Following up on the discussion of potential emissions from a power plant in the Valley, today I wanted to think about some different supporting infrastructure that will need to be constructed. The starting point for this analysis is Homeland Renewable Energy’s website, Fibrowatt’s parent company, specifically the technical data sheet about the Minnesota plant, which is the first reference link at the end of the post.
There are two points to call out specifically, both of which will require specialized infrastructure: (1) the stack height of 300 feet, and (2) the voltage that power generated at the plant is delivered to the grid – 115kV.
Starting with the stack height, it’s hard to get a perspective on how tall 300 feet is in Page County, since the Valley is surrounded by two mountain ridges. The nearby peaks in Shenandoah National Park, notably Stonyman and Hawksbill, are 4,000 feet tall. Two easily identifiable peaks in the shorter Masssanutten ridge are Kennedy peak and Duncan Knob, at between 2,500 and 2,800 feet tall.
There are numerous photographs of panaoramic views from these summits on the Hiking Upward site (www.hikingupward.com) or from Google Earth. From those heights, tall constructed objects are visible, but for the time being there are none over 150 feet tall, these being cell towers. As I drove through Luray last weekend I made a mental inventory or a few of them – the Tannery stack, at about 50 feet, the Luray Caverns Bell Tower, also about 50 feet tall, the cell tower on the ridge above downtown about 100 feet, and the tower near Wal-Mart, about 120 feet tall. There are also water towers in Luray and Stanley, both of which are well below 100 feet.
Three hundred feet is pretty hard to quantify in Page County, because there is simply nothing that tall here – roughly equivalent to a 30 story building. This stack is five or six times as tall as the tannery stack, and nearly three times as tall as the tower near Wal-Mart. A smoke stack of that height would immediately draw attention from all of the panoramic vistas along the Shenandoah National Park ridge, including several of the historic overlooks on Skyline Drive. Hikers on the Appalachian Trail, when they are on the west side of the ridge, would see it from a few miles south of Big Meadow all the way up to the Rileyville area, perhaps as far as Compton Peak – four or five hiking days.
Down to earth, in the Valley, this smokestack would easily be visible from the Luray Caverns parking lot, where 500,000 tourists a year would take in the view. And families and kids at the Hawksbill Recreation Center in Stanley, which is very close to the proposed location at Project Clover, would also have a very clear perspective on the stack. The bike crowd in for state qualifiers – about a thousand of them, would see the stack from all along their route, and it would surely be a topic of conversation for the thousand-plus tri-athletes in June and August, putting an end to these emergent tourist activities.
The second infrastructure issue that draws my attention is the electrical transmission equipment that will be required. The voltage that will be delivered to the grid – 115kV, is considered high voltage and will require high voltage transmission lines. The Valley already has a few of these – but none running through the center area at Project Clover.
A Google search for pictures of high voltage towers to me to a Minnesota state permitting site, which is linked below. There are photos with a couple of examples like this one, and there are some images of big open country towers in the Wikipedia article cited in the references. A string of these (smaller ones!) will be needed to transmit the power to the national grid and to the end customer – a quick note here that that customer could be anywhere in the United States that is connected to Fibrowatt’s entry grid.
As indicated by this simple graphic from the Department of Energy (also found on Wikipedia), there will also need to be a substation, or transformer, built in proximity or on the grounds of the power plant. There's a photograph of a typical transformer station below. While altitude won’t be significant here, the necessary towers will begin from there, radiating out through the Valley. I suspect that the transmission line will impact the Massanutten Ridge in some form, as I doubt that clearing space for this construction would be allowed in the Park. On the other hand, there are lines in Thornton Gap, so this may be the point of entry for the power to the grid.
In the research I’ve been doing, I have tried to keep an open mind to Fibrowatt and the opportunity to have a biomass plant in Page Valley. The proposed location, as I understand it, at Project Clover is my major point of concern. It is dead center in the Valley with prevailing winds to the northeast and southwest, which means any emission particulate matter will fall on the neighboring towns of Stanley and Luray. The height of the building and smokestack will be visible from throughout the Valley, including prime tourist attractions.
I’ve always been against the use of the Project Clover land for any industrial use, but I am against it even more when that use will require obtrusive construction such as this. If the plant were to come to the Valley in a location with less impact, I might support it – but since the Page County EDA has pushed this site into consideration, I have to make a stand against it.
At this point, I’ve done enough research on Fibrowatt to have an opinion. I foresee devastating economic impacts to the tourism and agriculture industries in the Valley, and the potential for significant environmental degradation. To put it simply: I’d rather not see a plant here.
