TC Light & Power will be meeting with the city commission Mon night, then holding public forums this coming Thurs night and Sat to discuss how we can meet the energy needs of the future. www.tclp.org. 99% of our energy now comes from fossil fuels, and a big question is whether and to what extent our public utility should invest in biomass as part of its energy portfolio for the future. Time is tight because half of all the electricity TCLP uses now comes from a long-term coal contract that expires at the end of this year and cannot be renewed for very long. This is a huge issue, involving hundreds of millions of dollars over the next four decades. Please join this discussion.
where I’m coming from. I don’t claim to be an authority on biomass. Nor have I done a comprehensive study. But because most of my legal practice is now energy-related, I do have access to information and experts. As a lay person with access to good information, I have spent about 20 hours looking at this issue. This is just my two cents.
.
my sources. Here are the sources I’m relying on.
.
The Michigan 21st Century Energy Plan. This is a report compiled by the MI Public Service Commission for the Governor in 2007. There is a link to it on this site, scroll down and look on the left under the blogroll.
.
Green Energy Future for MI. This is a report commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council
www.nrdc.org, the premier environmental advocacy organization in the U.S., and prepared by Synapse, a firm of energy economists from Harvard and MIT
www.synapse-energy.com/expertise/staff.shtml. There is a link to it on this site, scroll down and look on the left under the blogroll.
.
.
.
my two cents. I support TCLP’s plan to add biomass to its energy portfolio. How much biomass needs to be a subject of more discussion. That discussion should focus on the plan for sustainable fuel sources, and on the possible alternatives for minimizing air emissions.
.
the situation today. Right now, we (through our utility) get 95% of our energy from coal, 4% from natural gas, and 1% from wind. When you turn on a light, the energy flowing into the bulb comes from coal. That coal was stripped off a mountain in Appalachia, or dug out of the Powder River basin in Wyoming, hauled to one of three coal plants downstate, and burned.
.
TCLP has a contract to purchase coal-fired power from the Lansing Board of Water & Light through the Michigan Public Power Agency. TCLP also owns long-term interests in two coal plants: JH Campbell in Ottawa County (run by Consumers), and Belle River in St. Clair County (run by Detroit Edison). In fiscal year 2009-10, TCLP budgeted $6.9 million for its share of the generating expenses at the Campbell and Belle River coal plants, and another $7.5 million for power from Lansing.
http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/budget/ComponentunitFund.pdf. That’s a total of $14.4 million that TC residents and businesses spend on coal-fired electricity from far away. The Lansing contract represents 50% of TCLP’s total energy portfolio, and it expires on December 31.
.
integrated resource planning. So what are our options? And what is the process for picking the best option? Most energy experts today advocate for integrated resource planning. Where traditional utility planning attempted to meet demand by determining how to supply reliable power at the lowest cost, an IRP process evaluates all available options – including those that increase supply and those that decrease demand. The utility selects the option that meets future demand with the least cost and risk to its customers (including environmental risks). The answer is usually the same: meet demand with a diverse portfolio of sources, and with a strong energy conservation program.
.
I think of putting together a diverse portfolio as a little like ordering off a menu at a “small plates” restaurant. Here are the choices:
.
Coal. Pros: It is cheap (relatively speaking) right now, and it is base load. Base load means it can be delivered all the time at a steady rate. Energy demand varies from hour to hour and season to season, but there is a minimum “base load” that must always be met. Cons: We send $14.4 million of our money down state, out east, and out west each year. About 10% of that money (and 10% of the fossil fuel burned) goes to energy that is lost in transmission on the way here. Coal pollutes the air. It is not renewable.
.
And it is going to get more expensive. The MI Public Service Commission, together with Detroit Edison and Consumers, predict the cost of electricity from new coal plants is going to be $133 per megawatt. (More than double what it is now.) Detroit Edison, one of the shrewdest coal purchasers anywhere, projects in its latest power supply plan that the cost of coal to fuel current plants is going to increase 51% over the next 5 years.
.
Nuclear. Pros: It is cheap (relatively speaking) right now, and it is base load. Cons: It is all downstate, which again means mailing millions of dollars out of our region. And the nuclear waste situation is dysfunctional. In short, the U.S. government passed a law in 1983 that said it would dispose of nuclear waste, and charge the cost to utilities. The utilities would pay a fixed fee for waste they had accumulated by 1983, and then they would pay for future waste as it was disposed of. The U.S. government never found a way to dispose of nuclear waste, so the utilities have been storing it – temporarily – for 27 years. The utilities are suing the government, but utility customers are paying for the costs of storing nuclear waste temporarily. And some of the utilities never paid the initial fee, so their customers are paying for that debt as well. For example, if you’re a Consumers customer, you’ve paid a share of the $44 million initial fee that was never paid in 1983. Plus you continue to pay interest on that initial fee, which has been compounding for 27 years and is up to $119 million. Simply from a business perspective, we should stay away from nuclear power right now.
.
