 |
| 02/28/2010 10:30 PM |
 |
| We could do without this pie! |
The Original Shelton Blog
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Developer financed citizen group’s activity -Consultant aided Russell residents in effort to back biomass plant
Developer financed citizen group’s activity
Consultant aided Russell residents in effort to back biomass power plant
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/08/power_plant_developer_paid_consultant_to_help_organize_russell_citizens_group/
This reminds me of when John Dobson brought in a group of local pilots to support the Port of Shelton and ADAGE (Duke/Areva) forest incinerator.
Consultant aided Russell residents in effort to back biomass power plant
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/08/power_plant_developer_paid_consultant_to_help_organize_russell_citizens_group/
This reminds me of when John Dobson brought in a group of local pilots to support the Port of Shelton and ADAGE (Duke/Areva) forest incinerator.
 |
| John Dobson, Port of Shelton Exec and President of the Washington Pilots Association |
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Shelton's Future?
Carbon Monoxide Pollution
The main issue with Carbon Monoxide is its health effects. It is capable of binding to the chemicals in our blood, called haemoglobin. It does so far more effectively than oxygen and also stays bound to the haemoglobin for far longer than oxygen does. The effect is that the blood is starved of oxygen, which then affects the rest of the body. The ability of CO to bind so strongly to the haemoglobin means that even when CO is in low concentrations it can rapidly build up in the blood. Initial symptoms of mild poisoning include headaches and dizziness due to lack of oxygen in the brain.
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is a major air pollutant and has significant impacts upon human health. In addition the concentration of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere can influence the habitat suitability for plant communities as well as animal life. Sulfur dioxide emissions are a precursor to acid rain and atmospheric particulates.
Inhaling sulfur dioxide is associated with increased respiratory symptoms and disease, difficulty in breathing, and premature death. In 2008, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists reduced the Short-term exposure limit from 5ppm to 0.25ppm. The OSHA PEL is currently set at 5ppm (13 mg/m3) time weighted average. NIOSH has set the IDLH at 100ppm.
NItrogen Oxides:
Certain members of this group of pollutants, especially nitrogen dioxide (NO2), are known to be highly toxic to various animals as well as to humans. High levels may be fatal, while lower levels affect the delicate structure of lung tissue. In experimental animals this leads to a lung disease that resembles emphysema in humans. As with ozone, long-term exposure to nitrogen oxides makes animals more susceptible to respiratory infections. Nitrogen dioxide exposure lowers the resistance of animals to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Humans exposed to high concentrations suffer lung irritation and potentially lung damage. Increased respiratory disease has been associated with lower level exposures.
The human health effects of exposure to nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide, are similar to those of ozone. These effects may include:
•Short-term exposure at concentrations greater than 3 parts per million (ppm) can measurably decrease lung function.
•Concentrations less than 3 ppm can irritate lungs.
•Concentrations as low as 0.1 ppm cause lung irritation and measurable decreases in lung function in asthmatics.
•Long-term lower level exposures can destroy lung tissue, leading to emphysema.
Children may also be especially sensitive to the effects of nitrogen oxides.
Other Effects
Oxides of nitrogen also can:
•Seriously injure vegetation at certain concentrations. Effects include:
◦Bleaching or killing plant tissue.
◦Causing leaves to fall.
◦Reducing growth rate.
•Deteriorate fabrics and fade dyes.
•Corrode metals (due to nitrate salts formed from nitrogen oxides).
•Reduce visibility.
Oxides of nitrogen, in the presence of sunlight, can also react with hydrocarbons, forming photochemical oxidants, as discussed in the section on ozone. Also, NOx is a precursor to acidic precipitation, which may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Particulate Matter:
Particles of special concern to the protection of lung health are those known as fine particles, less than 2.5 microns in diameter. (For comparison, a human hair is about 75 microns in diameter.) Fine particles are easily inhaled deeply into the lungs where they can be absorbed into the bloodstream or remain embedded for long periods of time. A recent study showed a 17% increase in mortality risk in areas with higher concentrations of small particles.
