Corruption is also a product of the Oil & Gas Industry

Cartoon about manipulation of science by special interests
Image from UCS Blog – Union of Concerned Scientists

“[T]he norms and expectations that once ensured that our government was guided primarily by the public interest rather than by individual or partisan interest have significantly weakened. There are now far fewer constraints to deter abuse by executive branch actors.”

The above understatements of the year are from a report released October 3, 2019 by The National Task Force on Rule of Law and Democracy, a group formed under the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law to figure out how to restore trust in government. The report focuses on the politicization of government science and research. It lists over a hundred specific occurrences of political manipulation of scientific findings. Examples from the list follow (numbers refer to the report’s itemization system):

#453 – The Dept of the Interior’s top climate change scientist was reassigned to an accounting role, despite no training in accounting, after he highlighted the dangers climate change poses for Alaska’s Native communities. Washington Post July 19, 2017

#448 – After Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) researchers produced a study showing economic benefits to protecting wetlands from pollution, aides to the agency’s administrator told them to produce a new study showing no such benefits. NYTimes August 11, 2017

#482 – Chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) questioned studies that connect serious human health problems to air pollution and accepted research funding from the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry lobbying group that reviewed his findings before publication. ScienceMag (American Association for the Advancement of Science) December 10, 2018

#493 – The news that the EPA stoped updating its climate change websites in April 2017 is confirmed. The agency removed its climate change subdomains from public access, and removed links to its searchable web archive for any past information on the subject. Newsweek November 2, 2018

#485 – Chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) wrote a letter to the EPA administrator criticizing the agency’s use of science to set air pollution standards and questioned the long-established scientific view that fine particulate airborne matter is linked to early deaths. Scientific American March 29, 2019. 

#502 – The Dept. of Agriculture withheld a news release and sought to prevent dissemination of the findings by the department’s research partners concerning a groundbreaking discovery that rice loses vitamins in a carbon-rich environment — a potentially serious health concern for the 600 million people worldwide whose diet consists mostly of rice. Politico June 23, 2019

#441 – High-level Department of the Interior officials altered an environmental assessment for seismic surveying prepared by career scientists in order to underplay the potential impact of oil and gas development on Alaska’s coastal plain. Politico July 26/19

The ill effects of a corrupt executive branch go much deeper than the subversion of scientific findings. President Trump has packed his administration with fossil-fuel friendly officials willing to put Big Oil interests ahead of the public interest. The decisions made by these unelected officials, anxious to do the bidding of their bosses in and out of government, are helping to destroy the environment and cripple the country’s economic prospects. For example, here’s how this top-down rot is working to hobble the country’s nascent offshore wind energy industry:

Vineyard Wind, a $2.8 billion, 800-Megawatt offshore wind power project planned for waters south of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, has been put on hold by the Trump administration. Vineyard had submitted its Construction and Operations Plan (COP) to the Department of the Interior (DOI) in December 2017 and had expected to receive the go-ahead last month. The map below shows the proposed wind turbine layout submitted to DOI by the company.

Map to show location of Vineyard Wind offshore project

So what is the government’s  excuse for delaying the project? In an August news release, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) — the agency under DOI responsible for managing development of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf — provides two excuses:

(1) “Comments received from stakeholders and cooperating agencies [have] requested a more robust cumulative analysis.” 
(2) “Because . . . 
a greater build out of offshore wind capacity is more reasonably foreseeable than was analyzed in the initial draft EIS [Environmental Impact Statement], BOEM has decided to supplement the Draft EIS and solicit comments on its revised cumulative impacts analysis.”

Excuse (1) is the Trump administration’s way of saying that the delay is open ended and that it doesn’t have defensible reasons to justify it.

Excuse (2) refers to the fact that the wind energy industry has shown great interest in building wind farms off the East Coast (an estimated $70-billion in wind industry investments over the next decade). The claim that that interest was not “reasonably foreseeable” by DOI, is nonsense. The following is from TheHill June 4, 2013:

“Interior announced on [June 3, 2013]  that it would hold an auction on July 31, 2013 for 164,750 acres off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which has the potential to generate 3,400 megawatts of electricity — enough to power 1 million homes. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell called the pending lease sale — which has drawn interest from nine firms — “history in the making.” 

If former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was able to foresee, in 2013, the potential for “a greater build out of offshore wind capacity”, then you can bet current Interior Secretary David Bernhardt was able to foresee it too. It’s just that Mr. Bernhardt, a former lobbyist for the oil industry, doesn’t like the view. David Halperin, writing in Desmogblog March 26, 2019, says: “Bernhardt is . . . more skilled [than his predecessor Ryan Zinke] in the ways of law and government. But in terms of the ways that money corrupts politics and policy, his record is even more concerning. David Bernhardt is the ultimate swamp creature.”

U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy III (D-MA) is quoted by WBUR Boston, Aug 9, 2019: “When it comes to the nation’s first major offshore wind project — which has gone through years of extensive study, public comment and mitigation plans for impacted communities — they are trying to delay it to death. . . . Worse still, they are threatening the future of large-scale renewable energy development at a moment when the price of our oil and gas dependency becomes more obvious — and more terrifying — by the day.”

Six hundred thousand (600,000) U.S. wind energy jobs by 2050: that was the prediction made in a March 2015 report from the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. According to the Environment & Energy Study Institute, the wind industry now (July 2019) supports 111,000 direct jobs. To Oil & Gas Industry executives, those figures are the stuff of nightmares. The shift to renewable energy is an existential threat to their industry. They need people like David Bernhardt to help slow it down.

Aerial photo of Wind Farm, North Sea UK
Offshore wind farm, North Sea UK

 

Pollution from aircraft – another reason to tax fossil fuels at their source

Photo of jet aircraft contrails
Jet aircraft contrails. Image: Wikipedia

The global civil aviation industry is on a roll. Last year the world’s airlines profited from carrying 4.38 billion passengers and 63.3 million tones of freight. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) the number of passengers carried per year could reach 8.2 billion by 2037, a forecast based on 3.5% compound annual growth rate. A rosy outlook indeed — for the industry. Can the good times last — for the industry?

The industry’s current prosperity is based on cheap fossil fuel and on the fact that the industry is allowed to dump its emissions into the global atmosphere at no cost to itself. According to IATA data, in 2018 a total of 38.1 million flights consumed 95 billion gallons of fuel and released 905 million tones of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, about 2% of global CO2 emissions. But that’s not all. Emissions from aircraft jet engines contain other pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen, unburned fuel, soot, and water vapour. Soot, for example, provides condensation sites for water vapour and the consequent formation of contrails at high altitudes (17,000 to 45,000 feet). When contrails linger or spread out thinly like natural cirrus clouds, they trap heat radiating from the earth’s surface and so add to atmospheric warming. The combined contribution to global warming made by these non-CO2 emissions, equals or exceeds that made by the aircraft’s CO2 emissions.

The industry is under pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. According to IATA ‘fact sheets’, this is what the industry plans to do: First it plans to cap its net CO2 emissions at 2019 levels. From then on, or so the industry claims, its growth will be carbon-neutral. It plans to accomplish this carbon-neutral growth by “pursuing a 4-pillar strategy” as follows:

(1) Improved aircraft technology, including the deployment of sustainable low-carbon fuels. (2) More efficient aircraft operations. (3) Better ground-based infrastructure (4) Offsetting the remaining emissions gap.

Here are some of the reasons why the industry’s plan is bound to fall short:

Engineers have made great progress in designing jet engines that are more fuel efficient and produce less CO2. And that work continues. However, a recent paper by Lisa Bock and Ulrike Burkhardt of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, shows that more fuel efficient jet engines produce more, and longer lasting contrails. The atmospheric heating caused by such contrails cancels out the benefit from more efficient jet engines.

The industry is counting on the development of biofuels to begin replacing fossil fuels. A biofuel is any fuel that is derived from biomass, such as plant or algae material or animal waste. The International Energy Agency (IEA) anticipates biofuels reaching around 10% of aviation fuel demand by 2030, and close to 20% by 2040. In the context of what the industry says it wants to achieve, this is way too slow. Currently biofuels are much more expensive than fossil-based jet fuel, a cost premium that prevents their wider use. The bar chart below shows that for biofuels to compete with fossil jet fuel, the cost of fossil fuels must rise. A sizeable tax on the CO2 content of fossil fuels at well-head or port of entry would do the trick, but that hasn’t happened yet.

Bar chart showing aviation fuel cost comparison
Biofuels vs. jet fuel cost comparison. Image from IEA News, March 18, 2019

According to IEA News, March 18, 2019, “Ongoing research and development is needed to support the commercialisation of novel advanced aviation biofuels which can unlock the potential to use agricultural residues and municipal solid wastes.” In other words, serious work on unlocking that potential on behalf of the aviation industry, hasn’t even started.

 The forth pillar of the IATA’s 4-pillar strategy is where the industry admits that its other pillars will not do enough to mitigate all of its emissions. To mitigate the remaining emissions, the industry intends to rely on an approach developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), called Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). The scheme was agreed to by ICAO’s 193 member states. This is what IATA’s ‘Fact sheet on CORSIA and carbon pricing’ says about offsetting:

Offsetting is an action by a company or individual to compensate for their emissions by financing a reduction in emissions elsewhere. Offsetting and carbon markets are a fundamental component of global, regional and national emissions reduction policies. They have operated for decades for compliance purposes and voluntary emissions reductions and continue to be an effective mechanism to underpin action against climate change.

