Candy and its role in Vermont’s Energy Future
Submitted by VT Journal on Wed, 05/23/2012 - 9:36am
By Russell Susman
NORTH SPRINGFIELD, VT -Is anyone in North Springfield….or ordinary Springfield, or Chester or anywhere else in Vermont getting tired of reading self-serving statements and quizzical facts in the form of paid advertising and other propaganda from the people hoping to build a huge biomass power plant in North Springfield? In one of the developers latest offerings they repeat an important questionable observation that since the North Springfield Industrial Park already has 200 trucks coming and going each day, an additional 40 or so tractor-trailers coming and going from a power plant will hardly be noticed. Well, the fact is that there are not 200 trucks coming and going from the Park each day as ours and others observations have revealed. There may be 200 trucks if you count all the pick-up trucks that belong to the people who work there, but our data does not support the implication that 200 tractor-trailers go in and out, each day. Does anyone get suspicious when a North Springfield resident who lives near Precision Drive says that by her own observations the 200 count is erroneous?
Is anyone else offended by the fact that the Massachusetts-based biomass builders think so little of the townsfolk of North Springfield and our local officials that they have started to add “incentives” for people in North Springfield. These gimmicks, added to dress-up their proposal and attract support while their Petition is before the Public Service Board include the promise of “free” heat to residents of North Springfield as well as wood stoves to others. Does anyone really think free heat will be free? And what about the 7 months of the year when nobody needs heat? On the other hand the emissions from the plant will continue all year long, not just in the cold months. If the heat is free, what about the equipment and installation in each home?
And finally, if the proposed biomass will be such a great benefit to our community why did the proponents of biomass feel they had to pass out candy to students in Ms. Stern’s fifth grade class before a discussion on biomass energy? On the contrary, the representative from the North Springfield Action Group (NoSag) who argued the opposing view highlighted her presentation with articles on biomass (including data from the developer) and literature for the students to take home and share with their parents. No Candy from NoSag, just information to read and to think about, for the kids and their parents. The NoSag approach is educational, respectful of the kids’ ability to process and analyze information, good for their understanding and arriving at informed opinions on complicated public issues, and even better for their teeth. Does anyone think that bringing a bag of candy to a debate on energy policy that involves health and the quality of life in Vermont promotes thoughtful analysis? Was this insulting to our kids and to their teacher? Did Ms. Stern have to explain the role of candy in biomass energy?
If the North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project (NSSEP) was really sustainable, and if it was really a boon for the local economy, and if it was a benefit for the people of Vermont, why do the proponents of the plant need to resort to offering candy to kids and free stuff to local residents? If this was the engine to Springfield’s economic salvation, why would the developer have been in discussions with local and state officials over the last few years, but only go public with their plan 3 months ago, a week or two before the first formal informational meeting and the Public Service Board hearing the following week? On a personal note, I wonder why the developer didn’t bother to inform or interact with people in the neighborhood around the proposed plant. They spent time in front of my house in order to take pictures for a simulation to show how nice the plant and its 140 foot stack, 10 story building and 10 or so acres of wood chip piles would fit into the neighborhood. But they didn’t bother to knock on my door. And according to many other residents of Springfield and North Springfield, I was not the only one who was deprived of the opportunity to welcome our would-be, new neighbors.
Let me end here, on a positive note. I think the North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project team should take their operation to the nation’s capitol. The effectiveness of the NSSEP’s political initiative is impressive. At a time when there is absolute gridlock in Washington and many state governments are at a legislative impasse as well, the NSSEP has managed to convince virtually every local official to support their power plant proposal. They have persuaded virtually every one of our local decision makers that Springfield and Vermont need a large scale biomass power plant, irrespective of political party or the will of concerned residents of Springfield and environs, and irrespective of the considered opinions of medical societies across the country which expressed opposition biomass energy for health reasons. And they have lobbied effectively despite the facts and analyses that show that our area does not need the projected energy and it certainly doesn’t need the power from the comparatively inefficient burning of wood chips. In today’s climate of political divisiveness and partisan rancor, the NSSEP has accomplished a miracle---a consensus, virtual unanimity that includes the Springfield Town Select Board. Wow, this consensus is way better than candy. By all calculations this is one sweet move.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Opinion: Candy and its role in Vermont’s Energy Future
Is anyone getting tired of reading self-serving statements and quizzical facts in the form of paid advertising and other propaganda from the people hoping to build a huge biomass power plant in North Springfield?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
---
Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts
No but am getting tired of NOSAG posting all these negative articles against an industrialist who already has put one empty building back into use.
