Sunday, August 5, 2012

Coal & the Potential for Radioactive Leachate

The occurrence of radioactive Isotopes such as Uranium and it's daughter radioactive isotopes such as Thorium 234 found in Powder River Basin (PRB) coal brings up questions that are due serious consideration in assessing the advisability of the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal coal-port project at Cherry Point. As author John McPhee explains in book on North American geology, Annals of the Former World, the uranium found in the PRB came to be there through a combination of oxidation and then migration in groundwater over many millions of years. When uranium oxidizes, it becomes soluble in water. Over the ages, vast amounts of groundwater percolated through this coal carrying a small percentage of dissolved uranium. It has been found that the organic materials in coal have a greater attraction for oxygen than does uranium. The result of this is that the coal pulled the oxygen ions from the uranium, thus causing the uranium to precipitate out in the coal deposits--eventually accumulating deposits rich enough to be profitably mined. As a result of this, Wyoming is known to have the most extensive deposits of Uranium in any of the United States.
The critical questions raised by this process involve what will happen to the radioactive isotopes in this coal when it is mined, loaded into rail cars and hauled over a thousand miles to the proposed Cherry Point terminal. Among different factors involved in this equation and questions that must be answered are these:
~Powder River Basin coal is known to be very crumbly—physically breaking down into small pieces. The significance of this being that the smaller the pieces are, the greater amount of it is available to exposure to air and it's free oxygen. (about 20% of the atmosphere) The coal is to be transported in open-topped railroad cars and it is reasonable to expect that in their journey air will circulate between the particles of coal, quite likely exposing it to a constant flow of fresh oxygen molecules. The first question this brings up is: Does this cause the uranium to then oxidize and once again become soluble?
~Another factor to be considered is this: It will undoubtedly rain and snow on this coal during its journey in uncovered cars—especially when it has crossed over the Cascade range into Western Washington. What will happen to the water that precipitates, and then percolates through this coal? It is imperative for us to know: Has uranium in this coal oxidized uranium and thus become soluble? If so, then does water percolating through it dissolve and carry U-235 and/or any other radioactive isotopes with it? What then becomes of this potentially-uranium-contaminated water? Does it then drain out of the coal cars onto the rail-bed where it may then contaminate soils, surface waters and possibly even groundwater?
The amount of PRB coal proposed to be transported to the Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point is many millions of tons over many years. It rains a whole lot west of the Cascade range. We need to know if the cumulative effect of this water and any pollutants, both radioactive and/or chemical that it may contain, draining out of these coal cars would constitute a threat to ourselves and/or our environment.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Will Whatcom County Host the Shipping of Radioactive Coal?

Recently I spent a few hours researching the source of the coal that may possibly be shipped through Whatcom County, Washington. I remembered reading something in John McPhee's Annals of the Former World that had to do with coal from Wyoming and tracked down information and sources to find out if it had relevance to our present controversy. I think that many of those involved in this discussion are missing a point that may be the key or most important issue in the debate. That issue happens to be radioactivity. Although there are radioactive elements to some degree in most coal, I find that the sources in Wyoming, particularly the Powder River Basin, to be of special concern. One thing that I think that most people are unaware of is the fact that coal, being of organic origin, has chemical properties that cause radioactive elements to precipitate out of ground water and remain. If one compares maps of the coal fields in Wyoming with maps of the uranium deposits in the state, one will find that they are largely in the same places. In fact, according to Dr. J. D. Love, the "grand old man of Wyoming geology" as well as being the geologist who discovered the uranium ore deposits to be found there, coal may be the singular reason that the uranium ore is found where it is in Wyoming. I think this makes this particular coal of grave concern to the residents of Whatcom County.

The following is a short paper that I have prepared from my researches. I am sending this out to a number of persons and organizations for whom the cc list is still incomplete.
This document may also be found on my blog: http://fixingair.blogspot.com/2011/04/will-whatcom-county-host-shipping-of.html.


Marc Hurlbert
6003 Ridgeview Place,
Ferndale, WA 98248

360-384-4379

_____________________________________

Will Whatcom County Host the Shipping of Radioactive Coal?


In his book Annals of the Former World, writer John McPhee describes discussions that he had in the 1980's with J. D. Love, the pre-eminent, Wyoming field-geologist with the U. S. Geological Survey at the time. Dr. Love discovered, among many other things, the uranium ore deposits in the Powder River Basin. Among Dr. Loves’ other discoveries was the fact that the massive Powder River coal deposits contained large quantities of uranium and other radioactive materials that result from these uranium ore deposits. Further, he also figured out the process by which these radioactive elements were leached into and left in the coal fields through hydrological processes. Soluble forms of uranium dissolved in the ground water percolates through the coal seams. The organic materials in the coal snatch oxygen from the radioactive elements and cause them to precipitate out into the coal.

