Apologies and Next Steps
From:
John Bos
Date:
2007 Jun 28 21:44 UTC
Short link
Dear Alan Muller:
FACT: Voting for or against the PVPC Clean Energy Plan has absoultely NO impact
on whether the Russell Biomass electric power plant will be built or not. That
decision is in the hands of twenty different state agencies and departments
charged with assessing, approving or disapproving of the projects plant design
and operations.
The consequence of this reality is that a few people expended a lot of effort
to defeat the PVPC Clean Energy Plan to no avail other than to make more
difficult the PVPC's efforts to do SOMETHING about the climate crisis. The plan
addresses a wide spectrum of actions ranging from conservation and efficiency
to encouraging renewable energy capacity.
Looking at the vote "no" effort as a referendum on the biomass plant, those
opposing the biomass project THROUGH the PVPC plan lost the referendum in the
same way that the local Russell biomass plant "referendum" in Russell failed
for the second time in two years to unseat a highly popular selectboard member
who supports the plant ONLY IF it passes the permitting process. Lots of people
have been made to worry or have unfounded concerns about the biomass plant
because of this "grassroots" disinformation campaign.
What I have come to understand is that the general public has precious little
knowledge about biomass, what it is, and how it works and that is our failure
to communicate...something we are now working on.
One state to watch is California which, thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger, is
leading the nation (not to mention the present administration) in establishing
targets and legislative mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to
increase the amount of electric power generated by renewable energy.
36 biomass-fueled power plants in California currenltly generate about 700 MW
of electricity with fuels derived from the forestry, agricultural, and urban
wood waste sectors.
These biomass power plants are unique in the electrical generation industry
because the contribution of the plants in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is
significantly less than zero. Biomass plant operations cause a major net
negative emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). This is because of the avoidance
of GHG emissions from the alternate fates of the biomass wastes by virtue of
the collection of these wastes for use as fuel in the boilers of the biomass
plants.
At its peak in 1994, biomass power plants generated 800MW of power, a little
over 2 percent of California’s electricity consumption. The biomass industry in
California remains among the most reliable suppliers of power in the state.
However, electricity deregulation in California, which promised relief to
ratepayers (and brought them Enron), poses a serious threat to the continued
existence of the biomass power industry because of its narrow focus on price at
the expense of value. Coal-fired power is cheaper than wood-fired power. So at
a time when more biomass facilities are needed, fewer and fewer are in
operation. Of the 43 that were in operation in California in 1994, only 29 are
currently producing electricity. Ten are available to come back into service
with the right incentives.
The biomass power presence in the United States is substantial. Across the
country in 2003, there were approximately 80 operating biomass power plants.
These plants are located in 19 states. In addition, there were about 40 plants
which could have been operable, but which were not.
Four years ago the operating biomass power plants nationwide represented about
1,676 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity. It may be that no one on the PVPC
forum is aware of that. Also, as I have noted many times, biomass heats and
cools Cooley Dickenson Hospital, heats and makes electricity for Mt. Wachusetts
Community College, Athol High School, 26 public schools in Vermont...and the
beat goes on.
Our future depends upon how well we understand our past. Thirty years ago,
Americans were enduring energy shortages and waiting in long lines just to fill
their gas tanks. OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, was a
household word, because the U.S. was at the mercy of foreign countries for the
supply of crude oil so vital to our economy. OPEC was embargoing its oil, and
energy prices were spurting. America was caught unprepared, and many suffered.
In response to the crisis "Green Power" was born. Congress in 1978 enacted the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), in an effort to diversify and
strengthen domestic energy production. California, in turn, instituted policies
to aggressively implement PURPA and stimulate development of renewable energy
sources. In an environment of high inflation and scarce energy, experts in the
late 1970’s projected that the price of crude oil would reach $100 a barrel by
the mid 1980’s.
Out of this background emerged a brand new industry – biomass power. The first
small plants began producing electricity in 1982-3, and the wood-fired
generation infrastructure rapidly expanded throughout California and elsewhere
during the 1980's.
Instead of burning non-renewable fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas,
biomass power plants combust wood waste to generate electricity. In the early
days, most biomass plants utilized sawmill residues exclusively. But as more
plants were constructed and the number of operating sawmills declined, biomass
facilities evolved to provide numerous other solid waste disposal options to
society. Forest thinnings, agricultural byproducts, orchard removals, and urban
wood waste also are now being converted to electricity, reducing the risk of
wildfire in the forests, avoiding tons of open burning and conserving landfill
space. The biomass industry annually consumes 7 million tons of organic waste –
equivalent to about 25 percent of all the waste deposited in California
landfills each year.