Particulate matter air pollution is especially harmful to people with lung disease such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Exposure to particulate air pollution can trigger asthma attacks and cause wheezing, coughing, and respiratory irritation in individuals with sensitive airways.
Recent research has also linked exposure to relatively low concentrations of particulate matter with premature death. Those at greatest risk are the elderly and those with pre-existing respiratory or heart disease.
Soloman and ADAGE NOC numbers compared
 |
| Measurements are in Tons Per Year |
These are the numbers that Solomon aka Simpson and ADAGE aka Duke/Areva submitted to ORCAA. This is how much pollution each company claims that their new biomass incinerators will emit, if they are allowed to build them. Interestingly, some of the numbers are exactly the same, in spite of the fact that ADAGE has applied to build a biomass incinerator that is twice as large as Solomon's. Of further interest is that some of these numbers fall just below the level that would trigger a more rigorous permitting process.
For a detailed analysis of these numbers see Greg Helms Letter to Shelton
Friday, February 25, 2011
Biomass Protest with Style, in Australia
Conservation groups in three States, NSW, Victoria and Tasmania held protests against proposals to burn Australian native forests for electricity.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
WPPSS, here is an ADAGE for the DNR and others to think about
Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It!
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
historylink.org essay
The Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) was started in the 1950s as a means to guarantee electric power to homes and industry in the Northwest. Well-meaning officials believed that building nuclear power plants was the best way to supply clean and cheap electricity to customers. Events and human inadequacies produced the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history. The system's acronym, pronounced "whoops," came to represent how not to run a public works project.
WPPSS was organized in 1957 as a municipal corporation that allowed publicly owned utilities to combine resources and build power generation facilities. The entity was authorized by the Washington State Legislature and had the same status as a city or a county. The system was run by directors who were commissioners from the member utilities. Seattle City Light, the largest public utility in the state, signed on with 16 other utilities to insure the availability of electric power in the future. The system's first project was a $10.5 million dam at Packwood Lake . It was completed in 1964, seven months behind schedule.
Build, Build, Build
Planners expected that the demand for electricity in the Northwest would double every 10 years, beyond the capacity of hydropower. WPPSS made plans for a nuclear plant at Hanford, called Plant 2, and in 1971 utilities signed up to share costs and benefits. Plant 1, also at Hanford and Plant 3 near Satsop, Grays Harbor County, Washington, were proposed the following year. The costs of all these plants would be repaid through the sale of the power that they produced. WPPSS planned Plant 4 at Hanford and 5 at Satsop which would be "twinned" with 1 and 3. In this way, system planners thought, the experience and resources from the first plants would benefit the twin plants.
Several factors combined to ruin construction schedules and to drive costs to three and four times the original estimates. Inflation and design changes constantly plagued all the projects. Builders often got ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had been built. Safety changes imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission increased costs too, but the biggest cause of delays and overruns was mismanagement of the process by the WPPSS. The directors and the managers of the system had no experience in nuclear engineering or in projects of this scale. System managers were unable to develop a unified and comprehensive means of choosing, directing, and supervising contractors. One contractor, already shown to be incompetent, was retained for more work. In a well-publicized example, a pipe hanger was built and rebuilt 17 times. Quality control inspectors complained of inadequate work that went unaddressed.
The delays were not widely reported. At a WPPSS board meeting in 1973, Seattle City Light Superintendent Gordon Vickery (1920-1996) expressed surprise that the projects were a year behind schedule. According to the minutes, "Mr. Vickery expressed his opinion that the public should be told this, rather than keep saying we are on schedule and then come up short" (Chasan).
Seattle Reconsiders
Seattle City Light signed on to take portions of the power generated by Plants 1, 2 and 3, which obligated Seattle customers to pay a portion of construction. In 1975, City Light was given the opportunity to participate in Plants 4 and 5. A low snow pack during the winter of 1972-73 forced cutbacks of electricity from conventional hydro sources. The Arab oil embargo in 1973 produced long lines at gas stations, further heightening the sense of looming shortages.
