All posts in the topic Is honest discourse possible here? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 78 posts — by 20 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Jonathan Long at 2007 Jun 20 21:10 UTC
Please forward this email to your lists if you believe this is an important message to get out... Dear friends, Opponents to the Russell Biomass Plant have asked their supporters to vote the Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Plan down because the plan references the Russell Biomass Plant as one of the projects under consideration. They've said, "Don't bother reading the plan. Just vote 'no'. Don't be tempted to vote 'yes with reservations', just vote 'no'." 200 people have gone online and voted "no" on the plan. Many have stated they have voted "no" because of their concerns about the Russell Biomass Plant. Many have just voted "no" without giving any further comment. Voting "no" to kill the plan does not feel honest to me. The plan consists of goals, criteria for siting new energy resources, and action recommendations for individuals, businesses, planning agencies, and communities. I've heard very few people opposing any of the plan's actual recommendations. Many say the plan hasn't gone far enough, but I have not heard people opposing the recommendations in the plan with the hundreds of people weighing in over the last year. In a public planning process, you figure out what everyone can agree to and then build on it in the years to come. I believe this is a good first step for us. The plan says we need to build clean energy electricity generation resources and then says the most likely candidates in our regoin are wind, biomass, and solar. The plan doesn't say what we should build; it just says this is what could be built. I haven't heard anyone say we don't need new clean energy electricity generation resources, and that's all the plan says. Saying this plan supports the Russell Biomass Plant is dishonest. Voting "yes, with reservations" and then stating your concerns does send a clear message without undermining all the work people have done over the last three years. Maybe we need a better understanding of the role of this Clean Energy Planning process. I don't believe we can or should have a regional vote on whether a developer can build a plant or wind turbine or manufacturing facility in any of our towns. The Clean Energy Plan does not say the Russell Biomass Plant should be built or should not be built. It says it has been proposed and it's controversial. It also provides siting guidelines for people who are deciding whether to allow a plant to be sited in their community. I believe that's all this plan can do. Are there people who believe a regional plan should do more? Many people have put in a lot of time to build a plan that will create a blueprint for going forward. I believe we really need one. The two most affordable, most available renewable energy resources here in the valley are wind and biomass. I'm hoping we can have conversations that talk about what kind of wind and biomass we want to have in our valley. I haven't heard anyone say they never want anyone to use wood in their wood stoves - that's biomass. There are serious questions of size, scale, location, sustainable feedstock supply, emissions, efficiency, and ownership structures. I think the siting criteria in the plan go a long way to help communities understand the choices and weigh their options. I'm hoping we can figure out a way to make this planning process work for us. Voting down the plan for something it doesn't say is unwise and trashes the goodwill and hundreds of hours of volunteer time that went into building it. To turn this planning process into a regional referendum for the Russell Biomass Plant warps the system. To use this public planning process as a tactic to force others to do something they have no ability to do feels unfair. To paint all of the people who have been a part of this planning process as members of one polarized camp or another is untrue. Have we as a community become so cynical that we believe no real, honest discourse is possible anymore? If you believe we can, please participate! If you haven't taken the poll about whether you endorse the plan or not, please do! Click here for the poll: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=237433753357 Please send the following paragraph out to your friends and colleagues: "Please support a sustainable energy future for our region. Take this poll to give your opinions about the Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Plan drafted through a very participatory process for the 69 towns in Hampshire, Hampden and Franklin Counties: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=237433753357 Please join the forum "Clean Energy Discussion" and help us figure out where to go from here. We could use some good ideas if you have some! Thanks, Lynn Benander Manager, Co-op Power 413-772-8898
The Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Plan Poll Results to date - 39% of 600
respondents have voted the Plan down
I am shocked by Lynn's misrepresentation of the facts as well as her choice of
words.
I have been working on an extended piece explaining our position on the Draft
Plan which I hope to share with everyone shortly. In the meantime, I would like
to point out that there is actually a national movement to see that our clean
energy monies are not used to promote, incentivize, and subsidize dangerous
incineration schemes. I would also like to point out that it is not cynical,
dishonest, or unwise to answer "No" to the question of whether one endorses the
Draft Plan. The Draft Plan explicitly calls the burning of chemically
contaminated fuels in neighborhoods "clean" energy, I do not endorse that, I
vote "No."
More to follow.
Please cite the place in the plan, Jana, that "calls the burning of chemically
contaminated fuels in neighborhoods "clean" energy." What line are you
interpreting in this way?
Lynn
Hi Lynn, thanks -- I'd be happy to do that. Springfield Biomass proposes
burning constrcution and demolition debris. Russell Biomass proposes burning
waste pallets which may have been treated with pesticides for import and/or
interstate transport. Both are sited in neighborhoods.
The Draft Plan repeatedly refers to these two large-scale waste-burning biomass
power plant projects in the pipeline in our Valley as “clean energy.” The Draft
Plan states that these projects could supply 80MW of the 100MW “clean” energy
goal set forth in the Plan. For example, on page 3, the Draft Plan states, “We
identify specific projects on the valley that could generate the 100MW of clean
power capacity.” Page 10 states, “There are renewable electricity projects in
the permitting phase today, that when operating will exceed our goal of
214GWh/year by 2009 and will move us toward our goal of 1,000 GWh/year of
clean, renewable energy.” Page 11 also has a chart estimating yields from
proposed projects in the "clean" energy pipeline listing these two projects.