Wind. Pros: Wind is a good new energy source and there is a ton of wind development now occurring in Michigan, in part to meet new legal requirements for renewable energy.
http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1576.pdf. It is cost competitive with new coal, and TCLP has signed a contract to purchase 10 megawatts of wind energy from Heritage Sustainable Energy in McBain. It is renewable.
Cons: Wind is not base load energy, unless you can store it. Wind energy in Michigan has a capacity factor of between 25% and 35%, depending on who you talk to. (A capacity factor is the amount of energy an asset generates divided by what it could generate running at its max. So a generator with a maximum capacity of 10 megawatts that produces 2.5 megawatts on average over the year would have a capacity factor of 25%.) The only way to provide base load energy from an asset with a capacity factor in that range is if you can store up energy during times the asset is running at its max and then release the energy at a steady rate when the asset is not running. The only utility-scale way to store electric energy right now is pump storage, like the Ludington plant owned jointly by Consumers and Detroit Edison.
.
Solar. Pros: Solar can be distributed generation, which is small-scale generation done locally by lots of people. It is renewable. Solar can be fostered by a feed-in tariff. A feed-in tariff is a premium, fixed price that an electric utility pays for energy from solar panels on the roof of a home or business. The solar panels provide the utility with renewable energy during peak demand, which occurs during daytime hours in the summer months. TCLP’s plan says it will begin a feed-in tariff this summer. Cons: Solar is expensive, and has a low capacity factor in Michigan. It is a good way to supplement peak energy (in the summer with all the air conditioners running), but it is not base load power. It should be a piece of the portfolio, but can only provide so much.
.
Hydro. Pros: Hydro is base load and it is renewable. Cons: The Boardman River Dams cannot be put back on-line to produce hydro in a cost effective way. TCLP and the engineering firm that did the dams study both investigated this, and both came to that conclusion. A machine salvage business suggested it was feasible and offered to take the project on, but their numbers were not based on any recognized accounting practices, and they had no experience operating a dam. Even if hydro could be brought back on-line on the Boardman River, it would provide only a small percentage of TCLP’s electric needs. And a good part of the community puts value on the fishery and recreational benefits of a free-flowing river.
.
Landfill gas. Pros: Base load and cost-competitive with new coal. Renewable. TCLP has a contract for some landfill gas power. Cons: There is not that much of it around.
.
Natural gas. Pros: It is cheap right now. It can be base load. It has less toxic emissions than coal. Much of it can be produced locally, instead of mailing our money away. Cons: It is not renewable. It will not stay cheap. According to Skip Sansoucy:
.
“Don’t think for a minute that natural gas is going to stay cheap. You can get a 30-month natural gas [power purchase agreement] now – but four, five, six, seven years out you’re going to pay and pay.”
.
Energy Efficiency. Pros: It is cost effective. Recent studies by Michigan’s two largest utilities concluded that energy efficiency investments pay for themselves at a rate of $3.50 in savings for every $1.00 invested. It is base load.
Cons: There are really no cons to energy efficiency, but there are limits. According to the Michigan PSC, the current gold standard for energy efficiency is Wisconsin, which has had progressive programs in place a long time. The benchmark number for energy efficiency based on Wisconsin’s experience is 1.3 to 1.9% per year. A good summary of this data is at
http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/15996/0190.pdf, on pages 26 to 29 of the pdf. TCLP’s current target is the new Michigan legal requirement of 1% per year. After getting approval to decouple its rates (separate revenue from units of energy sold), Consumers is now shooting for 1.15% per year.
To really take EE beyond providing customers with financial incentives for efficient light bulbs and appliances, we need to make investments in the grid and meter systems. These investments will allow such things as variable pricing (where your electricity is more expensive during peak times and less expensive other times, incentivizing you to run the dryer at night instead of in the afternoon) and direct load management (where you agree to let the utility cap your air conditioner use on the hottest days in return for a lower rate all year). These investments are cost effective, and should be pursued, but they will require more staffing at TCLP, and will take time. By way of example, Consumers proposes to spend over $118 million in the next year-and-a-half just on the advanced metering infrastructure and operations to set the stage for smart grid. TCLP is starting along this path as well.
.
that brings us to biomass. Biomass should be viewed just like all the other energy sources on the menu. Not as the end-all be-all, but as a potential component of the energy portfolio, an option with pros and cons. Does it have a role in TCLP’s portfolio?
I think it does, for a bunch of reasons.
It’s local. A biomass plant or plants would be built here. The people running the plant would live here. The fuel sources would come from Northern Michigan (more on that below). The money would circulate here. We talk a lot in this community about getting more of our food locally, which we should. But we should also be talking about generating our energy locally – and for the same reasons.
It’s renewable. Some fuel sources regenerate quicker than others, but all of them within a human lifetime. (That’s the definition of a renewable energy source – one that replenishes within a human time frame, rather than a geological one.)
It may or may not be carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality refers to whether burning biomass adds carbon to the atmosphere above and beyond what the biomass took out of the atmosphere during its life cycle. I believe the debate will be resolved to say that biomass is not carbon neutral, but that it is lower-carbon than coal. And it is certainly lower in toxics than coal.
It’s cost competitive with energy from new coal plants.
