The day's Agenda: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/schedule/frame.cfm?CommitteeMeetingID=13731
Two of the NOSAG members, both engineers, spoke before the committee detailing some negative aspects of biomass plants. Walter Dodd talked about biomass energy not being sustainable or carbon neutral. His letter to the committee here: Joint committee letter 10-30-2013
His reference source: Biomass energy - not sustainable or carbon neutral
 |
| NOSAG Chairman Robert Kischko speaking before the Committee. |
115 State Street Montpelier, VT 05633-5301 Tel: (802) 828-2228 Fax: (802) 828-2424 STATE OF VERMONT Senate Chamber Sen. Robert M. Hartwell, Chair Sen. Diane Snelling, Vice Chair Sen. Peter W. Galbraith Sen. Mark A. MacDonald Sen. John Rodgers, Clerk House and Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Energy JOINT MEETING ON ELECTRIC GENERATION PLANTS AGENDA Room 11 Last Updated 10/31/2013 8:44 AM Wednesday, October 30, 2013 9:30 AM Convene 9:35 AM Overview of issues related to planning, participation, procedure, and comparison of status quo with Aaron Adler, Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Council Billy Coster, Policy and Planning Analysis, Department of Public Service 10:15 AM Planning, Participation, and Procedural Issues - RPCs James Sullivan, Executive Director, Bennington County Regional Planning Commission 10:45 AM Planning, Participation and Procedural Issues - VLCT Karen Horn, Director, Vermont League of Cities and Towns 11:15 AM Participation and Procedural Issues Jim Volz, Chair, Public Service Board June Tierney, General Counsel, Public Service Board 11:45 AM Stormwater Issues, High Elevation Projects Deborah Markowitz, Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources Padraic Monks, Stormwater Program Manager, Department of Environmental Conservation Jeff Nelson, Director of Energy & Environmental Services, VHB, Inc. 12:15 PM Lunch 1:15 PM Curtailment Issues; Role of Public Advocate in Siting Review Chris Recchia, Commissioner, Public Service Department Ed McNamara, Regional Policy Director, Public Service Department Autumn Barrett, Department of Public Service Geoff Commons, Director of the Public Advocacy Division, Department of Public Service 2:00 PM Property Assessment & Tax Issues Bill Johnson, Director, Property Valuation & Review, Department of Taxes 2:45 PM Opportunity for Public Comment Sign-up during day Kathleen Nelson, Brighton Walter Dodd, Springfield Bob Kischko, No. Springfield, VT Annette Smith, Director, Vermonters for a Clean Environment John Lewandowski, Newark Noreen Hession, Newark Mary Boyer, Chair, Windham Selectboard Guy Pace, Barre 4:15 PM Committee Discussion Next steps 4:30 PM Adjourn If you have any questions and comments, please contact Katie Pickens at 802-828-5760
thank you to those that attended, this needs to be stopped at all cost.
ReplyDeleteIts not going to be stopped.
ReplyDeleteAre minutes from this session publicly available?
ReplyDeleteYes, minutes. We must have minutes so that we can here the NIMBY's repeat themselves over and over and over and over...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
ReplyDeleteI would just like the opportunity to see what these people presented so that I can have the opportunity to refute it point by point. Assuming they tried to present facts as opposed to rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to audio of remarks by the two NOSAG speakers:
Deletehttp://picosong.com/qb7M/
Thanks Walt:
DeleteDid you include all of the emissions from the multitude of trucks need to supply the plant. ?
Jean the whole thing stinks. Truck fumes and wood. Good combo.
@admin - thank you for the audio link.
DeleteThe first part got cut off, I assume this is Mr Dodd speaking.
0:57 "truly green" power supply such as wind, solar, hydro or ... even ... nuclear"
Let's discuss using the term "green" to describe solar energy. Solar panels may well have a total carbon emission that is lower than most other forms of energy conversion. Actual numbers depend on the type of energy used to extract and refine the silicon and produce the panels. An energy balance and carbon reckoning which considers energy methods used for fabrication, different types of panels, and location of the panels, is here:
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html
It is not a direct source, but they at least attempt to cover all aspects of the solar energy balance.
However, the "greenness" of solar energy is compromised by the toxic hazardous waste generated in the course of fabrication, which is being transported and dumped elsewhere. Trucking it away to the dump sites requires energy in the form of fossil fuel typically not considered when calculating carbon emissions.
http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-panel-makers-grappling-with-waste-2013-2
There is a reason why the solar manufacturing industry has moved to China, and it isn't about cost, it is about lax environmental protection. Those of you who think solar is "green" please read this and think about whether you are really doing the environment a favor by going solar. Or is it ok if the toxic waste affects the lives of people far away?
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-03-09/business/36778308_1_polysilicon-plants-solar-energy-chinese-companies
Does not state where he got his numbers, presumably these are in the report that was made available to the committee.
At 3:30 starts rattling off numbers for EPA permit limits for various type of plants without making clear what the point is. Apparently he is concerned about carbon emissions and nothing else. Do those numbers include the cost of transportation of the fuel sources to the plants? Because if the speaker is seriously suggesting that North Springfield would be better off with a coal-fired plant, he surely must be aware that there are no local sources of coal. Any coal would have to be trucked in from somewhere like Pennsylvania. Unless that transport is considered, the numbers are off. In a blatant attempt at emotion-charged rhetoric, at 4:12 in the case of biomass he refers to it as an "air pollution permit." He only does this in the case of biomass, not for the other types of plants.