Offsetting is more effective than a tax, as a carbon tax merely requires companies to pay for their emissions, without any guarantees that the payment will lead to any emissions reductions.

Poppycock! Carbon offsetting, like taxing carbon emissions, is a form of greenwashing — a way for industries to appear responsible while behaving irresponsibly. To argue that “offsetting is more effective” than taxing carbon emissions, is to say nothing. Neither approach works. The bottom line is this: while “offsetting and carbon pricing . . . have operated for decades” the temperature of the world’s atmosphere continues to rise.

♦ According to a paper published Aug. 14, 2019 by the Center for Climate and Security, titled ‘Climate Change Implications for U.S. Military Aircraft’, new research shows that as the environment grows hotter and more humid, the performance of military aircraft is being adversely affected. Rear Admiral David Titley, US Navy (Ret.), is quoted as follows:

“To better visualize how military operations are being impacted by increasing heat and humidity, one can look at the impacts that changing climate conditions have had on commercial airlines. Commercial airlines are fighting a losing battle with climate change. Increasing heat and humidity is driving flight cancellations and threatening the viability of various airports and flight routes. . . . We are not used to having commercial airlines disrupted because of hot weather. This is a harbinger of things to come.”

As temperature increases, air expands and becomes less dense. As humidity increases, nitrogen and oxygen molecules are displaced by lighter water molecules causing the air to become less dense. As air density decreases, aircraft performance decreases and costs increase .

“These aircraft performance impacts,” Titley says, “can be mitigated by expanding aircraft power and efficiency through wing modification, more aerodynamic design, and more powerful engines. Other mitigation strategies involve lengthening runways and decreasing payloads.”

More powerful engines, if they are fossil-fuel powered, means more emissions to mitigate.

♦ To summarize, if the aviation industry is to achieve its objective of carbon-neutral growth, it will have to cut its use of fossil fuel now, not in decades. Relying on offsetting to fudge a cap on CO2 emissions, will not do.

As the bar chart above shows, the cost of fossil jet fuel must rise by about 100 USD/bbl for alternative fuels to begin competing seriously. Alexandre de Juniac, IATA Chief, has been lobbying against a ‘Green Tax’ on aviation. He should instead lobby globally for a carbon tax on fossil fuels at the mine, well-head, or port of entry. A heavy enough tax would remove the cost premium that’s delaying the use of alternative fuels, force the fossil fuel industry to pay some of the conversion costs, and place all airlines on a level environmental playing field.

Carbon Capture — Big Oil’s bogus response to global warming

Carbon Capture cartoon
Carbon Capture. Image credit: Pilita Clark, Financial Times, Sept. 9, 2015

The Oil & Gas Industry wants us to keep on burning fossil fuels, come hell or high sea level. To divert attention from that sorry objective, the industry is promoting a techno-fix that policymakers and investors can get behind — it’s called Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS  for short. It’s a ruse, a scam. CCS won’t change industry’s behaviour, won’t cause emissions to drop.

Last April, a group of U.S. Senators — 8 Democrats, 4 Republicans — sent a letter to the Senate appropriations committee requesting “robust funding” to develop carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies “that will address COemissions from coal, natural gas, and industrial facilities.” The letter contains a mixture of false statements, dubious claims, and baloney. Examples follow:

▲ The Senators claim that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified CCUS as “a critical component of the portfolio of energy technologies needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.” The claim is false. Here are the facts:

The Paris Climate Agreement, signed Dec. 2015 by 95 countries, set a goal of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” Global average temperature has already exceeded 1.0°C. Last year, the IPCC prepared a special report on the impacts of global warming to 1.5°C and on the CO2 emissions pathways that could limit warming to that temperature. Here’s what the report’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’ says  in its single statement (item C.2.2) about the use of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):

In 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot, renewables are projected to supply 70–85% of electricity in 2050. . . . [T]he use of CCS would allow the electricity generation share [from] gas to be approximately 8% (3–11%) of global electricity in 2050, while the use of coal . . . would be reduced to close to 0%.

In other words, the IPCC views the use of CCS, not as a critical component of efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, but as a bit player, and not even an essential bit player. What the IPCC does predict is that ‘natural’ carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques, such as reforestation and soil carbon sequestration, will play the major roles.

The Senators state that “Like the wind and solar industries, a combination of federal incentives such as tax credits and federal funding for research, development, and demonstration, will be needed to improve [carbon capture] technology so that it can be cost-competitive with other forms of low COemitting technologies.”

Here the Senators make the absurd implication that energy from fossil fuels  can be made cost-competitive with energy from renewables (solar, wind) by throwing money into carbon capture research. The fact is, energy from fossil fuels cannot compete with energy from renewable today; adding carbon capture technology — no matter how well researched — to fossil fuel exhaust systems, will result in energy that is even less competitive tomorrow. No amount of funding will change that certainty.

▲ The Senators state that “Innovators across the United States are already developing a wide range of CCUS technologies that can improve the efficiency of electricity generation and utilize carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and other sources for more efficient resource development and valuable products, such as algae-derived chemicals, plastics, and fuels.”

Here the Senators are trying, but failing, to show that CCS can pay for itself. The reference to “more efficient resource development” points to ‘enhanced oil recovery’, a process in which captured CO2 is injected into existing wells to force more oil out of the ground. When the recovered oil is burned, it releases as much or more CO2 into the atmosphere as was captured in the first place. The process has nothing to do with true carbon storage, nor with serious efforts to reduce global warming CO2 emissions.

As for the reference to “valuable products”, the world is awash in chemicals, plastics, and fuels, all derived from fossil carbon feed stock (oil, gas, coal). When that fossil carbon feed stock is burned, its carbon is released into the air. The claim that that same carbon (captured from the emissions) can form the basis for new or different products, makes no sense.

▲ The Senators claim that “Investment in carbon utilization technologies will transform carbon dioxide into an economic resource, lower the cost of reducing emissions, create jobs, save consumers money, and safeguard our environment.”

At least the part about jobs is true. Scientists will work on anything, no matter how nutty the project, just so long as they get paid to do it.

Photo of U.S. Senate building
U.S. Senate. Image: Senate.gov

The Senators’ letter is dated April 4, 2019 and signed by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I- Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

If the Senators had actually read the IPCC’s 2018 special report’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’, they would have discovered that holding global average temperature to 1.5°C by 2050 requires action on restricting CO2 emissions NOW.  Pushing CCS technology on behalf of the fossil fuel industry will not do the trick. Here’s what the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ says on the matter:

Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) [e.g., reforestation] can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (item D.1).

The lower the emissions in 2030, the lower the challenge in limiting global warming to 1.5°C after 2030 with no or limited overshoot. The challenges from delayed actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include the risk of cost escalation, lock-in in carbon-emitting infrastructure, stranded assets, and reduced flexibility in future response options in the medium to long term (item D.3).

In other words: ignore the carbon capture ruse, focus instead on reducing fossil fuel production. That’s the real challenge for policymakers. Are they up to it?

Oil & Gas elephant spooked by EV mouse — for good reason

Photo of EV charging station
Electric Vehicle charging station. Image: City of Hoboken NJ

The oil and gas industry is losing market share to clean energy technologies such as wind and solar. But it’s the electric vehicle (EV) that poses the most pressing threat to the industry. Here’s why:

The car-owning public reacts negatively to high gas prices. Politicians of all strips are sensitive to that fact. Even politicians who recognize the environmental need to reduce fossil fuel production are reluctant to take actions that could drive up prices at the pump. Taxing the carbon in fossil fuel emissions rather than taxing the carbon content of fossil fuels as they are produced is an example of this reluctance — it distances the politician from the effect. And even that feeble political action is further weakened by the failure to set the carbon price high enough to cause meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use. A switch from gasoline to electric powered cars will remove the political fear of pump prices and leave the oil and gas industry vulnerable to direct carbon pricing.

Many of the country’s newer natural gas powered electricity generating plants might last for another thirty years or more. This means that the complete replacement of fossil fuel power with cheaper renewables could take decades. The situation with electric vehicles is different. The average life expectancy of a car is 10 years or less. As EV prices drop and public acceptance increases, a shift to EVs could result in a complete replacement of the existing fleet of vehicles within a period of 10 to 15 years. Motor gasoline accounts for about 24% of total fossil fuel energy currently used in the U.S., a big chunk of the fossil fuel industry’s market. The shift would, at the same time, create new opportunities for wind and solar powered electricity generation.

Oil and gas industry executives are well aware of the threat posed by EVs. It explains the industry’s hatred of the EV incentive program. The program, introduced in 2015 under the Obama administration, offers a tax credit of $2,500 to $7,500 per new EV purchased for use in the U.S. Initial funding for the program was capped at about $2-billion. The oil and gas industry, concerned that Congress may decide to extend funding for the program, has ramped up its propaganda machine to try and prevent that from happening. As usual, when it comes to spreading disinformation about climate science and clean technologies, the industry calls on its mercenary propaganda troops to do the lying for them (see Apr.21 post — How the Oil and Gas Industry gets others to fight for its life). The propaganda effort described below shows the lengths the industry will go to fight what is a relatively small program.