It has the potential for combined heat and power, which saves other fossil heating fuels and helps pay for the operation.
It’s base load. The capacity factor for biomass is 70 to 80%, depending on who you talk to.
fuel for biomass. A big question is what kind of fuel will be available, and how much. TCLP is talking about developing up to 20 megawatts of power from biomass - starting with one 5 to 10 megawatt plant.
The Michigan 21st Century Energy Plan estimates 465 megawatts of new biomass generation from forest sources are possible by 2025, not including ethanol from corn or biodiesel from soy. The plan says that if forest products workers were put back to work and the mills put back in operation, another 16.8 million dry tons of trees could be sustainably harvested for forest products each year. Not harvesting trees for biomass, harvesting them for forest products and using the residues (sawdust, branches) for biomass. The plan estimates that just the residues from these products could double the biomass plants in Michigan. (As of the date of the report there there were five in Michigan, totaling 159 megawatts, but there are more now.) Or the plan says that more agressive sustainable forestry practices could provide the same additional energy.
The plan also estimates that 1.9 million acres of crop land are presently standing idle in Michigan. The plan says this acreage
could be used to grow energy crops such as willow, poplar, or switchgrass. Willow and poplar have a three year harvest cycle. Switchgrass requires three years to mature to the first harvest, and then it can be harvested annually. Based on those assumptions, presently abandoned cropland could potentially contribute an estimated 5.7 million dry tons to the annual energy needs of the state.
These are conservative assumptions, to say the least. They assume that of the total amount of forest residue and crop potential that is available, only 14% percent would be used. According to the plan:
In practice, each MW of wood-fired electric power uses approximately 10,000 tons of wood residues per year. This assumes the power plant operates at approximately 80 percent capacity, generating about 7,000 MWh per year, per MW of capacity. As evident from the above, Michigan is estimated to have an additional 27.5 million dry tons of biomass available that could, in theory, fuel 2,750 MW of generation each year. For modeling purposes, however, only14 percent of this cellulosic biomass potential (about 3.85 million dry tons per year) was assumed to be available for electricity generation by 2016, and a capacity factor of 80 percent was used for analyzing cellulosic biomass energy potential. The large exclusion percentage is a conservative assumption intended to reflect competing land uses, high transportation costs for agricultural and forestry residues (which effectively limit the distance from resource lands to biomass generating facilities), and stiff global competition in the paper and forest products industries.
The Synapse report for the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that half of the total mass of a harvested tree cannot be used for other purposes and instead could be used for energy. Synapse cites a report by the Antares Group for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that estimated there to be 248 megawatts of biomass power potential from forest and mill residues in Michigan, and another 666 megawatts of potential from agricultural wastes. Synapse concludes:
Michigan has significant biomass potential from its forest-products industry. Developing this resource could have multiple benefits, including less material placed in landfills or incinerated. Smaller-scale biomass plants would also synchronize supply better with periods of demand. The biomass used should be sustainably harvested or else be diverted material that otherwise would have been incinerated without energy recovery or being placed in a landfill. Biomass supply should be close to the generating plant to minimize transportation costs, and to keep the scale of the plant balanced with the amount of annual supply (or less). This will also ensure stability for fuel prices.
Skip Sansoucy told me that building a biomass plant is a “no-brainer” for meeting our energy needs in a sustainable and cost-effective way. Skip pointed to the experience of Burlington, Vermont, which built a 50 megawatt biomass plant 30 years ago. Skip says it was the best thing they ever did. http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/burlington-electric-department-building-local-and-sustainable-energy-future (The Burlington plant is much larger than what TCLP is talking about).
focusing on the right questions. Biomass has a lot to recommend it as a component of our energy portfolio of the future: renewable energy, stable fuel pricing, local farm and forest products jobs, more control over our own destiny. It should be part of the mix. How much of the mix depends on careful study of the level of fuel that is sustainable for the region. It sure looks sustainable if we are talking about 10 to 20 megawatts, and the Michigan 21st Century Energy Plan estimates 465 megawatts of new biomass generation is possible from just 14% of the available forest sources, without counting agricultural sources. But we need to study it, we need to discuss it, we need to make sure.
And moving forward with biomass depends on guaranteeing that certain things are off the table, which I believe are already off the table: tires, urban wood waste, and co-generation with coal. Like the sustainable fuels discussion, the environmental controls discussion also needs to be driven by the question of what is the best we can do, instead of what is the minimum we have to do.
And it needs to be driven by a discussion of integrated resource planning: being sure we are doing everything we can with wind, distributed solar generation, and energy efficiency. TCLP’s current 10-year plan is to get to 30% biomass, 1% solar, 4% landfill gas, 6% wind, 4% natural gas, 38% from the Detroit Edison and Consumers coal plants, and 17% energy purchased on the open market.
The discussion we should be having is, should we ramp up the energy efficiency goal from 1% to the gold standard of near 2%? Can we increase our wind from 6% to 10%, and what would that cost? Can we take solar from 1% to 2%? Is there enough fuel for 30% biomass, given other facilities that are or may be coming on-line? Or should we be looking at 10 or 20% biomass, and buying more energy from coal?
