Posted by Jerry Greer on December 28, 2008 at 12:48 AM
WOW! I spent the day trying to get into the affected area where disaster hit Monday morning. It's a war zone! I'm certain that if not for the slow moving muck people would've died! It's really amazing how the, once beautiful cove, is now totally filled with toxic fly ash waste. The magnitude of this disaster is hard to comprehend from these small photos. Check out my blog for the stories and video.
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 28, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Jerry
Thanks for posting the photos. It's amazing to me that here just 100 miles up river most people are not aware of the magnitude of this disaster. A small article in the local paper and some from the news wires. Until you posted here I had not seen any pictures that really showed the area. Thanks for posting and blogging about this.
Posted by Matthew Cromer on December 28, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Hideous.
Burning coal belongs back in the stone age. . .
Posted by Randy Hargett on December 29, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Wow! I find it profound that this tragedy has not been reported on the national news or the local news in North Carolina. Could it be that it happened in a state that is the home of the internet inventor and self-proclaimed environmental specialist to the democratic party. What a shame. Our flora and fauna deserve better. God has a plan. The earth will take care of itself. The people who cause its destruction should be put away.
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 29, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Randy,
The disaster has been on all the major news networks and updated almost every day on NPR. Still, I think coverage is lacking. As for the whack on Al Gore, come on! That's a bit silly, this is Tennessee, super-Republican, Pro corporation, for sure. Oh, and Al Gore has done more for Climate Change than any one person or organization.
I'm certain that TVA being a Federal Government owned corporation has a lot to do with the news cycle. They are surely trying to control how much coverage and access to the site. Two photographers were detained by TVA Police for photographing the site. The photographers were on public roads shooting the, destroyed, privately owned homes. I was warned two times and finally had to leave the area or risk being arrested.
Posted by Randy Hargett on December 29, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Jerry,
Up until I read your post and the information on your blog I had heard nothing about this. I have referred several other photographers in the Charlotte area to the super information you have posted there. Thanks for sharing this, and I certainly hope that those responsible take swift action in clean-up and future prevention.
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM
CNN ran a full "reporter on site" piece on the disaster this morning! Finally getting more coverage!
Posted by Wade Hardy on December 29, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Jerry,
Thanks for posting this. I actually saw this on the news this past weekend - its a disaster for sure. This is another good example of why we should be investing in nuclear power (which has zero emissions) and solar power instead of more coal or "clean" coal.
Also, Thanks for all of your conservation efforts with Rocky Fork and other areas.
Wade
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 29, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Hey Wade,
Hummm, well I really can't say that nuclear is zero emission! What about the radiation? And there's still that nagging problem of what to do with the spent uranium. Now, when you compare it to coal, I do feel that nuclear is far better. Calling it zero emission is a just not totally true.
Posted by Wade Hardy on December 29, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Jerry,
I guess I wasn't quite clear. Nuclear produces zero or almost zero carbon emissions. Some European nations have been using nuclear power for years. Of course there are pros and cons and one can definitely make an argument against it, but I think it is a viable option/alternative to our energy needs in the future. We've got to do something different...soon.
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 29, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Wade,
Yes, it the carbon issue that's important! Well, and the waste that's left over.
Posted by Jerry Greer on December 29, 2008 at 7:35 PM
BTW, I've just added more Kingston Fossil Plant disaster photos to the Environmental Gallery of Greer Photography
Posted by Steve Hamley on December 29, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Latest update, rivers showing heavy metals, especially arsenic.
Posted by Matthew Cromer on December 29, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Jerry,
Perhaps Steve can correct me on this if I am wrong, but I believe that coal burning plants emit more radiation into the environment than nuclear power plants -- mostly radon gas from inside the coal.
And of course all sorts of other hideous substances such as arsenic and other heavy metals.
The issue of nuclear waste is important, but the volumes are far smaller and very little of it gets released to the environment.
I live about 5 miles from a nuclear plant -- and I am thrilled that it is not a coal plant.
Posted by Steve Hamley on December 29, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Matthew,
That could well be correct for a properly functioning nuclear station - I've heard the assertion before, but the caveat is that you don't know the limitations of it - does it include maintenance cycles when the plant systems are open, etc? But in any case I believe the statement to be reasonably accurate.
There are a few things to keep in mind when discussing power options. One is that all forms of power generation have environmental and technical advantages and disadvantages. All forms of power generation generate waste. When considering generation options, it's important to consider the entire "cradle-to-grave" process, mining and milling (for example coal, uranium, or materials for solar collectors) and disposition of the entire plant which will at some time be waste.
I'm a fan of nuclear also, but not just because it's been a part of my profession. Waste volumes are small, emissions are consistent with where we need to go, and unlike the arsenic, mercury, and other heavy metals in the flyash (which are stable), radioactivity will in time go away. A very long time for some, but for the more common isotopes, 300 years or so. We're working on building safer nuclear fuels, and have the technology to build passively safe reactors (won't melt if the coolant stops like TMI). Engineers don't like them because they're not very efficient - engineers like efficiency, but uranium is one of the more common elements in the earth's crust. Engineers want to build nuclear Ferraris (naturally) when what we really need are school buses.
