Welcome to ArticleXI.com!
We are a group of environmental advocates united in providing a one-stop source for Virginia's environmental news. We each focus on different issues, but share the vision of a Commonwealth that preserves and protects its natural resources. Please join us!
Dominion VA Power is at it again, attempting to stifle attempts by Virginians to utilize solar power in residential areas.
Dominion VA Power is proposing that a "standby charge" be charged to large-scale residential solar customers when the thermal panels of these residents aren't creating enough electricity.
Even less of a shocker, given the fossil-fuel friendly VA General Assembly (GA), the GA approved legislation that permits the standby rates for residential solar production systems ranging from 10 kilowatt hours to 20 kilowatt hours.
The VA State Corporation Commission is scheduled to hear the rate case on Nov. 3.
Dominion's move shouldn't be too surprising since allowing customers to use solar power would effectively cut into the profits of this fossil fuel generating utility.
What advocates of solar power should be most upset about are the half-truths and foot-dragging that has constituted much of Dominion's approach to increasing its renewable energy portfolio.
It's clear, then, that Dominion sees renewable energy as a source of power for the future and not necessarily one for the present.
Unfortunately for Dominion, many Virginia customers want to see an increase in the use of renewable energy to power their daily lives now. Dominion is aware of this, which is why they have made an effort to at least publicly state their intentions on moving towards different forms of renewable energy.
It's up to Dominion whether it wants to keep tarnishing its already bruised public image or finally give in to the demands of its Virginia customers.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recently released its 5th annual State Energy Efficiency Scorecard. The scorecard ranks all 50 U.S. states on their different energy-efficient policies and programs.
So, out of a possible 50 (50 being the worst possible score), Virginia ranked 34th.
While this score isn't a shocker to those of us who live in VA, it should be a wake-up call to business leaders and government officials who at the very least wish to clean up their public image.
State scoring was based upon "Utility and Public Benefits...Score," "Transportation Score," "Building Energy Code Score," "Combined Heat and Power Score," "State Government Initiatives Score," "Appliance Efficiency Standards Score."
Maybe worst of all, Virginia didn't move in rank from 2009 to 2010 in ACEEE's scorecard rankings.
Clearly, VA has a lot of work left to do to clean up its energy efficiency act. From public transportation, to recycling, to clean energy use, to water use, to overall public awareness regarding energy efficiency issues, VA still has a lot of progress to make.
Of course, VA can make it happen if strong political and business leaders take up the challenge.
So far, however, Gov. McDonnell and his administration in particular haven't gone far enough to increase VA's energy efficiency programs and policies.
If they, and anyone else for that matter, look close enough, they'll see that a move in the direction of energy efficiency will save lots of money too!
With Gov. Bob McDonnell pounding away at "jobs, jobs, jobs," while focusing little on the jobs that would be created from the clean energy sector, it shouldn't be a surprise that a number of Virginians voiced their disapproval at McDonnell's second yearly energy conference.
The paltry steps McDonnell has taken to ensure the viability of clean energy sources in the near future belies his initial gubernatorial promises to increase Virginia's use of clean energy.
In the real world where most Virginians live, the issue isn't theoretical or based upon some preconceived belief in the inherent goodness of clean energy. Clean energy literally is a life-saver.
What's more, clean energy is also a money saver as well. This point has been lost by those in Virginia politics who see clean energy as some kind of scam or backdoor trick, as if behind the advocacy of clean energy there is some deeper and more pernicious objective.
The only objective those who believe in clean energy have is seeing Virginians lead healthier and happier lives. The harmful effects of nonrenewable sources of energy cannot be questioned nor the moral and economic imperatives of moving further away from these energy sources.
The choice is clear for anyone who chooses to open their eyes and see, clean energy is the future and for the future.
Abundant oyster harvests may become the new norm in VA after oysters attempted to survive the continuous onslaught of man-made and natural threats to its existence.
In response to the sub-par oyster harvests, VA began a rotation system in 2007 that has seemingly paid off again for the third straight year.
For three years in a row, oyster harvests have increased, the first time it's occurred in a generation.
The rotation system consists of waters being divided into segments that are cycled over the course of 3 years, allowing the waters to be replenished.
After dropping entirely off the map in 2006, oyster landings reached over 393,000 pounds in 2009, bringing in close to $3.3 million.