A coalition of 34 fossil-fuel-funded, free market advocacy groups (see image below) delivered a letter May 9 to Congress (addressed to Senators Grassley and Wyden, and Representative Brady and Neal) urging members to protect “all American families by opposing an expansion of the electric vehicle tax credit.” The coalition is led by the American Energy Alliance (AEA), a not-for-profit organization that, according to its website, “engages in grassroots public policy advocacy and debate concerning energy and environmental policies.” The AEA, according to Desmogblog, is run by a former lobbyist for Koch Industries. The letter claims that the EV subsidy is unpopular, overwhelmingly benefits the rich, and amounts to a wealth transfer to California at the expense of all other states. It also claims that electric cars are not cleaner than cars powered by internal combustion engines.

Image of 34 fossil fuel funded, free market advocacy groups logos
Coalition of fossil fuel funded, free market advocacy groups organized to oppose expansion of the federal EV subsidy program. Image: eenews

As mentioned above, the U.S. EV subsidy is relatively small. Since its start in 2015, the program has handed out a total of about $20-billion in the form of income tax credits. By comparison, the U.S. fossil fuel industry receives about $27-billion annually in direct federal subsidies. The industry letter to Congress says nothing about that. The following bar chart shows the amount of annual subsidies each of the G7 nations currently hand out to support their fossil fuel addictions. It’s time they sought treatment.

Bar chart showing how G7 countries subsidize fossil fuel industry
Image: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Note that the bar chart above shows only the direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. The industry also receives a massive indirect subsidy due to the fact that it does not pay the cost of damages — global warming, climate destabilization, etc. — caused by the burning of its products.

Mayor de Blasio resurrects project to bring hydro power from Quebec to NYC

Photo of Indian Pt. nuclear power plant as seen from west side of Hudson River
Indian Point nuclear power plant, Peekskill, NY, as seen from Hwy 202 on the west side of the Hudson River. Image: Google

The Indian Point nuclear power plant sits on the east bank of the Hudson River near Peekskill NY, 42 miles upstream from Lower Manhattan and the center of the NY Metropolitan Region. The plant’s proximity to the city has been viewed as a potential catastrophe and an ongoing health threat ever since it first started generating electricity in 1962. New Yorkers will breath easier when the plant shuts down for good in 2021. However, the shut down will leave a 2,000 MW hole in the state’s electricity supply which will have to be filled by a renewable source of energy. If NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has his way, power from hydro-rich Quebec will help fill the gap.

Mayor de Blasio announced his ‘Green New Deal’ for New York City on April 22, three months after Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, announced his ‘Green New Deal’ for the state (see previous post). While de Blasio’s plan ‘commits’ the city to carbon neutrality + 100% clean electricity by 2050, Cuomo’s plan commits the state (including NYC) to 100% clean electricity by 2040. Two Green New Deals for New York? Well, two are better than none. The Mayor, a Democrat, has entered the race to become U.S. President and is showing his environmental credentials.

The Mayor can aspire to carbon neutrality for the city. He can work towards it. But he doesn’t have the authority to mandate it. That’s Cuomo’s job — a moot point since the Governor hasn’t promised carbon neutrality. In any case, neither Cuomo nor de Blasio have defined what carbon neutrality means. Mayor de Blasio’s justification for making the 100% clean energy commitment is a plan to bring electric power from Quebec directly to New York City. The rationale is that when the electricity is added to the state grid, it will be enough to power all city-owned buildings in NYC. The more obvious effect will be simply to offset half the power that will be lost when the Indian Point nuclear plant shuts down.

First proposed in 2008, the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) is a 369 mile high voltage, direct current (HVDC) buried transmission line designed to carry 1,000 megawatts of clean power from Quebec to New York City. The buried transmission line would originate at Hydro Quebec’s Hertel substation in La Prairie, south of Montreal. On the map below, the red dot just south of Montreal is the approximate location of Hydro Quebec’s Hertel substation. The red dot immediately north of New York City is the approximate location of the Indian Point nuclear power station.

Map of North-east USA and Canadian boarder region

The CHPE transmission line will cross the international boarder at Rouses Point NY, then head south by way of Lake Champlain and the Hudson River Valley, terminating in the NYC borough of Queens. The line will follow existing rights of way as well as water ways. The promoter of the U.S. section of the project is Transmission Developers Inc of Albany NY. A 2014 news release by the company put the cost  of the “merchant transmission project” at US$2.2-billion. During his NYC Green New Deal announcement on April 22, the Mayor said he wanted to start talks with Quebec immediately on finalizing a deal to get the CHPE project moving.

The Mayor’s Green New Deal contains initiatives that he does have the authority to mandate. They include: reducing greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings; banning new inefficient glass-walled buildings; replacing the city’s fossil fuel powered fleet with electric vehicles; ending the purchase by the city of single use plastics; divesting investment of $5-billion in city pension funds from the fossil fuel industry — all good ideas that he could have promoted years ago.

Photo of NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio announcing his Green New Deal
NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio announces Green New Deal April 22, 2019. Image: from NYGov video

NY Governor Cuomo goes for clean power technology in a big way

 

Aerial photo of Con Edison East River power plant
14th St. East River Con Edison power plant, Manhattan, NYC (looking NW), Midtown in background. Image: Wikipedia

About 57% of New York state’s electricity is generated by power stations that burn fossil fuels. Nineteen of them — ranging in capacity from 22 to 2336 MW — are located in New York City, four in Manhattan. Emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, plus a multitude of other hazardous pollutants that damage human health. Many New Yorkers live next door to these plants. For example, the photo above shows the proximity of Stuyvesant Town to Con Edison’s 736-MW East River power plant.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, spurred by the need to take action on the health and climate effects of burning fossil fuels, announced on January 20 his ‘Green New Deal’ for the state. The goal of the plan is 100% clean electric power by 2040, the commitment to become state law. The plan will focus on building more land-based wind and solar plants, and on targeting the states offshore wind potential.

The following bar chart shows NY State energy consumption for 2016 (latest available). Natural gas is the primary fossil fuel used to produce the state’s electricity.

Bar chart showing NY State energy consumption

To get an idea of the magnitude of the task set by Governor Cuomo, the table below shows the clean power capacity in megawatts needed to replace all the fossil fuel amounts shown in the bar chart (Btu to MWh to MW x 0.9%):

Natural Gas + Coal  . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,000 MW
Motor Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,000 MW
All other fossil fuels . . . . . . . . . . . .18,000 MW

The 42,000 MW of electricity from natural gas is the focus of Cuomo’s green plan. In fossil fuel terms, to provide that much power from scratch would require building 50 to 60 power plants of the size shown in the photo above. Instead, the task will require building wind and solar farms. For example, if offshore wind was the only source of clean power, at least 3,500 wind turbines rated at 12 MW each would be needed to generate the 42,000 MW of electricity. By comparison, the capacity of European offshore wind farms (operational and under construction) now stands at about 21,000 MW, with another 20,000 MW on the drawing board. The map below shows where New York’s offshore wind farms will be sited. Statoil (now called Aquinor) is considering a 2,000 MW wind farm for its leased area, the grey-shaded part of Hudson North.

Map showing offshore wind lease areas off New York
New York Bight offshore wind lease areas. Image: BOEM

Governor Cuomo’s plan does not specifically mention motor gasoline. As the transition is made from gasoline to electric cars, at least 19,000 MW in additional clean electrical generation capacity will eventually be required. My guess is that a significant chunk of that capacity will be met by home or community based solar panels. The other fossil products such as distillates (e.g. diesel fuel) and jet fuel are not even mentioned in the plan.

It’s sometimes suggested that carbon neutrality can be achieved while continuing to burn fossil fuels. We (all animals) exhale CO2 with every breath. That CO2 is captured by growing plants during photosynthesis. To stay alive, we eat the plants (and the flesh of animals that also live on plants) and so regain the carbon lost to the atmosphere while breathing. That is our basic carbon-neutral economy. When we began to release CO2 by burning fossil fuels, that basic economy was thrown out of kilter. Result: the greenhouse effect and global warming. The only way to re-create a carbon neutral economy is to stop burning fossil fuels. Governor Cuomo is on the right track. He summarizes his plan in the following YouTube video (1 min 42 sec).

 

 

Offshore Wind — Why drilling for offshore oil is dumb

Photo of Block Island wind turbines in heavy seas
Block Island wind turbines in heavy seas. Image: Deepwater Wind

The amount of energy generated by America’s offshore winds last year, exceeded by more than four times the total amount of energy consumed by the nation’s people and industry in the same year.  Only a tiny fraction of that wind resource has been harnessed commercially so far. The following map shows average wind speeds off U.S. coasts at a height of 100 meters and extending to the country’s 200 nautical-mile EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). The richest wind areas (fastest wind speeds) are off the N. California and New England coasts.