The implementation of the Plan also includes seeking funding for unspecified
“clean energy” projects in the Valley. I urge everyone to work to develop
truly clean energy here in the beautiful Valley. Bad biomass is coming in here
on a speeding train labelled "clean'" "carbon neutral," and so forth, and we
have a choice to evaluate whether these claims are true and make sure we do not
end up with big public health costs and big regrets. Five years from now, what
clean energy projects would you enjoy seeing as you drive through the
Connecticut River Valley? Wind turbines, or smokestacks?
Sincerely, "For clean energy for everyone"-- Jana
I am troubled by the recent posting on this forum suggesting that is cynical,
dishonest, or unwise to answer "No" to the question of whether one endorses the
Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Draft Plan. I have uploaded a document in the File
Room that is Approximately 3-4 years old called "Category 8 Incentives, Biomass
Friendly Zoning, Siting Network and Buy Local Campaign." This document was
created by the Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative (PVREC) and is
from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission web site. (This was back when they
thought Russell Biomass was a 20-25MW Plant.) At that time, the PVREC
expressed a goal of creating a "BIOMASS FRIENDLY ZONE" in the Pioneer Valley.
This work that the PVREC, led by the PVPC, and others had planned may not have
received funding, but now, within the larger "Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Plan"
we seem to be seeing many of the same elements: unqualified promotion of
biomass burning as "clean energy", biomass advertising, rewriting local zoning,
getting environmentalists to sign on, and keeping an eye out for those who
might cause trouble. On page 14, section 2.3 we read, "Among The most
sophisticated stakeholders such as the American Lung Association, when they
examine the best currently available and emerging technologies, legitimate
questions arise about particulate size, emissions dispersion, disposal of
biproducts, etc." I will let each of you read the document for yourself, but I
am worried that the "grave concerns" of Jeff Seyler, CEO of the Massachusetts
American Lung Association, are being ignored. He wrote, "The proposed Russell
Biomass power plant is a potential health threat to thousands of Massachusetts'
residents and requires the full attention of all Massachusetts citizens...Both
ozone pollution and particulate matter have been scientifically linked to
premature death and are of serious concern."
Lynn, your posting makes me ask whether this 'collaborative' renewable energy
plan was really setup to engage citizens, or is it just to promote "BIOMASS" as
"CLEAN" when it is not. We should only be promoting truly clean projects and
not projects that threaten the health of thousands of Valley residents. The
PVREC, led by the PVPC, knew years ago that the ALA would have concerns, and
they know now that the ALA has "grave concerns", and yet they gloss over this
and press on with promoting large-scale biomass proposals. If the ALA's words
continue to be disregarded, then each and every person that carries on to
promotion of this type of energy needs to be accountable to the thousands of
Valley residents whose health is at risk. I will NOT promote any plan that
wants to use 80MW from huge biomass facilities to reach their 100MW goal and I
have detailed my reasons in my survey comments. That is not being cynical,
dishonest or unwise. It is being an honest and proactive citizen of the
Pioneer Valley who is being cautious not to promote something that is not what
is appears to be at first glance.
The following file was added to this topic:
Jana,
The citations you've listed here do do not say the plan recommends these
plants.
The planning agencies writing this plan are not the decision-makers for those
plants. Your assertion is that they are the decision makers and they are
recommending the plants. The Select Board in Russell is supporting the Russell
Biomass Plant. They are the decision makers legally. The Select Board, the
Zoning Board, the Planning Board, and various state permitting agencies will
all make the decisions about the Russell Biomass Plant.
The Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Plan is just that. It's not a referendum on
any plant. It does not recommend or not recommend any plant. The Plan lists
the projects underway. These plants ARE in the permitting phase. It's fact,
not an endorsement. I agree with you that there are serious issues with
biomass; but I don't agree that overstating and misleading will get us to a
place where we can make good decisions together.
The decision-making process for these plants is not at the regional level; it's
at the local level. There is significant concern about biomass plant emissions
and feedstock across the region. I think local decision-makers need to have
more information to understand the issues. What do you think of the criteria
for siting a clean energy facility? We were hoping that would provide guidance
to local leaders who have to make these decisions.
How would you like to see the plan improved? Given the role of the plan is not
to supplant local decision making, do you want the plan to say we should meet
all our needs without biomass of any scale (no wood stoves)? Do you want the
plan to say we should meet all our needs with wind and solar? And if so, where
will the money come from to install those? And, given the anti-wind lobby,
where will we be able to secure permits for wind? And, if we only have solar as
an option, the price tag is prohibitive. Where will we get the money to even
provide a small percentage of what we need?
There are real choices to be made here. If you think there's anything to
global warming, growing global political instability over wars for oil, the end
of our cheap oil era, we don't have time to sort through misinformation and
overstatement. We need to sit down on the same side of the table and figure
things out together.
Jana,
You bring up good points.
