http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10021/proposed-bioenergy-plant-denied-certificate-of-public-good-in-vt/
Proposed bioenergy plant denied certificate of public good in Vt. By Erin Voegele | February 17, 2014 The North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project is planned for construction at the North Springfield Industrial Park. North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project LLC The Vermont Public Service Board has denied North Springfield Sustainable Energy Project LLC’s petition for a certificate of public good (CPG) for its proposed 25-to-35-megawatt (MW) biomass power plant in Springfield, Vt. A company spokesman called the ruling disappointing and told Biomass Magazine he is unable to comment on what the decision could mean for the plant at this time. NSSEP originally filed the petition requesting a CPG on Dec. 22, 2011. According to documents published by the PSB, the wood chip-fired plant would be constructed on a 20-acre parcel of land in the North Springfield Industrial Park. The principal components of the project include a boiler building, steam turbine generator building, pollution abatement equipment and stack, six Hexacool air-cooled condenser modules, three liquid storage tanks, a transformer yard, transport truck unloading facilities and various fuel handling, transport and storage facilities. According to PSB documentation, the project would feature a bubbling fluidized bed combustor technology, which offers benefits several benefits, including increased efficiency. The proposed project would take in approximately 450,000 green tons of wood chips per year, with 300,000 of that volume harvested from Vermont forests. A report prepared by a PSB hearing officer recommended the board deny the petition, claiming the project “will unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region based on its trucking-related impacts to the local community.” If the board would have elected to approve the petition, the report recommended it impose several conditions on the project. In explaining the recommendation, the hearing officer did note the project would provide measurable economic benefits in terms of increased jobs, wages and tax revenue to the surrounding community and state of Vermont if it were constructed and operated. “While I have concluded that many issues arising from the petition could be addressed through the imposition of conditions, I cannot conclude that there are reasonable conditions that could be imposed to alleviate the undue impacts of the significant increase in truck traffic on two local streets leading to the entrance of the North Springfield Industrial Park that would attend the delivery of the wood chips needed to fuel the proposed facility,” wrote the hearing officer, noting that the recommendation does not mean that he has concluded that no commercial-scale woody-biomass electric generated facility should be approved in the state. “To the contrary, I recognize that, as a general proposition, a woody-biomass electric generation facility could occupy an appropriate place in Vermont's energy portfolio, provided that such a facility is proposed for an appropriate, accessible location and would be operated so that it better comports with the requirements of Vermont and its ratepayer,” he hearing officer continued. In addition to electricity production, the proposed project also included a district heating component. According to PSB documents, NSSEP has proposed to construct a thermal loop in the industrial park to utilize waste heat. Waste heat produced at the power plant would be carried through a network of hot water pipes to support a central heating service for commercial buildings in the park. Regarding truck traffic, the report estimates that the plant would require delivery of five truckloads of wood chips per hour, with peak hour deliveries resulting in as many as 12 truckloads per hour. The report predicts that the resulting level of truck traffic would increase existing truck traffic entering the industrial park by 50 to 100 percent. The report also discusses issues related to future energy needs, the current lack of a power purchase agreement (PPA), state renewable energy goals, the generation of renewable energy credits (RECs), and economic impacts. According to the report, construction of the plant would result in more than 600 jobs, while operation of the plant would generated 160 new jobs. The payroll for the jobs would be nearly $9 million annually statewide, with a $3 million increase in state tax revenues during each year the project operates. In addition, the plant would generated nearly $15 million in annual wood purchases, with two-thirds of that benefiting Vermont foresters. In explaining its decision to deny the petition, the PSB said it has accepted the hearing officer’s recommended finding that the project would interfere with the orderly development of the region based on its trucking-related impacts to the local community. Within his report, the hearing officer also recommended that the board find that the project would meet a need for present and future demand for service that could not otherwise be met in a more cost-effective manner through conservation, energy-efficiency or load-management measures. However, the PSB indicated it has declined to find that the project would meet a present and future need for regional renewable energy. Rather, the board said that NSSEP has filed to demonstrate the plant would meet a present and future demand for services which could not otherwise be provided in a more cost-effective manner. The board, agreed with the hearing officer that there is sufficient evidence to find that there would be no adverse impact to system stability and reliability from interconnection of the project, provided the recommended conditions were fulfilled. The PSB also agreed that the project would provide economic benefit. In its denial, the PBS also discussed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noting that the project would result in what it called significant GHG emissions that would not be sequestered for decades. It also cited a low thermal efficiency of the plant as part of its reasoning for the denial. A full copy of the PSB’s decision is available on the State of Vermont website.
GOOD.
ReplyDeleteGood for Springfield.
Good for Vermont.
Good for the Earth.
World News just reprorted that scientists want the world leaders to get concerned about the Earth's climate change, which they state is happening quicker than expected.
Anyone who does not know what the greenhouse effect is, either did not take science in school or flunked science in school or did not go to school or maybe are just plain republican.
So why "on earth" does anyone want to build a "big machine" to dump TONS on CO2 into the air. Look at the air like this...
I was on a plane at 35,000 feet the other day and you can look out the window and see the sky meeting the ground. Could see tall smoke stacks spewing streams of "smoke" that flowed for miles over the midwest, coming our way.. Six miles up, the atmosphere does not go too much higer than that, now imagine the size of the planet in comparsion to six miles. The atmosphere as thick as a wet kleenx would be wrapped around an orange. That is how much "air" we have. Pretty thin. So why pollute it at an industrial level.??