Map showing U.S. offshore wind speeds
Offshore wind speeds. Image from 2016 NREL study of U.S. offshore wind energy resources

The country’s first offshore wind farm became fully operational December 2016. It lies 3 miles SE of Block Island RI. The electricity it generates is delivered by sub-sea cable, first to a substation on Block Island, then on to the Rhode Island mainland where it connects to the state’s electrical grid. Operated by Deepwater Wind Co., the 30 Megawatt (MW) wind farm consists of 5 wind turbines, each rated at 6 MW. Together, they generate annually about 125 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) of clean energy, enough to serve about 17,000 households. Ørsted, the Danish wind company, acquired Deepwater in 2018 for a reported $510 million.

Offshore wind farms are set to become common features along the NE coast in the coming decade. The Rhode Island wind farm is the pioneer. To see it, take a day trip to Block Island. If you’re driving between NYC and Boston, exit the I-95 at Hwy RI-138 (about 30 miles south of Providence); head east to Kingston. In Kingston turn right at Hwy RI-108 (traffic lights but no sign) and head south to Galilee and the Pt. Judith ferry terminal. Park your car at the ferry terminal (the ferry does carry vehicles). The Ferry departs for New Shoreham, Block Island, four times each day, year round. The trip, port to port, takes 55 minutes (scheduled). Rent a bike in New Shoreham, ride 15 minutes south (or walk the 1.8 miles) to Mohegan Bluffs. The wind farm’s five turbines are located about 3 miles to the SE, clearly visible from the island.

Map showing location of Deepwater Wind farm SE of Block Island RI
Deepwater Wind. Image: Landfall Navigation

Construction of the first large-scale offshore wind project, an 800 MW, 84 unit farm, will likely begin this year. The project is owned by New Bedford MA based Vineyard Wind Co., a 50-50 partnership Between Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners  and Avangrid Renewables. The array of wind turbines will be located about 14 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard MA (see map below). At that distance, the wind turbines will not be visible from land. The project will deliver electricity to Massachusetts for an initial price of 6.5 cents per KW hour, the price to rise by 2.5% year subsequently.

Map showing offshore Vineyard Wind lease area
Vineyard Wind lease area. Image credit: vineyard Wind website

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) 2016 study ‘Offshore Wind Energy Resource Assessment for the United States’, the Gross Resource Potential of the country’s offshore winds (excluding Alaska) is 10,800 GW. Of that amount, 2058 GW is listed as Technical Resource Potential, that is, the amount that could be harnessed today using currently available technology. Areas of the offshore wind zone that are not considered technically available at the present time include: areas where the depth is greater than  1,000 m (3281 ft); areas where the average wind speed is less than 7 m/second; shipping lanes; marine protected areas.

The existing electricity generating capacity of the U.S. is 1072 GW (2017). Of that, about 64% or 646 GW is generated by fossil fuel plants. The electricity from those polluting plants could be replaced three times over by clean electricity generated from Technical Resource offshore wind. The Trump administration is promoting offshore oil/gas exploration. What is the justification for spending billions hunting for fossil energy offshore while clean, cheaper, renewable energy blows past the rigs needed to do the drilling? There isn’t one. As electric cars displace fossil powered cars in the coming years, more clean electricity will be needed, not more petroleum.

Memo:
1 Kilowatt (KW) = 1,000 Watts
1 Megawatt (MW) = 1,000 KW = 1,000,000 Watts
1 Gigawatt (GW) = 1,000 MW = 1,000,000,000 Watts

New York City six years after Sandy. Is it ready for the next one?

More than six years have past since superstorm Sandy swamped New York City on October 22, 2012. If a storm of similar strength hit the city today, the streets that Sandy flooded would once again flood to the same depth. While there’s been lots of talk (and some planning), little actual construction work has been done to protect the city from another serious storm surge. However, parts of the city, lower Manhattan in particular, have been ‘hardened’ in a multitude of  ways that are generally invisible to the casual observer.

The city’s subway system suffered an estimated $4.8 billion worth of damage due to the flooding of tunnels with salt water. NY Governor Andrew Cuomo announced (May 16, 2013) plans to ‘flood-proof’ the subway and protect its critical elements against “similar storms that we expect to arrive in the future.” No easy task. The system is old and wasn’t designed with super storms and sea level rise in mind. Individual openings through which water can enter the system from the surface in flood prone areas are many — more than 3,500 according to an estimate made at the time — all of them requiring closure. The list of subway elements in need of flood proofing, included:

Station entrances, ventilator gratings, vents, elevator shafts and openings, access hatches, emergency exits, manholes, utility entrances, escalators, machine rooms, pump rooms, sewer lines, conduit ducts, utility services, lighting, HVAC systems, building entrances and other right of way equipment.

The smell and feel of fetid subway air puffing up through sidewalk gratings are sensations experienced daily by New Yorker’s. How to stop flood waters pouring down through those same gratings, was just one of the challenges faced by the Transportation Authority. One solution: metal hatches fitted under the gratings and ready to slide across the openings when needed. The following photo from 2017 shows MTA Chairman Joe Lhota, explaining the new system to the press.

Photo of MTA Chaireman and press examining subway grating flood prevention devices
MTA chairman Joe Lhota and members of the press examine subway grating flood prevention devices. Image: MTA

Because the openings are so large, flood proofing subway entrance stairways is critically important. The photo below shows an MTA employee deploying a stairwell Flex-Gate (ILC Dover Co) from its housing.

Photo of MTA employee deploying subway entrance flood prevention device
MTA employee deploying subway entrance flood prevention device. MTA Image

New York’s private sector business’s also suffered heavy damage from superstorm Sandy. Before Sandy, equipment such as electrical gear and emergency generators were typically installed in the basements of the city’s high rise buildings. That equipment was destroyed when basements flooded. Repairs took weeks, in some cases, months. Some older inhabitants of residential towers, unable to navigate dark stairwells, were trapped in their apartments for days. Architects and builders have learned from the reports. The American Copper Building provides a good example (photo below). This copper clad, residential duel-tower, built at 626 First Ave., incorporates several post-Sandy design features:

Photo of American Copper Bldg., New York City
American Copper Building.

(1) The building has no penthouse. Instead, the top floors are given over to emergency equipment designed to provide essential services to the whole building for at least a week in the event a serious storm shuts the City down. According to real estate sources, the owners, JDS Development Group (Architects: SHoP) are happy to provide the feature because, in this new age of climate change, they see it as a sales asset That compensates for the loss of penthouse revenue.
(2) Stone rather than wood is used as decorative material in the building’s lobby areas. The rational for its use is that stone will suffer less damage from being submerged in flood waters, and should therefore take less time to repair.
(3) Installing electrical gear on the second floor of new high-rise buildings rather than in their basements, guarantees that the equipment will remain safe from flood waters. This flood-proofing technique has been incorpoated into the design of the American Copper Building, as the building’s blank second-floor windows indicate (see photo below).

Photo of American Copper Building from E 36th Street
Americans Copper Building from E 36th Street. Google image

The storm that hit New York in 2012, was a category 2 hurricane. Is the city prepared for a category 3 or 4 hurricane? New Yorker’s do not want to find out.

Big Oil rattled by Electric Vehicles; Senator Barrasso tries to help

Worldwide sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have been climbing steadily since 2010. While the proportion of EVs to new car sales is still less than 3% worldwide, the oil industry is disturbed by the trend in total numbers sold (see graph below).

Graph showing sales of EVs in leading markets 2011 to 2017
Sales of EVs in leading markets. Image from Wikipedia.org

Transportation is now the country’s largest source of global warming carbon dioxide. If CO2 emissions are to be reduced, EVs will have to play a major role. For oil refiners, that’s bad news. Electric Vehicles don’t run on gasoline, which means less profit at the pump.

What do giant corporations do when confronted by threats to their market dominance? The simple answer is, they buy political influence. But they also need to be helpful (in a practical way) to the politicians they aim to influence. That is, they need to show them exactly what legislation to adopt and pass into law. That’s where ALEC comes in.

ALEC, short for American Legistative Exchange Council, is a conservative, non-profit, bill-writing organization headquartered in Arlington VA. Its motto is, ‘“Limited Government, Free Markets, Federalism”. Membership includes state legislators and private sector representatives, people who get together to discuss and agree on their political objectives and then convert those objectives into the legislative language of government bills. These ‘model’ bills are then distributed to states that want to adopt them. The bills generated by ALEC reflect the politics of its right wing, conservative, Republican membership. Bills aimed at reducing corporate taxes, cutting environmental regulations, opposing gun control, introducing tough voter ID rules, and weakening labor unions, are typical of the organization’s output.

Several nations, including the U.S., have introduced incentives designed to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles. The U.S. offers a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 to people who buy new EVs., a measure that predates the Trump era. Last November, and again in December, oil industry representatives and state legislators held ALEC meetings to discuss (in private) how to kill the tax credit. According to The Guardian of 4th Dec., the participants secretly approved resolutions “supporting stripping tax benefits from electric vehicles and endorsing Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel energy agenda. And they voted down a proposal to limit monopoly control of the power industry, which backers said would give consumers more choice and help grow renewable electricity faster and more cheaply.”

Entities linked to the ALEC meetings included Marathon Petrolium, the nation’s largest refiner, and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Association (AFPM). Marathon alone has reported spending close to a million dollars lobbying Congress about the EV tax credit and other issues. The fossil fuel industry’s man in Congress is John Barrasso, Republican Senator from Wyoming.

