Happy Earth Day, Solar Bees

by | Apr 22, 2015 | Editor's Blog, Environment | 20 comments

Republicans love to complain about government boondoggles, perpetually deriding government waste and lack of accountability. A few years ago, one of their favorite sources of ridicule was money spent on the Teapot Museum in Sparta, NC. Now, the GOP is pushing to expand one of its own boondoggles–Solar Bees

Instead of implementing carefully negotiated rules to clean up Jordan Lake, the water source water for many Triangle towns, Republicans approved a scheme to allow solar-powered paddles to stir up sediment in the lake, somehow ridding it of harmful nutrients. So far, there’s no evidence that it works.  At least the Teapot Museum attracted tourists.

So what are Republicans doing? Expanding the program to Falls Lake, of course. Like rubes buying magical elixirs from old-time hucksters, the GOP is doubling down on dumb. If it doesn’t work in one lake, maybe it will work in another.

In reality, Republicans don’t care as much about clean water as they do about keeping their benefactors happy. The negotiated rules called for developers and polluting industries to reduce the amount of nutrients and other harmful materials entering the waterways feeding into Jordan Lake. The rules would almost certainly cost the polluters more money because, just like kindergarten, they have to clean up after themselves. No accountability, no problem.

Republicans, though, believe they should keep on polluting and then use unproven technology to somehow remove the pollutants once they are in the lake. Now, everybody is happy. The polluters don’t have to take responsibility for their mess. Some company named Solar Bee gets a fat government contract for technology that doesn’t work. And Republican legislators get big donations from the companies that no long have to stop polluting.

On Earth Day, we should remember that the party that once led in conservation and environmental responsibility no longer cares. Or at least they care more about keeping polluters happy than they do about keeping the environment clean. That’s a shame. Happy Earth Day, anyway. 

20 Comments

  1. carl2591

    I was talking with a guy in water quality section of NC State and I asked about the experiment on the lake. He was telling me the SolarBees are not working as estimated by the supplier. He was saying the Corp of Engineers have tried to get them removed but so far had not be able to do so.

    Another interesting note of info is during this “test” the “Jordan Lake Rules” are suspended plus, with the General Assembly extending the “experiment” another 18-24 month and the big housing project to kick off near the lake will be grandfathered in and not subject to the rules..

    I seems the developer has a lot of friends in the G.A. and knew they would be extending the test?

    Interesting to say the least. another good ole boy network at work for the citizens of NC.. THANKS,, General Assembly for that..

  2. Ken Hudnell

    Has anyone commenting here ever restored an eutrophic reservoir? If not, you might want to be a little more open minded and look at the results from current EPA policy. Our reservoirs need cost-effective new nutrient input reductions, and waterbody treatments that remove the highly concentrated and readily accessible nutrients from the water, as well as cyanobacteria suppression.
    This article omits the fact that few impaired (eutrophic) waterbodies have ever been restored by watershed management alone – limiting new pollutant inputs, and none near the size of Falls and Jordan lakes are restored.
    The North American Lake Management Society (NALMS) supports full
    implementation of the Clean Water Act – adding waterbody treatments, with an
    Adaptive Systems Approach (ASA). More rigorous science and cost-benefit
    analyses are needed to restore impaired reservoirs and stop freshwater-quality
    decline. The purpose of the ASA is not to replace watershed management, but
    to accelerate restoration and reduce cost. Pollutant-input reduction is needed,
    but alone is insufficient. NALMS policy regarding the ASA is at: http://www.nalms.org.
    Reducing watershed loading, while a common sense and valid approach, does
    not consider the decades of legacy pollutants and nutrients already in the system.
    Internal-nutrient loads cycling between sediment and the water column enable
    toxigenic and taste-and-odor producing cyanobacteria to cause impairment. A
    combination of cost-effective watershed and waterbody treatments is needed to
    reduce external and internal nutrient loads and suppress cyanobacteria. The
    watershed and waterbody should be viewed as one system, without a priori
    privileging intervention in one part of the system over another.

    • Fred Walker

      Thanks for the information. Are you aware of anyone doing HI Volume water lifts for deep water circulation using air lift pumps? I was thinking you could use large diameter PVC pipe and solar powered air pumps to build a HI Volume lift system to encourage circulation in large lakes.

