Key State Official Backs Proposed Wood-Burning Power Plant

A proposed wood-burning power plant in Plainfield has won approval from a key state environmental official who said the facility should be able to operate without violating pollution standards.

[UNCLE SAM IS BACK]

The greens would have US (but not them or Gore) live in the woods eating berries.

[Vince]

If you want to take steps to move away from fossil fuel then you have to find a way to support this type of operation. The opponents should argue on the basis of the technology, and offer a proven solution. If you want the lower emissions then you probably need water cooling of the combustion apparatus. Burning wood waste is not like burning fossil fuel. It is a lower energy density fuel and needs to be controlled in a larger combustion rig. The idea is to be able to meet air emission regulations and protect air quality with minimal impact on other systems (roads, rivers, bridges...) and not saddle the ratepayer with a huge liability (plants that cost $$ to build but can't operate legally).

I'd like to see them show some support for alternatives instead of just running anti or nimby. These aren't shepherds living off the grid in yurts. They use electricity like everyone else. You already reap a large low-carbon source from Canadian hydro power, arguably a greater impact on a much larger river system. You also use plenty of power from coal, oil, natgas, and trash. Those facilities exist in communities. What if the proposed plant was a dam and hydroelectric installation in Plainfield? It would have essentially zero emissions. How does the wood burner look then? How does the anti's case look when a hydro plant is suitable for someone else's backyard but not theirs? Kinda selfish?

I'm not suggesting that they lie down, but there has to be a recognition that there will be significant new construction of power facilities, both additional generation and replacements of existing facilities, and you can have anything from Millstone to a wind farm fill that gap.

[xsixzuyzg]

This is a very bad labor intensive propossal.

[Woody Nesbit]

Great, now we're going to clearcut and chip all of CT's forests.

So much for carbon sequestration.

DEP can't be trusted with a state vehicle, and we're supposed to trust them on this?

Gina McC has done nothing but make DEP employees feel good about themselves. Otherwise, it's freaking business as usual (=no progress anywhere, on any front, ever).

What an absolutely useless agency, stocked with people waiting for their pensions. A classic reason why we need to shut down the bureaucracy and restart with fresh people and ideas.

But that's not going to happen with Rell hiding in the Capitol, doing nothing while Lisa Moody does the underground political hatcheting.

This, apparently, is the will of the voters.

[GrayPlayer]

Where is the in depth reporting on this article.? How many tons of wood or wood products will be needed to operate? Where will all this wood come from? How many houses will this plant electrify? How mant gallons of water are necessary for cooling? What controls will be in place too protect home owners from pollution? Who will monitor the input product?

Questions, questions, questions. People deserve answers, otherwise this article is just a "window dressing".

I do not live in Plainfield, but, if I did I certainly would want the answers. Come on, Courant, where are the answers.

[Old Navy Gunner]

If you're burning this stuff for heat, why do you use river water to cool it ?????? Why not control the burmn rate???

[bbj]

wood burning also pollutes and trees are not an endless source. I am currently not able to open my windows or able to line dry clothes outside due to wood burners in my neighborhood. The air is constantly filled with the stench of a camp fire.
Put down tree lovers if you want but without them we would not be able to breath. Why not try a little conservation ??

[iamjh]

This project will use wood that otherwise would go into a landfill, but sorted to avoid creosote & other contaminates. There's is plenty of fuel in CT to power this plant, with has the best available technology for cleaning its emissions. It will use 0.5%(half of 1%) of the water volume of the Quinebaug River, with special non-disruptive intake systems and no discernible temperature change in discharged water (which is sequestered during the cooling process & returns in the same condition it left the river).
The fact that it's "labor-intensive" -- transporting and sorting the wood fuel, is a good thing, because it provides jobs.
This plant will produce power from renewable resources, while diminishing the state's landfill problems, and without foreign oil. It uses a former "superfund" site that otherwise would continue to be a blight to the area. The developers should be congratulated for their perseverance.
Mr. Noiseux should reconsider his continued impeding of the project.

[Eric]

I say you can sit in the cold and dark.

What will it take to get some people to realize that we must do a variety of things in order to address the issue of power generation. If they implement sound business practices (not the Wall St. version) and utilize scrubbing technologies this should be allowed to move forward.

Otherwise, Connecticut can get accustomed to increasingly expensive electric rates and sitting in the cold and dark.

[Not again]

Again, environmentalists in the way. They just can't seem to get themselves to commit suicide to save the planet. I am so sick and tired of hearing it from them. When will we stand up to them?

[Florida Nutmegger]

This is a joke, right??
After they, whoever they are this week, have forced this construction, cut down all of the rest of the forests in Ct., who will be in charge of paving over the state?
Go back to the drawing board folks and find an alternative to cutting off your nose to spite your face!!
Holy Cow!!!