From my perspective it has been challenging to generate consensus among so many
diverse interests on how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3% on an
average annual basis below 2000 levels when we are increasing our use of
electricity by over 1% per year every year. Granted, our use of electricity is
just one fraction of our total energy use. So we have a lot of work ahead of
us! Despite the difficulty, we have agreement on our four
goals: 1) reduce our energy use 15% below 2000 levels by 2020; 2) develop 100
MW of clean energy by 2009 and replace 15% of our year 2000 use of fossil
(and/or nuclear) fuels by 2020; 3) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by
2020 (below 2000 levels); and 4) create jobs in this new clean energy economy.
When these are met using guiding principles and facility selection criteria
similar to what we have proposed in the plan, it would result in a reduction in
the need for use of coal, oil and nuclear fuels and in a manner that will
minimize impacts on our environment including the air we breathe and the water
we drink. Oil, coal, and nuclear energy together represented almost half of
the total power capacity in New England as a whole in the summer of 2006. That
is a lot of our electricity being generated by the dirtiest and the most
dangerous fuels we know.
I recognize that the applications of biomass run the gamut. I think that most
of the people who've been involved in the development of this plan, see biomass
as a good fuel (which does not include C&D) but that there are different
attributes to its application that have various impacts. Those impacts and the
impacts of any manufacturing use not allowed by right in a town and not
prohibited would be reviewed by the City or Town via its special permit
process. We see that review process to be a local process that is of course
influenced by state regulations, but it is not the role of this plan to tell
specific towns which projects they should want and which they should fight.
When we list proposed projects in the pipe line, as we have in this draft we
include the two biomass plants and a landfill gas project, the bio-diesel
project, the two wind projects, and an affordable housing/solar project. As
you have noted, by having text that says, if these projects are built we meet
our goal, it appears to be an endorsement. This is something for us to
consider because, it was not our intention, in this draft, to endorse specific
projects.
We also list how we could meet the 2020 goal using a scenario that includes
these technologies again. Perhaps, we could show additional scenarios of
meeting our goals with just wind turbines. Or, we could estimate the number of
residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional applications it would
take to meet the goals just with solar.
We are going to be reviewing comments like the one you just submitted, and
(having not yet seen all the comments, so this next statement may be
premature) we will likely be reorganizing the text to reiterate (in that we
already have attempted to state these in the draft plan) that: 1) there are
numerous ways of reaching our 4 goals; 2) all technologies have attributes that
have a continuum of support from different people and perspectives within
communities at different scales (family, neighborhood, town, region, state,
etc.); 3) that we believe that technologies are changing and will likely
improve over time but pursuing action today is better than doing nothing; 4)
that no one technology is or will be the answer for each and every application
(e.g. our clean energy future will likely include new facilities at different
scales, site types, and locations, using wind, solar, hydro, biomass and
biofuels as sources of energy; and 5) it is very doubtful that solar and wind
alone could and would result in enough local capacity to reduce our regional
greenhouse gas emissions (from electricity and heating) by 30% by 2020.
I think I can speak for everyone involved in the development of this plan that
the goals, principles, selection criteria, and recommendations are the most
important elements of this regional clean energy plan. When we have goals we
can agree on, each one of us can pursue actions alone or in collaboration to
meet them.
Thank you for providing specific comments on the clean energy plan.
I welcome more.
Bill Labich
Land Use Program Manager
FRCOG
Dear Robin,
I am hoping you understood that I wasn't saying that it's cynical, dishonest or
unwise to vote "no" on the plan. That certainly is everyone's right. I was
saying it felt cynical, dishonest and unwise to have community leaders asking
people to vote "no" without looking at the plan, based on information that
tells them things about the plan that are not true.
In this email you have said many things that I dont' believe to be true. The
Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative does not have an unqualified
pro-biomass position. Nothing is being ignored. What documentation do you have
that anyone has disregarded the American Lung Association's position? The
Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative (PVREC) didn't exist 3-4 years
ago and we certainly didn't publish any documents. The Collaborative includes
a wide spectrum of positions on biomass plants. There are people who are
promoting biomass, people who believe biomass is an important piece of the
puzzle in small-scale applications, and people who oppose biomass even in small
applications.
You say, "I will NOT promote any plan that wants to use 80MW from huge biomass
facilities to reach their 100MW goal," but the plan does not say it is
promoting those plants. The citations Jana gave in her email earlier today do
not say this. There's an inventory of what people are proposing as renewable
energy plants. There's a difference between and inventory and an endorsement.
And then, you end your email breeding suspicion about the true motives of the
Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative. This kind of attack also
doesn't work well. We're neighbors here trying to figure out how to work
together. Even if people disagree with each other, painting them as being in
some sinister camp doesn't really make sense to me.
This is why I'm asking if honest discourse is possible here.
You're raising some important issues here. Some concerns I share.
The lack of accuracy though makes it hard to find common ground and move
forward.
I would like to see commitment to accuracy, asking questions, listening, and
finding common ground.
Seeding misinformation and breeding mistrust won't bring us the dialog we need
here.
I believe a lot of the issues related to the Russell Biomass plant in the plan
revolve around the repeated use of the terminology "Clean Energy" to describe
all the proposed projects including the Russell plant. There are many people
who do not believe that plant belongs in the "clean" category. By identifying
the Russell plant as a source of clean energy the plan can be justifiably
viewed as endorsing the plant.