At the same time, the environmental movement began to question the wisdom of nuclear power. The Washington Environmental Council filed suit to require City Light to produce an environmental impact statement on the nuclear plants which would have delayed the process five years. The environmental group dropped its suit when City Light Superintendent Vickery opened up the decision-making process. He established a 27-member Citizens' Overview Committee, made up of citizens and including environmentalists, to look at the needs for power and the best ways to provide it. City Light produced a study, Energy 1990, which examined ways to meet future power needs.
City Light staff supported first a 10 percent piece of the two new nuclear plants, then a 5 percent piece. The citizens' committee opposed participation in nuclear power and instead proposed that conservation be used to meet growth. The Seattle City Council supported the committee's approach and voted 6 to 3 not to participate in WPPSS 4 and 5. Seattle achieved the expected savings through a variety of measures including the "Kill-a-Watt" program that began in 1974.
Default
In January 1982, the WPPSS board stopped construction on Plants 4 and 5 when total cost for all the plants was projected to exceed $24 billion. Because these plants generated no power and brought in no money, the system was forced to default on $2.25 billion in bonds. This meant that the member utilities, and ultimately the rate payers, were obligated to pay back the borrowed money. In some small towns where unemployment due to the recession was already high, this amounted to more than $12,000 per customer. The bond holders sued and the matter wound it way through courts for the next 13 years. Plants 1 and 3 were never finished either, but their costs were backed by the Bonneville Power Administration and the power it generated from the Columbia River Dams.
On December 24, 1988, the parties in the various lawsuits reached a settlement of $753 million. Some of the 30,000 bond holders would receive 40 cents on every dollar invested and others got as little as 10 cents. Because a court found that some of the bond monies for Plants 4 and 5 were spent on Plants 1 and 3, participants in those projects were held liable for the default. Seattle's share was $50 million, of which $43.2 million came from insurance companies. The last settlement was reached in 1995.
Epilogue
Plant 2 at Hanford was completed in 1984 and is today (2000) called the Columbia Generating Station. It produces 12 percent of the power supplied by the Bonneville Power Administration at a cost of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Seattle customers pay an average of 3.89 cents per kilowatt hour. The unfinished plants were mothballed against the possibility that construction would be resumed. In 1995, WPPSS decided to demolish what remained of the structures. (Shelton Blog Note the Satsop Towers were never demolished)
In 1998, the corporation was renamed Energy Northwest. A consultant advised the board of directors that the old name was "hurting business opportunities" (The Seattle Times). This change did not go seamlessly. The organization paid $260,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by another organization that had been using that name already.
Sources:
Daniel Jack Chasan, The Fall of the House of WPPSS, (Seattle: Sasquatch Publishing, 1985); Seattle City Light Annual Report - 1994, p. 23; Seattle City Light Annual Report - 1991, p. 28; Seattle City Light Annual Report - 1986, p. 25; Seattle City Light Annual Report - 1976, p. 6; Peter Lewis, "Nuclear Plant Is Now Ready for Y2K, Operators Say," The Seattle Times, July 2, 1999, p. D-1; "Bondholders still awaiting payoff 10 years later," The Seattle Times, December 15, 1991, p. E-5; "Judge: WPPSS Money misspent, N-Plants ruling opens door for bondholders," The Seattle Times, October 7, 1990, p. B-2; "WPPSS Money Ready: Bond Holders Will Split $170 Million," The Seattle Times, November 27, 1992, p. D-7; "Deal Reached in WPPSS Default," The Seattle Times, January 27, 1995, p. B-2; Seattle City Light, Energy 1990 - Final Report, 1976, Part A, p. 1-8.