Beyond the economic value of oysters, these creatures of the sea stand as a remnant of Virginia's early history, a history that was flush with wildlife like oysters, wildlife which has largely since disappeared.
Alongside the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, the restoration of the VA oyster is a sign of the progress Virginians have made in their efforts to preserve pivotal sections of the natural world.
Of course, it's only been 3 years of harvest growth, but the success of the rotation system is an important initial step in VA's path toward a cleaner, healthier environment.
President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Dominion Nuclear, David Heacock, stated at a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) briefing on Friday that Dominion found no damage that would prohibit the restart of North Anna Power Station's nuclear reactors.
After an August 23rd earthquake, whose epicenter was nearly 11 miles from North Anna's nuclear reactors, two of the nuclear reactors were shut down.
According to the NRC, the earthquake caused greater peak ground movement than what the North Anna plant was built for.
The earthquake and its aftermath demonstrated that nuclear reactors are not safe from unforeseen shutdowns and the devastating consequences that could follow.
If VA is to continue down the road of nuclear energy we must, at the very least, acknowledge and attempt to further understand the considerable risks involved in dealing with nuclear energy.
Our engineers don't have all of the answers, our politicians don't have all of the facts, and our environmental scientists cannot predict the future of natural disasters.
Given these uncertainties and the considerable risks posed by nuclear energy, it is absolutely essential that we don't sugar-coat the possibility of another Fukushima occurring in VA. The Japanese government downplayed the risks, and they will be paying for it for many years to come.
Don't let the brilliance of this suggestion made by VA Sen. John Watkins (R-Midlothian) blow you away: the VA General Assembly may analyze VA's regulatory structure of the uranium mining industry before a decision is made to lift the "moratorium" on uranium mining. Brilliant indeed! Well Sen. Watkins, first things first. If special permits are to be granted for uranium mining operations and a strict regulatory structure is to be promulgated, the agency(s) in charge will actually need the appropriate funds and manpower to undertake these charges. In our current political environment, who in the General Assembly is willing to spend extra on these important components of a lift on VA's uranium mining moratorium? Further, how long will this budgetary largesse last?
Perhaps, instead, the General Assembly decides to shift money from other, no less important programs, to fund the regulation of uranium mining. Where will the money be taken from, children's cancer research, infrastructure upgrades, afterschool programs? The possibilities are limitless!
On Sept. 24th, the Sierra Club joined 350.org, thousands of activists and millions of people around the globe in "Moving Planet" events. Moving Planet was a worldwide rally to demand solutions to the climate crisis - a single day to move away from fossil fuels with clean energy solutions like Virginia's offshore wind power!
Virginians came on bikes, on skates, on boards, and on foot - all anxious to be part of something huge and fun, and helpful in getting our planet moving on the climate crisis.
In Alexandria, the day's festivities celebrated the fact that in September, plans were announced to retire the GenOn coal-fired power plant located in Alexandria by October of next year.
In Fairfax, activists pushed for more transportation choices to move us beyond oil.
Richmond activists rallied in front of Dominion Virginia Power's HQ before marching to Virginia's General Assembly building.
And in Virginia Beach, bicyclists rode along the oceanfront boardwalk between symbols of our soon-to-be dirty energy past (a mock oil spill) to our clean energy future (model wind turbines).
On the flip, check out some great photos, media clips and video documenting the successful day.
The Virginia Sierra Club recently announced its intentions to attend the second Virginia Energy Conference, held by our dirty energy-loving governor, Bob McDonnell. The conference will be held on October 17-19 and anyone in favor of clean, renewable sources of energy for VA are encouraged to attend.
For all of his promises to the contrary, Gov. McDonnell has focused his administrations attention on bolstering VA's coal, gas, oil, and nuclear commitments to the exclusion of renewables.
We can of course discuss the political cronyism that's obviously taking place, but the more important issues are the human and environmental ramifications that a continued reliance on nonrenewable sources of energy will have in VA.
First, committing to more "domestic" sources of nonrenewable energy will almost inevitably mean higher rates of diseases and illnesses related to the increased domestic production of nonrenewable energy. That is, more Virginians will become sick or die.
Secondly, Virginia's various and invaluable ecosystems will take unparalleled "shocks" that may lead to their irreversible decline.
The issue of uranium mining in southern Virginia is a great example.