From what Jana and Robyn have written it sounds like they think all biomass
plants however fueled, sited, and equipped, should be banned from the clean
category. Perhaps that is hyperbole on their part but if they represent a large
part of the area population, we will need a good deal more research and
education before we can move forward in that direction.
I believe a lot of the issues related to the Russell Biomass plant in the plan
revolve around its repeated use of the terminology "Clean Energy" to describe
all the proposed projects including the Russell plant. There are many people
who do not believe that plant belongs in the "clean" category. By identifying
the Russell plant as a source of clean energy the plan can be justifiably
viewed as endorsing the plant.
From what Jana and Robyn have written it sounds like they think all biomass
plants however fueled, sited, and equipped, should be banned from the clean
category. Perhaps that is hyperbole on their part but if they represent a large
part of the area population, we will need a good deal more research and
education before we can move forward in that direction.
Thanks Scott. One of the issues with these projects is the categorization --
some of the biomass plants are considered renewable projects if the feedstock
is waste, according to the Mass renewable energy standards (or RPS standard).
These projects accrue Renewable Energy Credits which are sold to the market.
They also receive various state and federal subsidies. While these projects
are considered renewable by the state (because they are not using any non
renewable feedstock), the people living next to them may not consider them as
"clean", because they would emit various pollutants, including CO2, which is
not regulated.
If we really want to push for clean AND renewable energy in the valley, there
are many neat option. One idea is to use the cow manure of our valley farming
communities for anaerobic digesters, which produce methane, which is combusted
to run a gas turbine to generate electricity. But such projects need scale to
be economic and would need considerable effort to bring the different farming
communities together to jointly develop a plant. There are also opportunities
to built wind power projects, albeit many may not find them to be aesthetically
pleasing.
It would be good to set priorities: do we want "clean" energy because of our
environmental concerns or do we want "renewable" energy, regardless of if it is
clean or not, because we are concerned about the spiraling cost of imported
energy, or do we want both?
Regards,
Mohammed
Mohammed J. Alam
President
ALYRA RENEWABLE ENERGY FINANCE, LLC
56 Main Street, Suite 207
Northampton, MA 01060
www.alyra.net
Hello All, I would like to address a few items that Lynn wrote in her last posting. First, Lynn stated "I (Lynn) was saying it felt cynical, dishonest and unwise to have community leaders asking people to vote "no" without looking at the plan, based on information that tells them things about the plan that are not true." I personally have not seen any email asking people to do this. I have however seen emails that Bill Hull has sent to be forwarded to all Massachusetts Forest Landowners Association and Wood Producers Association members. He states "The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission has worked very hard over the past year to develop a renewable energy plan for the Pioneer Valley area. The 50 MW Russell Biomass project, of which I am one of five development partners, is a major part of this plan. I would appreciate it if MFLA and WPA members could register their agreement with this renewable energy plan by clicking on to the first link below and registering their approval. Just type in your comments and submit when done. It will only take a few moments." Second, Lynn stated that the PVREC does not have an unqualified pro-biomass position. When two large scale biomass projects are part of the inventory in a CLEAN energy plan, then it is being "SOLD" to the public as CLEAN. I do not believe that these projects are CLEAN, and therefore I do not believe that large scale biomass facilities should be used to meet the 100MW goal. In fact, they should not be a part of the CLEAN energy plan at all. (This goes back to me Referencing the American Lung Association's Concerns in my first posting.) Third, Lynn stated that the PVREC didn't exist 3-4 years ago, but if you read half way down on page one in the document that I uploaded, Category 8 Incentives, Biomass Friendly Zoning, Siting Network and Buy Local Campaign. It states: "The Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative (PVREC) was created in October 2003 by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, West-Central Massachusetts' regional planning body." I would say that was 3 to 4 years ago, and therefore the PVREC did exist in that timeframe. The document continues to say that, "PVPC formed PVREC to facilitate renewable energy in the Pioneer Valley. The group is an informal collaborative of extremely knowledgeable and dedicated renewable energy professionals, including the Commonwealths' three leading experts on Biomass..." Forth, Also on the 1st page, but in the Second paragraph, it states: The Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative (PVREC), led by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) proposes a Category 8 Incentives project to: Support and encourage entrepreneurial Biomass endeavors thereby reducing the costs of constructing Biomass Facilities..." Later in the document, it goes on to reference the Russell Biomass facility and the Legitimate Concerns of the American Lung Association. I encourage everyone to read this document in it's entirety. Fifth, as for the authenticity of the document, it comes right off the PVPC web site. Http://pvsustain.com/DOE_Biomass_final.pdf Lynn, If you have questions about it's legitimacy, I would suggest that you contact them. Lastly, I do not believe that I have a "Lack of Accuracy" in my posting nor am "I seeding misinformation". I am commited to accuracy, asking questions, listening, finding common ground and most importantly, encouraging TRULY clean energy projects. NOT the type of projects that threaten the lives of thousands of Pioneer Valley Citizens. Sincerely, Robin L. Unger
The following file was added to this topic:
Following is a detailed explanation of our position on the Plan and the survey.