By David Wilma , July 10, 2003
---------------
Shelton Blog Note
Don't forget, it was not just cost overruns that stopped the Satsop Nukes, it was also pressure from environmental groups. Even if ADAGE begins construction and gets it 76% completed, there is no guarantee that the thing will ever be allowed to pollute our air, so keep up the fight! Today the Satsop Nuclear cooling towers still stand as a monumental monument to government mismanagement and good environmental activism.
Whoops!
Satsop Nuke cooling tower, never used and too expensive to demolish.
Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It!
Satsop Nuke cooling tower, never used and too expensive to demolish.
Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It!
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)
historylink.org essay
The Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) was started in the 1950s as a means to guarantee electric power to homes and industry in the Northwest. Well-meaning officials believed that building nuclear power plants was the best way to supply clean and cheap electricity to customers. Events and human inadequacies produced the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history. The system's acronym, pronounced "whoops," came to represent how not to run a public works project.
WPPSS was organized in 1957 as a municipal corporation that allowed publicly owned utilities to combine resources and build power generation facilities. The entity was authorized by the Washington State Legislature and had the same status as a city or a county. The system was run by directors who were commissioners from the member utilities. Seattle City Light, the largest public utility in the state, signed on with 16 other utilities to insure the availability of electric power in the future. The system's first project was a $10.5 million dam at Packwood Lake . It was completed in 1964, seven months behind schedule.
Build, Build, Build
Planners expected that the demand for electricity in the Northwest would double every 10 years, beyond the capacity of hydropower. WPPSS made plans for a nuclear plant at Hanford, called Plant 2, and in 1971 utilities signed up to share costs and benefits. Plant 1, also at Hanford and Plant 3 near Satsop, Grays Harbor County, Washington, were proposed the following year. The costs of all these plants would be repaid through the sale of the power that they produced. WPPSS planned Plant 4 at Hanford and 5 at Satsop which would be "twinned" with 1 and 3. In this way, system planners thought, the experience and resources from the first plants would benefit the twin plants.
Several factors combined to ruin construction schedules and to drive costs to three and four times the original estimates. Inflation and design changes constantly plagued all the projects. Builders often got ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had been built. Safety changes imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission increased costs too, but the biggest cause of delays and overruns was mismanagement of the process by the WPPSS. The directors and the managers of the system had no experience in nuclear engineering or in projects of this scale. System managers were unable to develop a unified and comprehensive means of choosing, directing, and supervising contractors. One contractor, already shown to be incompetent, was retained for more work. In a well-publicized example, a pipe hanger was built and rebuilt 17 times. Quality control inspectors complained of inadequate work that went unaddressed.
The delays were not widely reported. At a WPPSS board meeting in 1973, Seattle City Light Superintendent Gordon Vickery (1920-1996) expressed surprise that the projects were a year behind schedule. According to the minutes, "Mr. Vickery expressed his opinion that the public should be told this, rather than keep saying we are on schedule and then come up short" (Chasan).
Seattle Reconsiders
Seattle City Light signed on to take portions of the power generated by Plants 1, 2 and 3, which obligated Seattle customers to pay a portion of construction. In 1975, City Light was given the opportunity to participate in Plants 4 and 5. A low snow pack during the winter of 1972-73 forced cutbacks of electricity from conventional hydro sources. The Arab oil embargo in 1973 produced long lines at gas stations, further heightening the sense of looming shortages.
At the same time, the environmental movement began to question the wisdom of nuclear power. The Washington Environmental Council filed suit to require City Light to produce an environmental impact statement on the nuclear plants which would have delayed the process five years. The environmental group dropped its suit when City Light Superintendent Vickery opened up the decision-making process. He established a 27-member Citizens' Overview Committee, made up of citizens and including environmentalists, to look at the needs for power and the best ways to provide it. City Light produced a study, Energy 1990, which examined ways to meet future power needs.
City Light staff supported first a 10 percent piece of the two new nuclear plants, then a 5 percent piece. The citizens' committee opposed participation in nuclear power and instead proposed that conservation be used to meet growth. The Seattle City Council supported the committee's approach and voted 6 to 3 not to participate in WPPSS 4 and 5. Seattle achieved the expected savings through a variety of measures including the "Kill-a-Watt" program that began in 1974.
