Recent Updates by Topic




Cayuga Lake Cooling Project Criticized

Print: Print Story Email: Email Story Share: Share on Facebook Share on Digg

C.U., activists argue over facility

September 11, 2007 - 12:00am
By Nathan Sermonis

While this summer marked the seventh operating year for Cornell’s lake source cooling facility on Cayuga Lake, the anniversary has not marked a lucky break in resolving worries over lake health and the controversial cooling plant.

Concerned community activists in Ithaca have been keeping a close eye on the project since its approval in 1998. Many activists view the facility as a threat to the lake’s delicate ecosystem. This year has been no different despite recent talks between Cornell’s utilities department and Tompkins County’s Water Resources Council that focused on improving water quality monitoring at the plant.

Attempting to win over the opposition, the University has engaged in dialogue with the WRC to review the current monitoring system and solicit advice on how to better handle the facility’s monitoring duties. Early assessments have revealed costly redundancies in some areas of the system and needed additions in other areas — an eye-opening start to what is hoped to be a productive partner ship.

“We’re trying to work together to come up with a better monitoring plan to better meet community needs,” said Roxy Johnston, vice chair of the WRC.

However, for the opposition, new monitoring plans may not be the answer. Leading the crusade, the Cayuga Lake Defense Fund asserts that due to Cornell’s LSC, the health of the lake is declining.

“South Cayuga is worse off now than it was before Cornell’s lake source cooling facility began,” said Rich DePaolo, CLDF spokesperson.

Citing recent high levels of phosphorous in the lake, DePaolo’s organization contends that Cornell is polluting Cayuga lake through the water discharge coming out of the LSC facility. This input, he argues, is causing increasing levels of phosphorous, and thereby large algal blooms and seaweed mats throughout the southern lake area and its tributaries.

When the University’s project permit comes up for renewal in March of next year, DePaolo said his organization is going to fight to hold Cornell responsible for maintaining the current nine monitoring stations along the LSC system. Cornell officials, on the other hand, hope to reduce the number of stations by seven in an effort to save costs. More than likely, the CLDF will also suggest moving the system’s water output to deeper waters to reduce effects of the discharge — a measure the CLDF has pushed for years.

Taking an opposing position on the debate, Carlos Rymer ’09, president of Cornell’s Sustainability Hub and vice president of Kyoto Now!, feels the evidence shows no need for such concerns.

“Year after year the data show that the facility is not contributing to the degradation of the lake. I think it’s a great thing that people are thinking about potential problems but we have so much data showing no significant impacts on the environment,” he said.

Rymer said that speculations of any University cover-up of pertinent data are unfounded because the people monitoring this project — from Cornell administrators and scientists to contracted nonprofit groups — are professionals genuinely concerned about the health of the lake’s ecosystem.

“Everything I’ve seen as far as the phosphorous load from the lake source cooling facility is minimal, especially compared to other sources,” said Dave Matthews, a research scientist of the Upstate Freshwater Institute, a nonprofit research organization committed to the improvement of water quality and advancement of freshwater research.

“It looks like a good project, and we haven’t seen any significant impacts,” he said.

According to Matthews, development, agriculture and wastewater treatment facilities pose larger threats to the lake health.

“With time and more data on the lake, I think people will begin to see the facility really is no harm,” Rymer said.

Rymer feels that while people should be inquisitive about the project, there is no need to be suspicious. Like many other project advocates, he thinks more focus should be placed on the positive aspects of LSC like benefits for the atmosphere and decreased electricity consumption.

By using the lake’s cold water to pull heat from warmer water used in air cooling systems on campus, the University has cut electricity used for cooling by 85 percent and eliminated the need for using greenhouse gas-emitting energies and large refrigerants using harmful chlorofluorocarbons.

Harnessing Cayuga’s renewable supply of cold water from 250 feet below the lake’s surface, the LSC system pumps frigid lake water to a heat exchange interface near campus where heat naturally flows from hot to cold — from 60 degree campus water to 39 degree lake water — passively cooling campus water needed to keep buildings comfortable during summer months.

Current data and project success stories may not be enough to resolve the issue though, as many Ithacans have come to realize. Encouraging greater public involvement in the matter, the Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization is holding a public forum to discuss community outlooks and concerns on Sept. 26 from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Six Mile Creek Vineyard.



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Holy bleep, will these

Holy bleep, will these people never stop? Years later and there are NO data that credibly support the notion that lake source cooling has a material impact on the lake, and they're still fighting. Why? Do they not realize that Cornell has reduced the energy load for cooling by 80%+ due to the use of this highly efficient system? Would they rather that Cornell crank up the coal-fired power plant on Rt 366 in the City of Ithaca instead of using this highly efficient and sustainable source of cooling?

Folks around here are just crazy... in their world, Cornell is evil no matter what it does, and somehow they believe that if Cornell wasn't here that Ithaca wouldn't be Watkins Glen (without the race track). To these people, there's no such thing as a tradeoff, or middle ground... changing the temp of Cayuga Lake by 0.00001 degree is not worth saving thousands of tons of coal being turned into particulate waste and CO2.

I hope that all the Kyoto people at Cornell take to this issue with the fervor that they did for the non-issue that was Redbud Woods. Lake Source Cooling was the *right* project to do, and if the Kyoto lobby at Cornell is to have any credibility at all they need to be as loud about what Cornell does right as they are about what it does "wrong".

How can Cornell be dumping

How can Cornell be dumping phosphorus in the lake when the water on campus only meets the lake water in a heat exchanger and never mixes?! The Cayuga Lake Defense Fund needs a new spokesman. The one they have now is profoundly ignorant.

I personally know that Rich

I personally know that Rich De Paulo has read the Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Hence he knows that the deep, cold water that LSC utilizes is in fact rich in phosphorous.

indeed, it is much richer than the average surface water into which it is being dumped. That is why the DEC considered the LSC discharge to be a pollution source, hence why they required a "SPEEDIES" permit for the project.

Truly, the above author should have informed himself/herself better before accusing De Paulo and the CLDF of ignorance.

There is no question that LSC is adding phsophorous to the surface water of Cayuga Lake, and that such "phosphorous loading" is not a good thing. There is legitimate disagreement as to the extent of harm it is causing.

bad reporting

This is bad reporting.

it implies that it is Rich De Paulo's opinion that LSC "is causing increasing levels of phosphorous..." when that is indeed a fact agreed to by all parties - Cornell, the DEC, etc.

There is also no question that "phosphorous loading" due to LSC is causing harm; that is a conclusion of the project's Environmental Impact Statement. There is legitimate debate as to whether such harm is "significant" and acceptable.

The author should also know that Cornell could have avoided this situation by simply moving the discharge out into deeper water.

Cornell's public position on this decision is that the deeper discharge would have made the project uneconomical.

that is puzzling, considering the additional cost would have been $2 million, while the overall cost was well over $60 million.

(all of the above info is available in the Environmental Impact Statement)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.