A Tale of Two Cities

As developers propose new projects across the United States, more than just the feedstock and financial angles need to be examined. We look at two different towns and how community support can ultimately make or break a project. 

HARLEYVILLE, S.C. – Construction is beginning for a $46 million biomass plant that will burn 280,000 tons of logging debris per year and generate 15 MW of electricity. The plant is being developed by Southeast Renewable Energy, which has other facilities in the Palmetto State and will provide 20 new jobs in an area where unemployment nears 10 percent.

Locations of Southeast Renewable Energy facilities in
South Carolina. Courtesy: Biomass Magazine. 

County leaders as well as state and federal environmental regulators have embraced the project. Dorchester County is giving fee-in-lieu-of tax incentives and contracted to supply the plant with 20 tons per year of debris wood from county operations. Moncks Corner-based utility Santee Cooper plans to buy power from the plant after closing two of its smaller coal-burning plants due to new EPA air pollution regulations.

Locals in Harleyville are generally in support of the project, despite the fact that it will be within one mile of the town of approximately 2,400. Although there are still some questions about the level of carbon dioxide, many residents see it as the lesser of two evils. The project is exempt from EPA CO2 regulations due to the fact that it has been qualified as a “minor emitter” rather than a “major emitter.” The designation has raised some eyebrows, but most still prefer the new plant to coal-burning options.

MISSOULA, MONT. – University of Montana announced it was scrapping plans to build a $16 million biomass gasification boiler on campus at the end of 2011. University President Royce Engstrom cited  "deteriorating discourse” as a large reason for the decision (AP).

Plan for University of Montana biomass gasifier.
Courtesy: Biomass Magazine

The proposed plant would have used trees killed by bark beetles as its feedstock to produce heat and power for the campus. Despite the fact that it would have been the cleanest wood-fired system in the state, several prominent members of the Missoula community spoke out against the project. Concerns were raised about how the rise in emissions over the current natural gas plant would affect the community of more than 66,000 people. The new plant would emit twice as much nitrogen dioxide and three times as much particulate matter (The Missoulian, 11/18/11).

The University offered to pay for additional pollution-control testing in November after the Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Board postponed its vote on whether to permit the project.

Better BTU Take: We liked both projects and think the location had a lot to do with the outcome. Although there would have been an increase in emissions with the change from natural gas to biomass, it would still have been extremely low. The numbers on the lefthand side of a scale can frequently make small changes look large.

Additionally, it makes more sense to seek out areas that are less densely populated, as it will reduce the risk of controversy and bad media coverage. The political and cultural environment in Missoula wasn’t right and since the town already had a natural gas facility, its conversion to biomass wasn’t deemed as pressing as in areas with coal-burning plants.

The moral of the story: Concentrate on displacing coal-fired electric generation over natural gas boilers. Begin with sparsely populated areas in the country and work your way inwards to the metropolitan areas.

For more on Southeast Renewable Energy’s project in Harleyville, check out this article from The Post and Courier, in Charleston, S.C.

For more information University of Montana’s failed project, see the article from The Missoulian from 11/18/2011 and the Associated Press write-up on KULR-8.