Radioactive elements in coal are a very serious problem that seems to be rarely discussed. It’s well known that mercury, lead and other heavy metals are released into the air by burning coal. Uranium and other radioactive elements are released as well. In fact, coal burning power plants are the largest source of radioactive pollution on the planet. Another huge but hardly-recognized problem is the fact that these toxic elements are also concentrated in the fly ash that results from burning coal. According to Mara Hvistendahl, writing in the December 13, 2007 issue of Scientific American:

"...the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Gwenyth Cravens, journalist and editor, who has spent almost a decade researching the effects of the nuclear power industry, is quoted in Seed magazine, July, 2, 2009. To be found at: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_lesser_evil_nuclear_or_coal/

"...And as far as pollution goes, 120 million tons of unregulated coal fly ash pours into thousands of American slurry pits each year. It contains toxic heavy metals and enough U-235 to run all of our 104 power reactors. Coal pollution exposes people within 50 miles to low-dose radiation—about 100 to 400 times greater than from a nuclear plant."

As I looked further into this subject I found more information. Alex Gabbard, in his article: Coal Combustion Nuclear Resource or Danger, to be found at: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html states that:

"The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive."

Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article: Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that "Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations."

The importance of these facts has to do with the source of the coal that Millenium Bulk Terminals, Inc. And Peabody Energy hopes to ship through their proposed Gateway Pacific terminal. According an AP release in the Seattle Times, March 15, 2011:

"The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal in Whatcom County would serve as the West Coast hub for exporting Peabody's coal from the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana to Asian markets, Peabody said in a statement Monday."
These are the same coal deposits that J. D. Love found to be contaminated with uranium and other radioactive materials.

In America's Secret Chernobyl, FACTSHEET, to be found at:

http://www.defendblackhills.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113%3Aamericas-secret-chernobyl&catid=16%3Auranium&Itemid=27 the Defenders of the Black Hills states that:

"In Wyoming, hundreds of abandoned open-pit uranium mines and prospects can be found in or near the coal in the Powder River Basin. The geology of the entire Midwestern Region contains uranium and it is often mixed in the coal. The uranium laced coal is shipped to power plants in the Eastern part of the United States. Radioactive dust and particles are released into the air at the coal fired power plants and often set off the warning systems of nuclear power plants."

The Powder River Basin is the source of the coal that would be transported by rail through Whatcom County to be burned in Chinese power plants from which the prevailing winds would carry the radioactive elements along with the mercury and other toxins already floating across the Pacific to North America from Chinese power plants.

In a letter to the editor of the Bellingham Herald dated March 16, 2011, Micki Shomaker of Bellingham wrote that:

"Burlington Northern Santa Fe, on its own website, states: ‘The amount of coal dust that escapes from PRB (Powder River Basin) coal trains is surprisingly large.’ While the amount of coal dust that escapes from a particular coal car depends on a number of factors, including the weather, BNSF has done studies indicating that from 500 lbs to a ton of coal can escape from a single loaded coal car. Other reports have indicated that as much as 3 percent of the coal loaded into a coal car can be lost in transit. In many areas, a thick layer of black coal dust can be observed along the railroad right-of-way and in between the tracks. Given the high volume of loaded coal trains that move each day in the PRB, large amounts of coal dust accumulate rapidly along the rail lines." ...Do you want that much coal dust in your backyard? "

That is a lot of coal dust. If the terminal is built and the trains begin hauling the coal through our front yard, the coal dust deposited here will continue to accumulate, year round, year after year, as long as the coal trains run. That Powder-River-Basin coal, in addition to the heavy metal and organic toxins it contains, happens to be more radioactive than most. We must ask ourselves–how wise is it to allow this coal to not only contaminate Whatcom County with the lost coal dust, but then to ship it to China where it will be burned in power plants where the prevailing winds will carry much of it’s contaminants including heavy metals, radioactive elements and other toxins back across the pacific to our western shores? In light of the problems with environmental radioactive pollution now highlighted by the nuclear power plant disaster in Japan, the choice to allow this coal through our county would seem far less than wise. Marc Hurlbert

