By Walter Geiger
The huge Piedmont Green Power plant in Legacy Park is transitioning from construction to operational mode and should be online and providing electrical power by November.
Comments
Mon, May 20, 2013 - 03:00 PM
The noise levels at my home are either annoying, very annoying, or extremely annoyin [...]
Mon, May 20, 2013 - 01:16 PM
I want to call attention to this also, hopefully she is found soon. I cannot imagine [...]
Mon, May 20, 2013 - 10:56 AM
More information on safety, from PBS.org
"Making a living as a jockey is a dan [...]
Mon, May 20, 2013 - 09:09 AM
All in Spanish? So... a call to I.C.E. might cause all the watchers to run for cove [...]
Mon, May 20, 2013 - 09:08 AM
The plant noise is unbelievable at times. Saturday night it sounded like planes were [...]
Recent Stories
- A preview of the 5.21.2013 edition of The Herald-Gazette
- Monday, May 20 2013
- Venable named Provost at GSC
- Monday, May 20 2013
- Organic vegetables thriving at Honeywood Farm
- Friday, May 17 2013
- Hunt still on for woman missing since July
- Thursday, May 16 2013
- Farmer's Market offers pro cooking demo
- Thursday, May 16 2013
Archives
Factually, they are worse than coal (with the exception of mercury).
Paste and read these links, or search "wood burning plant environmental"
There are hundreds of links citing pollution. Anyone can look at the allowable carbon and nitrogen compounds and in regulations and see these plants are dirty.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303740704577524822063133842.html
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2010/06/wood_burning_power_plants_may.html
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e5a61708c49344219e8b605c43a25e69/MA--Wood-Power-Plants
http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/08/lawsuit-targets-carbon-pollution-exemption-for-wood-burning-power-plants.html
http://www.powerscorecard.org/tech_detail.cfm?resource_id=1
Only the gullible like these things.
In other words, for every pound of wood consumed, if another is grown to similar maturity and type, the carbon impact is zero. The new growing tree sucks out the CO2 that the old tree released.
That is NOT the same as being "Green" for release of pollution.
The problem we have is our politicians develop some special gift that allows them to re-write science.
Make no mistake about it, these plants are major polluters. It is all over the Internet now, and I made my best efforts to point out the pollution before the deal was done. These wood plants are allowed to release many times more harmful emissions than an equal output power coal plant. The misconception is assuming this is like a little log fireplace.
It brings in money, which is great, but it does several bad things.
1.) It increases truck traffic and emissions from trucks
2.) It removes waste wood from forests, which would slowly naturally recycle and fertilize the forest
3.) It is allowed to emit around 5 times the invisible noxious levels of carbon and nitrogen compounds of an equivalent power coal plant. Plants like this have a history of going over allowed limits
5.) They usually lose money, unless they have government aid of some form
The problem with the pollution is the harmful compounds are odorless, clear, and have no taste.
I never would have a problem with this if the citizens were properly and honestly informed, and the majority decided the plant was a good trade-off. I can't understand why a few people, who obviously have no idea how something like this works, are allowed to bring a major polluter in without telling everyone the truth. People who have to live with this thing should have been allowed to decide if they wanted it.
Anything else, like a factory or a warehouse, could be retrofitted into something else. This thing will be an incinerator forever.
Hopefully, if wood gets too costly, they will convert it to natural gas or something cleaner. Even coal is cleaner, by current emissions regulations.
3.) It is allowed to emit around 5 times the invisible noxious levels of carbon and nitrogen compounds of an equivalent power coal plant. Plants like this have a history of going over allowed limits
It should have been:
3.) It is allowed to emit around 2.5 times the invisible noxious levels of carbon and nitrogen compounds of an equivalent power coal plant. Plants like this have a history of going over allowed limits
A coal permit would have restricted CO and NOx to 100 tons, rather than the 250 permitted for wood. I was thinking 50 tons for coal, but that that was incorrect.
AGAIN-THANKS CITY OF BARNESVILLE.ALl OF YOU THAT WAS FOR IT ANYWAY.LETS JUST RUIN PEOPLES HOMES AND MAKE EVERYONE SICK.
Julia
Way to go powers that be.