Since uranium mining has never been done in a climate like ours, no one can say with a comfortable degree of certainty that such an endeavor will be benign in terms of human and environmental health.
But solar and wind power, just to give 2 examples, are benign sources of energy.
While Gov. McDonnell is rewarding his friends who aided in his election, he is doing so to the neglect of the interests of all other Virginians and their natural environment.
Dominion VA Power met with officials of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Monday to discuss the NRC's report on the impact of a 5.8 magnitude earthquake at Dominion's North Anna Power Station.
A public meeting with Dominion and NRC officials was also held on Monday afternoon at North Anna's nuclear information center in Mineral.
After the August 23 earthquake, the NRC's inspection team spent 3 weeks at the plant.
According to Dominion, North Anna's two nuclear reactors were shut down by seismic vibrations.
Dominion says that it has found no "significant" damage to structures, safety systems, pipes, valves, or the Lake Anna Dam over the course of numerous inspections.
Nonetheless, the earthquake brought to light the serious possibility of natural disasters causing unforeseen damage to VA's nuclear facilities.
In the wake of Japan's own nuclear disaster, the question of risk, of cost versus benefit, is more prescient now than it has been in decades.
For those that would claim that nuclear power is safe, they probably would not have predicted that an earthquake would have been able to shut down operations at North Anna for as long as it has.
While there are better, safer, and cleaner alternatives to nuclear energy, why not attempt to use them?
It's understood that the lobbyists for the nuclear industry have done a good job at holding the attention of our elected officials. It's up to us as citizens to make sure that our political representatives are listening to us, not lobbyists and their respective clients.
Here's a fabulously preposterous line from a full page ad released in the Danville Register and Bee on 9/28/2011 by Virginia Uranium Inc.:
For our company, stewardship of the land is more than a corporate principle; it is a deeply ingrained way of life that has sustained six generations of farmers, each striving to pass on this land in a better condition than they found it.
Better condition than they found it? How exactly do you dig up tremendous swaths of land and uranium ore and expect to leave the land "in a better condition?" Virginians in particular, and Americans in general, have seen this marketing game played before by natural resource pillagers, claiming on the one hand ideas of stewardship, intergenerational justice, and corporate social responsibility while kowtowing to the scriptures of capitalism. In effect, the consequence of the latter is a complete negation of the former, the complete dismissal of public-faced claims of stewardship.
Virginians should not and do not buy the land stewardship argument because it assumes that companies like Virginia Uranium Inc. will be willing and able to spend millions of dollars and years of time to clean up the environmental mess that it will inevitably leave behind. How many mining companies have been such rigorous stewards of the land? No, fellow Virginians, let's not be fooled by this lofty rhetoric. Let's turn our attention to renewable sources of energy, not deadly ones.
Virginia's rarest bird, the red-cockaded woodpecker, may be able to rest a little easier after the Big Woods State Forest and Wildlife Management Area was officially christened with a ceremony by VA officials on Monday.
According to the Virginian-Pilot, Big Woods holds over 4,400 acres in Sussex County. Overall, it's VA's 21st state forest and 39th wildlife management area.
The Big Woods forest was bought from the Nature Conservancy, a national non-profit group, which also owns the adjacent Piney Grove Preserve.
Director of the VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Bob Duncan, said his agency intends on placing artificial nests in mature pine trees to assist the woodpeckers in their recovery.
So maybe the McDonnell administration has a soft-spot for nature and nature's bounty after all.
Perhaps the main reason for Virginia buying the Big Woods State Forest is the symbolic value that the red-cockaded woodpecker has in VA.
The woodpecker is an endangered bird whose recovery would come as a symbolic achievement of VA to protect its wildlife and bring those that are endangered back to a healthy population.
In the face of an administration that seeks "economic gains" at all costs, allowing any endangered wildlife to survive would be a victory of sorts.
Virginia's rarest bird, the red-cockaded woodpecker, may be able to rest a little easier after the Big Woods State Forest and Wildlife Management Area was officially christened with a ceremony by VA officials on Monday.
According to the Virginian-Pilot, Big Woods holds over 4,400 acres in Sussex County. Overall, it's VA's 21st state forest and 39th wildlife management area.
The Big Woods forest was bought from the Nature Conservancy, a national non-profit group, which also owns the adjacent Piney Grove Preserve.