11 comments:
Jim - you have done an excellent job researching and writing about this issue. Thanks!
The 300 foot stack will be no more of an eyesore from the ridge tops than the golden goose county dump.
Wrangler's Season opens in June !!!
Does anyone actually think they will get unbiased information from the company selling the Fibrowatt process . . . this includes the Benson Town Board, Citizens Action Panel and your locals citizens who are totally wrapped up in the plant since they fell for it hook, line and sinker?
Reading their literature and listening to them is like believing in the Tooth Fairy.
43 physicians and 11 pharmacists in our community have signed letters of objection to Fibrowatt based on our concerns for increased health risks caused by emissions from Fibrowatt.
See the summary of economic, toxicities, health, environment, farming, etc. risks at the websites below.
My advice is to find out about Fibrowatt from someone other than those who stand to make a fortune in tax credits or have a special interest in it.
The big looser will be the average citizen stakeholder who will be at increased health risk without any financial benefit.
Reduced property values, reduced tourism and increased health risks are what studies indicate for areas around incinerators.
http://www.yadkinriverkeeper.org/fibrowatt
http://www.energyjustice.net/fibrowatch/
http://www.bredl.org/
Best of Luck, Bill Blackley, MD
My disclaimer is that I'm doing this only for the health of my family and others.
Bill,
Thanks for your comments. If you had read carefully I think you would have seen that our opinions have a lot in common.
I did not reference those websites in my research on purpose, since I found them poorly sourced and in some cases inaccurate - and worse, they conveniently ignore some painful facts. By talking with the people you referenced and by reviewing FW's own material, I have come to my own logical conclusion about whether a Fibrowatt plant is appropriate in Page County.
Now, I guess my position on this as an economist is a bit complex, but let me ask you a fllow-up.
If your home and your business are connected to the nation's electrical grid, do you realize what percentage of the power you use comes from nuclear or coal power - both of which share the health risk you are concerned about? What have you done about that? Will you or can you unplug? For the health of your family - or for any reason of conscience, as you claim?
The next step, do you know the communities where your coal plants are located? You do realize that they are probably in regions with lower than average income for your state, and places with low population, don't you? Have you been to a coal plant town and argued for it to shut down? Or is that kind of discrimination okay by you?
The answer to that rhetorical question is no. These references you give don't have an answer for this problem except to say, "no, don't want that."
It's going to take years to phase out the current power infrastructure and go to a fully sustainable, zero net energy future. My thoughts on the matter are that biomass energy producers with a lighter impact on the environment than coal and nuclear are part of that eventual transition, interim steps. They are not the end state but part of the road to get there.
We are all stakeholders in discussions like this.
Best,
Jim
Hey anonymous (Wranglers fan). I am looking forward to Wranglers season and I am going to bring some DC fans out with me for a game. I also am looking forward to the Farmer's Market opening after this screwy winter. Best, Jim
Sorry if I flamed out there Bill. Gees I ignored my own advice and policies!
Thanks for these additional insights; I don't know if Terry is still reading us, but he is welcome to comment on these items if he is.
Best,
Jim
Hi Jim, I looked on the blog and didn't see my post that you responded to. Bill Blackley, MD
Seems like something's wrong here - slow to load and all that. In case it doesn't come back, here it is from the email notification:
Jim, Thanks for you comments. You are absolutely right and I agree that we are all stakeholders.
I appreciate you taking this issue on directly and presenting information to your followers.
I'm willing to take it on too because I believe that we should get all the cards on the table.
I see two sets of stakeholders that are unequal. One set is the average Joe like me in a small rural community and the other is the hedge fund investor (39 of them) in NYC who own Fibrowatt.
The hedge fund owner will get most of the profits and the average Joe will get the health risks.
I do see that you and I are close in opinion and I wasn't referring to your comments but rather those of folks who seem to be pushing for Fibrowatt in the Shenandoah (and the Yadkin Valley).
My reading indicates that electricity from Fibrowatt would cost approximately three times more per MW hour to produce than energy from coal. Hence, increased electricity costs without improved quality of life.
Fibrowatt would produce way more nitrogen oxide (NOx) per MW hour and hence more smog and ozone.
Fibrowatt would also produce more particulate matter and thus more respiratory problems than coal.
Fibrominn would produce more greenhouse gasses than coal per MW hour. Same for dioxins.
In addition poultry litter would likely be laced with arsenic that will be aerosolized.
Also, burning the poultry litter will destroy millions of dollars worth of nitrogen that will need to be replaced at huge costs to the environment and the farmer when they buy industrial fertilizer.
