http://www.pfpi.net/vermont-biomass-power-plant-denied-approval-on-basis-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Vermont biomass power plant denied approval on basis of greenhouse gas emissions Published February 11, 2014 In a final decision reached today on the fate of the 35 MW North Springfield Sustainable Energy biomass plant proposed in Vermont, the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) denied the plant a certificate of public good, stating that the project would interfere with the State’s ability to meet statutory goals for reducing greenhouse gases “as a result of the large annual releases of greenhouse gases that would result from combustion of the wood fuel.” “This is an important decision for the state of Vermont, and nationally”, said Mary Booth, Director of the Partnership for Policy Integrity, an organization that helped the citizen opponents, the North Springfield Action Group, contest the facility in front of the PSB. “When policymakers see that bioenergy involves harvesting forests and burning the wood in low-efficiency power plants, they conclude that large-scale bioenergy isn’t compatible with greenhouse gas reduction goals.” The 35 MW plant would have burned 450,000 tons of wood a year, most of which would have been sourced from whole-tree harvesting. Carbon dioxide emissions would have been over 445,000 tons per year. While the developer claimed there would be a greenhouse gas benefit, they testified they had not actually done any analysis to demonstrate a reduction in emissions. Vermont has established a statutory goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 50% from 1990 levels by 2028. While the biomass project planned to use some thermal energy to provide heat for businesses in the industrial park where it was to be located, the plant’s peak efficiency still would have been around 28%. The average efficiency of the US coal fleet is 33%. The PSB concluded that “the evidentiary record supports a finding that the Project would release as much as 448,714 tons of CO2e per year, and that sequestration of those greenhouse gases would not occur until future years, possibly not for decades, and would not occur at all in the case of forest-regeneration failures.” The PSB also found insufficient evidence that the project was needed, stating that it would be more cost effective to do energy conservation, efficiency, and load-management measures. See the Public Service Board decision here.
It is truly sickening to see that the Nosag NIMBYs allowed our town to be sabotaged by this out-of-state interest group.This one is using this "victory" to further their own agenda without even noticing that the reason for the denial was based on a potential doubling of truck traffic.
ReplyDeleteJeez, Jean, maybe you should read the decision again (if you have read it at all).
ReplyDeleteI noticed that 'doubling' bit. An average of a truck every 12 minutes 24/7 seems like a lot more than double what we have now. They don't say (do they?) what the truck per unit time would be during peak hours - maybe a line of them with no gaps? Maybe if I entered Main Street from the Gassetts end I could make it to my driveway the same day... .
Tractor-trailers aren't supposed to use that 5 ton bridge near Pop Willard's place, but they sometimes do even now.
Old Bob, they do say it, but not in the excerpt quoted in this section. The excerpt quoted here is being used by the Massachusetts group to thump their chest over their victory.
ReplyDeleteFrom the full text of the decision:
"48. During times of average deliveries, there would be ten truck trips per hour for a total of 100 truck trips per delivery day. Peak hour deliveries could result in 24 truck trips per hour and, although it is unlikely that peak hour conditions would last an entire delivery day, could potentially result in as many as 240 truck trips per delivery day. (Saladino)."
The full text of the entire decsion (in case you haven't read it :) ) is here: http://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/7833-VT-PSB-on-NSSEP.pdf
Section 49 is where they essentially say that truck traffic would double:
"49. The additional truck traffic that would be caused by the Project would result in an increase to existing truck traffic levels on the roads entering and exiting the industrial park of anywhere from roughly 50% to 100% based on average versus peak hour operating conditions."
Wow. I gotta quote that section 48 again:
Delete"48. During times of average deliveries, there would be ten truck trips per hour for a total of 100 truck trips per delivery day. Peak hour deliveries could result in 24 truck trips per hour and, although it is unlikely that peak hour conditions would last an entire delivery day, could potentially result in as many as 240 truck trips per delivery day. (Saladino)."
I have to wonder if a truck every 2.5 minutes would be able to unload at the plant. A line of waiting trucks could back up to... the plaza? (We Chicken Littles tend to look at the Dark Side.)
I actually did read that, but my memory ain't what it used to be. Thanks for the extracts, Jean.