By the way, many of you are way too young to remember what coal once was or weren't exposed to it. I started working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1977 and we're about 12-15 miles east of the Kingston coal plant. The prevailing westerly winds would often drop flyash on the parking lot, and you'd come out after work and have to go wash your car because it was covered with black soot, some particles 1/16" or so. There was an event before I got there when the emissions ate the paint off several hundred cars which TVA had to pay for. They opened up a car wash at the TVA Bull Run plant east of ORNL so you could stop by there after work and wash your car off. They shut it down when filters and scrubbers became mandatory. Believe me, we were all rooting for nuclear then.
Cheers,
Steve
Posted by Steve Hamley on December 30, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Just a thought before we jump on TVA with both feet, federal agencies have in general been quite progressive in implementing environmental reforms, and TVA just brought a new scrubber on line at the Bull Run fossil plant near Oak Ridge to further reduce emissions. Federal agencies are relatively progressive for a several reasons. One is that being part of the federal bureaucracy, one thing you don’t do is make your boss look bad. If he’s for reform, so are you, and you do it well. That means that if federal environmental regulations are passed, you start working on implementing them rather than litigating as many private concerns might do, and you don’t shortcut or drag your feet. I have no doubt whatsoever that if TVA managers had any inkling that the sludge spill could have happened, they would have done something immediately. At my own institution, any event that makes the newspapers is a Reportable Occurrence (formal notification) to the Department of Energy for no reason other than it makes the newspapers. Managers have a particular dislike for these.
Another reason is that federal agencies don’t have the economic pressures that most utilities and private institutions do. They get yearly budgets so the quarterly balance sheet doesn’t exist, and they can’t change their plans (which can be a disadvantage). In the federal system, your budget is allocated for specific things, and it is illegal to spend the money on other things for which the money isn’t designated. So if an agency gets money for a scrubber, they cannot spend it on a corporate jet, dividends, or bonuses. They do have some flexibility for emergency maintenance and so on.
When I started work at ORNL in 1977, most of the waterways within the plant and downstream were lifeless ditches. White Oak Creek was an example, but in recent years we’ve had herons, fish, snakes, and a muskrat nesting a few yards from my office. Federal regulations on the use of ethylene glycol and discharges to waterways made most of the difference. We still have occasional problems, being a large and complex plant, but the problems are rare, much smaller, and the ecosystem seems to rapidly recover.
And a note on the radioactivity in the flyash; it’s too tiny to mention as far as environmental effects go, true even for operating nuclear plants and facilities . Sensitivity to radiation is pretty much a function of central nervous system complexity, so environmental emissions are regulated based on the sensitivity of humans via the food chain, not the sensitivity of plants and critters. For the most part, they are reasonably unaffected or much, much, less affected. One thing that’s been noted from Chernobyl is that the area isn’t safe for people to live in, but the environment itself is doing just fine.
Cheers,
Steve
Posted by Steve Hamley on December 30, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Jerry, Richard, Matthew;
I'd suggest posting this thread across the NPN sites.
Hmmm...an important message I see lost in all these discussions is that photographers were threatened with jail time for taking photos from public lands. THAT should have created just as much outrage but I think no one even mentioned it! What was that about and how could they possibly have gotten away with it???????
Troup
Posted by Jerry Greer on January 1, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Troup,
I really believe that 911 has allowed this to happen. We have lost so many of our rights since then and over the past 8 years with this administration (good riddance!). It's a real travesty. We see our voices being muffled in every aspect of government issues and oversight especially with things that happen in our natural world. They use the excuse of the disaster to justify their actions of detaining and harassing photographers. In my case, they used the danger of the dump trucks hauling the material away from the site. They were looking out for our safety!
Discussion
19 repliesThanks for posting the photos. It's amazing to me that here just 100 miles up river most people are not aware of the magnitude of this disaster. A small article in the local paper and some from the news wires. Until you posted here I had not seen any pictures that really showed the area. Thanks for posting and blogging about this.
Burning coal belongs back in the stone age. . .
The disaster has been on all the major news networks and updated almost every day on NPR. Still, I think coverage is lacking. As for the whack on Al Gore, come on! That's a bit silly, this is Tennessee, super-Republican, Pro corporation, for sure. Oh, and Al Gore has done more for Climate Change than any one person or organization.
I'm certain that TVA being a Federal Government owned corporation has a lot to do with the news cycle. They are surely trying to control how much coverage and access to the site. Two photographers were detained by TVA Police for photographing the site. The photographers were on public roads shooting the, destroyed, privately owned homes. I was warned two times and finally had to leave the area or risk being arrested.
Up until I read your post and the information on your blog I had heard nothing about this. I have referred several other photographers in the Charlotte area to the super information you have posted there. Thanks for sharing this, and I certainly hope that those responsible take swift action in clean-up and future prevention.