The point is, a good IRP process – which is essentially what TCLP is doing right now – will answer these questions. It also demonstrates what is and is not possible by referencing other benchmarks. The benchmark for wind in Michigan is 10% right now, so let’s not hinge our plans on getting to 40% wind. The gold standard for EE is 1.9% per year, so let’s not count on being able to reduce consumption by half in the near future. Solar has a key role, but what is possible with solar in a sun belt state is not possible here.
Let’s use the accomplishments of those engaged in best practices in the industry to put a realistic and achievable plan together. Not bare minimum, but achievable and grounded in what is actually being done in the region. We need to be a leader, but a pragmatic leader engaged in sound business practices and responsible environmental stewardship.
The beauty of public power is that this kind of discussion is possible. We have a utility that belongs to us, is run by a volunteer board, and is willing to go the extra mile to meet our expectations about sustainability and customer rate protection.
What are your expectations? Please let us know.
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 11, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Rachel G
I attended the biomass discussion at NMC, and would like to thank TLCP for considering the college into the discussion. I have to say at first I was put off by the idea of biomass. I was confused as to why wind and solar were not considered as the fore runner (at least in the northern region of the U.S.), and alternative to coal. But, after hearing more about TCLP’s goals for reducing carbon emissions, and the details involved in storing energy, I understand now why biomass is a good option for us, especially considering the urgency for change. However, along with Mayor Bzdok’s comment on “how much we depend on biomass,” I agree, needs to be discussed further, and in more detail. I am concerned not only for our forests, but also concerned for surrounding cities, and towns that could be effected negatively.
March 5, 2010 at 11:31 am
John Porter
Small neighborhood plants would spread heavy truck traffic around and minimize transportation cost, as well as reduce the degradation of roadbeds. Any plan needs to specify the source of fuel and sustainability of that fuel supply. We don’t want to sign a death warrant on our forests.
March 4, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Bob Otwell
Nice summary Chris on biomass. It seems to me biomass could be a viable renewable source for some of our power. I do have concerns regarding emissions, and plan to learn more about what is possible in terms of best control technology. We are so lucky to have our own power company in Traverse City.
March 2, 2010 at 8:14 am
GLHowe
I attended both of the TCLP 20/30 Planning sessions. They provided a venue for many people to vent & target certain aspects of the plan they didn’t like, however there were many constructive suggestions. Once again, I was impressed by the community interest.
A few things that I saw that were underrepresented or missing from the discussions.
1. The role of conservation. A 20% reduction is doable in 10-20 years. It will take work by TCLP to help the community embrace it.
2. Cost. Unfortunately, many people want to continue not paying the true cost of energy. Energy that pollutes or destroys the environment needs to be priced higher to compensate. We can no longer to afford to subsidize coal.
3. Neighborhood production. My hope is that TCLP takes a lead in de-centralized energy production. The technology is there, an example being these rooftop wind turbines by
http://www.rockywindpower.combuilt for urban settings. Coupled with solar technology, efficiency and conservation this is a solution. TCLP could be part of this with a change of business plan.(This company also has Wind & Solar Street Lights).March 1, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Zack Fivenson
I’m glad we’re having a dialogue on this issue.
Consumers can already purchase green energy for their homes http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/buying/buying_power.shtml?state=MI, I assume that TCL&P can do the same thing IF voters are willing to pay for it. It’s generally less expensive to pool resources and leverage economies of scale than to go-it-alone on these complex projects. For example – one technician can service our 10 windmills along with the other 50 in a joint project, instead of having to make a special trip up to TC.
I find this push for local power generation curious, after we recently tore down the power plant on the bay and idled the hydro dams.
March 1, 2010 at 12:47 am
Jeff Gibbs
Mayor Bzdok has accussed opponents of the proposed biomass burning plants of operating off of emotion. Cute. I wonder how much their marketing consultants charged for that one? It’s not going to fly.
I challenged Mayor Bzdok to debate the facts—but that was premature. Turns out the public already gets that biomass is a bad idea—it’s only the politicians and those with financial interest pushing biomass burning right now. And TCLP had said that if people turned out in opposition to biomass burning they would drop their plans to build this plant.
At least weeks forums by TCLP overwhelming opposition—90% or more—to biomass plant building was expressed.
I await TCLP honoring their word about saying if the public said they don’t want biomass it will be dropped. Therefore since I know TCLP is good for theoir word a debate is no longer needed.
But meanwhile here are some facts Mr. Mayor about the proposed biomass burning plant you want to put in MY neighorhood, not yours, and the millions of trees you would cut all over the state to provide a pittance of energy. I find it amusing that your post on biomass is full of references to nothing, and political documents undermined by more recent science while accusing us of operating on emotion. But that’s how it always goes, when the facts are not on your side, attack your opponents instead. Here are some facts. I already provided you and the council the citations several months ago.
1) Biomass burning is the least green fuel of all. It emits are much or more CO2 than any other source of power and twice as much as natural gas. That’s chemistry not emotion. If you have internet access you can go to the DOE website and look up CO2 emissions per unit of energy by fuel source.