Photo of U.S. Senator John Barrasso
U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY). Image: Facebook

Barrasso heads the Senate Environment & Public Works Committe, and sits on the Energy & Natural Resources Committe. According to OpenSecrets.org Barrasso received $520,650 in campaign financing from the fossil fuel industry over the period 2013 to 2018. Last October, the Senator introduced a bill to Congress to revoke the EV tax credit and to impose a highway use fee on electric vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners  don’t pay a gasoline tax.

On March 6 of this year, Barrasso Spoke from the Senate Floor on the subject of the Democrats “Green New Deal”. He was responding to a challenge from Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), to tell the Senate what the Republicans planned to do about climate change. Here’s part of what Barrasso said (Senate Committee Press release):

It’s a plan: cut carbon through innovation, not regulation. The question is: do we believe the climate is changing? Do humans have an impact? The answer is yes to both. . . . Second, the United States and the world will continue to rely on affordable and abundant fossil fuel, including coal, to power our economies for decades to come. And we need to also rely on innovation. Not new taxes, not punishing global agreements. That’s the ultimate solution.

Interesting plan — Stick to fossil fuels and innovate. Innovate how? I’m guessing ‘green plan’ type innovations such as wind generators, photovoltaics, battery storage systems, and electric vehicles, are not what the Senator has in mind.

Four-door electric sedans currently sell In the U.S. for $30,000 and up. How will the oil industry react when prices fall? The image below shows the EV currently being built in China  by Great Wall Motors. It’s listed at around $9,000, little more than the tax credit Senator Barrasso is so keen on killing. That’s the future the oil industry will have to contend with.

How to quit using fossil fuels the Hawaiian way

Just three days after President Trump announced his June 3, 2017 decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, Hawaii Governor David Ige signed a bill committing his state to the goals of the international agreement. On signing the document, Governor Ige said:

“We are the testing grounds. As an island state, we are especially aware of the limits of our natural environment. Tides are getting higher, biodiversity is shrinking, coral is bleaching, coastlines are eroding, weather is becoming more extreme. We must acknowledge these realities at home. That is why Hawaii is united in its political leadership on tackling climate change.”

Hawaii Governor David Ige
Hawaii Governor David Ige. Image: Twitter.com – @GovDavidIge

A year later, Governor Ige signed another environmental bill, this time committing his state to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. According to the new law, by that year, 100% of the state’s electricity must be produced from renewables — photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, biofuels — completely displacing fossil fuels in the process.

The following figure provides a measure of the task ahead. Prior to 2008, less than 4% of the state’s electricity was generated from renewables. By 2017, that had grown to about 26%. Today, the percentage is around 30%.

Figure from Rhodium Group, April 19, 2019 report
Image from Rhodium Group, April 19, 2018 report

Some might think that the environmental actions of a small, isolated state (pop 1.4 mil) is of little account in the grand scheme of things. They’d be wrong. The work involves more than simply replacing old technology with PV panels and wind mills. Hawaii has six power grids, one for each of its larger islands. The current mix of renewable energy sources includes at least 60 utility-scale plants and 150,000+ residential rooftop solar systems, all with outputs that fluctuate depending on time of day, weather conditions, and other factors. How to integrate such diverse systems in a way that maintains grid stability (no overloads, brownouts, shutdowns) — that’s the real challenge. And the project is being watched closely by other states keen on cutting  their dependence on fossil fuels.

The key to success will depend on energy storage — batteries that can store energy when the systems are producing an excess, and return it when they are not producing enough. Judging by the rapid pace of solar development now taking place in Hawaii, that should not be a problem.

A Jan 3, 2019 news release from the utility Hawaiian Electric, says it has submitted contract proposals to the state’s Public Utilities Commission for seven grid-scale, solar-plus-storage projects on three islands. “The projects – three on Oahu, two on Maui and two on Hawaii Island – will add approximately 262 megawatts (MW) of solar energy with 1,048 megawatt-hours (MWh) of storage. The energy storage can provide four hours of electricity that can further reduce fossil fuel use during peak demand in the evening or at other times when the sun isn’t shining.”

Solar array, Poipu, Hawaii
Solar array, Poipu, Hawaii. Photo from Scientific American. Credit: Getty Images

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has been helping the Hawaiian Electric Companies respond to their grid stability issues. Commenting on the work (NREL News, April 24, 2018) Martha Symko-Davies, program manager for NREL’s Energy Systems Integration Facility said, “We’ve helped Hawaii integrate not just solar, but also storage, electric vehicle infrastructure, and more. If this can be done in Hawaii, it can be replicated anywhere else—the question is not ‘if’ we can do it, it’s ‘how’ we can do it. How do we apply the solutions we’ve helped implement in Hawaii and translate those solutions into ones that can work in other, mainland states?”

Map of Hawaiian Islanda
Hawaiian Islands – Image: Google Maps

New Bridge across the Tappan Zee

“In the bosom of one of those spacious coves which indent the eastern shore of the Hudson, at that broad expansion of the river denominated by the ancient Dutch navigators the Tappan Zee, and where they always prudently shortened sail and implored the protection of St. Nicholas when they crossed, there lies a small market town or rural port, which by some is called Greensburgh, but which is more generally and properly known by the name of Tarry Town.”
— From: The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving (1820)

Image of new Tappan Zee Bridge over the Hudson River
The Tappan Zee/Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge. Image produced by American Bridge Co.

The new Tappan Zee Bridge — officially named the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge — crosses the Hudson River at Tarrytown, Westchester Co., New York, about 24 miles north of Midtown, Manhattan. The twin cable-stayed bridge replaces the original Tappan Zee Bridge, which was built during the Korean War. Opened in 1955, the old bridge was designed to carry 100,000 vehicles a day and last fifty years. By the year 2000, it was carrying 140,000 vehicles a day and had started to fall apart. The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis in November 2008, injected a sense of urgency into the planning process for a replacement. The replacement project was added to New York’s list of projects eligible for federal funds in 2012 and “fast tracked” for approval by the Obama Administration (a concept foreign to the present Trump administration).

The design/build contract was awarded to a consortium comprised of Fluor Corp., American Bridge Co., Granite Construction, and Traylor Bros Inc. The bridge features a superstructure containing eight general traffic lanes, plus four emergency lanes (four + two, west bound; four + two, east bound). It also features a shared-use path for bikes and pedestrians.

Diagram of new Tappan Zee Bridge showing dimensions
Diagram of new Tappan Zee Bridge with dimensions. Image from American Bridge Co. website

The new bridge was built parallel to the old Tappan Zee bridge. The last of the old bridge’s structure was brought down by explosives on January 15th. The photo below, taken the following day, shows NY Governor Andrew Cuomo surveying the new bridge and the remains of the old bridge. Parts of the old bridge can be seen lying in the river immediately to the left of the new bridge.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo surveying the new Tappan Zee Bridge from the air
Governor Andrew Cuomo surveying the new and old Tappan Zee Bridges. Photo credit: Melissa DeRosa via Twitter, Jan 16

The new bridge is operated by the NY State Thruway Authority. The Authority plans to introduce electronic (cashless) tolling later this year. This will enable tolling at highway speeds. Overhead surveillance equipment will read license plates and identify types of vehicles as they pass, then automatically send bills to the registered owners. The alternative for drivers who cross the bridge frequently will be to pay in advance by purchasing some sort of electronically readable sticker.

It’s impossible to see a bridge by driving across it. To see the new Tappan Zee Bridge, exit the I-87 via Broadway and head north into Tarrytown. Make your way to Pierson Park on the water front. You’ll find a scenic river walk there. Parking is available off W Main Street, beside the Tarrytown Recreation Community Center and close to Pierson Park (circled in yellow on the satellite image below).

Satellite image of Tappan Zee Bridge , New York
Satellite image of Tappan Zee Bridge. Pierson Park river view path area circled in yellow. Google Maps.

Amtrak’s Vision for High Speed Rail scuppered by its own report on Climate Change

Photo: Concept Rendering of Amtrak’s NextGen High Speed Rail at Existing Wilmington Station
Concept Rendering of NextGen High Speed Rail at Existing Wilmington Station, Delaware. Source: AMTRAK

The only civilized and environmentally sound way to travel long distances is by rail. The roads are either clogged or dangerous. The airline operators treat their customers as self-loading freight. Cars and planes are wasteful emitters of global warming CO2. Amtrak wants to provide its customers with an enhanced high-speed service along its busiest route, the Northeast Corridor, which connects Boston, New York, and Washington. It’s a great idea, and the company has been promoting it for the past ten years — so far without success.

The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor – 2012 Update Report, outlines the company’s dream for the high speed rail service. It calls for a 25-30 year investment program to cut travel times by half, using ‘next generation’ trains capable of 220 mph speeds. Estimated capital cost: $150 Billion ( 2011 dollars).