ReplyDeleteHear Hear!
DeleteStop the BioMess! Burning up 40 truckloads of our forests a day that won't renew for 70 years is lunacy! Look at all of that carbon that is released in the matter of a few hours at most. This ain't no "green" energy plan, it's pollution and destruction. Ban the BioMess!
ReplyDeleteDo you have any clue what you are talking about? They are not going to be using hardwood timber grade wood for this project, we are talking blighted and bull pine, etc. which needs to be removed rather than left laying on the ground or crowding timber, and this does not require 70 years to renew.
DeleteYou don't have a clue. Those trees while alive diminish the CO2 in the air that most of us breathe. When burned all of that CO2 is suddenly released into the atmosphere. It instantly adds to the problem. It takes 70 years for those trees to regrow and remove all of that CO2. We don't have seventy years to fix these scams. Wood fueled biomass power plants emit about 50% more CO2 per MWh than existing coal plants, 150% more than existing natural gas plants and 330% more than new power plants.
DeleteNo it does not take the kind of trees involved 70 years to regrow. However, if the trees are cut and left to rot as debris, which is what happens now they release the CO2 into the atmosphere. The CO2 removal by the Northeastern forest is negligible because of the CO2 that it produces since much of it is deciduous. In addition, you are basing your figures on old biomass plants not new biomass plants.
ReplyDeleteIt takes 70 years for the tree to regrow and function as a mature tree. Obviously in the first 10 years the tree will consume little CO2. Once it is mature it takes many years to remove that CO2 that was released when it burned. The 70 figure is pretty much a standard when calculating the figures. If a tree lives a full life and dies that carbon will be released over many decades as the tree rots. It is not hard to find stumps of cut trees that were cut more than 50 years ago and the stump is still decomposing. Next you will be claiming that since some forest fires are natural that this is a natural process, right? Please show us where we can see ALL of the public monies involved in building and operating this particular plant like subsidies, tax credits, building roads, etc. Also please tell us where we can find in writing as to how much CO2 that will be released on a daily basis. I am asking for these as obviously someone has those figures and you seem to know everything.
DeleteI believe his point was that pine trees don't take 70 years to grow to maturity, and you don't use mature hardwood trees in these facilities you use the waste trees that get scattered as debris which usually rot out in a matter of a few years and produce no energy but just supply CO2. Further this will allow the consumption of blighted and shake trees that need to be culled. The State has already developed strict standards that apply to the pellet industry that prevent clear cutting, etc. which will apply to this plant. So all the scare talk about stripping everything bare of trees is just NIMBY propaganda. I believe we all treasure our forests, but to say this plant is going to denude the local forests is simply nonsense. I don't know if Alpin has been arguing about subsidies, or not, seems to me other people have been asserting the subsidies and tax credits. But we subsidized managed forest land in Vermont already under the current use program and those plans frequently call for culling and thinning which used to result in debris -- this will provide a market for it. I haven't heard any local foresters standing up and saying this is going to put them out of business. It looks to me the only real adverse impact is probably going to be on the maple syrup producers as it may drive up the price of their sugarwood that they burn in their sugarhouses -- which by the way probably create a lot lot worse air pollution than this plant will.
DeleteYou are fabricating facts. Show us the study that shows how these "waste" trees rot out in a few years. The fact is that it takes many years to grow a mature forest. Whether the trees are hardwoods or another is a canard that you and Alpin(probably the one and the same or employed to distort here) are trying to twist this into. Burning up our forests is bad science and anyone with a brain knows it. Tell how much CO2 this plant will pollute the atmosphere with on a daily basis and how much public money is involved in the development and operation of this plant.