The scientists that wrote the report that was twisted to allow tree burning as biomass to erroneously be called carbon neutral have sounded the alarm that that is wrong and must stop.
Recent research shows that it takes centuries for a cut forest to regain the carbon sequestration potential that it loses when logged—and that mature forests never stop taking up carbon as long as they live. Further new research shows that in fact forest fungus digest fallen trees thereby returning the nutrients including some of the carbon to the soil and fostering a far more vigorous flush of young growth than forest in which the biomass was removed.
2) I just got off the phone with an expert who has operated biomass plants in Michigan. He said THERE IS NOT ENOUGH WOOD for the new biomass plants. But I guess that’s just his emotion talking, not his experience running these plants.
The fact is that there are not enough trees in Michigan to provide anything more than a pittance of power to an elite few—even TCLP’s own wood study reports show that.
The fact is that the existing biomass burning plants in Michigan that were built in the 1980’s already dominate the existing supply of “waste” wood and sometimes burn whole trees and tires to make up the difference.
The fact is you are using a loophole to declare that “waste” wood will only be burned: “unmerchantable timber” i.e. anything you can’t sell to someone else is cleverly defined as “waste” wood. You can drive a forest through that loophole.
Bring YOUR wood supply reports to the debate. The facts in those reports support our contention there is not enough wood to support this new round of biomass plants without harming our forest., and even if we burned ALL our trees that would still not be enough to power Michigan.
The paid biomass rationalizer from Michigan Tech University that TCLP hired himself said that we might want to use the forests for other things than burning, like biodiversity and carbon sequestration.
3) I challenge you Mayor Bzdok, to point to a single operating wood biomass gasification plant of the size you have in mind that produces electricity and heat? I only find small wood gasification plants producing heat only—and the one at Middlebury College you guys keep pointing to uses HALF fuel oil and produces no electricity just heat for a few buildings at great cost to the region’s forests.
I asked Ed Rice directly if he could point to a gasification wood biomass plant that produces heat and electricity that is of megawatt, not kilowatt size. He could not. There are problems with trying to gasify wood—it doesn’t contain a lot of energy—that might not scale up.
The residents of Traverse City and northern Michigan would in essence be guinea pigs and gambling with an unproven technology, our forests, our energy supplies, and $30-50 million of the publics money. Some will get rich; we will be left holding the bag if it doesn’t work out.
4) Biomass in not local energy or sustainable. If tree burning is sustainable local energy, burn the trees in your own backyard. That will run the biomass plant for a few minutes. Then burn the trees in Traverse City. That might get you a few weeks or months. Then try Garfield Township. That might get you another few months. Then try Old Mission Peninsula. Now none of them will be getting any electricty from this but surely they willing so sacrifice their forests so we in TC might feel green by mixing a little wood into our coal power.
Where are you are done with Grand Traverse county I am sure that our surrounding counties will happily donate their forests to the King. I am sure Leelanau, Manistee and Bezie will gladly give up some of their forests so Traverse City can run our bathroom fans and toaster ovens; and that Petoskey, Gaylord and Wexford will too, and that later Luce, Alger and Mackinaw can take their turns. Of course we might have to fight the other wood burners in Frankfort, Mancelona, Cadillac, McBain, Grayling, Lincoln, Hillman, Mt. Pleasant, Flint, Marquette, Escanaba, KI Sawyer, and elsewhere for the wood.
How do I know our little town of 14,000 might demand wood from that far? Why TCLP told me so. TCLP’s wants to get it’s wood from a 75 mile radius. That’s well over 16,000 square miles. If you have a pencil you can determine that fact for yourself. An area from Manistee to Petoskey to Gaylord. Michigan has 53,000 square miles. We need to scrounge wood from 1/3 of the state for a measly 10 or 20 megawatt plant. But even that might not be enough. YOUR fact, not mine. YOU are considering TRUCKING WOOD IN ON BARGES FROM ALPENA AND THE UP.
Okay here IS an emotion: the idea that you would burn the forests of the UP to fuel the green fantasies of a few thousand people two hundred miles away in Traverse City is folly beyond belief to me.
And its far from local as defined from TCLP which complains that the coal power plants downstate are “unlocal” and “draining money.”
Almost as ludicrous as the FACT that it is proposed that the forests of Alaksa be cut to fuel the biomass delusions of the UK, since apparently they can’t get anough trees from Europe, Asia, Africa and South America.
Look it up on our free wireless if you don’t believe me.
If you would have read my story on Huffington Post, you would know that Denmark and the rest of Europe are buying wood chips from whole trees from tropical and other forests around the world including Florida, and that soon far from burning our trees, we’re going to have to find a way to stop them being cut, chipped and shipped to the EU to fuel their phoney green delusions. (Oops there’s that emotion again. Sorry.)
5) Mayor Bzdok it’s a fact that burning wood emits hundreds or even thousands of times more dangerous particulates than natural gas and one study in Finland which I already gave you shows that even a modern wood burning power plant emits more particulates than an old school coal plant.