Director of the VA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Bob Duncan, said his agency intends on placing artificial nests in mature pine trees to assist the woodpeckers in their recovery.
So maybe the McDonnell administration has a soft-spot for nature and nature's bounty after all.
Perhaps the main reason for Virginia buying the Big Woods State Forest is the symbolic value that the red-cockaded woodpecker has in VA.
The woodpecker is an endangered bird whose recovery would come as a symbolic achievement of VA to protect its wildlife and bring those that are endangered back to a healthy population.
In the face of an administration that seeks "economic gains" at all costs, allowing any endangered wildlife to survive would be a victory of sorts.
At the recent AltWheels Fleet Day conference in Norwood, Mass., I had the opportunity to take a ride in fleet operator Derek Taveres's giant Frito-Lay delivery truck that runs on 100 percent electricity. With 176 all-electric trucks made by Smith Electric, Frito-Lay currently operates one of the largest corporate fleets of electric delivery trucks in the nation. Gino Porter, Frito-Lay's Northeast Regional Fleet Manager, told me that it only costs 13 cents a day in electricity to power each vehicle as compared to about $300 per truck per week for their gasoline-powered trucks. With those savings, even with the money spent on the vehicles and the charging units, Porter said the return on investment is fast.
I asked why Pepsico, which owns Frito-Lay, doesn't use electric delivery trucks for Pepsi. Porter and his colleagues said that there are likely two reasons: 1. Frito-Lay trucks are delivering chips, which are lighter than cola bottles that may be too heavy for certain all-electric trucks; and 2. Frito-Lay trucks average about 70-75 miles per day, which is perfect for an electric vehicle (which may get about 80-100 miles per overnight charge). Cola is often faster to deliver (no time necessary to set up chip displays), so the Pepsi trucks often travel more than 100 miles a day.
Frito-Lay isn't the only type of company starting to do the math and determine that electric vehicles will save money, fuel, and emissions for their fleets. At the AltWheels conference, Mike Payette, Staples' Director of Fleet Equipment, described his company's enthusiasm for going electric. "Thirty-five to 70 mile routes are perfect for EVs," he said. "We didn't have to alter our route structure at all" with Staples' acquisition late last year of more than 40 electric delivery trucks.
Recently, Staples partnered with researchers at MIT to determine that plugging fleets into the grid can actually generate revenue. This vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology works by using the battery power of electric vehicles that are plugged in to the electric grid as a source of energy that the company can sell back to grid operators. The MIT report found that companies could earn $1250 to $1400 per year per vehicle (9-11 percent) through vehicle to grid efforts as well as savings in fuel and maintenance.
Coca-Cola, which claims the largest heavy-duty fleet of hybrid electric trucks in North America, is also dipping its toe into all-electrics. It recently announced that later this month it will start operating six eStar electric delivery vehicles in San Francisco, New York City, Washington, DC, Hartford, and Los Angeles. Coca-Cola and eStar say these vehicles can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by as much as 10 tons annually.
The largest corporate fleet announcement to date by far came last year from General Electric, with plans to purchase and operate 25,000 electric vehicles by 2015. General Electric Corporate Fleet Services recently conducted a study of 105 corporate fleet managers and found that 28 percent of these companies were planning to introduce electrics into their fleets within a year.
Six or 100 or 176 electric vehicles are a great start for corporate and government fleets, but with 16 million corporate and government fleet vehicles on the road today, this is only a very modest beginning. If companies want to improve their bottom line and reduce their carbon footprint and oil dependence, they would be smart to consider investment in fleet-wide electrification.
-- Gina Coplon-Newfield, Sierra Club's Senior Campaign Representative for Electric Vehicles
Several agencies from Virginia alongside the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced they will be simulating a storm event on the Jackson River by using the Gathright Dam near Covington.
The plan is to set up a controlled release that will test whether algae can be removed effectively as well as the water quality enhanced by undergoing simulations of storms that happen in late summer and early fall.
The simulation is part of a continuing study on the Gathright Dam's operations and surrounding marine life.
The flow of the Jackson River will be increased to 3,500 cubic feet per second. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers announced also that the water level downstream will increase up to 5 feet in some areas while remaining below flood level.
The results of these continuing studies should be interesting and will help pave the way for other states to improve their water quality and algae removals during "storm season."
