 |
| Entering Hidden Hollow County's Sanitary Landfill. Courtesy: Ada County. |
The alternative energy company captures methane gas from
decomposing trash at the Hidden Hollow landfill to generate 3.2 MW of power,
which it then sells to Idaho Power. Hidden Hollow Energy LLC and Hidden Hollow
Energy 2 LLC filed a $30 million claim on Tuesday, July 24th,
accusing Ada County officials of breach of contract.
Hidden Hollow Energy says that the county’s contract with
Dynamis to provide 408 tons of trash per day that would otherwise go to the
landfill undercuts promises Ada County made to them. The local company has been
in operation since 2006 at the landfill and could lose approximately one-third
of its daily landfill stream if the Dynamis project is completed.
While Hidden Hollow Energy 2’s motivation for action is
likely a financial one since the company is currently trying to expand its
operations by building on the existing pipeline structure, what concerns us is
that some citizens back landfilling over a waste-to-energy project because only
one side of the story has been told.
We have always supported transparency from companies in
terms of technology and emissions and have repeatedly called on Dynamis to be
more proactive in educating the public. But the fact remains that the
alternative to a waste-to-energy project is far more damaging.
| North Ravine Landfill at Hidden Hollow County Landfill. Courtesy: Ada County. |
Waste-to-energy projects heat up the trash at very high
temperatures, which turns it into ash. The concern comes from the dioxins it
creates in the process, which were a problem in the early days of the
technology and could be toxic if ingested. However, advancements in technology
mean that today’s plants have advanced emissions control systems, which are
capable of delivering a very clean solution. The trace amounts of dioxins it emits
can be regulated and closely monitored.
Landfilling, by contrast, leaks methane and other
greenhouses as it decomposes. The EPA estimates that the best landfill gas
collection systems collect only 75% of the gas and most systems hover between
47-50%. Additionally it reports that burning landfill gas for energy releases
20-40% more greenhouse gas pollution than flaring.
In fact, in June 2011 it came to Idaho DEQ’s attention that
“certain contaminant levels had increased to a level such that Ada County was
no longer in compliance with its existing air quality permit.” Ada County,
Idaho DEQ and Hidden Hollow Energy have worked to find a solution but have not
been successful. Idaho Power severed its power purchase agreement with Hidden
Hollow Energy as a result of the company failing to meet its operation deadline
of Feb. 28, 2012.
Both Dynamis and Hidden Hollow Energy have applied for air
permits from the Idaho DEQ. Dynamis will have a three-month wait followed by a
time of public comment. Ada County has 90 days to answer Hidden Hollow Energy’s
tort claim before a civil lawsuit can be filed. While we have not seen the
agreement between Hidden Hollow Energy and Ada County, it would be highly
unlikely that the county would have entered into an agreement with Dynamis to
provide trash it knew it couldn’t deliver.
Let the circus continue.
Energy Company Files Claim Against Ada
County – CNBC (July 26, 2012)
Dynamis
Faces Long Process – By Sean Olson, Idaho
Business Review (July 27, 2012)
20120713
Formal Complaint – Hidden Hollow Energy 2 LLC vs. Idaho Power Company (July
13, 2012)
Fact Sheet:
Landfill Gas – Energy Justice.net
You have some justifiable points regarding methane on the merits of immediate combustion vs landfilling, however, once again you are talking generalities of WTE and not the situation on the ground regarding Dynamis. Please investigate before you defend this company. Dynamis does not plan on installing any emission system for mercury or dioxin control.
ReplyDeleteFor example, you state:
"The concern comes from the dioxins it creates in the process, which were a problem in the early days of the technology and could be toxic if ingested. However, advancements in technology mean that today’s plants have advanced emissions control systems, which are capable of delivering a very clean solution. The trace amounts of dioxins it emits can be regulated and closely monitored."
Dynamis won't be monitoring dioxin more than once a year, if that (perhaps they will get away with 'parametric' monitoring of CO instead).
Dynamis plans on installing a wet scrubber designed for acid gases and some particulate removal. This will likely do nothing for mercury removal, as Hg will be in vapor form. Unfortunately, Dynamis' high combustion efficiency will work against them in this regard by destroying carbon particulate on which some of the Hg might have condensed and be removed by the wet scrubber. The result is that Dynamis will have worse mercury emissions per gigawatt-hour than almost all coal-fired plants in the U.S.!
Regarding dioxin -- again, what is this 'advanced technology' you speak of? Dynamis' technology is 20 years old.
Both mercury and dioxin could be seriously reduced by using activated carbon, as Spokane's Regional Facility does. This is isn't exactly 'advanced technology' either, but it is effective, especially for mercury.
So... when you defend the industry in general, what does that mean? How many plants are like Dynamis in trying to squeak by while by no means living up to the potential of WTE? Is it just an Idaho thing?
Dilution is no longer the solution. If you can capture pollutants like Hg at the point source, you should by all means do so! Otherwise WTE is just compounding the problem by significantly adding air emissions to land and groundwater.
Ridahoan,
ReplyDeleteWe're not here to defend Dynamis and as we've stated before, we disagree with the way the company has chosen to handle some things - our goal is just to provide a balanced view in an environment where facts can get manipulated and sound bytes and shouting can characterize the debate.
We do try to do a thorough search before writing our blog posts and frequently provide links for where we get our information. A few points:
1. Could you point us to where you've gotten information on the scrubbers? A wet scrubber can work on Hg if the system subcools the gas and condenses the Hg. You are partially correct in your statement that Dynamis' high combustion efficiency works against them. One of our engineers suggested checking out Remedia's Catalytic Filter: http://www.gore.com/en_xx/products/filtration/catalytic/remedia-brochure-us.html
2. We'd also be interested in seeing where the emission estimates by the company support the position that Dynamis produces more Mercury than most coal-fired plants on a per GW basis. If this information is based on the permitting limits in the application, we've discussed before about the many smaller plants use the strategy of permitting just below the legal limit rather than what it expects to emit. See our comments on the last post that we posted on Dynamis (in the comments section during our conversation with you).
3. Our information is that Dynamis based its new technology on the design from the plant in Barrow, Alaska that was built 20 years ago but that they are not actually the same technology. Dynamis is not the only company to take pieces from the Barrow design and apply it to its own technology.
4. As we've said before, a lot of the argument can be boiled down to who you believe should be in charge of sorting through claims, counter claims, spin and rants to regulate emissions. Although we don't love everything the EPA does, we do believe they are the right group to adjudicate emissions regulations.
Fundamentally, we believe that waste-to-energy projects that are permitted and maintained to today's standards beats coal and that the longer we wait to address the problem, the larger hill we will have to climb. Are you in agreement with us on that position?