Oops, you mean those biomass plant salesmen were lying when they said “no pollution?”
Yep.
Wood burning emits more of some pollutants like particulates, VOC’s and NOX even than coal. What goes into the air lands in the water and harms the life there, just like coal. Wood by all measures is far dirtier than natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, fuel oil, and by many measures dirtier than coal?
It’s a fact, Mr. Mayor that biomass proponents have carefully avoided direct questions about the biomass plants at public meetings and so-called educational sessions, and have not invited opposing experts or citizens to present at the “educational” forums. That’s not public input. That’s a sales job. I agree it’s not emotion though, it’s cold-hearted calculation by some and profiteering by others.
TCLP finally did allow questions at their recent forums, forums which again featured only a pro-biomass presentation angering many. Their answers and presentation only seemed to confirm to those present they did not want to support biomass.
(NMEAC’s single forum was one-sided because no one had a chance to tell the other side of the story heretofore. All citizens were able to question the presenters directly and make statements. I am glad TCLP finally did the same last week and allowed questions and statements.)
6) It’s a fact Chris, that TCLP could easily sign a long-term contract for natural gas, and could for far less expense than building a biomass plant retrofit or build anew our Kalkaska plant for baseload.
It’s a fact that natural gas emits half the CO2 and thousands of times less pollutants than wood. Ed Rice showed that fact to us. So since this all started by trying to stop global warming by getting the CO2 out, we could cut our CO2 by FIFTY PERCENT THIS YEAR by going natural gas. But of course clever business interests switched the jargon from reducing CO2 to increasing “renewables,” known by my friends in NYC as the new dot.com boom. You know what happens next.
7) How much did your marketing consultants charge for the idea “make it coal vs. wood.” I’d ask for your—err I mean our—money back. It didn’t work. The public didn’t fall for it since you could sign a natural gas contract tomorrow.
And weirder, even if you built FIVE of those biomass plants you are STILL going to sign a coal or other fossil fuel contract. Ask TCLP. Biomass would NOT stop the coal contract signing. That was only a ploy.
7) The fact is that cutting our forests and burning them is not economic development but economic undevelopment. Forests and clean air and water ARE our economy. Messing with them is the best way to derail the uptick in love and attention our region has been receiving.
Conversely, far more jobs could be created by using that money for things like real green techonology like wind, or small business development, or to bring our young people back, or for education. What a waste of money to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on a tree burning power plant employing a handful of people for a plant that will produce less then 1/10th of 1 percent of Michigan’s energy.
Look what the State Theater has brought our town for a fraction of that! What could NMC or Munson or Windspire or a green builder or Porter Productions or Interlochen or the Maritime Academy do with $50 million?
More ideas, less burning, that is what will create jobs.
The only ones without a financial interst in this are those questioning biomass burning. In fact we are losing money because we have to take time off work to fight the biomass nightmare. Oh, damn, sorry, an emotion leaked in again.
9) Here is another fact. The first place proposed for a biomass plant was not surprisingly on the working class side of Traverse City. You’re not stupid. You know if you tried to put one of those new-fangled tree incinerators on the West Side or on Wayne Hill it would be shot down quicker than you could shout “timber!” That within blocks of your proposed plant are schools, homes, and children.
Do you dispute that? Or do you think it doesn’t matter? Or do you believe in magic; that you can burn things with no air pollution? I believe that is called “clean coal.”
It’s a fact that the plant in Burlington Vermont you point to burns whole trees and is the number one source of air pollution in Vermont. Do you dispute that?
The other plant in Vermont at Middlebury college burns HALF diesel fuel.
Did I mention biomass plants are profoundly noisy? That hundreds of giant diesel trucks would be rumbling through town—or doesn’t the working class neighborhood—where I happen to live—count as town?
10) Did you bother to look up the fact that not just wood supply but wood storage is a real problem? That during road closures in the spring you might have to have a three month supply on hand? Or did the biomass plant salesmen you get your “facts” from leave out those details?
Did they tell you giant piles of mouldering chips have a foul smell and have to be constantly moved by bulldozers lest they catch on fire? Or that a pile of woodchips in Michigan at a biomass plant caught on fire? That just last month a man was killed in a biomass plant explosion? Is what I just said factual, or emotional?
11) If you have a history book and meetings with the marketing consultants are not distracting you, you could detrimine some other facts for yourself.
The whole idea of burning wood to power modern civilization is illogical and won’t work out. It didn’t work out 150 years ago when we were a wood powered civilization and we clear cut an entire continents worth of trees. In fact the only reason our forests ever regrew was because fossil fuels replaced trees and whales to for heat, light and the powering of industry. In lush Ireland the trees have mostly never come back after the British ran through them to fuel industry. The Roman Empire collapsed when they ran out of trees. In Jared Diamonds book “Collapse” forest abuse was the most common way civilizations come to and end; the only civilization that saved itself was when the Emperor of Japan ordered the people to stop cutting trees.
12) The fact is that wood is the poorest choice for a bulk fuel imagineable, Mr. Mayor as wood contains far less energy than other choices. That’s on the EPA website too.