Default
In January 1982, the WPPSS board stopped construction on Plants 4 and 5 when total cost for all the plants was projected to exceed $24 billion. Because these plants generated no power and brought in no money, the system was forced to default on $2.25 billion in bonds. This meant that the member utilities, and ultimately the rate payers, were obligated to pay back the borrowed money. In some small towns where unemployment due to the recession was already high, this amounted to more than $12,000 per customer. The bond holders sued and the matter wound it way through courts for the next 13 years. Plants 1 and 3 were never finished either, but their costs were backed by the Bonneville Power Administration and the power it generated from the Columbia River Dams.
On December 24, 1988, the parties in the various lawsuits reached a settlement of $753 million. Some of the 30,000 bond holders would receive 40 cents on every dollar invested and others got as little as 10 cents. Because a court found that some of the bond monies for Plants 4 and 5 were spent on Plants 1 and 3, participants in those projects were held liable for the default. Seattle's share was $50 million, of which $43.2 million came from insurance companies. The last settlement was reached in 1995.
Epilogue
Plant 2 at Hanford was completed in 1984 and is today (2000) called the Columbia Generating Station. It produces 12 percent of the power supplied by the Bonneville Power Administration at a cost of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Seattle customers pay an average of 3.89 cents per kilowatt hour. The unfinished plants were mothballed against the possibility that construction would be resumed. In 1995, WPPSS decided to demolish what remained of the structures. (Shelton Blog Note the Satsop Towers were never demolished)
In 1998, the corporation was renamed Energy Northwest. A consultant advised the board of directors that the old name was "hurting business opportunities" (The Seattle Times). This change did not go seamlessly. The organization paid $260,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by another organization that had been using that name already.
Sources:
Daniel Jack Chasan, The Fall of the House of WPPSS, (Seattle: Sasquatch Publishing, 1985); Seattle City Light Annual Report - 1994, p. 23; Seattle City Light Annual Report - 1991, p. 28; Seattle City Light Annual Report - 1986, p. 25; Seattle City Light Annual Report - 1976, p. 6; Peter Lewis, "Nuclear Plant Is Now Ready for Y2K, Operators Say," The Seattle Times, July 2, 1999, p. D-1; "Bondholders still awaiting payoff 10 years later," The Seattle Times, December 15, 1991, p. E-5; "Judge: WPPSS Money misspent, N-Plants ruling opens door for bondholders," The Seattle Times, October 7, 1990, p. B-2; "WPPSS Money Ready: Bond Holders Will Split $170 Million," The Seattle Times, November 27, 1992, p. D-7; "Deal Reached in WPPSS Default," The Seattle Times, January 27, 1995, p. B-2; Seattle City Light, Energy 1990 - Final Report, 1976, Part A, p. 1-8.
By David Wilma , July 10, 2003
---------------
Shelton Blog Note
Don't forget, it was not just cost overruns that stopped the Satsop Nukes, it was also pressure from environmental groups. Even if ADAGE begins construction and gets it 76% completed, there is no guarantee that the thing will ever be allowed to pollute our air, so keep up the fight! Today the Satsop Nuclear cooling towers still stand as a monumental monument to government mismanagement and good environmental activism.
 |
| Partially completed Nuclear Reactor Core Satsop |
Energy from Biomass: Financially Non-Profitable, Environmentally Non-Sustainable
Submitted to Shelton Blog by:
Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D. - Economics
Energy from Biomass: Financially Non-Profitable, Environmentally Non-Sustainable
There's a rumor going around that trees or parts of trees or discarded products manufactured from trees are an economically and environmentally sustainable source of energy for electricity, heat and even jet fuel. The economically sustainable assertion in this rumor ignores the taxpayer funded subsidies that have spawned the recent surge in proposals for biomass energy production facilities, and the lack of such proposals when and where taxpayer subsidies are absent.