Virginians often take it for granted that they'll have clean water when they need it. They might be right, but at the rate of potable water contamination at present, it may cost future generations considerably to turn their water into a drinkable form.
This study is simply one area where we as Virginians can improve our state's water quality. Do what's right for yourself and for others. Get involved in generating clean water for VA.
The Roanoke Times recently published an article claiming that a number of representatives in the VA General Assembly are waiting until the release of a National Academy of Science (NAS) study before taking a stance on the issue of uranium mining in southern Virginia. The report itself is due at the end of the year.
The NAS study was conducted as a result of one interest groups efforts to lift VA's 30 year old moratorium on uranium mining. Before the start of the 2012 VA General Assembly, a proposal to lift the 3 decades long moratorium is expected.
Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI), a partly Canadian owned mining company based in VA, has spent close to $100,000 over the past 36 months to lobby members of the General Assembly to lift the moratorium on uranium mining.
Aside from the dubious fact that VUI is partly owned by entrepreneurs residing in a foreign country and the novelty of mining for uranium in unprecedented climatic conditions, Virginians shouldn't be fooled by VUI's rhetoric about the safety of uranium mining in Virginia or its lofty claims of job creation or communal responsibility.
We live in a capitalist society, one that gives companies like VUI little incentive to "clean up the mess" once one has been created.
Given the nature of uranium mining and the radioactive tailings that are left behind on the surface as a byproduct, there will almost certainly be a mess, one that could lead to very adverse human and environmental health problems.
VA should aim for energy independence in a safe and sustainable manner. Uranium mining in VA will only create more problems than it helps solve.
According to the U2011 list of pro-uranium all-stars, our friends at Virginia Uranium Inc. will be giving their two cents on uranium, uranium mining, and uranium's future in America. One has to therefore ask, does Virginia Uranium consider itself a shoe-in for the lucrative uranium mining contract in southside Virginia if the moratorium is lifted?
In the case of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, Virginians are not only fighting for the human and environmental health of communities and ecosystems surrounding the proposed mining sites, Virginians may also be fighting to halt uranium mining around there own communities. According to a few geologists at Virginia Tech (let me know if you want the source document), as the technology advances to find uranium mines throughout the country, it's well believed that the Piedmont area in particular may be the next uranium hot spot. That is, it's believed that there are considerable uranium deposits in the Piedmont area of Virginia. But let's set this point aside for the moment.
Even if new uranium mines are not blown open in other areas of Virginia, the recent storm events in Virginia and the unceasing precipitation should be a warning to the potential of uranium ore deposits to find its way into local aquifers. The process is safe, VUI says, but what definitive (keyword!) proof have they offered? None. At the very least, researchers have called for further studies into the possible effects of uranium millings leaking into local bodies of water.
Sure, we may need nuclear power as a matter of practicality. But the issue of lifting the moratorium on uranium mining is about, above all else, money. That's right, money, the stuff that will make companies lie to stakeholders about the potential safety of a given process (like uranium mining!).
So, let's not be fooled by the "energy independence" rhetoric. If Virginia's business leaders and politicians were truly concerned about energy independence, we would have attempted to decrease our reliance on nondomestic sources of energy many years ago. Why now? And why in a relatively non-affluent area of Virginia are we deciding to find our spirit of energy independence? We all have a voice, let's use it before they begin digging in our backyards as well.
Every president wants to leave a favorable legacy behind, one that scores of future generations of Americans will look at with nostalgia and admiration. But if President Obama wishes this for himself, signing off on the Keystone XL pipeline is the worst way of showing it. As proposed, the Keystone XL pipeline would extend all the way from Alberta, Canada to Texas. That's nearly 2,000 miles of pipeline!
But the large distance itself is not the core issue in the matter. What's primarily at issue is the possibility for a leak, a break, or another catastrophe involving any portion of the pipeline. Situated over some of America's most beloved and valued ecosystems and sources of drinking water, any such catastrophe could make BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico look like the best of all possible worlds.
It's understandable that President Obama wants to appease particular elements within the business community, the electorate, and numerous other constituent groups by giving the "all clear" to construct the Keystone XL pipeline. But when American's voted for change, many such as myself voted for a change in the way we deal with environmental and economic issues. When as many unknown variables enter the environmental equation as in the case of the Keystone XL pipeline, then a hold should be placed on whatever might cause human and environmental harm until the unknown variables are found and properly addressed.