cc: Bob Ferris, Re Sources; Gary Jensen, Ferndale mayor; Pete Kremen, Whatcom County Executive; Dan Pike, Bellingham Mayor; Community Wise Bellingham; Seth Norman; Hugh Lewis; Dan Homel; Ralph Lloyd; Bellingham Herald; Cascadia Weekly; Whatcom Watch; Whatcom County Council; Jack Weiss; Gene Knutson; Barry Buchanan; Stam Snapp; Terry Bornemann; Micheal Lilliquist; Seth Fleetwood; Lynden mayor Scott Korthuis; Jeff Margolis; Foothills Gazette; John Stark at Bellingham Herald; Representative Rick Larsen: Senator Maria Cantwell; senator Patty Murray; Senator Doug Ericson; Representative Jason Overstreet; Representative Vincent Buys; Sierra Magazine; Mother Jones Magazine; CCA; Klause Lohse; Dan Coombs; Frank Koterba; Bill McMillan; Micheal Riber; Rick Schessler; Sherilyn Wells; Sharon Stewart; Sid Strong; Jimmy Watts; Joseph Kelly; Flip Breskin; Kelli Linville; Clayton Petree; Marie Claire Dole; Bill McKibben--350.org; Whatcom Transitions; Wild Fish conservancy; Chuckanut Conservancy; Climate Solutions; Whatcom Democrats; Chuckanut Conservancy; 350 Bellingham; People for Puget Sound; Lummi Nation; Swinomish Indian Tribal Community; Nooksack Indian Tribe; others to follow.


Creative Commons License
Will Whatcom County Host the Shipping of Radioactive Coal by Marc Hurlbert is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://fixingair.blogspot.com/2011/04/will-whatcom-county-host-shipping-of.html.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

A Purpose of the Fixing Air Blog

After much thought, I have arrived at a function for the Fixing Air Blog. It shall function as an educational resource for those wishing to educate themselves about the complex phenomenon of Global Warming, Ocean Acidification and their many ramifications. To do this, it will become a categorized list of links to web pages that have solid information on this and related subjects. I must admit that I have not yet been able to read all of these articles in depth. I am using sources that I believe can be trusted for the quality of it's scientific and/or journalistic integrity. However, if you find something that seems to be of questionable verity, then please let me know so that I can check it. I am going to update this list simply by editing this post, so check back often.

"Environmental injury is deficit spending. It is spending for short-term gain..."
-- Robert Kennedy, Jr.

Plundering our environment for short-term gain with no thought to the future is but theft, criminal theft of the worst and most thoughtless kind. It is stealing from the future--stealing from our future selves, from our children, from our children's children. It is to leave of ourselves a thoughtless legacy of naught but obscene greed, a heritage of naught but the selfish degradation of our souls.
J. Marcus

LINKS
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Global Warming Basics:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Primers and Overviews on Global Warming/Ocean Acidification:
11/29/08
12/03/08
1/11/09
02/04/09
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ocean Acidification Sites
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Global Warming Sites
1/11/09
1/09/09
As a result of my researches into the CO2 problem, I have become convinced that solutions to this problem already exist. What we lack is the political and economic will to put these solutions in place! Check this site out--if you agree with it, then join and participate!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Latest NOAA Climate Report - 2008
~Climate of 2008 - in Historical PerspectiveAnnual Report ~
1/05/09
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Basic Issues of Global Warming:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Global Carbon Budget:
11/29/08
1/11/09
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Studies Bolster Global Warming Theory:
11/29/08
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Effects of Global Warming:
11/29/08
11/30/08
12/01/08
What will be the effect of rising sea levels on the salt water pearl farming areas of the world?
12/02/08/
12/03/08
Follow the menu on the left to see various effects:
1/11/09
The Physical and Chemical Basis of Biological Production in the Seas
02/04/08
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deforestation and CO2 Pollution:
1/14/09
2/01/09
02/04/08
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carbon Sequestration:
11/29/08
2/01/09
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ocean Acidification:
This is the heart of the problem as I see it. Diatoms and other organisms that make up plankton build shelly structures. If the acid level of the oceans reaches a critical point, then it may threaten the very foundations of ocean life. Here is a quote from Phytoplankton Dynamics by Ulrike Feudel of Universität Oldenburg (http://www.icbm.de/~feudel/) :
"Phytoplankton are tiny floating plants (algae) that live in the ocean and in lakes. In the process of photosynthesis, phytoplankton produce half of the world's oxygen. Moreover, by primary production, death and sinking they effectively transport carbon from the ocean's surface layer to marine sediments, a process by which phytoplankton exert a global-scale influence on climate (carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect). Phytoplankton constitute the bottom level of aquatic foodwebs. There are many species of phytoplankton that can be distinguished by their morphology."
11/29/08
11/30/08
12/01/08
12/03/08
12/07/08
This may scare the hell out of you. Hopefully it will motivate you to usefull action:
1/11/09
03/11/09
A recent report on the state of ocean acidification--It's dire:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alternative Energy:
11/30/08
Perhaps the best, most exhaustive resource on the subject of the state of energy resources and alternative energy is "The Energy Blog." It's author gave us quite a scare when he ceased posting a few months ago. Fortunately he has resumed updating his blog. He reports that medical problems were the reason for his hiatus and that he is much better. We wish him well. Find his blog at:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An Overview Comparison of Alternative Energy Systems:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2/01/09
2/12/09
2/18/09
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Solutions, General:

Monday, April 28, 2008

SOLUTIONS

Things are happening fast. Just tonight I heard a report on NPR that we may have open sea with no sea ice at the North Pole before 2009! It seems that we just don't have much time to bandy this about in a theoretical and/or rhetorical manner. There has been a lot of research done that we can draw upon for answers. I've listened to climatological pundits discuss at length what the very best method of turning back climate change might be. I've also come to the conclusion that what we should do is: EVERYTHING WE CAN and ALL AT ONCE. I dont' mean to sound trite, and I don't think that this is. Hearing "experts" tell us that one or another way of combating Global Warming isn't worth doing because doing it would only help a very small amount, and by itself would have no measureable impact misses the point. We're all individuals and almost nothing that any one or a few of us does will have a very large impact. However, the impact of millions or even billions of individuals each doing their little bit to help might and probably will make an important difference.

Given this point of view, I'm going to list everything I can think of that might help. Here goes:

1. Reflective roofs on our buildings. In the late 1970's, in Phoenix, Arizona where I lived then, I heard of reflective roof coatings that one could buy and apply to ones roof. The developers of this coating had researched white pigments and had come up with one that was particularly effective at reflecting a high percentage the light that fell upon it. It would help in two ways. A. It would lessen the energy needed to both cool and heat buildings. Reflective surfaces serve to reflect heat both in and out. It would help keep buildings warm in winter and cool in summer. B. By reflecting sunlight back out into space, it would help cool the earth. It might also just happen to extend the life of ones' roof covering. I've wondered just how great a surface area the buildings of the USA and even the world add up to. I'd love to hear from anyone who knows how to get a reasonably accurate estimate of this.

Beyond the simple issue of roofs, I was very impressed by the way that cities or rather the things that cities are constructed of, such as concrete and black top, had of soaking up and slowly giving off heat in such a way as to warm up its' entire environs. I lived in a house that, when I was very young, was out in the country. In fact, until I reached age of six, my grandfathers' mostly-organic dairy farm was located at the end of my street, less than a quarter of a mile away. At night in the summer, by around 9 or 10 PM a cooling breeze would come in off the surrounding rural and desert land. As the city grew around us and passed us by, the cooling breezes were replaced by the heat that was soaked up all day and given off all night. I think that there are other elements of our city environments that could benefit from more reflective surfaces. Roads and parking lots come to mind. White might cause too much glare to be safe, but could blacktop be somehow lightened to reflect a portion of the light that strikes it? It's something to think about.

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

I've come to realize that to properly address the Global Warming problem, there are some very fundamental questions that need to be answered. Perhaps the answers have been found and are written somewhere but I've never seen or heard them. So--I'll lay these out as they come to me.

1. What is the total amount of carbon in, on and around the earth?
2. In what forms and percentages does this carbon exist?
3. What sort of natural carbon cycles exist?
4. What chemicals are there that will bind easily to carbon and hold it in a form that sequesters it from the atmosphere.
5. How available are these carbon-binding compounds and elements and where are they?
6. How easily are they obtained and used to sequester carbon?

Thursday, January 31, 2008

FIXING AIR

FIXING AIR is my attempt to stir thought, discussion, exploration, brain-storming, argument and, just maybe, uncover, find and/or devolop solutions to what is probably the greatest danger and challenge that the human race has ever visited upon our earthly environment and, ultimately, ourselves. This is, of course, global warming. I do not claim that this blog is unique, original or that it has or will have all or even some of the answers. I do not even claim that everything that is posted here is useful, true or has any practical merit. It is simply my personal and hopeful attempt to get at some answers to this folly of our own making.