The environmentally sustainable assertion ignores the fact that recycling and composting of wood wastes (whether from logging slash, whole trees, urban tree prunings, garden prunings, clean construction and demolition wood, or some combination thereof) conserve more energy than combustion or integrated gasification-combustion generate and have lower climate, human health and ecosystem impacts. This is why our waste management hierarchy has reuse, recycling and composting as the top priorities, and disposal, even with energy recovery, at the bottom. This ranking has been confirmed by life cycle assessments (LCAs) of management methods for waste materials in scores of peer-reviewed journal articles and studies over the past two decades. Forestry residues are no exception to this robust finding on what we should do with our wastes.
The environmentally sustainable assertion also ignores the life cycle assessment research on alternatives to our current use of coal, petroleum and natural gas as energy sources. For example, one recent peer-reviewed LCA of solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear and biogenic resources for powering vehicles ranked these alternatives on the basis of climate, human health and land use impacts. Cellulosic (wood, grasses or the non-edible parts of plants) biofuels came out at the bottom in all three rankings, even below corn ethanol.
Despite these scientific and economic findings, our Washington State governor, lands commissioner and Department of Natural Resources continue to aggressively advocate for taxpayer subsidization of biomass energy proposals, from burning wood for electricity or heat to running jet plans on wood-based biofuel. Haven't they learned anything from the corn ethanol debacle in the midlands? Don't they understand that trees, tree parts and discarded wood products contain precious stored carbon that should be preserved through recycling rather than instantly released through combustion or gasification? For example, recycling these woody biomass materials and continuing to burn natural gas has lower environmental impacts of all kinds, compared to burning the wood to replace natural gas. Let's subsidize the waste management methods higher on the waste management environmental hierarchy such as recycling, and the alternative energy resources higher on the energy environmental hierarchy such as solar and geothermal. The latter are ways to reduce our fossil fuel consumption in an environmentally sound manner. Burning wood or turning wood into gas to burn is a giant step backwards environmentally, as well as a huge waste of money funded by us, the taxpayers.
Dr. Jeffrey Morris, economist and life cycle assessment expert, Sound Resource Management, Olympia, WA.
References for all statements in this article available on request. jeff.morris@zerowaste.com
Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D. - Economics
Energy from Biomass: Financially Non-Profitable, Environmentally Non-Sustainable
 |
| Green Energy |
The environmentally sustainable assertion ignores the fact that recycling and composting of wood wastes (whether from logging slash, whole trees, urban tree prunings, garden prunings, clean construction and demolition wood, or some combination thereof) conserve more energy than combustion or integrated gasification-combustion generate and have lower climate, human health and ecosystem impacts. This is why our waste management hierarchy has reuse, recycling and composting as the top priorities, and disposal, even with energy recovery, at the bottom. This ranking has been confirmed by life cycle assessments (LCAs) of management methods for waste materials in scores of peer-reviewed journal articles and studies over the past two decades. Forestry residues are no exception to this robust finding on what we should do with our wastes.
The environmentally sustainable assertion also ignores the life cycle assessment research on alternatives to our current use of coal, petroleum and natural gas as energy sources. For example, one recent peer-reviewed LCA of solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear and biogenic resources for powering vehicles ranked these alternatives on the basis of climate, human health and land use impacts. Cellulosic (wood, grasses or the non-edible parts of plants) biofuels came out at the bottom in all three rankings, even below corn ethanol.
Despite these scientific and economic findings, our Washington State governor, lands commissioner and Department of Natural Resources continue to aggressively advocate for taxpayer subsidization of biomass energy proposals, from burning wood for electricity or heat to running jet plans on wood-based biofuel. Haven't they learned anything from the corn ethanol debacle in the midlands? Don't they understand that trees, tree parts and discarded wood products contain precious stored carbon that should be preserved through recycling rather than instantly released through combustion or gasification? For example, recycling these woody biomass materials and continuing to burn natural gas has lower environmental impacts of all kinds, compared to burning the wood to replace natural gas. Let's subsidize the waste management methods higher on the waste management environmental hierarchy such as recycling, and the alternative energy resources higher on the energy environmental hierarchy such as solar and geothermal. The latter are ways to reduce our fossil fuel consumption in an environmentally sound manner. Burning wood or turning wood into gas to burn is a giant step backwards environmentally, as well as a huge waste of money funded by us, the taxpayers.
