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.com built 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).

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.

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.

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.

8) The fact is that the City has a conflict of interest. You get a cut of the revenue generated by TCLP. The fact is EVERY ONE OF YOUR EXPERTS HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The DEQ gets funded by timber sales. The biomass plant data comes from the companies that sell the plants. Your forestry experts get huge funding from logging and biomass interests and to go around and tell people there’s lots of wood to incinerate.

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.

I’m not all for it, I still want to look into both options further before saying ‘yes’ to any.