      • Ken Hudnell

        Good thought, Fred. Since waterbodies are generally considered eutrophic when phosphorus levels reach 100 ug/l in the water column, and levels of phosphorus in sediment may reach 10 mg/l, it is important to have cost effective ways to take the phosphorus out of the water column, particularly when it is being released from sediment. That phosphorus doesn’t usually get past the thermocline (short distance with large temperature change) into the upper water column (epilimnion), but cyanobacteria can descent to get it and rise again for sunlight to power photosynthesis. So we need methods to both remove phosphorus from the upper water column, and from the deeper, colder, hypolimnion so sediment levels will decline over time. Two sustainable methods are 1) to use floating wetlands where plant roots transfer nutrients into the plants which should be harvested regularly and put to good uses and; 2) hang periphytron curtains from the surface down to near the thermocline. A mixture of various types edible algae grows rapidly on the curtains, and is eaten by fish or falls to the sediment where it is eaten by invertebrates, thereby moving up the trophic levels of the food web, improving fisheries. Circulating just the epilimnion, as the SolarBees are now doing in Jordan Lake to suppress cyanobacteria, can increase the plant and periphyton growth rates by an order of magnitude. Just suppressing the rather inedible, poorly grazed cyanobacteria enables the good, edible algae to grow and be eaten by other organisms. When there is a well balances aquatic assemblage, those nutrients make it up to the top of the food web. But even more effective than those techniques would be to also bring up the deepest, highest nutrient water to lower sediment levels of phosphorus over time. Medora is forming partnerships with companies and municipalities to begin such trials. The most effective method of removing the legacy load of sediment nutrients over time may be pumping water from the deepest holes in a waterbody, where nutrient levels are highest, to shore where it is treated to remove the nutrient and other harmful, as well as valuable, substances before the water is returned to the waterbody. The combination of such methods would enable quick avoidance of the toxins and taste and odor compounds produced by cyanobacteria, and near term recovery from eutrophication impairment, at a tiny fraction of the $2 billion estimated cost of the Jordan rules that seek to only lower new phosphorus inputs by 5% at two inlets. Such methods, when combined with cost-effective best management practices upstream to reduce new nutrient and other pollutant inputs, is a systems approach that provides a sustainable, long-term solution at a much lower cost. Even the EPA assistant administrator who made the decision in the early 1990s to de-emphasize the Clean Water Act’s waterbody treatment program now regrets that decision. He realizes that a watershed and its waterbody must be viewed as one system, and all potentially useful tools should be on the table for consideration. Then more rigorous science and cost-benefit analyses should be used to select the best suite of tools for implementation. A systems approach is needed to restore and sustain a system. Who would want their doctor to only prescribe preventive medicine when they present with an illness that can only be cured with treatment?

  3. Steve Harrison

    Ken knows his stuff, and I hesitate to inject anything into the conversation that might detract from his observations. But Solar Bees are more than just a dubious approach to lowering nutrient rates, they are a dangerous distraction that mainly serve to postpone best practices that should have been implemented decades ago.

    Jordan Lake’s (and other’s) impairment is not a recent phenomena that we are “unprepared” for, it’s a predictable and predicted problem that dates back to the Clean Water Act revisions of the 1980’s. *If* we had followed recommendations to abate stormwater runoff from residential/commercial/agricultural developments and upgrade wastewater treatment facilities upstream of it, the Jordan Lake Rules would simply not exist today, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    That may sound like crying over spilled milk, but we’re still spilling it. If we had began working on this thirty years ago, the cost of maintaining those best practices now would be minimal. Not to mention, back then there were healthy Federal grants available for municipalities to upgrade water treatment facilities. If we had done it twenty years ago, or even ten years ago, the costs would have been spread out over that time and developers would have adapted. But we didn’t, and those costs are mounting. Every year we delay represents tens of millions in additional costs for fixing housing developments that are being constructed right now.

    A healthy chunk of those costs can be dropped squarely on the shoulders of the Solar Bee and the politicians who are behind it.

    • Progressive Wing

      Amen, Steve, amen.

      The GOP has apparently not learned anything about the adverse effects and costs of “kicking the can down the road” on environmental issues. Rather, they are trying to move further on Solar Bees use without stopping to evaluate the devices’ effectiveness or lack thereof, and are refusing to consider that the Falls/Jordan Rues approach may indeed be the best long-term, science-based solution.