Two months ago Fibrominn was fined $65,000 for being out of compliance by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for being out of compliance with the EPA for 6 out of 12 quarters. They were cited for emitting carbon monoxide, sulfa dioxides, nitrogen dioxides and particulate matter in excess of their permit.
Fibrominn settled but refused to admit that they were in violation.
The community where Fibrominn is located was not notified of the violations until after the settlement. I asked the MPCA if Fibrominn could have notified the community and warn them of the risk and the MPCA told me that the regulated agency (Fibrominn) could have told them at any time. The doctors were not even notified.
I think that Fibrowatt is an expensive and dirty source of electricity and a very poor bridge to the future.
Since coal is cheaper and cleaner than Fibrowatt perhaps the world could just stick with coal until the truly green grid you mention is achieved.
You are correct, I'm not out protesting coal in Charlotte but I did go to Charlotte last week and protest at public hearing the potential re-permitting of a medical waste company that is emitting 600% of the EPA new levels of dioxins and 300% of the EPA new levels of Mercury.
If everyone were willing to investigate these issues like us, we'd all be better informed and less likely to be persuaded by glossy slides, DVDs and salespersons.
I'm totally willing to be educated and would willingly drop this issue and go back to playing with my grand kid if someone could prove me wrong.
The Fibrowatt folks told me in person in Elkin that health care is none of their business. I asked them if they would help our community to follow possible health impacts with studies in our community (if they were permitted) but they said they are not spending any money on health tests. They told me I could do them myself if I wanted them so badly. They said that the government is responsible for the health of our citizens, not Fibrowatt.
This doesn't sound like a good neighbor to me and we are concerned about good relationships with our neighbors . . . especially when they emit dangerous gasses and particulate matter that could damage our children.
Thank, Bill Blackley, MD
BTW, Bill, please send me an email at jamesturnerjr@aol.com. I'd like to discuss this some more off line if you have time. Jim
Jim, thanks for the effort you have taken to address this complex issue.
I have read your final blog post and was disappointed with the way you portrayed your final position on such a project. Had you indicated that you were "concerned about the impact of such a plant on tourism or agriculture" or that "you were worried about the emissions" I would have respected these points as an opinion, one that might be seen as a reasonable position for a nearby property owner. To use words like "devastating economic impacts to the tourism and agriculture industries" and to talk about "environmental degradation" seems to be out of character with the way you had handled the discussion to date, unsupported by the contents of your blog information, and frankly are verging on inflammatory accusations.
Impacts to Tourism & Agriculture
If you look at the pictures of the Minnesota plant, while this is an industrial facility, it was designed to be similar in appearance to commercial buildings as most of the processes happen within the buildings. We work with the local community to ensure that the project is compatible with the local area, for example the CAP process resulted in the final color scheme for the plant. I do not believe that the presence of a stack is as obtrusive as you might suggest. Furthermore, I have a hard time believing that such a plant will impact tourism in the valley in the way you suggest. Remember, this would be a facility that adds to the local tax base and therefore could be a source of funds that could be used to support improvements in infrastructure that would help support the seasonal tourism you speak of.
I also do not see how the presence of a plant that ultimately would benefit local water quality would be a detriment to one of your most valued tourist resources, the Shenandoah River. Furthermore, by providing an alternative means to manage litter, the local residents will benefit from a reduction in odor impacts that are more likely to be a concern for tourists than the sight of the plant.
More importantly, I do not see any support in your previous discussions that would suggest adverse impacts to agriculture. Have you talked to local poultry farmers that are under significant pressure for their current and future nutrient management plans. Have you talked to local row crop and pasture farmers that are likely aware of the potential long term impact of poultry litter on soil quality. Since poultry litter has such a high concentration of phosphorous, there are limits on how much can be applied to the local fields.
In North Carolina, the State Agriculture Extension Agents are now taking fields out of use for litter application based on excess phosphorous levels. A Fibrowatt plant can provide the opportunity for the local agriculture community (poultry and crop farmer) to operate in a sustainable manner. These farmers are the backbone of the local year round economy in the valley. Without an alternative means to remove the excess nutrients out of these concentrated poultry production areas, their viability is seriously in doubt - certainly not what I would expect you to advocate. Agriculture is an important part of the Valley and one segment of issue that you have not really addressed here in your analysis.
Discussions on emissions will be addressed later this week and will be addressed in greater detail in our blog - The Straight Poop
Terry Walmsley
Fibrowatt LLC
Terry, where does the water go after your plant uses it?
Post a Comment