Thanks for posting this. I actually saw this on the news this past weekend - its a disaster for sure. This is another good example of why we should be investing in nuclear power (which has zero emissions) and solar power instead of more coal or "clean" coal.
Also, Thanks for all of your conservation efforts with Rocky Fork and other areas.
Wade
Hummm, well I really can't say that nuclear is zero emission! What about the radiation? And there's still that nagging problem of what to do with the spent uranium. Now, when you compare it to coal, I do feel that nuclear is far better. Calling it zero emission is a just not totally true.
I guess I wasn't quite clear. Nuclear produces zero or almost zero carbon emissions. Some European nations have been using nuclear power for years. Of course there are pros and cons and one can definitely make an argument against it, but I think it is a viable option/alternative to our energy needs in the future. We've got to do something different...soon.
Yes, it the carbon issue that's important! Well, and the waste that's left over.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/29/tennessee.sludge/index.html
Also here on NPR"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98778096
Steve
Perhaps Steve can correct me on this if I am wrong, but I believe that coal burning plants emit more radiation into the environment than nuclear power plants -- mostly radon gas from inside the coal.
And of course all sorts of other hideous substances such as arsenic and other heavy metals.
The issue of nuclear waste is important, but the volumes are far smaller and very little of it gets released to the environment.
I live about 5 miles from a nuclear plant -- and I am thrilled that it is not a coal plant.
That could well be correct for a properly functioning nuclear station - I've heard the assertion before, but the caveat is that you don't know the limitations of it - does it include maintenance cycles when the plant systems are open, etc? But in any case I believe the statement to be reasonably accurate.
There are a few things to keep in mind when discussing power options. One is that all forms of power generation have environmental and technical advantages and disadvantages. All forms of power generation generate waste. When considering generation options, it's important to consider the entire "cradle-to-grave" process, mining and milling (for example coal, uranium, or materials for solar collectors) and disposition of the entire plant which will at some time be waste.
I'm a fan of nuclear also, but not just because it's been a part of my profession. Waste volumes are small, emissions are consistent with where we need to go, and unlike the arsenic, mercury, and other heavy metals in the flyash (which are stable), radioactivity will in time go away. A very long time for some, but for the more common isotopes, 300 years or so. We're working on building safer nuclear fuels, and have the technology to build passively safe reactors (won't melt if the coolant stops like TMI). Engineers don't like them because they're not very efficient - engineers like efficiency, but uranium is one of the more common elements in the earth's crust. Engineers want to build nuclear Ferraris (naturally) when what we really need are school buses.
By the way, many of you are way too young to remember what coal once was or weren't exposed to it. I started working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1977 and we're about 12-15 miles east of the Kingston coal plant. The prevailing westerly winds would often drop flyash on the parking lot, and you'd come out after work and have to go wash your car because it was covered with black soot, some particles 1/16" or so. There was an event before I got there when the emissions ate the paint off several hundred cars which TVA had to pay for. They opened up a car wash at the TVA Bull Run plant east of ORNL so you could stop by there after work and wash your car off. They shut it down when filters and scrubbers became mandatory. Believe me, we were all rooting for nuclear then.
Cheers,
Steve
Another reason is that federal agencies don’t have the economic pressures that most utilities and private institutions do. They get yearly budgets so the quarterly balance sheet doesn’t exist, and they can’t change their plans (which can be a disadvantage). In the federal system, your budget is allocated for specific things, and it is illegal to spend the money on other things for which the money isn’t designated. So if an agency gets money for a scrubber, they cannot spend it on a corporate jet, dividends, or bonuses. They do have some flexibility for emergency maintenance and so on.
When I started work at ORNL in 1977, most of the waterways within the plant and downstream were lifeless ditches. White Oak Creek was an example, but in recent years we’ve had herons, fish, snakes, and a muskrat nesting a few yards from my office. Federal regulations on the use of ethylene glycol and discharges to waterways made most of the difference. We still have occasional problems, being a large and complex plant, but the problems are rare, much smaller, and the ecosystem seems to rapidly recover.
And a note on the radioactivity in the flyash; it’s too tiny to mention as far as environmental effects go, true even for operating nuclear plants and facilities . Sensitivity to radiation is pretty much a function of central nervous system complexity, so environmental emissions are regulated based on the sensitivity of humans via the food chain, not the sensitivity of plants and critters. For the most part, they are reasonably unaffected or much, much, less affected. One thing that’s been noted from Chernobyl is that the area isn’t safe for people to live in, but the environment itself is doing just fine.
Cheers,
Steve
I'd suggest posting this thread across the NPN sites.
Cheers,
Steve
Troup
I really believe that 911 has allowed this to happen. We have lost so many of our rights since then and over the past 8 years with this administration (good riddance!). It's a real travesty. We see our voices being muffled in every aspect of government issues and oversight especially with things that happen in our natural world. They use the excuse of the disaster to justify their actions of detaining and harassing photographers. In my case, they used the danger of the dump trucks hauling the material away from the site. They were looking out for our safety!