We hope that people will find this to be a thoughtful and complete response to
the intense objections and accusations that we have been encountering.
THINK Clean Energy: ahhh… five years from now, do you want to drive through the
Valley and see beautiful new wind turbines and solar projects – or big new
300-foot smokestacks belching out hundreds of thousands of tons of air
pollution annually? In our nation and in our Valley, we are at an important
crossroads as we try to chart our course away from fossil fuels and on to clean
energy production. The waste-to-energy industry is claiming that burning whole
trees and chemically contaminated waste-derived fuels in neighborhoods will
produce “clean” energy. The authors of this regional Draft Plan seem to agree.
These facilities are in fact toxin dispersion machines which have been proven
to raise cancer and asthma rates, and they must be rejected. There is a
national and international movement to expose this toxic threat to families and
the environment, and now there is such a movement in our Valley as well.
The three main points we want to cover are: 1) 80MW of the 100MW identified in
the Draft Plans as new “clean” energy projects in the pipeline would not in
fact produce “clean” energy. Rather, they pose a major public health and
environmental threat to Valley residents and should be excised from the Plan
and opposed by the collaborative (PVREC) on the grounds of poor siting,
contaminated fuel, and the burning of whole trees. 2) Your “Yes” votes on the
Draft Plan may be misused to endorse these projects and seek funding for these
ill-conceived projects. And 3) although we support many of the good ideas in
the Draft Plan, we are obligated to vote “No’ on the Draft on all counts,
asking that this public health threat be removed from the Plan. We look forward
to supporting the Plan if and when this threat to health and the environment is
excised and explicitly opposed by the authors. We also oppose the undermining
of local control advocated in the Draft Plan. (This piece is not intended to
comment at all on small-scale biomass projects such as Cooley-Dickinson
Hospital which are many magnitudes smaller and can be highly efficient.)
Supporters of the “Clean” Energy Plan are very alarmed by our movement, saying
that we are voting against “clean” energy. No one is voting against clean
energy, we are bringing attention to the fact that most of the new megawatts in
the regional plan are not in fact clean. When you look into the details of how
the whole process works, I think you will agree that voting “No” on this Draft
Plan is indeed an important way to protect our families and secure a truly
clean energy future here in the Valley.
Lynn Benander has said that the Draft Plan does not endorse Russell Biomass.
However, Russell Biomass lead developer Bill Hull doesn’t seem to see it that
way. He has also sent out an urgent email about this Plan and this survey. His
email asks forestry stakeholders and others to support the Plan by voting “Yes”
in the online survey. He wrote, “The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission has
worked very hard over the past year to develop a renewable energy plan for the
Pioneer Valley area. The 50 MW Russell Biomass project, of which I am one of
five development partners, is a major part of this plan.”
On May 8 in the Valley Advocate web site, in “Northampton Redoubt,” Peggy
MacLeod challenged my position and asked some excellent questions. She asked
why people should reject the whole Plan instead of just voting, “Yes with
reservations.” Darryl LaFleur of “Northampton Redoubt” has also posted an
ongoing exchange between Co-op Power Manager Lynn Benander and myself this
week. I would like to address Ms. MacLeod and Ms. Benander’s claims and
concerns.
The 63-page Plan certainly contains lots of great ideas that we can all support
without reservations. However, most of those ideas are not funded and not in
the works – they are just words. The startling fact is that 80MW of the 100MW
of new “clean” energy generation mentioned in the Plan would likely come from
two proposed projects that would incinerate chemically contaminated fuels in
neighborhoods. Some will find it shocking to realize that the question at hand
is not even whether this burning is legal or permissible, but only whether we
should all pay extra for it, promoting, subsidizing, and incentivizing it as
“clean” energy using funds taken from our electricity bills. If the answer to
that question is no, we should vote no on the Draft Plan.
The people who are voting “No” on the Draft Plan are not trying to “shut down”
or “kill” the Plan as Ms. MacLeod and Ms. Benander allege. We all want to
ensure that we get off fossil fuels and develop new, truly clean energy
sources. However, endorsements of the Plan (“Yes” votes) may be used to seek
funding for ill-conceived projects which threaten human lives and the
environment. This is a Draft Plan, the authors are seeking to represent a
consensus, and they have asked for feedback.
Twenty years ago, over three hundred waste incineration projects were defeated
in our country through grassroots efforts joined with major environmental
organizations. Today, public monies are being used to promote, subsidize, and
incentivize this selfsame thing as “clean” energy.
This sort of thing is happening all over the country and the world, and there
is a national “No Incentives for Incinerators” statement which can be viewed at
www.no-burn.org . At this crossroads we are facing, paying extra to burn stuff
as clean energy is definitely going down the wrong road. There are proven
alternatives that offer many more benefits to people, the environment, and the
economy.
Robin,
My reading of the plant's Environmental Notification Form, uploaded to the
Russell Plant forum by Robin Unger, says the plant will emit about 3.6 tons of
air pollution per day, or about 1,300 tons per year. That's a far cry from
600,000 tons. Misstatements like this lead me to to question whether you hold
yourself to the same standards you set for the developers. I get the sense that
plant opponents have a win-at-any-cost mentality in which case honest discourse
is unlikely.
