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.