The fact is Mr. Mayor that without the hundreds of millions of our tax dollars going to subsidize these biomass disasters, none would be built.
The fact is Mr. Mayor is the people want, according to a TCLP survey, want wind, solar and conservation and not to chip up our forests and burn them in incinerators by factor of two to one. And that was before we sounded the biomass burning alarm.
Look it up Mayor Bzdok. It’s your fact, not mine and it’s the reality you are going to have to deal with if you keep moving forward with what might come to be called Bzdoc’s Folly.
Oops, I guess you’re right, there’s some emotion creeping in. Damn. Some of us get upset when a people plot to use public money to burn public and private forests to enrich a few at the expense of many and the environment we love. Sorry.
March 1, 2010 at 9:03 am
Chris Bzdok
Jeff, thanks for writing. Just to reiterate a couple points:
1. I wrote my post on renewable energy in my living room, last weekend. It is my opinion. I do not have any marketing consultants. I have not participated in any meetings on this topic other than the public meetings between TCLP and the city commission. My sources are publicly available and not connected to TCLP or to biomass. I did not develop the biomass plan, I just commented on it. I think it undermines your position when you throw baseless accusations at me. I have a right to express my opinion on this topic, just like you do.
2. I listed and linked my sources, so that people who are interested can review them and draw their own conclusions. If someone disagrees with a fact in one of those sources, they can identify that fact and cite a different source. If someone believes the NREL or MPSC numbers on fuel supply are wrong, he or she can offer a source that comes to a different conclusion. If someone believes we can exceed 1.9% per year of EE, or 2% solar, same thing. People who are interested can compare the two sources offered and decide for themselves. I believe this is how a rational and productive discussion should proceed. I tried to advance that discussion another step. We are a long way from the final word on this topic.
3. I do not believe my post or my comments on IPR last week “accuse” or “attack” anyone. Readers or listeners can judge for themselves.
February 24, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Linnaea Melcarek
Thank you, Chris, for offering a nuanced view of this topic. We need to look at all our options for lessening our dependence on fossil fuels. Biomass is certainly not an ideal energy source, but it is certainly better than coal or nuclear power. Of course it would be great to be able to use just wind, solar and hydro (along with better conservation practices), but those sources will not be meeting all our energy needs anytime soon.
February 24, 2010 at 3:51 pm
thrashertm
Seems like before proposal is approved, there should be more detailed information on the projected costs for the various proposals. It’s not good enough to say that something is “cost competitive”, especially if that competitiveness is based on a subsidy. Subsidies can come and go at a whim – it might be prudent to consider unsubsidized cost as well.
February 24, 2010 at 11:35 am
T. Korson
This is an extremely flawed path you take Mr Bzdok and the rest of the City Commission. So you are willing to use a “..lessor evil…” to gain more energy. When is an evil lessor or least of the whole of what you ahve identified as being and “evil” thing?
Come on, you guys are caving to the thuggery workings of the TCLP head honchos again. what ever they say, they get. What has happened to the vast hill sides and areas that TCLP owns and are top rated wind producing spots? Get with the real “alternative” generation mindset and we will all be in much better shape down the road.
Bio-mass.. lol (yes laughing out loud!) is such a joke. Chain saws are revvinf right now at just the sound of it! the amount of trees, unders-brush, scrub-wood needed will be a mass clearing pof someone forrest for a 20% efficiency. No thanks.
February 25, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Mitopcat
Not everybody agrees with wind power either. Look at some of the stories in Michigan. Ludington (Oceana and Warren? counties) where investigating an off-shore wind farm. The wind farm, if I remember correctly, would be about 3-30 miles off the shore line. Not visible or hardly visible, in my opinion. Most of the people went against the idea and said, “This will kill the summer home buyers…”. I don’t know about you, I’m more keen on seeing how we can produce more jobs. Maybe they’re right, this could kill (or hurt) a lot of shore-front property.
I’m not all for it, I still want to look into both options further before saying ‘yes’ to any.
February 23, 2010 at 10:33 pm
M'Lynn Hartwell
I will consider limited biomass incineration for energy production if the wood supply comes exclusively from inside the city limits and the TCL&P does not impinge upon the woodsheds of surrounding communities, and we have an opportunity to review TCL&P’s toxic ash waste disposal plan for environmental integrity.
February 24, 2010 at 7:47 am
D. Luciani
“Woodshed” sounds like another buzzword that establishes some sort of boundary that didn’t exist previously. Where will people and businesses in areas outside TC but within abundant, renewable “woodsheds” get their energy or their jobs? Is biomass restricted solely to wood?