      But since 2010, those in the majority in the NCGA have shown little appreciation for taking the longer view and making long-term investments. So far, the results of this attitude and approach can be seen in shortsighted GOP policies on, and miserly funding of, public education, higher education, transportation, and environmental stewardship.

      Clearly, they have cared only about the present, as they are focused on cutting/starving government programs and doing the bidding of corporate/business interests, including, in this case, land developers, construction interests and realtors.

    • Fred Walker

      I’m confused, when you say “water treatment facilities” are you talking about sanitary sewer systems? It is my understanding that the nitrate problem is from storm water runoff from residential, golf course & farming sites. Are we talking storm water runoff or effluent from sanitary sewer plants?
      Thanks Fred

      • Steve Harrison

        They both contribute, Fred. Municipalities upstream discharge (both permitted and accidentally) metric tons of nutrient-rich soupy mess periodically. If the stormwater runoff problem was much reduced, these discharges *might* be safely diluted downstream, if no high-volume accidents occur. But the combination of stormwater and effluent is just too much.

        • Fred Walker

          Has anyone proposed rule that would require Municipalities to make repairs using double walled piping in runoff sensitive areas? In our part of the State that would be a big help. Lines fail causing spills and the standard piping is used for replacement. Double walled piping would allow monitoring of the well area around piping. Automated alarms could warn of leeks long before they became major failures causing spills. Not an instant fix but it would put the State on a path of steady improvement in the areas that need it the most.
          I was also wondering it there have been any studies to compare runoff differences in areas fertilized using water soluble fertilizer versus solid?

  4. Ken Reckhow

    Even if the SolarBees are effective in reducing chlorophyll a, the “diameter of effectiveness” of a single SolarBee is rather small, which is major shortcoming for large lakes such as Jordan and Falls. Stated another way, how dense must the SolarBees be in Jordan Lake? How many SolarBees are needed for the entire lake?

    Based on the scientific literature, Solarbees have sometimes reduced the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) levels in waterbodies, but they tend to have virtually no effect on chlorophyll levels (which is the water quality standard). SolarBees also have little impact on nutrient levels. Taken together, these statements imply that as soon as the SolarBee “experiment” is completed and the SolarBees are removed, it is highly likely that algal blooms will return, given that nutrient levels have not been reduced, and watershed-based nutrient sources remain unless the Jordan Rules are implemented. If these results occur, does DENR plan to place SolarBees in Jordan Lake forever, or will they acknowledge that watershed nutrient load controls, and not SolarBees, are the only effective long-term solution for eutrophication in Jordan Lake?

  5. Andy Penry

    Please. This is just a sick joke. It is no different from the Thighbusters hawked by Suzanne Somers. The idea that these little R2D2 have any effect at all is laughable.

  6. momoftwo

    “Republicans, though, believe they should keep on polluting and then use unproven technology to somehow remove the pollutants once they are in the lake. Now, everybody is happy. The polluters don’t have to take responsibility for their mess. Some company named Solar Bee gets a fat government contract for technology that doesn’t work. And Republican legislators get big donations from the companies that no long have to stop polluting.”

    Fred Walker, the point is the developers and other polluters are trying to kick the can down the road, after they make their millions. If they really cared about solving this problem, if this legislature was taking all reasonable actions, as you say, they would be adopting stricter nutrient restrictions and maintain existing buffer rules in ADDITION to studying mixing with the solar bees. Instead, this is a way for them to look like they are doing something to solve the problem while allowing their funders, the developers and money-makers, to keep them in office.

    • Fred Walker

      First let me say Our problem is not Republican or Democrat. It is ineffective Government! Most of the nitrates causing these problems (pollution) come from private property owners not industry. Industry is regulated and monitored. Home owners can sling fertilizer everywhere and are not regulated or monitored for the most part.
      Restrictions on NEW development (telling a property owner how they can use their property) could be applied. Limits such as no multifamily housing & minimum 5 acre lots near streams, lakes and runoff areas would be very helpful. However, those wishing to apply these restraints (eminent domain) must be willing to compensate the land / home owners for there losses resulting from these restraints as well as their expenses when the State buys back their property. I doubt this will happen. That leaves using technology to make up for past mistakes caused by over development while restricting new development and chemical use by everyone.

  7. Fred Walker

    You may not be familiar with proven ways to lower levels of Nitrates in bodies of water. Aeration is one of the best ways to introduce more Oxygen into water where excessive nitrates have encouraged micro biologic & plant growth that deplete levels of oxygen in the water.