At 4:20 he mentions the 1000 limit proposed for future natural gas plants, suggesting that this makes natural gas plants more acceptable than biomass plants. Where is this natural gas going to come from? New York? Surely NOSAG is aware that Vermont has banned the practice of hydraulic fracturing aka "fracking" (not that anyone was rushing to come to Vermont and frack). To be consistent with the directive of "greeness," one would therefore presume that Vermont should ban the use of any natural gas derived by fracking. Otherwise this would be a tad hypocritical. Ban it here, but let the neighbors elsewhere deal with the consequences?
DeleteFurther reading here:
http://www.vpirg.org/news/new-report-exposes-the-environmental-dangers-of-fracking-and-strengthens-the-case-against-proposed-fracked-gas-pipeline-extension/
I don't like using VPIRG as a source, since the axe they grind is to shunt VT taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the CEOs of Vermont companies who manufacture wind energy systems, but for once I think they hit the nail on the head. For obvious reasons they are campaigning against a natural gas pipeline.
4:30 "consider these things to be carbon neutral, or to be green" so he is able to differentiate, at least verbally if not technically. It is unclear whether something which is "carbon neutral" is automatically "green" to him.
4:51 using natural gas plant as a shining example - again see comment on fracking. Is natural gas "green" when the method of extracting it from the earth potentially involves water contamination? Apparently the speaker would have us put in a natural gas plant in North Springfield to ease his conscience over carbon emissions, and the drinking water contamination that occurs far away be damned.
5:26 "separate efficiency of combustion from forest practices" carbon to forest management
including coal-fired plants. I strongly suspect that the speaker is considering the plant only and does not account for the transport of the combustible product to the plant from its source. In other words, a coal-fired plant in and of itself may have lower CO2 emissions, however, if the coal has to be trucked in from Pennsylvania, any reasonable calculation would have to include carbon emissions which arise from the transport. Again, equating of "green" with "carbon emissions" is flawed. There are those who would argue that the mercury emissions alone that result from burning coal negate any benefits of lower carbon emissions.
And out of curiosity, what was the result of NOSAG's factfinding mission when they visited the biomass plant in Burlington VT?
Deletehttp://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/biomass_proponents_in_western.html
8:10 "Professional Engineer by profession" (one should mention in electrical engineering." And I could not
ReplyDeleteresist looking at this person's LinkedIn profile. Kischko is Vice-Chairman of the Vermont Board of
Professional Engineers.
I can're resist making a side comment here. Is this the same board whose voicemalbox is always full and does not return emails? I only ask because years ago I looked into becoming a PE in VT when I started my business
and gave up after not getting through to anyone. Recently a client of mine needed one of my report stamped by
a PE. I contacted the VT secretary of state only find out that there is not one single licensed PE in my field in the state of VT. Not one. My client had to get one of those firms that has a bunch of PEs in different engineering fields to sign it. The guy who put his stamp on it is CE. We had to explain some basic concepts to him. With the PE in VT is appears to be less about what you know than who you know.
Anyway.....
What I also find interesting is thet Mr Kischko lists a large number of projects that he was associated with
on his LinkedIn profile. Evidently he said "yes please" to his paycheck from DuFresne Henry to be involved
with such projects, but "no thank you" when it comes to having such a project come to realization near where
HE lives.
8:30 "Most Vermonters support fully the governor's stance on climate change."
Please count me out. Shumlin has no idea of what he is talking about on climate change. He only repeats what VPIRG tells him to say. And when he openly stated that he wanted to establish a major in "Climate Change" at UVM, he lost all credibility with me completely.
11:32 "biomass facilities for heating are generally in the 75-85 % efficiency"
This is a good opportunity to discuss the concept of "efficiency." If the number that Mr Kischko cites only consider the plant as a closed system, then indeed biomass is less efficient than coal or propane. Design of a plant to burn highly refined, low moisture fuel is different from a plant designed to burn high moisture (green wood). Mr Kischko surely knows that. But let's take it further and consider an energy balance. By the time those electrons make it to your house, you should really bear in mind where that fuel source originated, what was done (if anything to refine it), and how it was transported to the power plant using what method. Is it really more "efficient" to truck coal in from Pennsylvania so it can be burned at a higher "efficiency" plant in Vermont, or are we better off using a local renewable resource as fuel which does not have to travel hundreds of miles to the plant?
12:20 "lucky to get to 30 %. Shame on us. We need to do better."
Please see report on efficiency of various energy conversion methods, specifically solar energy. Solar cells?
Up to 15 %. The best you can do with solar is 23 % according to this report. (link here http://www.logansboro.com/karlsblog.html?entry=energy-conundrum) Indeed, shame on us. I assume that going forward, no one from NOSAG will seriously suggest that solar energy is a solution owing to the efficiencies in the 10-25 % range..
13:14 Additional unnamed speaker, North Country Hospital has put in a generator. Saving over $250,000 a year.
"I've gone up to see it operate, and you can't even see smoke. ... It is VERY clean." In a HOSPITAL. Did you
NOSAG people catch that?
More information here: http://www.nrbp.org/publications/biomass-chp/appendixa.pdf