President Obama's recent about-face on new national ozone standards demonstrates again how beholden he is to special interests, not the interests of the American people. One could even argue that President Obama is betting on winning over the "independent" vote by following through on such business friendly policies, let alone the business community itself. But it seems clear that the so-called independent American voter is a conservative wrapped in non-partisan political garb. President Obama has been unable to appease these individuals and it appears that whatever steps he takes, it won't be enough to win over this bloc of voters.
The fact that President Obama caved in to the misleading rhetoric of big business leaders is as much a disappointment as it is a further confirmation of the myth that shrouds environmental protection and economic growth. Yes, in the short term environmental protections and regulations will cost serious capital for some businesses. But in the long run the returns will mostly outweigh the costs in financial terms. In human health terms, the gains will absolutely trump any costs that are incurred to clean up America's business act.
Americans came to expect such short-sightedness and lack of political courage from the last U.S. president. Even though President Obama has been less than perfect in his environmental record, many liberals and progressives still hoped and believed that he would soon return to the proper course of policy action. Instead, the president has ensured that Americans will live with preposterously unhealthy air for at least another year. How many lives will be lost as a result? What value can possibly be placed on these losses?
The American dream of an economically prosperous utopia of individual freedom and benevolent consequences has become a cynical nightmare symbolized by severely damaged bodies of water, audacious levels of air pollution, continuous nonrenewable energy problems, broken unions, racism, and other forms of bigotry and parochialism. It is a country where Karl Rove has become a hero of the left relative to the Tea Party buffoons. A country where politicians like Rick Perry can even be seriously considered for the most powerful political position in the country. Not much seems right-side-up anymore, and the pessimism that follows may jade an entire generation of Americans, if not more. If so, who can begin to predict what the ramifications will be of an America wary of the future and self-conscious about its progress as a nation?
Something doesn't smell (or taste) right, and it may just be your drinking water if you live in the New River Valley in Virginia.
Several residents of the area alongside grassroots community organizations have been concerned with the amount of toxic chemicals being dumped into the New River, a body of water which delivers thousands of area residents their drinking water.
So far, state and federal regulatory bodies have not raised any extreme red flags that might considerably dampen the confidence of area residents in the safety of the New River's water for purification and consumption.
There appears, however, to be some troubling markers of the effects of toxic chemicals on the residents of the New River Valley.
Cancer rates in the Valley are high relative to the rest of Virginia and other illnesses with mysterious causes seem to pop up on an unusually regular basis.
Furthermore, with an adult functional illiteracy rate of around 35%, it is not an unforeseen environmental phenomenon that hazardous waste sites are built in areas where residents are relatively politically impotent. That is, if you knew your company was going to produce massive quantities of toxic chemicals, why not locate your toxic waste dumping facilities someplace where resident push-back will be minimized?
This kind of cynical logic is in many ways a completely rational business strategy, one established and promoted to cut costs and increase profits, a game plan that General Eisenhower tried to warn us about decades ago.
Unfortunately for the residents of the New River Valley, not only do these individuals not have a share in the profits being made by companies who pollute, they do get a share of the life altering and deadly affects of the chemicals these individuals in the Valley end up consuming. Of course, no remediation is offered because the culprit is unknown.
For anyone who might think this is a remote issue that only concerns small-town or rural Americans, they should look a little deeper at their own bodies of water that is eventually consumed.
The injustices being perpetrated in the New River Valley, however, are admittedly unique. They represent an obscene abuse of corporate, state, and federal power and a cynical willingness to exploit the peoples of Appalachia.
Americans and Virginians in particular, should not be pawns of America's military industrial complex. The health and welfare of our people should not be forfeited for greater profits. All of the military victories in the world cannot buy back the faith the American people have in the integrity of their government.
Check out this recent Letter to the Editor in the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star, "Fredericksburg area: Next uranium target?" Graham Givens is a junior at the University of Mary Washington concerned that if the ban is lifted, drinking water at UMW could be threatened.
Fredericksburg Free Lance Star Date published: 8/5/2011*
A recent AP article ["Geologists: Virginia's OK of uranium mining "] is a strong reminder of how much is at stake if the nearly 30-year ban on uranium mining is lifted this January.
