th century is due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gases, rather than to natural causes."

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#10

Taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Summary for Policymakers

Quote :

"Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates."

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

Figure SPM.2 from that report


Table SPM.2 from the same report


Sorry to have further derailed the thread from the TN disaster, but I felt this needed to be addressed.

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 2:45 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 2:48 PM. Reason : pics]

1/1/2009 2:41:13 PM

Quote :

"Scientists agree it is very likely that most of the global average warming since the mid-20th century is due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gases, rather than to natural causes"

Except, they don't agree on that. They don't even come to a middle ground on this topic.

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 3:10 PM. Reason : do you really expect the EPA to state that their regulations are unnecessary?]

1/1/2009 3:07:53 PM

Quote :

"do you really expect the EPA to state that their regulations are unnecessary?"

under the Bush Administration? Yes, that's exactly what any regulatory administration would do.

Quote :

"Except, they don't agree on that."

there will never be 100% agreegment from scientists on any topic. For GW, though, it has reached enough critical mass to be considered a consensus.

1/1/2009 3:26:33 PM

earth is flat

1/1/2009 3:30:57 PM

this has nothing to do with Bush; this has to do with job security and a desire to create more regulation and thus more jobs. The only place you'll find a consensus on humans causing global warming is in political campaigns and with people who have another agenda to push.

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM. Reason : it's just as political and non-scientific as peak oil vs. abiotic oil]

1/1/2009 3:34:45 PM

^ so those scientists who haven't reached the consensus on global warming aren't pushing their or their employers own agendas? I'm sure scientists at [insert oil or chemical company] can find overwhelming data suggesting that their product isn't harmful to use.

1/1/2009 4:19:07 PM

^do you even know how large of an industry the "green" brand is? It rakes in billions of dollars every year because their products are more expensive, and it capitalizes on gullible people like you.

1/1/2009 6:15:38 PM

^ let's see, how do I even respond to this....

Do you think every single scientist that has been researching climate change for decades or longer is merely trying to push this "green" brand. According to you, FailMcAIDS, credible scientists from countless agencies, industries, private laboratories, have simply been pushing this idea of global warming on the world for a while now so they can market it to sheepish idiots, like myself, only for profit... not for expansion of knowledge about how we as a species interact with and influence this planet. Did I get it right? Is that pretty much what you believe?

Where was I even talking about the "green" brand anyway? Or did you just miss my point that anyone can find scientists to back up the trends they want to show. It happens across the board, on all sides. In no way was my aim to call out oil companies specifically, they just happen to be some of the largest opposition to proactive climate change regulation for some reason.

1/1/2009 11:04:21 PM

exsqueeze me you're an idiot. the IPCC is a POLITICAL panel that was created to SHOW that humans are causing global warming. What consensus did you think they'd come to? The reports are summarized by politicians, and many things scientists sign off on in the studies are modified.

You'd do yourself a favor if you read the US Senate Minority report on GW that was released on Dec 11th.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 11:09 PM. Reason : and the EPA is run by idiots. there's no test that can conclusively show that CO2 is the main cause]

1/1/2009 11:07:48 PM

Global Warming is the biggest load of BS ever dreamed up. The demonizing of CO2 is just ridiculous.

The coal spill is actually a legitimate environmental concern. Hell, the local dry cleaners pouring chemicals into the ground is a legitimate environmental concern. The idea of GW is not.


Wow great quote from the link above ^. It sums GW up very nicely.

Quote :

"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. "

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 11:18 PM. Reason : Quote]

1/1/2009 11:10:36 PM

Quote :

"Coal ash is supposed to be buried in lined landfills NOT in an earthen embankment (next to a river)."

not it's not. it's usually pumped to a ash pond near the plant and all coal plants are near some water source (river or lake).

1/2/2009 12:48:48 AM