skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Hydrogen in your Backyard.

Abstract

Abstract not provided.

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-CA), Livermore, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Fuel Cell Technologies Office (EE-3F)
OSTI Identifier:
1399320
Report Number(s):
SAND2016-10030PE
648068
DOE Contract Number:
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: Proposed for presentation at the Sandia Webinar held October 6, 2016 in Livermore, CA.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

San Marchi, Christopher W. Hydrogen in your Backyard.. United States: N. p., 2016. Web.
San Marchi, Christopher W. Hydrogen in your Backyard.. United States.
San Marchi, Christopher W. 2016. "Hydrogen in your Backyard.". United States. doi:. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1399320.
@article{osti_1399320,
title = {Hydrogen in your Backyard.},
author = {San Marchi, Christopher W.},
abstractNote = {Abstract not provided.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month =
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • The siting of hazardous waste facilities constitutes a special case of many no win environmental decisions. These no win decisions share common features: something must be decided; the decision affects some people more than others; scientists are not 100 percent confident of their research results; elements of the decision remain unquantifiable; and decisions combine both scientific and political elements. Several examples are illustrated and analyzed that combine all of these elements. In 1974, Pacific Power and Light Company was forced to reroute a transmission line planned for the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge because of objections from hunters, conservationists, andmore » environmental groups. It was thought that the ducks, geese, swans, pelicans and migratory birds would collide with the wires. In the early 1970s, a waste transporter spilled PCBs along 210 miles of North Carolina roads. Before the transport company could clean up the spill, it had to build a hazardous waste site. The waste site opened in the fall of 1982, accompanied by local civil disobedience and national concern. Methods are suggested which would lead toward a scientifically valid and politically useful resolution of land use problems. Finally, the conclusions deal with the role of policy making, public perception, and sceince in resolving environmental controversies.« less
  • With the intensification of not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) responses to both nuclear and chemical waste management and facility siting, we revisit public participation goals, processes, mechanisms and results to evaluate the uses and limits of public participation for achieving legitimate siting decisions. The deepening loss of trust of the American public in most institutions jeopardizes all preemptive nuclear and hazardous waste facility siting decisions, and carefully structured public participation efforts including some form of power sharing offer the best hope of devising legitimate and durable decisions. We review the key factors in the general siting milieu as well as the thickets ofmore » public participation-public involvement. Outcomes of six public participation (PP) case studies are presented and analyzed for problems as well as common factors contributing to their success or failure. The uses as well as the limits of PP in complex nuclear and hazardous waste management and siting processes are considered. 38 refs., 1 tab.« less
  • The problems and benefits of individuals managing their solid wastes at home are surveyed. The survey indicates that as the population rises people tend to burn only the combustible portions of their waste. Some communities have limited ordinances that ban the burning of raw garbage, but other municipalities allow residents to burn all of their wastestream, even though some materials are not combustible and cannot be burned. Potential environmental effects involve both the ash residue and the air emissions. While selected burning can reduce some of the environmental hazards these would probably only be marginally less than the impacts ofmore » burning it all. The study clearly indicates that the environmental problems of burn barrels are not insignificant. However, the attitudes and motivations of those who burn waste will have to be addressed by the communities that attempt or should attempt to control this problem. These include: avoidance of waste collection costs; availability of trash cartage services; and habit. Habit is probably as strong a motivation as cost avoidance and ease of collection combined. Residents have often burned trash for several generations and regard the practice as a {open_quotes}god-given right.{close_quotes}« less
  • The NIMBY (not in may backyard) syndrome has become the nemesis of facility siting efforts in the USA. Given people's reluctance to live near noxious facilities, in whose backyard are such facilities located This study employs US county-level data to examine relative concentrations of minorities living near noxious facilities. Facility types analyzed include electric generating plants, manufacturing plants, Superfund sites, and radioactive waste disposal sites. While this study does not address which cam first, the minority population concentration or the noxious facilities, it documents their current degree of association.