February 25, 2010 at 12:09 am
M'Lynn Hartwell
Permits to build define the wood resource area, or woodshed. TCL&P indicated that they would be harvesting over a 75 mile radius. That makes it a woodshed doesn’t it? That is a pretty traditional woodsmans term, that was commonly used the last time Michigan was deforested about 150 years ago. In any event, Mancelona already staked their claim to most of the same geographic area, so now we add another layer of wood harvesting to the same fixed land area. The more I learn about biomass, and I’ve learned more than most over this past half decade, the worse the whole scenario appears. I really don’t want to see the ratepayers of Traverse City stuck paying the tab for a biomass plant that may have to be abandoned in a few years… like the failed waste treatment plant. Rather than invest in regressive, dirty, hazardous technology; it makes more sense to invest in a ten year agreement to buy surplus energy from an existing natural gas fueled power plant, and save our investment funds for green technologies that are being implemented worldwide (or add a full time natural gas combined cycle generator to the Kalkaska plant that Traverse City ratepayers are already purchasing. There are a lot of options that are cleaner, less expensive, and more sensible, than building a biomass incinerator in Traverse City.
February 23, 2010 at 10:29 pm
M'Lynn Hartwell
I’m not sure where to start. Your numbers are seriously flawed in some areas when compared against actual numbers found in the field according to my research. First off, biomass plants typically operate at an efficiency of 20%, meaning 80% of the forests burned goes up in smoke/waste. The result is toxic air emissions and a large quantity of toxic ash that poses a risk to our watersheds and lifestyles. Also biomass plants consume 13,000 GREEN tons of wood each year for each megawatt of energy. In other words is Traverse City built a 10 MW power plant, 130,000 tons of green wood would be required. Can you imagine 130,000 tons of wood? Most homeowners purchase face cords… so we are talking about 390,000 pickup loads of wood each year for one small biomass plant?
I have covered biomass extensively at http://JobsAndEnergy.com/Biomass and soon hope to have a DVD from Dr. Rachel Smolker who spoke in Traverse City yesterday. Dr. Smolker has a doctorate in Biology, and is practicing in the field of Forest biology and sustainability. Mayor Bzdok, I hope that you will be open minded and review your support of biomass based upon a larger body of scientific knowledge. Biomass, like coal, is one of the dirtiest and most regressive concepts in energy production imaginable today. Clean green safe energy is coming online. We owe it to the people of Northern Michigan to provide the cleanest greenest energy possible.
Please check out Blook Energy at http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/22/bloom-energy-boxes/
February 24, 2010 at 9:22 am
chrisbzdok
M’Lynn, thank you for writing. I have put my sources out for anyone to review via excerpts and links. They are not my numbers, the numbers come from Synapse, the MI Public Service Commission, etc. What I hope readers will note is that these are not industry numbers, they come from environmental advocates and a governor’s administration that is a strong advocate of clean energy.
The 21st Century Energy Plan cites 10,000 dry tons of wood residues per megawatt, which I would guess is probably the same amount of wood as the 13,000 tons of green wood you cite. The 70-80% capacity factor refers to how much energy is produced on average relative to the maximum capacity of the plant – it’s measuring something different than the 20% number you cite.
I hope people will review your site and the resources provided here, draw their own conclusions, and offer their preferred solutions to the energy problems we face. I strongly disagree that biomass is as “dirty” as coal, and I strongly disagree that there is not enough fuel to power another small biomass plant in this region. Based on what I’ve read and what I’ve posted above, I think most energy experts and mainstream environmental organizations do too.
February 22, 2010 at 2:13 pm
D. Luciani
Kudos to Mayor Bzdok for doing some independent research and thinking without simply taking the easy route to “see what the public has to say.” This issue and issues like have been discussed and researched for decades. In truth, very few of “the public” will weigh in publicly on this issue, while specific advocacy interests on both sides will toil to make sure seats are full to create a perception of public engagement. While we dialogue on these critical issues, we continue to invest in fossil fuels and export money and jobs from our region. What alternatives will provide the base-level power the economy will need as recovery gains momentum? Will the region support wind energy with the type of concentration necessary to attain those levels?
It is unfortunate NMEAC’s forum was scheduled on a Monday night when local government boards and school boards are meeting. I will be at the TCAPS Board meeting, while our economic development staff will be at TC City Commission meeting. No policy makers can attend the forum, either. I know NMEAC, however, and am sure the forum will be informative, respectful, and worthwhile to anyone considering attending. Best wishes.
February 22, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Greg Reisig
NMEAC is holding a Biomass Forum tonight, TCLP is holding forums this week on Thursday and Saturday. There needs to be more community dialogue and involvement in the entire discussion of renewable energy before any final decisions are made.
I’m surprised the mayor is taking a stand before the public has a chance to weigh in on this important topic. Why not hold until the public is heard before taking a stand??
GREG
February 22, 2010 at 11:12 am
T. Korson
You have got to be kidding? right. What is wrong with installing six to eight 2 to 5 megawatt wind turbines on Light & Power property and get grid connected for leveraging what’s already out there?
This bio-mass is just another addition to the poluter energy chain.
The hype that “farmers” and U.P. forestry will get on board is so out of line. Do you really know how much “bio-mass” you’ll need to feed that thing? It’s enormous!
Did you know you already had a bio-mass plant right on the bay front?
The one everybody rushed to tear down for the wonderful bay front. “Oh the bay front….” which no one bothered to look ahead for where TCLP would get its residual energy when spikes arose, undersupply or high cost comes about. You all have your in the sand er, ah bio-mass ( and I mean the cow kind here).