Map of Northeast Corridor, high-speed rail alignment
Proposed Northeast Corridor, high-speed rail alignment. Source: Amtrak

So what’s holding things up? Amtrak is a quasi-public corporation. Although it operates as a for-profit company, it remains dependent on federal subsidies. Getting politicians to commit funds for necessary upgrades, let alone for ‘next generation’ infrastructure, is not easy. There are priorities, like debt-ballooning tax cuts, military hardware, boarder walls, etc.

The project now faces a more serious problem. It concerns a multi-year study undertaken by Amtrak on the likely impact of climate change on the company’s operations along the Northeast Corridor. The study concludes that by mid century, rising seas and flooding associated with climate change will subject rail assets including portions of track to “continual inundation” thus rendering them unusable. Reportedly Amtrak completed the study by April 2017, but kept quiet about it until November 2018 when Bloomberg News obtained a redacted copy following a Freedom of Information request. Why the secrecy? Well, that’s easy to understand. Amtrak had said it could provide a finished product for $150 Billion. How can it now explain the need for many more billions to move its stuff out of harms way? It’s embarrassing.

According to Bloomberg, while the study provides details about the parts of the corridor at risk, it focuses on a ten mile stretch running through Wilmington, Delaware. Wilmington is located close to where the Christian River joins the Delaware River (actually a tidal estuary), and much of the city is low lying. It is home to a training center for Amtrak engineers, a maintenance yard for the repair of electric locomotives, and a rail traffic control center, all of them situated in flood-prone parts of the city, as is the track itself.  For example, a three mile stretch of the track northeast of the city, lies within feet of the Delaware River shore line (see map below).

Map of Wilmington DE ans area showing section of Northeast Corridor Rail Line beside the DelawRe River
Map showing section of the Northeast Corridor lying closest to the Delaware River. Source: openstreetmap

You can see the problem for yourself next time you travel between New York and Washington by train. Take a window seat looking east, and watch for the Delaware River between Philadelphia and Wilmington. If the tide is in as you pass the three mile section, you may be shocked at how close the water is to the base of the tracks.

Alternatively, watch the following YouTube video (credit: Jersey Mike’s Rail Videos) showing the view from the back of an Amtrak train on route from Wilmington to Philadelphia. If you start the video at the 4.50 mark, you’ll see a substation to your left and the I-495 to your right. The track leaves the shore line at about the 7.15 mark.

Amtrak management knew about the potential for climate change to impact its rail assets when it released its ‘Vision for High Speed Rail’ in 2012, but made no mention of it in the proposal. A report for Amtrak dated September 2014 by Booz/Allen/Hamilton on the vulnerability of the Northeast Corridor to climate change, says (section 3.3.3) “Climate Change will directly and indirectly affect rail service in several different ways.”  Sea level rise causing long-term/permanent track flooding, is one of the ways listed in the report. Amtrak could have updated its ‘Vision’ proposal at that time, but did not do so. Now, more than four years later, the climate cat is out of the bag and as far as High-Speed Rail is concerned, Amtrak has no place to go but back to square one. Pity.

Plastic packaging overwhelms humanity — industry looks to increase the supply

Image of plastic water bottles on production line
A few of the 50 Billion plastic water bottles used and discarded in the U.S. in one year

Since its invention in the early 20th century, plastic has been put to a multitude of valuable uses. Plastic packaging is not one of them. It’s a scourge. The stuff keeps piling up in landfills and garbage tips. It accumulates along beaches and floats in the oceans as micro particles. It slowly degrades in sunlight, releasing methane and ethylene, potent greenhouse gases. When burned with trash in the open air (as happens routinely in poor countries) it releases a range of deadly fumes, including dioxin. When burned in an incinerator as a source of energy (plastic is made from fossil fuels) it releases its carbon content into the atmosphere, thus increasing global warming.

Image of discarded flexible packaging
Discarded flexible packaging. Image: RecycleBC

Plastic trash is a highly visible form of pollution. That’s a problem for the plastics industry.  Stung by public criticism, manufacturers and users of plastic packaging have begun to react. Amcor, a leading manufacturer of plastic packaging, together with some of the big users (including, Coca-Cola, Danone, MARS, Novamont, L’Oréal, Pepsi, Unilever, and Veolia), say they have committed themselves to the New Plastics Economy, an initiative by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. This is what the organization’s website says it wants to achieve:

In a new plastics economy, plastic never becomes waste or pollution. Three actions are required to achieve this vision and create a circular economy for plastic. Eliminate all problematic and unnecessary plastic items. Innovate to ensure that the plastics we do need are reusable, recyclable, or compostable. Circulate all the plastic items we use to keep them in the economy and out of the environment.

If those statements sound to you like the kind of New Year resolutions a weak-willed glutton might make, you’re right. Plastic products are cheap, most of the public accepts them, and the industry wants to continue feeding the market with as much of the stuff as it will swallow. According to the industry newsletter Plastics Today, the plastic packaging market is expected to grow in value from about $200 billion in 2017 to $270 billion in 2025, a 35% increase.

Of course the industry wants something to be done about the trash. It’s an embarrassment. Look at the last statement in the committments they made about circulating all the plastic items we use. The question is, who do they think will execute that part of their commitment? Right now, municipalities handle garbage collection and recycling, provided they have a tax base to support it. Municipalities in poor countries don’t have that luxury. Does the plastics industry intend to fund the collection and recycling of plastic trash in all those places in the world where that work falls short of 100% efficiency? Of course not. What the industry is angling for is a commitment, by others — governments, municipalities, you and I — to pay for it.

Suppose, as is likely, no one wants to pay the cost of dealing with plastic pollution on a global scale, what then? In the case of plastic packaging, the obvious solution would be to switch back to non-polluting materials such as paper and glass. People lived without plastic before. We can do so again.
Industry representatives opposed to the idea raise the usual objections: impractical; ill informed; too expensive; jobs would be lost, etc. Or they imply that there is no alternative. For example, Amcor CEO Ron Delia, quoted in his company’s website, says: “Plastic packaging is vital for products used by billions of consumers around the globe. It’s highly effective and easy to adapt, so that those products are safe, nutritious and effective.”  So . . . Plastic packaging is not just useful, it is vital. Foodstuffs that are not packed in plastic are unsafe, ineffective, lack nutrition. Use plastic or billions will suffer. Those are the messages Mr. Delia’s statement implies.

We humans have a tendency to eat until we burst. Our excessive consumption of plastic is just one example.  Fortunately it’s a habit we can easily break. But to succeed, the break will have to be made despite the New Plastic Economy crowd.

The following YouTube video by Ravi Bajoria shows a primative garbage sorting line in operation. Poor countries cannot afford to buy and operate the automated, high-tech systems that are available. If we stop using plastic packaging, they won’t need them.

 

Rhode Island’s Fox Point Hurricane Barrier. Can it handle a big one?

Photo of Huge ocean wave. Image by Ray Collins
Ocean Wave. Photo by Ray Collins

Rhode Island’s Narragansett Bay sits like an open mouth, ready to swallow any hurricane that makes its way up the East Coast. Usually these northward trending hurricanes lose steam when they reach the colder waters off New England. Usually but not always. The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 arrived over Rhode Island with a forward speed of 50 to 60 mph and wind speeds exceeding 120 mph. It carried with it an ocean swell that filled the bay to overflowing.

Map of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Openstreetmap.org

According to the National Weather Service (NWS-Boston), “The hurricane produced storm tides of 14 to 18 feet across most of the Connecticut coast, with 18 to 25 foot tides from New London east to Cape Cod. The destructive power of the storm surge was felt throughout the coastal community. Narragansett Bay took the worst hit, where a storm surge of 12 to 15 feet destroyed most coastal homes, marinas and yacht clubs. Downtown Providence, Rhode Island was submerged under a storm tide of nearly 20 feet.”

In 1954, Hurricane Carol produced a storm surge of more than 14 feet in Narragansett Bay. Downtown Providence was once again flooded, this time by 8 to 12 feet of water. All levels of government — local, State, and Federal — agreed that something had to be done to protect the low lying city center. The Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, completed in 1966, was the result.

Aerial photo of Downtown Providence and Providence River
Downtown Providence and the Providence River. The Fox Point Hurricane Barrier is hidden behind the I-195 highway bridge. Image: providenceri.gov

All travellers on the I-195 Highway pass within feet of the Barrier as they drive across the eight-lane bridge over the Providence River. But those who want to look at the barrier and appreciate its design, leave the highway on the east side of the river, and make their way back to Bridge Street and its small riverside park (marked in yellow on the satellite view below)

Satellite view of Fox Point Hurricane Barrier
Satellite view of Fox Point Hurricane Barrier and vicinity. Google Maps Image

The barrier is located a couple of hundred yards up stream from Fox Point, and just north of the I-195 Highway Bridge. It consists of a concrete wall built across the Providence River and earthen dikes that extend flood protection about a thousand feet over the land on each side of the river. Built into the river wall are three, 40 foot wide gates, each weighing  53 tons. Under normal weather conditions, the gates remain open so as not to impede the flow of the river. The gates are located at the eastern end of the river wall. They can be seen in the satellite view above.

Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, Providence, RI
Fox Point Hurricane Barrier’s three flood gates, looking down stream from park on Bridge Street. I-195 Hwy bridge in background. Providence RI. Image: Brown.edu

An essential component of the barrier system is the pumping station consisting of five massive 4500 H.P pumps, each as big as a grain elevator. When the flood gates are closed to keep a storm surge out, the entire flow of the river must be continuously pumped up and over the barrier. Otherwise the river would be held back, overflow its banks, and flood the city. The pumping station is housed in a building at the western end of the river wall (its roof is plainly visible in the satellite view). The five pumps, operating together, can lift 3.1 million gallons per minute and discharge the flow to the downstream side of the barrier.

Fox Point Hurricane Barrier, Providence RI
View of Fox Point Hurricane Barrier from Bridge Street pocket park. Pumping Station at far right. Google Image

The barrier gates have been closed against storms several times since going into service in 1966. During Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the water crested at 9.5 feet. But the barrier has yet to experience a direct hit from a category 4 or 5 hurricane. As coastal flooding increases in the coming years, hurricane barriers of all kinds are going to be in the news.

North Carolina’s mobile Outer Banks and its new, immovable Bonner Bridge

Cape Hatteras Lighthouse being moved
The Cape Hatteras Lighthouse being moved in 1999. Image from International Chimney Corporation website

The iconic Cape Hatteras lighthouse no longer sits on the ground on which it was built in 1870. Under threat from the encroaching sea, the 210 ft., 5,000 ton masonry structure was moved in 1999 about 2800 feet southwest from its original location. Masonry buildings, when shaken (during earthquakes, for example) tend to come apart along mortar lines, or even fall completely to pieces. So it isn’t easy to move them safely.

International Chimney Corp. of Buffalo NY and Expert House Movers of MD Inc., were awarded the moving contract. The job was carried out successfully; not a single brick was dislodged during the operation. The lighthouse is now about a third of a mile from tide water, distant enough, it’s hoped, to keep it safe from the sea until at least the end of this century. In recognition of the difficulties involved in moving the structure, the two company’s jointly won the American Society of Civil Engineers 40th Annual Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement Award.

The following map shows the location of the lighthouse before it had to be moved:

Map showing shoreline recession at Cape Hatteras NC
History of shoreline recession at Cape Hatteras, Outer Banks, North Carolina (map also shows pre-1999 location of the lighthouse). Image: pubs.usgs.gov (paper 1177-B)

To visit the lighthouse up close, drive south from Bodie Island on Highway 12. The H. Bonner Bridge carries the road across Oregon Inlet, linking Hatteras Island to the northern Outer Banks. The economic life of Hatteras Island depends on it. By early next year, the new Bonner Bridge will be ready to take over from the old one.

Aerial photo ofOregon Inlet and old H.Bonner Bridge, Outer Banks NC
Oregon Inlet and the old H. Bonner Bridge. Photo taken from above Pamlico Sound looking east towards the Atlantic. Image: usgs.gov

Built in 1963 with a life expectancy of 30 years, the old Bonner bridge is in danger of falling down. The new bridge (due to open for traffic early next year) is built to last 100 years according to the designers, HDR Inc., an engineering company based in Omaha, Nebraska. The bridge is built on shifting sand, so that longevity claim is based on the company’s confidence in their engineering abilities. Domenic Coletti, HDR design manager, quoted in the company’s website, said this:

To our knowledge, no one has previously designed and built a [bridge] foundation where piles had to be jetted and driven through nearly 140 feet of soil [sand] in a way that still provided adequate capacity [stability] after 84 feet of scour occurs.” 

SCOUR is the anticipated tearing away of the sand around the support piles due to ocean currents in the inlet.

Photo of the old and the new H. Bonner Bridges, Outer Banks, North Carolina
The old and the new H. Bonner Bridges crossing the Oregon Inlet, Outer Banks, North Carolina. Image from The Outer Banks Voice, 13/11/2018. Photo by Bob Moris

But consider this: although the new bridge may very well last 100 yeas, how many years will the inlet over which the bridge crosses remain in its present location?After all, storms have opened and closed numerous inlets along the Outer Banks since records began in the 16th century. A hurricane formed the Oregon Inlet in 1846. Another one could close it. The steady migration of the Outer Banks over time, may also cause problems. Here’s part of an October 16 email I sent to Pablo Hernandez, Resident Engineer, NCDOT, asking about that matter:

According to the US Geological Survey, the Outer Banks have historically migrated south at the rate of 60 to 70 feet per year, a process that sea level rise may speed up. This suggests that in 20 or 30 years, the Oregon Inlet may no longer be where it is now, thus leaving the new bridge without a function. I’m wondering what actions DOT plan to take to avoid such an outcome?” 

No answer yet. My guess is that the Army Corps of Engineers will be kept busy dredging the channel for the indefinite future. What other solution is there? Unlike a lighthouse, a bridge can’t be moved. When Mr. Hernandez gets back to me I’ll update this post.

Map of North Carolina’s Outer Banks
Map of North Carolina’s Outer Banks showing location of Cape Hatteras lighthouse and Oregon Inlet. Image from U.S. National Parks Maps

When will North Carolina’s loathsome CAFOs be shut down?

Much of North Carolina’s eastern half lies within the continent’s coastal plain. Rivers flowing from the Appalachian foothills onto the plain, slow down and become sluggish. That makes them prone to flooding, particularly during and after the storms and hurricanes that blow in from the Atlantic carrying heavy loads of rain. The widespread flooding caused by last September’s Hurricane Florence is a good example.

D452B5AD-E438-4BF5-BF42-114631012A3F

This soggy, low-lying land is home to about 2,200 industrial pig farms. Known in the trade as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), the waste (pig shit) from these factory farms is not treated in any way, rather it is flushed into open pits (called lagoons) and eventually sprayed onto surrounding land, or, in the event of flooding, distributed far from its source by way of creeks and rivers. Each year, about 18 million tons of liquid pig shit (laced with pharmaceutical residues) are released into the environment from the state’s more than nine million pigs.

Pig farm sheds and lagoons
Pig farm (CAFO) sheds and lagoons. Image: Sierra Club

Most of North Carolina’s pig farms are located in the southeastern part of the state, with the heaviest concentration centred in and around Duplin and Samson Counties. This has created a life-threatening pollution problem for the people living in the area.

Map of North Carolina showing distribution of hog farms on coastal plain
North Carolina showing distribution of CAFOs. Coastal plain lies east of the blue line. Map by Steve Wing, UNC-Chapel Hill

A recent study by J. Kravchenco and others, published in the North Carolina Medical Journal, October 2018 (vol.79 no 5 287-288), concerning health risks to humans living near pig farms, has this to say:

“North Carolina communities located near hog CAFOs had higher all-cause and infant mortality, mortality due to anemia, kidney disease, tuberculosis, septicemia, and higher hospital admissions/ED visits of LBW infants. . . . Among North Carolina communities, including both high-income and low-income communities, the lowest life expectancy was observed in southeastern North Carolina. . . . The residents living in close proximity to hog CAFOs . . . are chronically exposed to contaminants from land-applied wastes and their overland flows, leaking lagoons, and pit-buried carcasses, as well as airborne emissions, resulting in higher risks of certain diseases. In fact, previous survey-based studies of residential communities reported significant health risks for residents, including higher risks of bacterial infections, higher frequencies of symptoms of respiratory and neurological disorders, and depression.”

To say that CAFOs stink is an under statement. Here’s Elsie Herring, who lives in Wallace, Duplin Co., speaking about what it’s like when spraying starts at the pig farm near her home:

“You stand outside and it feels like it’s raining but then you realise it isn’t rain. It’s animal waste. It takes your breath away. You start gagging, coughing, your pulse increases. All you can do is run for cover.” — quote from The Guardian, May 2018

Why do the human inhabitants of the region put up with being rained on by animal faecal matter to the point of dying prematurely? No need to look further than North Carolina’s 2018 Farm Bill recently passed into law by the Republican controlled legislature. While the bill allows pollution from pig farms to continue unabated, it, in effect, prohibits citizens from challenging the polluters in court. The focus is on protecting the $2.9 billion industry and its owners from interference by the citizens. The citizens need for protection from the industry’s filthy practices is not even considered. Yuck! Living downwind from certain politicians can really stink. North Carolina’s hog industry is run by Murphy Brown, a subsidiary of Smithfield Foods, which was purchased by China’s WH Group in 2013.

Sufferers from pig farm pollution are not the only people that have it in for the industry. Animal rights groups are also out to get them. If the farm operators were discovered treating dogs the way they treat pigs, they’d be in court facing animal cruelty charges. It’s my guess, however, that the environment will prove to be the industry’s most powerful enemy. As our warming world generates larger, more violent hurricanes, industrial pig farming on a waterlogged coastal plain will become untenable. Will the industry be allowed to move its CAFOs to higher ground, where the politicians live? What do you think?

