Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a big Statehouse roundup
Next Post: Roger Keats flees to Texas
Posted in:
* Deep Tunnel has not exactly been a rousing success at keeping pollution out of Lake Michigan…
Lake Michigan, long considered the sewage outlet of last resort, has been hit harder during the past four years than it was in the previous two decades combined.
Between 2007 and 2010, records show, the agency in charge of Deep Tunnel dumped nearly 19 billion gallons of storm water teeming with disease-causing and fish-killing waste into the Great Lake, the source of drinking water for 7 million people in Chicago and its suburbs. By contrast, 12 billion gallons poured out between 1985 and 2006 […]
Last year alone, sewage overflows into local streams contained an estimated 335 million pounds of suspended solids, a technical term for human and industrial waste and debris contaminating the water. Signs caution that the waterways are “not suitable for any human body contact” and “may contain bacteria that can cause illness.”
District officials now say that while building the tunnels, engineers realized that they would need to rely more on the second phase of the project — the flood-control reservoirs — to reduce pollution. Another complicating factor is that the district was forced early on to limit how fast water drained into the system. Shortly after the first tunnels were opened, rapid changes in water pressure shot geysers of sewage out of ventilation shafts along city streets, in one case flooding the car of a 61-year-old Bridgeport woman who had stopped above a manhole grate.
Mayor Daley and others have routinely blamed Wisconsin for the lake’s pollution problems, but his own city is a major culprit. Go read all of Michael Hawthorne’s story. He’s a great environmental reporter and he’s done it again.
* But then there was this from the Tribune editorial board…
Government energy policy needs a reset at the state and national levels. Heavily subsidized efforts to harness the power of the sun, wind and atom have achieved less than anticipated. The pressure’s on to scale back the huge government investment in developing a sustainable, environmentally friendly future.
Because, you know, no government subsidies are ever needed for the oil industry. Funny, but I don’t seem to recall any multi-national military task force being deployed to prevent solar or wind power prices from skyrocketing (um, I mean, for humanitarian reasons to protect the revolting citizenry in a major solar/wind generating country). And, as we all know, the oil industry receives no other federal assistance, ever. Apparently, wars and gigantic tax breaks are free.
What an ill-timed editorial that was.
* The Trib’s editorial was ostensibly about supporting Gov. Pat Quinn’s veto of the Leucadia coal gasification project in Chicago. It probably wasn’t a well-drafted bill. Indiana has approved a similar plant without much controversy because the state’s leaders claim to have included more consumer protections. Indiana’s project also has fewer environmental safeguards. But this really bothered me…
Having earlier secured $10 million from Illinois to study construction costs, Leucadia is certain it can build the Rockport [Indiana] plant for $2.65 billion, Lubbers said.
Great. We just financed the Hoosiers’ construction study. And this is bogus and Quinn knows it…
After Quinn killed the projects in Illinois, following public protests, he told the Chicago Tribune that “our investments in clean coal must not come at the expense of consumers.”
Consumers are also taxpayers, governor. And if clean coal was cheap, they’d be doing it already. Somebody’s gotta pay if we want to keep using that stuff.
* Before you commence commenting, let’s try to avoid a big debate on the Libyan conflict. I used it as only the latest example of US military intervention in an oil-producing country. The specifics of this intervention should be left to other publications.
* Related…
* Utilities, advocates at odds over regulatory changes: A controversial bill that would change the way Illinois sets utility rates in order to create incentives for companies to upgrade their electric power and gas lines is still alive, its sponsor said, but changes are being negotiated. Rep. Kevin McCarthy, D-Orland Park, said he will use the upcoming one-week break in the General Assembly’s schedule to try to draft a compromise to House Bill 14 that will allow lawmakers to consider the bill in early April… “We’ve seen those changes. They make something horrible less horrible, (but) the attorney general still objects,” said Paul Gaynor, chief of the public interest division for Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
* Exelon faces regulatory fallout after Japanese nuclear disaster: “These nuclear plants were believed to have operating lives of about 40 years,” says Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago and a frequent Exelon critic. “Exelon has run the plants really hard. . . .It is wise and prudent to press the pause button” on the expansion plans.
* Worth the risk? Japan disaster could change opinions
* Gas prices 76 cents higher than last year
* Illinois-based Air National Guard to help establish no-fly zone in Libya
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 1:19 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a big Statehouse roundup
Next Post: Roger Keats flees to Texas
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Exelon should have been working on replacement reactors ten years ago. When the Illinois plants all age out, he only things currently available ready to go are coal and natural gas plants, neither of which are “clean”. I mean, have you SEEN the HBO movie, “Gasland”?