I realize this may be just one error in an otherwise accurate account, but I
don't have time to check your facts and this is not the first time I have urged
you to be more careful in your case against the plant. At best, I can attribute
your inaccuracies and hyperbole to overzealousness, but eventually your honesty
must come into question and if trust is lost, your case collapses.
Scott
Jana Chicoine's message received 5/25/2007 8:42 AM:
> Following is a detailed explanation of our position on the Plan and the
survey. We hope that people will find this to be a thoughtful and complete
response to the intense objections and accusations that we have been
encountering.
>
<snip>
> In the case of Russell Biomass, the plant would burn about a ton of fuel a
minute, approximately 500,000 tons of material every year, emitting over
600,000 tons of air pollution. This sort of thing makes it difficult for people
to breathe, and we know that it is already quite difficult to breathe in the
Pioneer Valley.
Robin and Jana,
My apologies, I meant to address my previous message to Jana, not Robin.
Hi Scott: You are mistaken and also much too quick to publicly question my
honesty and integrity. From page 12 of the EENF we calculate 1734 tons per day
or 632,873 tons per year. 632,180 of that is Co2.
On the subject of the Plan's support of Russell Biomass, you had written, "By
identifying the Russell plant as a source of clean energy the plan can be
justifiably viewed as endorsing the plant." Thank you for acknowledging the
truth of what we have been saying on that subject, as that is another point on
which I have been accused of dihonesty.
You also wrote, "From what Jana and Robyn have written it sounds like they
think all biomass plants however fueled, sited, and equipped, should be banned
from the clean category." I have personally made the case that these facilities
are a public health and environmental threat. However, many people who oppose
the Russell Biomass proposal on grounds of poor siting and preexisting poor air
quality might strongly support a similar plant elsewhere.
The immediate question before us is whether we want to promote, subsidize, and
incentivize this as clean energy -- or give our funds to something more
deserving.
Thanks for responding. Please do not be so quick to try to publicly undermine
my reputation and upbraid me.
Best -- Jana
Jana,
My apologies again. I mistook a comma for a decimal point! What I thought was
1.732 tons of CO2 a day is actually 1,732 tons! Big mistake. As you say this
comes out to 632,180 tons of CO2 per year. However, do you consider it honest
to lump 632,873 of CO2 (which is relatively harmless to our health) with the
693 tons of other emissions like NOx that can have harmful health effects?
Clearly we need to take account of the CO2 for climate change purposes but do
you consider the CO2 to present a local problem?
Scott
Ack! More mistakes. 632,180 tons of CO2 lumped with 693 tons of other
emissions.
Biomass burning is in line to receive federal and state monies intended to
decrease global warming and provide renewable energy. The environmental and
public health costs of burning chemically contaminated fuels is very steep, and
for this reason over three hundred trash incinerators were soundly defeated in
our country a generation ago. Now, we can see that using our public funds to
promote, incentivize, subsidize, and fund new construction of biomass burners
will have the exact opposite of its intended effect on global warming and the
environment. For the reasons outlined above, I maintain that biomass is not
carbon neutral, it is not clean, and it is not renewable.
Thanks Scott - I will look further into just what "relatively harmless to our
health" means. I'll wager that the 632,180 tons are 'relatively' much less
harmful to the health of your family there in Sunderland than for my family
here in Russell.
In the meantime, let's look at the carbon neutrality argument briefly and
consider whether there are health effects from floods, droughts, fires, melting
snowcaps and rising seas caused by an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Our well-intentioned effort to ward off global warming is in fact about to
bring us a huge increase in the release of greenhouse gases both nationally and
internationally. This is because biomass burning is considered to be a carbon
neutral and renewable energy source. It is neither.
If the fuel is not regrowing, biomass burning is not carbon neutral:
1) Any wood coming from clearing land for housing and other building
developments is not growing back. The trees are being replaced by buildings, so
they are not growing back.
2) Any wood coming from demolition debris is not growing back unless the site
is being reclaimed for forestry -- an extreme unlikelihood for most demolition
sites .
3) The federal government and numerous state governments are reclassifying
numerous non-renewable fuel sources as as renewable energy fuel for biomass
power plants and biofuel factories.Among these are municipal solid waste (MSW),
industrial waste, demolition debris, and other fuels which are not truly
renewable.
If the fuel is regrowing, biomass burning is not carbon neutral until 50-100
years have passed:
1) The argument that biomass burning is "net carbon neutral" is based on the
idea that 50-100 years of regrowth is an insignificant period of time for the
earth to endure increased greenhouse emissions. Isn't this the 50-100 years
that we are worried about?
If the fuel is regrowing, biomass burning is not carbon neutral if it
contributes to flooding, droughts, fires, and loss of arable land:
1) Global warming is being blamed for floods, droughts, fires, and millions of
acres of arable land turning to desert. Increased biomass burning will
contribute to global warming both short-term (if it is regrowing) and long-term
(if it is not regrowing). Floods destroy trees that would otherwise have been
sequestering carbon. Droughts kill plants that would otherwise be sequestering
carbon, and droughts cause fires which burn up trees ( releasing additional
carbon as well as nullifying those trees' contribution to carbon sequestration.