The grim oil price projections from the era of the 1970's energy crisis have
turned out to be very wrong. As a result, the PURPA program was closed down and
thus the financial incentive for private enterprise to build safer biomass
plants disappeared. Although the technology is reliable and has proven itself
for many years, biomass power plants struggled to survive in an era of
deregulation and cheap power. Some have even shut down.
But history has a way of repeating itself. We now import more foreign oil and
natural gas than ever before, even in the pre-energy crisis days of the early
1970’s. Peak oil has been reached and the worldwide supply of petroleum is fast
diminishing. Then there is the war in Iraq... Today on NPR there as a story
about citizen revolt in Iran over the government's increase in the cost of
gasoline (up from 11 cents per liter!!). If Iran can see the future of
diminishing oil sitting, as it does, on some of the world's richest deposits,
there might be a message here for Americans.
Bottom line is that to do nothing is morally indefensible. To not build biomass
or wind powered projects (every project of which is opposed by a few community
members in Massachusetts communities) means to accept that the use of coal -
the cheapest of the fossil fuels for the power industry - will be on the
increase. In excess of 250 NEW coal-fired plants are planned in the U.S. over
the next 25 years. Don't even ask about China and India. The air we breath
today contains unwanted pollution from coal plants in the Ohio Valley, from
coal plants in the south (depending on which way the winds are blowing) and
from good 'ol, nearby Mt. Tom.
Hard at work in Washington is the nuclear energy lobby. That industry will
continue to make a comeback as our national thirst for more electric power
grows ever stronger.
So what to do?
Some have claimed that biomass plants smaller in capacity than the proposed
Russell Biomass 50 MW plant are not harmful from a air quality perspective.
Wrong. Dead wrong. A small wood-fired heating source ranging from a home wood
stove to the proposed 100 MW biomass plant in Texas can be safe OR unsafe,
depending upon its design and the type of fuel it burns. You think sitting by
your Yuletide fire roasting chestnuts "over an open fire" is safer than having
a 50 MW power plant at the edge of your town? Wrong. Dead wrong. Check with the
American Lung Association. Ask yourself if Cooley Dickenson Hospital would
operate a wood boiler (NOT an incinerator) in the hospital building complex if
there was ANY possibility that it would be harmful to patients. I don't think
so.
So Alan, some questions:
As a self-professed "student of manipulated public involvement processes," what
do you make of these facts? There's no manipulation in this message...just a
presentation of factual information all of which is verifiable.
What do you see as steps we in western Massachusetts should take to try to
reclaim a healthy environment?
Do you consider the opposition's assertion that our plant's emissions would be
the equivalent of 12,000 wood stoves to be "manipulative?" If so, on what
basis?
Do you think the use of the word "incinerator" in place of the technically
accurate word "boiler" be as "manipulative?" (Is an Outside Wood Boiler an
incinerator? Were the old, pre-diesel steam engines incinerators or boilers?)
Do you view as fact the constant charge that Russell Biomass will one day, if
not now, burn construction and demolition wood (C&D) as fuel? There is now on
record at Russell Town Hall a signed legal agreement to never burn such
material...a guarantee that extends to any and all future owners of the power
plant should it ever be sold. If the opposition one more time asserts that we
will burn C&D, would you consider that as manipulative? Or deliberate
disinformation?
I understand that if people WANT to believe something that facts will not
change their minds. I still encounter supporters of the Bush administration who
believe there WERE weapons of mass desruction in Iraq. So be it...except that
the actions of this country based on that belief have done irreperable damage
to the peoples of both countries and to my son and his two sons' generation.
What irreperable damage are we doing by not moving as fast as possible to
mitigae global warming on both an individual and institutional level?
I understand that once someone professes to "know" all there is about a subject
there is no room left for learning new information or facts. It is people who
say "I don't know?" and "I want to know..." that are the best hope for our
communities and country.
I have no respect for environmental organizations which refuse or "can't find
time" to hear what we have to say or to review our various health and
environmental impact studies.
Do you think it was "manipulative public involvement" for the Toxics Action
Center to award Russell Biomass a "Dirty Dozen Award" for emissions from a
power plant that exists only on paper and for which accurate, FACTUAL emission
measurements are not possible to make? It got them and plant opponents a photo
in the local newspaper, a photo that will one day come back to remind them how
wrong (and manipulative) they were.
That said, I have deep respect for the Massachusetts Chapter of the American
Lung Association with whom we have twice met because they are open to hearing
what we have to say and which allowed their staff and board members to press
their concerns about air quality. We have learned big time from them about
their position and are working to see if there is a way to address their very
specific concerns about ozone and particulate matter concentrations.
Alan, if you, like a growing chorus of participants on this Forum, would like
to engage in an honest discourse, lets talk.
Sincerely,
John Bos
Public Information Officer
RUSSELL BIOMASS LLC
.