As stated before I am posting newsletters from the past 6 months to catch us all up. This post is taken from the May issue of the NTCAA Newsletter. Remember these are articles written from other information (trusted sources) but watch carefully how Placer County's "statistics" as well as explanations change. I will link in the newspaper articles as well if I can, but remember the newspaper unfortunately sits in the County's pocket. Those of you who know me realize that I am biting my tongue and showing quite a bit of restraint by not adding comments to the articles themselves. If you want to know what I think, just email me and ask, you know I am not shy sharing my opinions. Meera
Thought for the day:
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”…..
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Kings Beach Biomass Plant on Fast Track
Placer County is proposing to build a biomass power-generating facility in Kings Beach. It is also fast tracking the project through changes to its own zoning and planning laws so as to break ground ASAP. However the County’s plan is fundamentally and financially flawed as it could achieve its goals more easily and more cheaply.
The main goals of the County’s Wildfire Protection and Biomass Utilization Program as they apply to North Tahoe are:
1. Reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires in our region.
2. Protect local citizens and visitors from the consequences of catastrophic wildfires.
3. Find one or more beneficial uses for excess biomass.
4. Improve air quality in Placer County.
If wildfire protection is pursued (1 and 2), then it will inevitably generate slash, wood chips, and other biomass that needs to be removed from the Basin. What is the best way to achieve this (3) while also improving air quality (4)?
The problem is that the County has wrongly leapt to the conclusion that this means we must build a biomass plant in the Basin. To that end it is channeling hundreds of
thousands of County tax dollars and federal grant money (our tax dollars) to build the plant, and is flaunting normal planning procedures.
At their May 18th meeting, the Placer County Board of Supervisors took a fast track step forward toward approving a 1-3MW Biomass plant in Kings Beach. The BOS approval of a three-party consulting agreement sets up a reimbursement account with the TRPA, who will actually hire the consultant to prepare the environmental documents for the Biomass Plant. Placer County requested the TRPA to waive normal bidding requirements and negotiate a sole source contract with Ascent Environmental Inc. for a total of
$290,840. TRPA will pay the consultant, and then be reimbursed by Placer County from a Department of Energy federal grant. Why the circuitous route that TRPA hires the consultant and Placer County uses federal funds to reimburse TRPA?
Why the waiver?
According to Placer County’s request, the rationale is “to meet our deadlines…our schedule is to break ground on the facility in 2012 and to be operational in 2013.” The TRPA’s waiver states, “TRPA will be working in coordination with Placer County on locating a biomass facility in or around the Lake Tahoe Basin.” So the answer is political expediency that is to meet a self-imposed deadline on building the power plant. Does this not presuppose approval, without any of the environmental documents prepared or federal NEPA requirements met? Is this justified for the Tahoe Basin,one of three federally designated Outstanding Natural Resource Waters (ONRW)? How many people even know about this proposed plant in Kings Beach? Very few County residents and even fewer Kings Beach residents know anything other than the leading Placer County rationale that open burning of slash piles emits more air pollutants than the proposed power plant. Obviously, but a biomass power plant in Kings Beach may buy its fuel feedstock from the existing market, as do other local biomass plants, if seasonal supplies are not available for full-capacity operation. The range of cost for the feedstock is $20-$50 per ton (green to dry material), and is not even close to the cost of removal and conversion into usable fuel. It is this high cost of processing the forest material into fuel feedstock that needs to be heavily subsidized. Ecological burning and burning on slopes greater than
30% would continue even if all other thinning material is subsidized and processed into biomass fuel.
Is a biomass power plant cost effective?
A biomass power generating plant does not create enough money to subsidize the very high cost of removing forest debris and processing it into fuel. There is a shortage of biomass feedstock on the market so any increase of feedstock product will be purchased by existing biomass plants.
The Loyalton Biomass plant, located 41 miles from the Cabin Creek processing facility, (Kings Beach proposed site is 17 miles) is only operating at half its designed output of 20MW because of the lack of fuel. So why build more biomass power plants when fuel shortage is the problem?
Health issues?
Biomass power generating plants are proposed for many communities in America. There
is little empirical data to evaluate the health effects with certainty. However, questions have been raised by medical groups across the country on the safety of the biomass plant generated particulate matter and its known effect on the human cardiopulmonary system. Ninety-eight chemicals, among them lead, mercury,
formaldehyde, chloroform, arsenic, two types of dioxin, and carbon monoxide emerge from the smokestack.
Is a biomass transfer facility feasible? Currently, biomass is chipped on site and then transported to the County facility at Cabin Creek. From there it is hauled to the Loyalton Plant, in a more or less
“green” state. The best option is to set up a biomass grinding and drying facility before transfer, with a stump grinder where biomass can be reduced to sizes that are compact and easy to transport. The facility may need some land where biomass can be dried outdoors before transport. This procedure will almost triple the value of load transported, and could be done at the Cabin Creek site. Trucking the biomass the
41 miles to Loyalton would cost only a few dollars per dry ton.
Placer County’s plan for the Kings Beach Biomass Plant is fundamentally and financially flawed as it could achieve its goals more easily and more cheaply with a basin-located biomass grinding, drying, and transfer facility to remove the slash from the forests and convert it to fuel feedstock and transport it to
existing plants. Having run some tentative financial numbers, NTCAA finds it hard to believe that building a brand new biomass power-generating plant in Kings Beach can possibly be the most attractive option. It is certainly not the best way to use our tax money. Such a biomass transfer facility would require much less upfront investment, than constructing a new power-generating facility in Kings Beach, be cheaper to operate, and provide more income for the County. Not burning the biomass material in the Kings Beach community would also alleviate health concerns.
No comments:
Post a Comment