Geologists on both sides have agreed that there are other deposits of uranium throughout the state, besides the site in Pittsylvania County, where mining operations could occur.
Though Virginia Uranium, the company interested in mining uranium in Virginia, has stated that its only intention is to mine the deposits in Pittsylvania County, it has told its investors, "To this day Coles Hill is the first of more major discoveries in Virginia." So what will happen if the ban is lifted this January?
One thing is for certain: Uranium mining across the state could threaten millions of Virginians' access to safe, clean drinking water, and the Fredericksburg area could feel the full effect of mining operations.
While the headlines in Virginia have been gobbled up by Hurricane Irene and its possible effects in Virginia, what hasn't been considered are the effects of Irene on Virginia's nuclear reactors.
North Anna Power Station, located 40 miles from the center of Richmond, will be feeling some of the effects of Hurricane Irene like strong winds and rain.
But it's worth asking, what would happen to the nuclear reactors at North Anna if this hurricane, or another in the future, hit one or both of its nuclear reactors? Is North Anna designed and prepared for such a circumstance?
Since Virginian's will be living with these two reactors for at least another 12 years, these questions need immediate answers.
But even after the tragedy with Japan's Dai-ichi nuclear reactors, nuclear industry officials and even some nuclear regulators have been rather defensive in their responses to criticism and calls for greater regulatory and safety measures.
The defensive posture taken by these individuals indicates a lack of confidence, on the whole, regarding the ability of America's and Virginia's nuclear reactors to stand up to extreme natural "stress tests."
Yes, Virginians want cheap and abundant energy. Who doesn't? But Virginians also want to be confident that another Japanese nuclear incident doesn't happen here, or anywhere else.
The nuclear industry and its various regulatory bodies need to continue to make sure that further safety measures are implemented to correct for the possibility of a fatal engineering mistake or an unforeseen circumstance.
That's the only way nuclear energy will survive in Virginia and the rest of the country. It's the only way we may be able to survive nuclear energy, period.
The Governors Wind Energy Coalition, a bipartisan group of 24 governors, last month sent a letter to President Obama urging him to remove the barriers to wind energy development and focus on a specific series of steps to foster the wind industry and its vast economic development potential. Virginia, a state that stands to gain the creation of over 10,000 jobs with full build-out of offshore wind, is not a member of the Governors Wind Energy Coalition and thus was not a signatory to this letter. Ironic too that this Coalition is based in Arlington, Virginia.
The July 28 letter (click here to view) calls for a seven-year extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) to provide stable, low tax rates for wind-generated electricity. Writes coalition chair Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I-RI), and vice chair Gov. Terry Branstad (R-IA):
"Although tax credits for wind energy have long enjoyed bipartisan support, they are scheduled to expire next year. Wind-related manufacturing will slow if the credits are not extended, and some of the tax credits' benefit will be lost if Congress pursues a last-minute extension. It is important to have consistency in policy to support the continued development of wind manufacturing in the United States. Extending the production tax credit and the investment tax credit, without a gap, is critical to the health of wind manufacturing in our nation. The wind manufacturing industry in the U.S. would benefit even greater if the extension of these credits would be for at least seven years."
Gov. McDonnell's lack of membership in this important coalition illustrates his warped priorities that keep Virginia married to 19th century energy technologies. His "all of the above" agenda that has offshore drilling and building new coal plants on top of the priority list and renewable energy development cooling on the back burner will cost Virginia. The jobs and investment will go to other states, very likely those states signing this letter.
We therefore need to shift our primary focus for offshore wind development to Dominion Virginia Power. If it's going to happen in Virginia, it'll be because Dominion opted to let it happen. We need to say as Tim Gunn would on Project Runway... "Make it Work, Dominion". Click here to sign our petition to Dominion.
On Thursday, the conservative American Tradition Institute (ATI) announced that the University of Virginia (UVA) handed over a disc containing 3,827 pages to the ATI's Environmental Law Center.
The over 3,800 pages of documents were produced by Prof. Michael E. Mann, a former climate change researcher at UVA. ATI didn't state however what the documents contained.
The documents were given to ATI after a Prince William Circuit Court judge ordered UVA to supply the documents requested by ATI and conservative Del. Robert G. Marshall (as if he could actually understand them).