[The Posse]

I am not NIMBY or opposed to biomass; in fact I support responsible biomass but legit questions must be asked. Among them are:

1) Proposals for earlier wood plants here met local opposition and stopped them in the 1980's. Many pro and con arguments were made then BUT to build this plant that uses wood that some may feel is questionable is risky and could set back good biomass projects another generation.

2) There is no provision for DEP enforcement for separation of certain toxic materials from the waste stream . Also, I do not believe DEP even has the resources to adequately inspect such a waste stream or with a coming deficit will they. For public trust this is essential.

3) There is some question of if the renewable energy certificates (RECs) produced by this plant will be accepted due to the wood coming from construction and demolition sources? This means the value of the power may be greatly reduced if the certificates cannot be traded with other states as "green power". It could lead to economic difficulties for the plant and a lost ratepayer money.

4) Then there is the question of transporting low-energy density biomass if the cost of diesel fuel goes back to $4.00/gallon -- or over. The longer the hauling distance, the greater will be the cost of the resulting electricity which if it hits some figure like $7.00 per gallon for hauling may not even be cost effective.

5) There are additional questions that should be answered but if the state government is guilty of anything it is like the financial regulators in DC who do not ask questions. I am sure the political pressures on them are also severe but in times like tis a little bravery would be nice to see.

[quietcorner]

So far that's a tire-burning plant, trash incinerator, ash landfill - now a wood burning plant. Eastern Conn. - The State's Garbage Can.

[peter of winsted]

Time to go nuke

[Anon]

Seems to me that the best solution is to diversify our power supply and try to become less dependent on foreign sources, just like businesses try to diversify their offerings to sustain them when one segment is not profitable during a particular business cycle.

This means we should have, IN CONNECTICUT, a viable source of energy generated from gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass (multiple types), hydro., etc. in addition to efficiency initiatives.

It is simply not realistic, or preferable to say no to everything. When you rely one one source too heavily (doesn't matter which), you are at the mercy of those that supply what you need.

[Dave Logan]

This brings back memories of a proposed Asphalt Plant in Colchester. Luckily Concerned Residents in Colchester fought that until Governor Rowland, and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal stepped in and basically stopped the plant in it's tracks. I believe that the remnants of that plant are still visible on the west bound side of Rt.2.

In that case, DEP was set to allow the plant despite it's own reports of the impact of one small accident on the Pristine Rivers in the area, and the American Salmon project. Also, no one would have ever know the impact of the particulates that would have been emitted from the plant until it is too late.

Congratulations to those against this project. Keep up the fight, as we did in Colchester.

[Margaret Miner]

The position of Rivers Alliance of Connecticut is that this plant, which has no access to water on site, should be air cooled, which will require some water but not the 893,000 gallons per day tentatively permitted by the DEP. Pumping water out of an impaired Quinebaug river over 2.5 plus miles makes no sense. However, if DEP disagrees, and the plant is to be water cooled, the DEP should require protective conditions similar to those it asked for (and got) in the case of the Millenium plant on the Quinebaug River over the border in Massachusetts or similar to those imposed on the Towantic power plant in Oxford, which was developed by Calpine (and is now owned by GE). The Towantic plant was actually required to use air-cooling AND to take other measures to protect its river (the Pomperaug). The PRE development team, however, opposes such standards in its case. Margaret Miner, Rivers Alliance of Connecticut

[F Murray Johnson]

Funny ... as if there is enough "demolition waste" to keep this plant in operation 24/7.

DEP is just looking for a chance to cut down CT's forests.

Rivers Alliance needs to remember that clean water comes from thick, uncut forests and add that to the reasons why this project needs to be stopped.

Now, to the dolts that hate anything that benefits the earth, please stop breathing ASAP.

[no suprise]

they must have gotten the idea from the outdoor wood boiler people. whats funny is that the dep say's that the owf's are no good to the states air quality,but can not do anything to stop them. so,now it looks like they might aswell build one big one. where is northeast states for coordinated air use management aka nescaum ?aparenty someone has not read what they wrote concerning the health hazzard's of wood smoke!

[Andy Bauer]

Can't see how this project qualifies for clean energy dollars. I've filled up my share of dumpsters, to make demo waste non toxic (forget clean) one has to take out every glavanized nail and staple holding in fiberglass insulation, asphalt shingles and underlayment. Then there's sprayed insulation, paints, adhesives, roofing tar and good old pressure treated wood.

Build with this stuff, don't inhale it! We should be encouraging outfits like the reconnstructioncenter.org instead.