Map of the USA showing location of North Carolina
North Carolina in red

Light Rail Transit – the right choice for Norfolk VA

The Tide Light Rail vehicles at MacArthur Square, Norfolk VA
The Tide Light Rail vehicles at MacArthur Square, Norfolk VA. Image by Mega Anorak at Flickriver.com

It’s an eight minute ride on The Tide, from the Eastern Virginia Medical Center campus in Norfolk’s Ghent district to downtown Norfolk. The Tide is the city’s Light Rail Transit line. Opened in 2011, the line runs seven and a half miles from its western terminus at EVMC/Fort-Norfolk, through downtown Norfolk, to its eastern terminus at Newtown Road. From end to end, the ride takes 18 minutes, including brief stops at nine intermediate stations.
Map showing route of The Tide Light Rail Transit Line, Norfolk BA
Route of The Tide Light Rail Transit Line, Norfolk VA (termini marked in blue and circled))

The route to the east from Downtown Norfolk is far from scenic. It runs roughly parallel to Interstate-264, which means that the passing scene consists mostly of highway support structures  — underpasses, overpasses, level-crossings, and the like. Also on view are commercial buildings and parking lots. Many parking lots. Suburban residential areas along the the way appear like untamed nature by comparison. The ride is comfortable and entertaining. And it gives one an appreciation of the enormous amounts of concrete and blacktop used to sustain our automobile economy.
Interior view of Siemens S70 Light Rail Vehicle
Interior view of Siemens S70 Light Rail Vehicle. Image: Wikipedia Commons

The Tide is presently equipped with nine Siemens S70 Light Rail Vehicles. These are double-ended cars with operating controls at both ends and doors on both sides. The same vehicles are in use or on order at nine or ten other US cities.
Diagram of Siemens S70 Light Rail Vehicle
Diagram of Siemens S70 Light Rail Vehicle. Image from Siemens website

According to the August 13, 2016 issue of the Virginia-Pilot, building the 7.4-mile line cost $318.5 (including $86 million in cost overruns). That year, weekday ridership had reached 4,800, and the operator, Hampton Roads Transit, declared the project a success. There’s been talk since then about extending the system into other parts of Norfolk and into Virginia Beach.
Investment in Light Rail Transit systems makes perfect sense. They are clean, quiet, safe, popular, and they do the job. But for Norfolk, the big question is this: Expand the transit system or Protect the city against the rising sea — which comes first?
The Tide Light Rail, Norfolk VA. View looking south-east from the EVMC/Fort-Norfolk Station
The Tide Light Rail, Norfolk VA. View looking south-east from the EVMC/Fort-Norfolk Station. Image by Jon Bell

 

The light at the end of the tunnel

My last post titled, ‘Help! The Hudson River Rail Tunnel is falling to bits’, elicited this question:

Is the tunnel as straight as the map suggests?

Map showing route of Hudson River Rail Tunnel from North Bergen, NJ to Penn Station, NYC
Map showing route of Hudson River Rail Tunnel from North Bergen, NJ to Penn Station, NYC. Image from Draft Environmental Statement, June 30, 2017; Hudson Tunnel Project.

The answer is yes, it is in reality as straight as a die, at least in plan view. tunneling is a costly business; the least expensive way to dig a tunnel is to keep it absolutely straight. The following YouTube video created by Konstantin Gorakine titled, ‘Tunnel ride under Hudson River to Penn Station, NYC’, will convince you. It convinced me.

You’re a visitor and you want to experience ‘authentic’ New York City life. To the millions of people who live and/or work in the city, there’s nothing more ‘real’ than the daily commute. About one hundred thousand commuters pour into the city through the Hudson River Rail Tunnel every weekday. And that’s just one of the entry points. Get a feel for what it’s like; take the same train ride. But there’s no need to punish yourself; avoid the rush hours.

The NJ Transit train ride from Penn Station, NYC to Penn Station, Newark, NY, makes for an enjoyable excursion — about 20 minutes travel time, each way. If you leave at about 10:30 in the morning, you can be back by noon. Navigating Penn Station is an authentic New York experience in itself.

Map showing location of Penn Sta., NYC in relation to Penn Sta., Newark andNorth Bergen Tunnel portal
Map showing locations of Penn Sta.,NYC, North Bergen Tunnel portal, and Penn Sta., Newark, NJ

Help! The Hudson River Rail Tunnel is falling to bits.

A few days ago, New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, accompanied by a film crew, paid a late night visit to the Hudson River Rail Tunnel. His objective was to publicize the sorry state of the tunnel’s physical condition, and to thereby convince the Trump  administration that federal funding is urgently needed to help finance the construction of replacement tunnels. The New York Times called it a Hollywood stunt “ . . . designed solely to win over an audience of [the] one who sits in the Oval Office.” True or not, Governor Cuomo’s efforts should be applauded. It’s encouraging to see a politician up to his elbows in honest dirt rather than mucking about in the sort politician’s usually wallow in. And apart from that, he does an excellent job of pointing out the tunnels’s defeciencies. Listen to Governor Cuomo’s exposé on the following YouTube video and decide for yourself:

The tunnel (actually a pair of single-track tunnels), presently operates at or above capacity. About 450 trains pass through the tunnels each weekday (averaging one train every six minutes) carrying about 100,000 New Jersey commuters (plus Amtrack passengers) to Manhattan in the morning and back to NJ in the evening. Whenever the tunnel is shut down, those citizens have no other practical way to get to work because the tunnels and bridges for road and subway traffic are also at capacity.

Map showing route of Hudson River Rail Tunnel from North Bergen, NJ to Penn Station, NYC
Map showing route of Hudson River Rail Tunnel from North Bergen, NJ to Penn Station, NYC

The 14,575 foot tunnel has been in use for 108 years and shows it. The flooding that occurred during hurricane Sandy in 2012, entered the tunnel through the portals at its eastern (Manhattan) end. As Governor Cuomo points out in his video, the corrosion caused by salt water has intensified the deterioration within the tunnel. In view of his other comments concerning, rotted steel, crumbling cement, exposed rebar, damaged electrical gear, leaking walls, it’s fair to wonder about risk to human life. Are the tunnels in danger of collapse?

The experts say no. Here’s why:

The tunnel was driven through solid rock except were it passes under the river through accumulated silt. That’s where it proved necessary to construct the tunnel using 23 foot diameter, cast iron rings, each weighing 22 tons. The 2.5 foot wide rings were bolted together, one after the other, to form the two tubes running under the river. The seams between the rings were caulked to make the tubes watertight. The tubes were then lined with concrete. The structural integrity of the tunnel depends on the cast iron shells, not on the crumbling concrete that lines them. That said, if the deterioration inside the tunnel continues to worsen, it will eventually become impossible for trains to pass through it.

The next image shows one of the cast iron rings used to construct part of the Hudson River Rail Tunnel. It was one of the exhibits at the 1907 Jamestown Exposition.

Cast Iron Tunnel Ring exhibited at 1907 Jamestown Exposition

New flood gates will keep NYC road tunnels dry next time the city’s streets are under water

New York City was struck by hurricane Sandy six years ago. Since then, while the city has updated its flood-risk maps, it hasn’t taken any concrete steps to prevent storm surges from entering the city. That’s not surprising; the city is rimmed by more than 580 miles of coastline, most of it at risk from storm surge.

Map of NYC flood-zones. Image from NYC Mayor’s Office
NYC flood-zones. Image from Mayor’s Office

Instead, city planners have focused on upgrading critical systems, such as: ‘hardening’ electrical systems; relocating backup generators; flood proofing subway openings; designating more emergency shelters for flood victims. Resilience is a word the city planners like to use these days. In other words, let the seas rise, we’ll deal with the water when it comes.

the most impressive example of this approach so far has been a $64 million project (now complete) to install flood gates on two of the city’s four road tunnels, namely: the 9,117 ft. Hugh L. Carey (Brooklyn-Battery) tunnel under the East River, and the 6,414 ft. Queens-Midtown tunnel, also under the East River. Both suffered serious damage during the Sandy flooding, the Hugh L. Carey tunnel, especially  so. The portals of both tunnels are located within zone-1 (first zone to flood).

18517B9F-3016-4BA7-AC8C-828DEBB399F3
Map showing location of tunnel flood gates

Eight steel flood gates have been installed, two at each tunnel end. The gates were manufactured by Walz & Krenzer, Inc., of Oxford CT. (“Watertight Closures for the Marine industry since 1939”), one of about 50 U.S. companies involved in the flood-control equipment business.
Each gate weighs 44,600 pounds (about 20 tons), and measures 29 ft. wide by 14 ft. high by 22 inches thick.

34E3624B-22C4-4293-A2F3-4DAC393F16F1
MTA Photo

The gate swings on two massive hinges. When parked in its open position, the free end rests on jacks.  Assuming  a two man crew, a machine such as a forklift is needed to help close it. In the event of a storm, the crew will first remove steel cover-plates from  a trough that stretches across the mouth of the portal. Once the gate is closed, the crew will latch it to the face of the portal and to attachments within the trough. Compression seals around the gate’s inner edge will make it watertight.

2E3DCDFC-A815-4DB5-9C21-414FF0976DA8
MTA photo

The only way to see these gates up close is to drive through the tunnels. You’ll get only a second or two of observation. Considering New York’s frantic traffic, stopping to gaze at the thing is something no prudent driver should attempt.

It’s just as difficult to get a good look at the gates while on foot. Barriers of one sort or another along the streets surrounding tunnel entrances inhibit pedestrians from peering over walls. The Morris Street footbridge will eventually provide a platform from which to observe the Hugh L. Carey flood gates at the tunnel’s Manhattan end, but that bridge is being renovated and will not be available for use this year.