DeleteThere is a difference between 70 years to grow a hardwood timber tree, and 20 years to grow a pine tree and even less to grow a blighted or cull pole sized tree. Well managed forests are not harvested once every 70 years, they are continually being harvested so as not to clear cut the same. The culling or thinning of the stands is part of proper woodland management and because it creates temporary pools of light it causes the forest to be better wildlife habitat than mature forests which are not managed and where undergrowth becomes non-existent. Right now there is such a limited market for cull softwoods that they tend to be felled and left to rot -- stumps and small logs do not rot at the same pace. Simple observation of woodlots would give you that understanding, one can expect them to rot out the gases within 2 to 5 years. Granted this is a slower release than burning them, however, other than fertilizing the forest floor they do not provide any useful by product like electrical energy. Rather than these broadside scare rants, it would have been more helpful had someone been arguing in favor of the developer trying to incorporate a bio-char aspect into the plant which would have ended the chatter and concern over CO2 plus provided another marketable product. The logging industry is fairly responsible in Vermont and it could use any shot in the arm that is available.
DeleteWhere are the facts and figures on the BioMess? Where is their stated daily release of CO2 into the atmosphere? Where is the complete listing of public funds that will be used to build and operate this facility? All of the funds including tax credits, incentives, building roads, special pricing on water, special tax considerations, etc. Where is the environmental impact study concerning the forests, wildlife, water quality, air quality?
Deletealpin jackless seems to know the answer to everything on this blog site. He has comments for it all. Everyone should listen to him.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason Mr. Sussman is against biomass is because it is in his own backyard. If this project was located on the other side of town he wouldn't raise an pinky fighting it nor would any of the NOSAG NIMBYS.
ReplyDeleteI guess that depends if your backyard has a line of port o potties in it. I think the point was if you own property near an industrial park you have to kind of expect that industry will locate in the park.
DeleteBut what if you lived there before the industrial park was ever built there......and the industrial park was stuck next to your home and now they want to poop in your backyard on top of destroying your neighborhood....
DeleteI would say then that you should have fought harder against the industrial park when it was proposed. Did you resist the industrial park?
DeleteScience from two decades ago to the present shows that carbon dioxide emissions from burning forest biomass for energy generally take so long to be neutralized by tree regrowth – several decades to over a century – that the climate is harmed, not helped.
ReplyDeleteThe new study, entitled ‘Fuelling a BioMess’, contradicts industry assertions that this kind of ‘biomass’ fuel is clean and carbon neutral. The science behind the report shows how using forests for energy can be worse for the climate than burning coal.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/New-Greenpeace-report-biomass-report-slams-industry-claims/
Massachusetts’s Governor Deval Patrick’s administration took bold leadership in announcing new standards to ensure that the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard rewards only biomass energy that reduces carbon emissions. These standards are the first in the world to set a performance requirement for biomass and are critical to reducing carbon emissions and protecting forests, both in Massachusetts and nationally.
ReplyDeleteThese standards are important because they finally define and favor good biomass over bad. Some biomass, such as sustainably produced energy crops like switchgrass grown on non-forested land, are a good thing — they can power our home while cutting carbon pollution. But, unfortunately, we’re increasingly seeing a very damaging trend — burning whole trees to produce electricity. This practice actually increases carbon emissions compared with fossil fuels for decades, and threatens our forest ecosystems as well.
In fact, in many states, there is now a perverse scenario where whole trees are counting as a renewable fuel and utilities are rewarded financially for generating bioenergy — while emitting more carbon pollution than coal plants! Absurd, right?
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/syassa/massachusetts_biomass_regulati.html
Take note that the post for the plant has nothing to back up what they say, but there seems to be plenty of info to back up how bad this is. I might be skeptical, but what happens when we run out of blighted trees?? If this happens will the public be notified?
ReplyDeleteWhen they run out of trees they plan on turning the plant into a Soylent Green factory. A win win situation for all.
ReplyDeleteThey should do that now!!!!
Delete