Comment by Newsclown Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 7:23 am
I see an energy future somewhat similar to a Mad Max movie, with us throwing whatever will burn on the pile.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 8:02 am
–The pressure’s on to scale back the huge government investment in developing a sustainable, environmentally friendly future.–
Says who? From whom, Big Oil?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 8:12 am
It seems BP’s investment in all of those full-page ads during the height of Gulf oil spill are really paying dividends.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:00 am
Typical Tribune. Like much of America these days (and most Republicans), they want to have everything and pay for nothing. Everyone seems to forget that all these plants that gave us today’s cheap electricity cost ratepayers massive rate increases in the 70s and 80s.
People wake up - there is no something for nothing. These plants are going to have to be replaced soon and are electricity prices WILL go up. The good news is that in poll after poll, people are willing to pay more for cleaner electricity. But right wing politicians and the Tribune edit board haven’t caught up yet.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 9:43 am
Ultimately, energy policy trumps everything.
Food policy depends on energy policy.
Transportation policy depends on energy policy.
Successful economic development is the only road out of the IL budget crisis and economic development will depend on modern transportation hubs and solid infrastructure, both of which are heavily influenced by energy policy.
Coal, natural gas and petroleum are not long term sustainable and have significant externalities.
Current nuclear has significant externalities.
What we need is a candid discussion of energy policy and maybe we need to look outside the box:
Offshore wind? Deep water Lake Michigan does have ideal wind conditions.
Thorium cycle nuclear power rather than light water fission?
Comment by Bill White Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 10:01 am
I guess you can buy editorial opinion at the Trib pretty easily if your pockets are deep enough thanks to the oil based economy…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:31 am
I think it would have been helpful to know what the sewage discharge numbers would have been without the Deep Tunnel as well as its possible impact.
Comment by MikeMacD Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 11:34 am
the tribune endorsed obama for president. Republicans as well as daley have hit wisconsin for dumping.
Comment by shore Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 12:45 pm
Shortly after the first tunnels were opened, rapid changes in water pressure shot geysers of sewage out of ventilation shafts along city streets, in one case flooding the car of a 61-year-old Bridgeport woman who had stopped above a manhole grate.
Comment by Mesothelioma Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 1:00 pm
Nice idea deep tunnel, but obsolete even before it was completed…
two words: Green Infrastructure…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 1:07 pm
I have friends who spent years working on Deep Tunnel. It’s a gigantic project.
But you kind of knew it was a drop in the bucket (literally) for flood control when it was determined early on that it would do no good during the Loop Underground Flood to attempt to release the water into Deep Tunnel. The Army Corp of Engineers basically said Deep Tunnel meant oogots to flood control.
When you have about 8 million people living in this old swampland (and the swamp’s gone), the water has to go somewhere. When it’s really coming down, you can’t ship it all to LaSalle-Peru and Peoria.
Thank goodness for the Cook County Forest preserve setasides. That necklace does more for flood control than anything else we’ve got going.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 2:27 pm
exactly my point…the forest preserves are green infrastructure…how can we rebuild it and or maintain it in the metro area?
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 2:56 pm
Every form of energy generation has pollution costs, even solar and wind, either in initial manufacture, use or disposal. There is significant pollution associated with the manufacture of solar panels and associated battery systems. Even wind has the power storage issue, which brings us back to batteries. The closest to “clean” is probably hydro-electric but that introduces other environmental issues.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 4:22 pm
===Every form of energy generation has pollution costs, even solar and wind, either in initial manufacture, use or disposal.===
And your point is what? I heard that argument back in the 1970s, too. How many wars ago and how many billions in big oil tax breaks ago was that?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 4:33 pm
nuclear is the only game in town for baseline load creation. Solar and wind can help with peaks, but their not as dependable in our area. Nuclear can create huge amounts of energy with very little air quality impact.
Coal kills. Not just miners (though it takes a toll on them), but also anyone who must breathe the soot and mercury emissions over a long period of time.
Oil is subject to geopolitical forces and unsavory characters.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 4:42 pm
Other than transportation, oil is a minor player in the total “energy” package. And if you subscribe to peak oil theory as most scientists do, it will have a smaller and smaller role in the future. Kind of hard to have clout when you don’t have the goods to back it up.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 6:04 pm
–Other than transportation, oil is a minor player in the total “energy” package. –
You mean like cars, jets, 18-wheelers and ocean-bound transport? That minor is major, cousin.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 8:08 pm
High speed (electric) trains allow transportation to become more petroleum independent.
Comment by Bill White Monday, Mar 21, 11 @ 10:54 pm
Word- I’m not downplaying oil’s importance in making things move or growing things. But a small and diminishing percentage of people heat their home, run an electric generation facility, or power a factory with it anymore. And its coming scarcity will make oil necessarily a smaller market component of the things it still powers.
Bill-I like electric trains, too. If they could get a 5% market share of all passenger-miles, they would be a resounding success beyond the most wildly optimistic projections today.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 22, 11 @ 12:42 am
I disagree that Krugman is any more reliable a source than Romney on the stimulus. They are equally hostage to their respective partisan agendas, and have an equal disrespect for the actual situation, not that either of them bother to investigate it.
Comment by creare site Thursday, Mar 24, 11 @ 5:45 am