Maria Parsons of the Gainesville Neighborhood Protection Group agreed.
"A lot of people in our community are dying because of dioxins," Parson told the governor and Cabinet. "We do not need additional dioxins. People are sick, people are dying, people are scared and no one at all levels of government have been there for us."
Backers counted that the plant would use state-of-the-art technology and primarily burn waste wood from nearby tree farms that would otherwise be burned in the field or land-filled.
Do we have a bunch of bobble heads running our county ? What's next, chemical plants ? Love Canal, PG&E aka Erin Brockovich.
American Lung Association vs. Biomass
The American Lung Association is a leading voice on the health impacts of biomass incineration. In 2009, the Association wrote to Congress:
The Lung Association urges that the legislation not promote the combustion of biomass. Burning biomass could lead to significant increases in emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide and have severe impacts on the health of children, older adults, and people with lung diseases.
Doctor's Orders
The Massachusetts Medical Society, publisher of the New England Journal of Medicine, insists that "biomass power plants pose an unacceptable risk to the public's health by increasing air pollution."
Jefferson Dickey, M.D., internist at the Community Health Center of Franklin County, states that air pollution from biomass…
is associated with an increased risk of a broad range ofmedical problems, from asthma attacks and decreased lung growth in children toincreased lung disease exacerbations, emergency room use, hospitalization rates, heart attacks, and death rates in adults.
Cancer Risk
Burning biomass releases known carcinogens such as formaldehyde, benzene, naphthalene, styrene, and acetaldehyde. According to the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition:
Of particular concern to the breast cancer community about this [biomass] plant is the release of toxic chemicals like dioxin and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) into the air in communities already experiencing needlessly high rates of breast cancer.
Threat to Children
Board certified pediatrician William Sammons, M.D. is one of a growing list of health care professionals opposing new biomass incinerators.
Dr. Sammons states in a 2009 letter to the U.S. Senate on climate legislation:
these power plants, promoted as "clean energy," will have a direct negative impact on the health of our Nation's children: both immediately and cumulatively throughout their lifetimes, and for generations to come.
At a time when our nation is struggling to meet the challenges of rising health care costs, the U.S. Senate climate change legislation provides federal taxpayer money to subsidize and promote biomass burning to generate energy.
The consequence will be the increased incidence and severity of multiple cardiopulmonary diseases, premature birth, developmental disabilities, and cancer.
>From the Forest
It is nothing but stupid to do the "green" sort of thing and ignore coal, which is less the noxious levels of carbon and nitrogen, just to be up to date and doing the "in" thing. Our EMC has gone to all this green power too, and our costs are just continuing to rise.
We live in a small town in a wonderful county of small town values, but our leaders have decided we should be different I guess.... anyone want that?
Now that this plant is online and we know what it is doing to the community (I don't live in founders grove, but I know it to be a very nice community and quiet.) maybe our commissioners, council men and women and the IDA outta know whether we want to stay a small town or not.
It does not seem like the values of the people are very important any more... just what the leaders decide is good for us.
Go to the meetings folks. It's the only way to be heard. Sign up to speak, and do it every month till things are the way we want them to be...
Julia
The reason plants like this are called "Green" is they assume new wood is grown to replace the wood that is burned, and the wood burned would have rotted anyway.
The reason they can be worse than coal is in order to promote building these plants, they relax the emissions standards. The EPA told me a new small 50 MW coal plant would have been licensed to allow under 100 tons of carbon monoxide and NOx compounds, none of which are visible or have odor.
Besides other problems George pointed out (the northeast is especially learning about these incinerators), these things will result in removal of wood that normally would be left to rot and restore nutrients to the soil. Long term, they will be bad for soil.
The cleanest workable power generation fuel is natural gas. Maybe someday they will convert to gas.
Myself, I'm thinking of installing a combo wind and solar. I was thinking solar and wind hardware might be a better investment than IRA's this year. A fellow I know installed wind, and he makes about $100 a month from the power company he sells his surplus to, plus his electric went to zero. He is near Lake Superior, and has near constant wind. We don't have such a good location for that, but we are much better for solar.
Because of the crash in Europe, USA solar panel firms lost most of their market. Hopefully they will be allowed to sell to consumers.