Here are two articles from two different US states in which forest biomass projects are running into trouble. I don't want to preach for my parish, but I think it would help diffuse some of the criticism if research on sustainability was more abundant and more widely known.ANTI-BIOMASS COALITION LAUNCHES PETITION ASKING FOR MORATORIUMPublished: Monday, March 14, 2011, 9:13 PM UBy Peter Goonan, The RepublicanA coalition that opposes biomass energy plants proposed in Springfield, Russell and Greenfield has launched a petition asking for a moratorium on state-issued air permits for the projects and a continued freeze on renewable energy credits. Organizers of the petition gathered in Greenfield on Monday to publicize their effort. The coalition, in a statement, said that the wood-burning plants create air pollution and are harmful to health."At a time when our governments are in financial meltdown and health costs areskyrocketing, taxpayer money (is) in these dirty incinerators that will poison communities for decades," said Meg Sheehan of the Biomass Accountability Project, which is among the coalition participants. "The federal government is giving billions of our money to corporations that wrongly call biomass 'green energy.'"The coalition also includes Massachusetts Forest Watch, ARISE for Social Justice, Concerned Citizens of Franklin County, Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield, Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, Concerned Citizens of Russell, and Biofuelwatch. The group said there is a lack of public support for biomass energy. Proponents of biomass plants say they are safe, provide energy, and produce jobs and tax revenue.The petition, as drafted, asks the state Department of Environmental Protection under the Clean Air Act "to place a moratorium approving air permits for biomass electricity until Dec. 31, 2013."In addition, it asks the state Department of Energy Resources to continue a moratorium, begun in December 2009, on new renewable energy credit applications until Dec. 31, 2013, or until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concludes new rules on biomass greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA was expected to set the standards for large-scale biomass plants next month, but has declined to do so for another three years, said Lee Ann Warner, of Stop Toxic Incineration Springfield. The petition also calls on the state Department of Public Health to advise the state commissioner of public health to issue a policy against biomass energy. Janet Sinclair, of Concerned Citizens of Franklin County, said the petitions will be circulated and then presented to the three agencies. "Clean energy doesn't come out of a smokestack," Sinclair said. "The public's right to clean air and water should not be violated by biomass industry, much less with federal and state subsidies."Frank P. Fitzgerald, a lawyer representing the Springfield biomass project, said the developers, Palmer Renewable Energy, believe it "would not be in the best interest of the American people to slow down the process of bringing clean, green and local energy right now to end our dependence on foreign oil". The petition follows other petitions opposed to biomass plants in Springfield and Greenfield, organizers said.In addition, it follows a statewide petition opposed to offering renewable energy credits for incinerators signed by more than 130,000 voters statewide in advance of the 2009 moratorium.The state Department of Environmental Protection recently issued a draft, conditional plan approval for a 150 million, 35-megawatt, wood burning plant in East Springfield. There is a 30-day comment period, ending April 9.(c) 2011 masslive.comBIOMASS PLANT DROPPEDPublished March 14, 2011By John Dodge, The OlympianA Pennsylvania-based company pulled the plug Monday on a controversial plan to build a wood-burning power plant near Shelton. The move by Adage LLC, brought a sudden, decisive end to a 13-month battle over the 250 million project, which would have consumed about 600,000 tons of forest wood debris to generate enough electricity for 40,000 homes. What was hailed as a green energy project in February 2010 quickly drew the wrath of a sizable number of Mason County residents who questioned the project's potential effect on forest health and air quality. Company officials said a weak market for renewable energy - not project opposition - scuttled the project. "It was 100 percent about the lack of a market for the energy," Adage spokesman Tom DePonty said. "We were well on our way to securing permits and a fuel supply for the project." Project opponents, who staged protests, sponsored educational forums and lobbied local elected officials, said their campaign must have made a difference. "This is a victory for the citizens of Mason County," said Concerned Citizens of Mason County spokeswoman Beth McBain. "People looked at the science and did the research. They determined it was not a project we wanted in our community." If built, the plant would have generated annually about 550,000 tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and nearly 100 tons of particulate matter linked to heart and respiratory problems, especially in infants, pregnant women and the elderly, project opponents said. However, Adage was well on its way to securing an air pollution permit from the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency, whose staff had determined that the pollution from the plant would not violate federal air quality standards. The plant would have spurred about 400 construction jobs and 100 permanent jobs in a county with an unemployment rate hovering around 10 percent. "I still think we're a viable county for a biomass project," said Tim Sheldon, a state senator and Mason County commissioner. "But no one in this world would go forward with a project of this size without power sales agreements." When the project was first announced early last year, Adage officials said they expected to sell their power in this region and beyond to utilities facing state requirements that they include green energy in their energy supply portfolios. In Washington state, voters approved Initiative 937 in 2006, requiring utilities with more than 25,000 customers to ramp up their green energy to 3 percent by 2012, 9 percent by 2016 and 15 percent by 2020. All the affected utilities in the state have met their have 2012 goal, noted Dave Warren, energy services director for the Washington Public Utility District Association. And, he said, the lagging economy has dampened utility demands for new power. Whether or not Adage could secure a sustainable supply of fuel within a 50-mile radius of its proposed Port of Shelton plant site had been the topic of much debate. "The fuel supply was always a question," Warren said. In August 2010, Adage signed a fuel supply contract with Shelton-based Green Diamond Resource Co. that would satisfy about 20 percent of the project's needs. No other fuel supply contracts had been announced before the project termination. Several other woodwaste-to-energy projects have been unveiled in Western Washington. In a March 4 letter sent to the Mason County commissioners, state Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark - a big fan of high-tech biomass projects - questioned the wisdom of the Adage project, which he labeled an inefficient use of forest residue. "There is reason to question whether this volume can be environmentally and economically sustained within feasible hauling distance from the proposed Adage facility," Goldmark said. DePonty said the concerns voiced by Goldmark and more active project critics had no role in the decision to scrap the project after the company had invested millions of dollars trying to advance it. Adage is a joint venture formed by AREVA, a global energy firm, and Duke Energy. So far, Adage has terminated or announced intent to terminate three woodwaste-to-energy projects it had started, including two in Florida. The demise of the Mason County project was first made public by Port of Shelton executive director John Dobson in a press release Monday morning. DePonty confirmed the project termination and said Adage would not be making any public statement of its own. The next order of business for the port will be to close out an option Adage has to lease 87 acres from the port. The lease option costs Adage 1,000 a month. The clean air agency has yet to hear from Adage, ORCAA spokesman Dan Nelson said. The agency is likely to suspend the air operating permit requested by Adage after the agency completes review of public comments it received on the permit earlier this year.Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/03/14/v-print/1578785/biomass-plant-dropped-port-reports.html#ixzz1H36NiItU
0 comments:
Post a Comment