Yesterday I attended the two ADAGE sponsored meetings and the meeting of the Concerned Citizens of Mason County (CCMC), a group opposed to this new facility. The first ADAGE sponsored meeting was quite well attended but the evening meeting was less so. I estimate that between 65 to 70 attended the CCMC meeting. Media coverage, so far as I could see, was limited to KMAS covering only the evening meeting held by ADAGE. Fred Finn and Tim Sheldon were at the ADAGE meetings.
Here's what I understand after all those hours of asking questions and listening.
1. Air Quality: This appeared to be the big issue for most folks. I heard people say they don't think it's going to be a problem and I heard others who were quite concerned. Next week CCMC plans as a group to visit Olympic Regional Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) to voice their concerns. More than a ton of woody bio mass will be burned every minute 24 hours per day and about 100 heavy trucks will bring fuel into this facility seven days a week. Do we want to have the MCRA ball fields up there adjacent to this facility? Not sure it makes sense to have a sports field adjacent to this facility.
2. Water Use and Capacity: I was told the ADAGE facility will use 80 gallons per minute. At the Jan 29 joint meeting of the city, county, port, and PUD3 this issue of water capacity came up. Here's an excerpt from my Jan 31 blog posting about this meeting. "...Dave O'Leary said the City has water rights but doesn't know whether the capacity is there or not...." Prior to the approval of ADAGE construction we need to have straight answers on where this water is coming from and what this means to the county's water table outside John's Prairie Basin. How does this water usage compare to other operations in the area? Are we near the tipping point on water levels for the county?
3. Waste Water: Those 80 gallons of water per minute end up as 20 to 30 gallons per minute of waste water at 140 degrees temperature. ADAGE will cool this to 100 degrees and then it will go into the City of Shelton sewer system. Will this waste water be damaging to our shellfish industry? Who's paying for the sewer lines from John's Prairie Industrial Park to the City sewer system?
4. Traffic: When I interviewed Reed Will, President of ADAGE Mason LLC, he was not aware of the road issue specifically the hazardous SR3/John's Prairie intersection. He agreed to see first hand the roads in and out of the proposed site. What's the plan at the state and county levels regarding the need for improved roads for truck traffic that will bring 600,000 tons of bio mass into this facility and then carry out the ash? And what about the maintenance of these roads? How many heavy trucks are on our roads now and how does this compare to the traffic that we already realize?
5. Tax Revenue & Cost to Taxpayer: I asked Mr Will how much taxes and permit fees they anticipate paying the county, city, port, and PUD3. He said that he'd get back to me on this. His company's fact sheet says they will generate $2 to $3 Million the first year. Now we need to understand better how this breaks down. Is it one time permit fees or what? Which municipality gets what? When the city, port and PUD3 made their water agreement did the city agree to taxing ADAGE at a lesser rate? How much is ADAGE getting from the federal government to build this facility and what are their deadlines? What will be the real cost to the tax payer. Do the benefits to the tax payer out weigh the costs?
6. Employment Opportunities: ADAGE claims in their fact sheet that during 2.5 years of construction we will see more than 750 jobs and post construction will be about 200 jobs: 24 are direct full time jobs operating the plant and about 100 are the truck drivers who'll bring in the woody bio mass. Can a third party verify these estimates? I understand there is a similar facility in Lockerbie, Scotland. What has been this community's experience? How many jobs have they seen?
7. Forest Degradation: What is the impact to our forests when we remove the slash? Are nutrients lost? Will ADAGE begin burning trees (round wood) if there isn't enough woody bio mass in a 50 mile radius of the facility?
8. Cost of Electricity: Some have noted that the projected cost of power would be too high for a local utility. I believe this is the whole point of building this facility.
That pretty much sums up what I understand. I have more questions than answers and look forward to receiving your comments on what you understand. Sorry this is so long. My husband says you definitely won't read this one.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The whole point of the ADAGE project is not to make power but to make MONEY for ADAGE. The rest is secondary, and in the case of the environment, of no consequence.
ReplyDeleteYour 'cost of electricity' point ignores the impact of I-937. Our low-cost hydropower is NOT considered a 'qualifying renewable' but this biomass plant IS. Utilities (including our local PUD #3) are forced to give up their (your!) low-cost, non-CO2 emitting hydropower (to CA, where it IS considered renewable) in favor of MORE polluting facilities such as this at a much higher cost! And the environmental community is PROUD of that result!
ReplyDeleteIn the last two legislative sessions, unsuccessful attempts have been made to allow hydro as a qualifying renewable. If you are concerned about the pollution and other impacts from biomass; 1) contact your state senators and representatives and tell them the law needs to count hydro! 2) contact Renewables Northwest and the Northwest Energy Coalition (major backers of I-937) and ask why they think biomass is better for the environment than hydro.
'Defeating' this particular biomass plant without changing the law will only force a shift to still higher priced wind (and look at the resistance to the Radar Ridge wind project) and not reduce the impact to your electric bill!
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI agree that hydro should be considered a qualifying renewable resource. Clearly that is the case.
And, I still think the biomass units should be stopped as there are issues other than cost of electric bills.
Dean was wrong. Some us us read the whole note!
ReplyDeleteNot that there aren't issues besides electric bill costs, but if you oppose biomass, without changing the law, all you will accomplish is having it built somewhere else where it will still emit all the things folks are worried about.
ReplyDeleteOr Gov. Gregoire might decide to overrule local land use planners if they say no (remember Kittitas County? It's already happened once) in order to allow 'renewable energy' to be developed for her 'Climate Change Challenge'.
As long as renewables are mandated and as long as hydro isn't considered renewable and biomass is, these plants WILL be built.
Fix the rules to match common sense (now there's a concept) and there won't be a local battle over every plant. The developers have more money, more attorneys and more lobbyists. They won't lose all the battles, they won't even lose most of them.
You can run around putting buckets under the drips - or you can fix the roof.
Don't forget that Simpson also wants to put in a biomass plant on the water. Simpson says that the air is already so foul that a biomass plant won't hurt anything.
ReplyDelete