Thank you for this bright shining example of the failings of public education!
DeleteFirst off, I'm a Republican as in capital R. Otherwise we are all republicans as we live in a republic, small r. (I learnedid that one in dasixth grade). I took science but it was during the ice age so saving the earth from the ice was a big problem. Didn't learn much other about that because then we learned about science not politics.
DeleteI was in an airplane recently also, flying from the West Coast to Hartford, CT. The plane was zipping along at over 550 MPH. I missed the smoke stacks, or at least the miles of smoke. Seems we only see what we want too. I also drove from the Midwest a few weeks back on a beautiful clear sky blue day. I must have missed the pockets of smoke you speak of. Now if I was stupid I'd take your comments to heart, but I know that our government has plenty of regulations and OSHA standards that industry must meet. Should we be good Shepard's of our Earth, yes. But there are bigger, real problems. Let's start with feeding all Americans and maybe even housing them. How much money is wasted on normal climate change every year that could be put to better use.
Now if you really want to see smoke from an airplane while not seeing the sky meet the ground fly over China, you'll know it when you see it as those big puffs are not clouds they're smoke stacks. That's unregulated industry working. That smoke is heading this way also. That will be like steel wool around an orange. By the way those are former American jobs producing that unregulated mess, we can thank both Republicans and Democrats for that. I did go to public school, just that it was back in a day one was taught to think not told what to think. American History teach said one day in class "Don't be afraid to question authority." Turns out that was my first understanding of developing common sense. Reread your post and tell me how your convincing me to join your beliefs?
How true, science did not expect such a change back when we were taught about CO2's effect on the climate. I agree.
DeleteThe smoke I was seeing was over Montana, probably copper mines, which I have first hand experance at since I came from a copper mine town with a 600 ft stack spewing nasty S*&T.
Industry standards are lax at best, lobbying in DC makes sure that coal burners need not be 100% up to standard. Cost to much to fix old equipment. Not sure what u mean by money spent on normal climate change. But there u go IT is not normal cllimate change. China...agree 100%. American jobs..agree 100% and don't get me going on that one. Happened right here not by a Chinaman but by a Goldman.
Getting back to science, they say the oceans have warmed by 1/2 of a degree or 1 degree, whatever. It takes quite abit of energy to raise 1 ft3 of water 1 deg. Lets say looking at only one foot deep in the oceans, just how much energy "by greenhouse effect" has been put into the water? Think.
Actually it is kind of late but preventing more is everyones responsibility. Thank you Mr. R from Mr. D. Your comments are appreciated.
to 08:32,, you clearly have never been in a plane before. And hopefully your not employed in the school district.
DeleteRE:"at 35,000 feet the other day......could see tall smoke stacks spewing streams of "smoke" that flowed for miles"
DeleteThe only thing spewing around here is the crap you'd have us believe. As someone that has spent much of their life forging a livelihood in dozens of heavy manufacturing plants across the mid West, the best you can witness from ground level is condensation on a cold day. From 35,000 AGL the you'd be helpless to differentiate condensation from smoke even if it did exist. But that doesn't suit your agenda, does it?
8:41, I've been in planes before, and 8:32's comments about what can be seen are accurate. Could you explain what you mean by your comment?
DeleteBut Chuck, you didn't tell us at what altitude you were flying! And your flights in alien spacecraft don't count!
DeleteYou are looking at the Big Picture. We like big pictures on big TV screens, but your kind of Big Picture doesn't mean much without looking at the details, and we don't like details; there are bad things in details. The coming of the prison was a good thing because of Money, The wood burning plant would be a good thing because of Money. Screw the details.
ReplyDeleteThe prison is generating money alright, drug money a few think.
ReplyDeleteThe prison deal was an exchange for a new sewer system.
Such a deal.
The poisonious fume generator would generate money alright, for the owners, for a few operating the beast and for the truck drivers and wood gatherers. Sorry for the details.
But I am glad the beast has been DE-TAILED good Ole Bob.!!!
Everyone seems to forget that this plant is going to be built. It is going to improve some small town somewhere. And it will be close to Springfield. We will all see the true intentions of NOSAG and the local people who are so concerned about our "air". They won't even cross the river to fight against the new plant. Their intentions have always been self serving using the environment has just been an excuse for the "greater good".
DeleteThe amount of pollution the USA send into the atmosphere doesn't even measure to what the rest of the world is contributing to the pollution issue. So please, if you are truly concerned about our air, go someplace where you can make an impact and let our little town have a little chance at growth.
What is this odd fascination that MyComment has with oranges anyway??? By the way, the orange crop will benefit from global warming!
ReplyDeleteAnd no $£≠ł, there I was at 35,000 feet...my butt firmly planted in the seat of one of the most polluting means of conveyance known to man, trying to peel a succulent orange (dang, why do they wrap these things in Kleenex tissue and steel woo anyway?), and feeling very smug about my concern for our planet and my opposition to carbon fueled power plants. Excuse me, flight attendant, another Jack and Coke please. Gee, I hope my connecting flight is on time! Ahhhh, the sweet taste of hypocrisy!
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate that the future generation, probably your kids, will have to put up with the climate change, most likey for the worst, that you science flunkies have turned a blind eye to. But hey, if it does get built then some out of state people will run it and cash in on such a gullable bunch of Springfield ?????? Don't expect a job out of it unless you are wood haulers and cutters. YourComments S@&k.
ReplyDelete