    If you go to the links below you will note the use of the “Solar Bees” is a “Demonstration Project” to study the viability of these units. You comparison to the Tea Pot Museum waste is inaccurate at best. The Tea Pot Museum was not a study proposed or trailed to determine the viability of a system before expending large sums of tax payer money.

    We encourage our State Representatives to spend wisely, ridiculing a study project that is already showing possible improvement in water quality is contrary to this goal. The fact the units use solar power and do not require the use of fossil fuel should garner applause not ridicule. Hopefully the use of “Solar Bees” will prove to be a viable non polluting way to improve water quality in North Carolina. We should encourage all reasonable actions that encourage not only reductions in all pollutants but also work to restore current water quality to what it can and should be.

    http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/jordancirculator

    This demonstration project is being conducted in Jordan Lake at the Haw River and Morgan Creek arms (see map). These two areas of Jordan Lake have historically exhibited effects of excess nutrient inputs – elevated chlorophyll a and pH. Thirty-six in-lake water circulators (SolarBees ®) are being deployed to determine their effectiveness at improving water quality in those areas of the lake.

    http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=66d9429b-99ac-4a51-9796-ee790d901c38&groupId=38364

    • Progressive Wing

      There has yet to be any final, peer-reviewed evaluation of the Solar Bees efficacy on Jordan Lake, Fred. Your saying that the Jordan Lake test case is “already showing possible improvement in water quality” is simply playing with words and being highly speculative and biased.

      To move now—-before such an evaluation—on further deployment of Solar Bees on an even larger water body like Falls Lake would not only be folly, but also an action that fails to use logic and a scientific approach as its basis.

      And, please, spare us the lecture on aeration as a technique to lower nutrient enrichment effect in water bodies. There are two individuals on this thread who are/were faculty at Duke and NCSU and who also were directors of the state’s Water Resources Research Institute. They both can tell you (one already has) that surface aeration applied on lakes the size of Jordan and Falls lakes by units the size and capabilities of the Solar Bees have very little chance of being a long term solution to land-development-driven, nutrient-based pollution.

      • Fred Walker

        ct and hopefully learn while improving our States water quality. I was looking at the reports & data from the NC Dept of Water quality and USGS for results prior to the installation of the aerators and after the install. Time, precipitation runoff and the resulting data should give guidance on what works and what does not work. Political posturing will not result in better water quality. I hope fact based decisions will.
        I would like to see deep water air injection tried on a small scale. Solar & wind powered air pumps could be used to inject air in vertical piping to create high volume low pressure circulation. It would be interesting to see what improvements that might bring to larger bodies of water. Might be a viable project for one of NCs Universities?

  8. Ken Reckhow

    There are no in-lake technologies, new or old, that can provide any meaningful level of cleanup of algae in lakes the size of Jordan and Falls. In-lake techniques to improve water quality, such as harvesting, aeration with SolarBees, and algaecides, may have some impact in ponds (or, at best, in small lakes), but they are not intended for large waterbodies. Further, there is no evidence that these techniques will result in compliance with the chlorophyll a criterion in Jordan and Falls Lakes.

    The nutrient management plans for Falls and Jordan Lakes have been based on sound scientific analysis and active stakeholder involvement. To further ensure that a deliberative process continues for Falls Lake, a careful re-examination and refinement of the modeling and assessment that resulted in the Falls Lake Rules is in progress. This adaptive management approach is a far more prudent strategy for effective management of lakes than is the hasty and ill-conceived implementation of SolarBees in Falls Lake that is currently under consideration by the General Assembly.

  9. Geoffrey Simon

    … and the polls show that public opinion regarding the NCGA is hovering around a 20% approval rating. Unfortunately, because of the gerrymandering, those 20% will be able to keep all their bumbling friends in office. The Party of Limited Government passes laws that take away the rights of municipalities and counties to govern themselves … the Berger/Dollar coalition “lowers taxes,” but somehow that translates to higher taxes for most of us … the religious fundamentalists in the GA introduce bills which they say guarantee “religious freedom,” but are in reality bills intended to force their religious beliefs on all the citizens of the state. Is this a great state, or what???

    • Nortley

      War is peace.
      Freedom is slavery.
      Ignorance is strength.

      Welcome to the NC Republican party of 2015.

Related Posts

GET UPDATES

Get the latest posts from PoliticsNC delivered right to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!