The continuance of this witch-hunt for climate-change "supporters" seems like a scenario taken out of George Orwell's 1984. Mann saw too clearly, he spoke too plainly...
It appears that to many conservatives in the U.S., science is a play-thing to support one's own policy position(s) or to undermine that of an opponents. That is, science for these individuals is a subjective line of investigation.
But for anyone who cares to look at the data and evaluate the facts on their face, they'll see clearly that climate change is a real phenomenon, a consequence in no small part of human behaviors.
The attack on Michael Mann and his science is not just an attack on climate science, it's an attack on every intellectual's ability to go against the political winds of the moment.
These happenings are not supposed to occur in the "freest country in the world."
But what is particularly ironic is that the same individuals persecuting Mann and UVA are some of the same individuals who religiously tout the virtues of individual freedom and liberty. Like kings who ruled centuries ago, what these individuals really mean is individual freedom and liberty which does not disrupt their own parochial interests.
A consent order issued Monday by the VA Department of Environmental Quality laid out $49,700 worth of civil fines for Banker Steel environmental rule infractions at 2 facilities in Lynchburg.
Shockingly, the DEQ's consent order notes that Banker Steel's two Lynchburg locations violated rules of hazardous waste identification, disposal, and employee training.
According to the president and chief financial officer, Greg Nichols, the problems have been appropriately addressed (why did it take a government fine for the problems to be corrected?).
Allegedly, employee training has been revised and the management system has been updated with a system of checks and balances to ensure that the company remains in compliance.
But to "remain in compliance," more needs to be done than bureaucratic shake-ups and employee training. A new culture of environmental respect and responsibility must be fostered by Banker Steel.
Ultimately, the VA DEQ cannot un-turn every stone and ensure Banker Steel's compliance 24/7. Therefore, Banker Steel must be its own environmental standards regulator, not a company who looks at such regulations as cost ineffective and unimportant.
The message needs to be sent clearly in VA: businesses that do not respect the environment have no place in this state.
According to the Environmental Advocates of the New River Valley, toxic chemicals from open burning ground (OBG) taking place at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RAAP) (also known as the Arsenal) are finding their way into the New River, which is a source of drinking water for thousands of residents in the New River Valley.
Surprisingly, the issue has received little coverage in the local, state, or federal media. The most recent article I found on the Arsenal's toxic releases dates back to March 24, 2011 in The Roanoke Times. While the date might not appear too far off, overall, the reports on the issue have been sparse.
The article itself, "Radford arsenal's polluting slows, but still tops the state list," pointed out the large environmental impact that the Arsenal is having in Roanoke while also noting that toxic releases into the New River have declined.
But decline or no decline, not many Virginians want to be told that they have considerable toxic substances in their water, even if the relevant state and federal agencies have deemed the water safe to drink. The fact of the matter is that what is "safe" is not a certain science when it comes to drinking water.
What might be safe for a middle-aged, well-nourished male may not be safe for a pregnant woman or her child.
To add insult to this injury, the Arsenal itself is a manufacturer of propellants and explosives for the U.S. military. Thus, the Arsenal is manufacturing death in more ways than one. what is supposed to be an institution established to safeguard the health and welfare of U.S. citizens and our way of life has seemingly morphed into something different altogether.
User comments or postings reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Sierra Club and/or the League of Conservation Voters. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (but not the obligation) to delete postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.
ArticleXI.com is paid for and authorized by
Virginia League of Conservation Voters PAC, 530 East Main Street, Ste. 410, Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 225-1902 and
Sierra Club VA PAC, 422 E. Franklin Street, Suite 302, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 225-9113.
On Sept. 24th, the Sierra Club joined 350.org, thousands of activists and millions of people around the globe in "Moving Planet" events. Moving Planet was a worldwide rally to demand solutions to the climate crisis - a single day to move away from fossil fuels with clean energy solutions like Virginia's offshore wind power!
The Governors Wind Energy Coalition, a bipartisan group of 24 governors, last month sent a letter to President Obama urging him to remove the barriers to wind energy development and focus on a specific series of steps to foster the wind industry and its vast economic development potential. Virginia, a state that stands to gain the creation of over 10,000 jobs with full build-out of offshore wind, is not a member of the Governors Wind Energy Coalition and thus was not a signatory to this letter. Ironic too that this Coalition is based in Arlington, Virginia.