Increased emissions from biomass burning contributing to global warming would
also contribute to the expansion of deserts and the permanent loss of arable
land, further eroding carbon sequestration, and perpetuating the warming cycle.
Biomass burning is in line to receive federal and state monies intended to
decrease global warming and provide renewable energy. Now, we can see that
using our public funds to promote, incentivize, subsidize, and fund new
construction of biomass burners will have the exact opposite of its intended
effect on global warming and the environment. For the reasons outlined above, I
maintain that biomass is not carbon neutral, it is not clean, and it is not
renewable.
Jana Chicoine, Russell
www.concernedcitizensofrussell.org
Jana,
I was not asking for your views on the CO2 issue with respect to global
warming, but questioning the honesty of boosting plant emissions that could
have a harmful effect on those breathing valley air by a factor of 600. A more
accurate figure for the projected potentially unhealthy emissions is under
1,000 tons per year, not over 600,000 tons as you claimed. To me this is an
example of an oppose-at-any-cost approach that I feel harms your cause and will
hold us back from a clean energy future.
Scott
Scott: Co2 has no harmful health effects? Best -- Jana
Let me rephrase that: 1700+ tons of Co2 emitted every 24 hours in a narrow
river valley that experiences frequent weather inversions and federal "bad air"
days would never under any circumstances have any harmful health effects
whatsoever? I think the evaluation of the impacts would also have to include
the loss available oxygen that has been sucked up in the burn. My understanding
is that a huge fire like that in the wrong circumstances can cause a 'killer
fog' where available oxygen in reduced to fatal levels. So if it can cause a
killer fog what effect is it having on everyday air quality? Co2 does not
adversely affect air quality at all? What does "relatively harmless to health'
mean?
Hello, friends - Thanks for the thoughtful dialogue. Bill, your proposed reframing of the inclusion of specific projects helps a lot. I know that you have been caught in an awkward position: the best -- cheapest, cleanest, most just and healthiest way to meet the terrific energy goals you've/we've outlined is through efficiency improvements. Perhaps we could state this more strongly in the plan? It's unfortunate that because of opposition to wind power and a lack of flexibility in the Mass Technology Collaborative and some state agency funding, too many resources -- funds and staff time -- are going to large, centralized biomass instead of the cheapest, cleanest solutions (efficient technologies, combined heat and power, wind, etc.). Biomass is an important part of the solution, in the long run, but, as others have correctly noted, it is not accurate to call biomass and biofuels "clean". Biomass is potentially much "cleaner" than coal in terms of CO2 emissions. Biomass plants do, however, emit more greenhouse gas emissions than some other forms of renewable energy, such as wind. They increase air pollution and thus damage health. Also, they release some heavy metals and toxins, which are linked to health damage for pregnancy, small children, elders and the immune-compromised. Importantly, biomass plants pose a risk of being converted or utilized for burning waste -- which will release much greater quantities of harmful toxins. The regulatory oversight required to ensure that only sustainably-harvested biomass is used, and that wastes are not burned, is not trivial. The costs to taxpayers for that oversight, and the monitoring required, shows that the operation of wind turbines and PV are comparatively minute. Clean Water Action's position is that we need to include some biomass in the mix for replacing coal and nuclear power. However, perhaps the total contribution of biomass might be rather modest. Here is our priority list: Our regional renewable energy plan should prioritize efficiency improvements first -- efficient electricity transmission, lighting, refrigeration, heating and cooling, etc. We should funnel the vast majority of funds, state and local government resources, and support to helping our businesses, institutions, government and citizens make the transition to high-efficiency technologies, better weatherized buildings wherever electric heat is used, and capture of waste heat and steam to run co-generation facilities. [Swiss engineering and technical institutes say it's feasible to achieve a 2,000 watt (total energy per day, per person) society" by 2050: "Within a recent pre-study, "Steps towards a 2000 W society Developing a White Paper on R&D on Energy-Efficient Technologies", on the feasibility of the vision of a 2000 Watt per capita society finished in early 2003, the authors concluded that this vision of the Board of the Swiss Institutes of Technology reducing present per capita energy use by two thirds will not be impossible to be implemented within some five decades from the point of view of natural and engineering science..." https://www.rdb.ethz.ch/projects/project.php?proj_id=7742 Note that the scientists conclude that to achieve this goal of reducing energy needs to one-third of European demand (which equals approximately ONE-SIXTH of U.S. per capita demand) will take tremendous focus and resources. We will not get there if we are focusing on biomass as a major solution.] Then, in a second tier, the plan should prioritize truly "clean and safe" renewable energy sources such as wind and small hydro, solar hot water, and PV. [A study by Stanford researchers of POTENTIAL WIND POWER sites globally identified ~800 sites that together could GENERATE MORE THAN CURRENT GLOBAL ELECTRICITY DEMAND: www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=32617. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports: "The cost of producing electricity from wind has dropped 90 percent since the 1980s. Currently producing electricity for 3 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour, it is competitive with the cost of electricity from a new coal-fired power plant. Through additional investment in research and development, the price could reach 2.5 cents a kilowatt hour within the next few years...Wind energy is cost-competitive with new plants fired with fossil fuel...Good wind areas, which cover 6 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, are large enough to supply more than 4.4 billion megawatt-hours - more than one and a third times the total amount of electricity used in the United States in 1999. www.nirs.org/alternatives/potentialforre.htm] Biomass is in a third tier -- "cleaner" than coal and nuclear, and a part of a sustainable energy system, but still posing potentially significant health and environmental impacts. Perhaps biomass plants could provide something like 10% of electricity production (a back-up when the combination of reducing electricity demand through efficiency, and generating electricity via wind, PV, wave and tidal, small hydro, etc., might not be enough). Biomass is clearly not the cleanest and safest, and, health and environmental impacts, plus regulatory costs, eliminate from the ranks of cheapest. The distinction between a good and bad biomass project includes issues of: size, state aid requested, environmental impacts (air, water use, impacts of truck hauling, etc.), taxpayer subsidies and government oversight required, respect for local democratic processes by plant owners (or ownership/accountability/responsiveness in general), efficiency of burning, and what is burned. I've heard from a state official that we could get the same efficiencies in combustion with a 10MW plant as a 50 MW plant. I won't repeat all the concerns and questions raised about the Russell plant, but simply emphasize a couple of general questions for all biomass development: 1. Is a particular biomass project truly low-carbon? (Many thought that nuclear was low-carbon, since full cost, environmental and climate accounting were not included in the computation of pollution and CO2 per btu.) 2. What are the economic and health cost impacts of a particular proposed biomass plant? True cost accounting must include: * road construction and repair from trucks hauling wood in and ash out, * potential costs to taxpayers if ash disposal requires government-managed landfills, etc., * local government costs for managing continuous, significant-sized transport activities, * respiratory and other illness - increased air pollution can trigger asthma, cardiac arrests and stroke, * loss of recreational activities and ecosystem benefits such as water use, water heating, etc., and * regulatory costs of overseeing the plants to ensure that they do not become trash incinerators. Do we have this calculation for the Russell plant? My apologies if I missed it! 3. Might the biomass plant be used as (or converted to be) a waste incinerator? Massachusetts has a ban on waste incineration to protect public health. Waste corporations have been trying to find a way around that ban for years. Incineration of waste will release and create toxins which, at tiny levels, are associated with damage to a child in the womb, and probable health harm to the rest of us. How will we be protected from illegal combustion of plastics, garbage, construction and demolition debris, etc.? 4. Now some climate scientists are saying that by 2040 forests may cease being strong "carbon sinks": the warming of the planet, if unchecked, will substantially reduce the ability of trees to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Forests may even become net carbon emitters. How does this affect the potential benefits of investing in biomass plants versus the alternatives -- such as street lights that use 70% less electricity, distributed generation of small electricity sources, wind and PV, etc.? The safest, cleanest, cheapest path is efficiency, with wind and PV better investments after that. The plan should emphasize these priorities and distinctions. Our plan should call for state and local government, and our elected officials to Washington, to focus on wind, PV, tidal, small hydro, and, most of all, efficiency. Thanks, Tina Tina Clarke Clean Water Action office/home: (413) 549-6834 cell: (413) 658-8165 <email obscured> www.cleanwateraction.org, www.cleanwaterfund.org Clean Water Action - New England Headquarters 262 Washington St., Suite 301 Boston, MA 02108 This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you receive this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail, telephone or fax and delete the original message from your records. Thank you.
Robin,
#1) My concern stands. I disagree with anyone asking people to vote blindly on
the plan. Just because someone else does it, doesn't make it ok to do. We need
honest discourse to move forward.
#2) We disagree about whether including something in an inventory constitutes
endorsement. I don't believe it does and I know it isn't the intention of the
Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative to endorse these plants. Bill
and Catherine have been sorting through a lot of very diverse opinions about
biomass... about when and where it's appropriate.
Here's what Bill and Catherine wrote about the Russel Biomass Plant on page 11
in the plan. It is not an endorsement.
"We have learned that large-scale biomass plants can cause
significant concern at the local level. It may be that
the largest proposed clean energy project in the
Pioneer Valley, the Russell Biomass project, does not
move ahead... Given what we have learned in this planning
process, small-scale distributed generation combined
heat and power biomass plants would be much more
favorably received in this region than a large (50MW)
biomass plant that does not use the heat generated."
I think it would be good to talk about having emission standards in the
Criteria for Siting Clean Energy projects.
It would be good to talk about our definitions of clean energy.
#3, #4, and #5) The Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative referenced on
the website was formed on paper for a grant project that wasn't funded. That
group didn't meet or do any work together. Catherine just used the same name
when she nad Bill brought together the group to work on the Pioneer Valley
Clean Energy Plan, with significant overlap. It's not relevant to this
conversation. Catherine explained this to Jana a while ago. Not sure why it
keeps coming up.
There are good, wise, thinking people who support biomass projects, believing
that with the right scale, in the right location, with the cleanest
technologies available to us... that biomass projects are an essential part of
how we build a sustainable energy future. We have wise people on both sides of
this discussion. I believe a civil, respectful exchange is essential for us
now. That's why I wrote about my concerns about honest discourse.