Dr. Jeffrey Morris, economist and life cycle assessment expert, Sound Resource Management, Olympia, WA.
References for all statements in this article available on request. jeff.morris@zerowaste.com
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Wisconsin-Washington Solidarity Event Photos
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker thought he could cut the pay and trample the rights of more than 150,000 state workers and not face any consequences. Well, he was wrong. On Monday mass protests were held in state capitols all over our nation, in a show of solidarity for Wisconsin workers. Below are pictures from Olympia, the capitol of the State of Washington.
Photos Submitted to Shelton Blog by Josie Jarvis:
Photos Submitted to Shelton Blog by Josie Jarvis:
 |
| Bring Back Glass–Steagall |
Monday, February 21, 2011
Californian biomass plants fined
Californian biomass plants fined
http://www.bioenergy-news.com/index.php?/Industry-News?item_id=3254
21 February 2011
Two biomass-fired power plants in California, US, have been fined a combined total of $835,000 (€610,165).
Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass and Merced Power received the penalty after a joint investigation by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District found that the two facilities violated the Clean Air Act and district rules. These violations included excess emissions of air pollutants such as oxides and fine particulates.
Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass must now pay $343,000, while Merced Power is required to pay $492,000. Both firms must also follow a number of procedures in order to guarantee future compliance with the pollution regulations.
These steps will see the biomass plants install technology to better its regulation and reporting of air pollutants, enhancing automation of the control systems for nitrogen oxides emissions and preparing more stringent control plans to minimise emissions of air pollutants.
To date, both Ampersand Chowchilla and Biomass and Merced Power's move to comply with the EPA's instruction have been significant. The two facilities now have installed controls that lower the output of nitrogen oxides by 180 tonnes a year and that of carbon monoxide by as much as 365 tonnes annually.
According to the EPA, the agency and the district will monitor both plants for a further 24 months until all the requirements of both facilities have been completed.
http://www.bioenergy-news.com/index.php?/Industry-News?item_id=3254
21 February 2011
 |
| Aberdeen |
Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass and Merced Power received the penalty after a joint investigation by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District found that the two facilities violated the Clean Air Act and district rules. These violations included excess emissions of air pollutants such as oxides and fine particulates.
Ampersand Chowchilla Biomass must now pay $343,000, while Merced Power is required to pay $492,000. Both firms must also follow a number of procedures in order to guarantee future compliance with the pollution regulations.
These steps will see the biomass plants install technology to better its regulation and reporting of air pollutants, enhancing automation of the control systems for nitrogen oxides emissions and preparing more stringent control plans to minimise emissions of air pollutants.
To date, both Ampersand Chowchilla and Biomass and Merced Power's move to comply with the EPA's instruction have been significant. The two facilities now have installed controls that lower the output of nitrogen oxides by 180 tonnes a year and that of carbon monoxide by as much as 365 tonnes annually.
According to the EPA, the agency and the district will monitor both plants for a further 24 months until all the requirements of both facilities have been completed.
Mason County Journal - Miles Anti-Harassment Hearing, Clarification
Attorney John Bonin's Letter of Clarification to the Mason County Journal
Ms. Natalie Johnson
Mason County Journal
Hand Delivered
Re: Need for correction on pg. 2 of the 2/10/11 Mason County Journal - Miles Anti-Harassment Hearing
Dear Ms. Johnson and Editor,
I have reviewed your story on the Miles Ant-Harassment petition. With due respect, you needto listen to the audio of the proceedings as you have made significant factual errors.
Commissioner Miles voluntarily dismissed his petition without hearing, and reached anagreement with Mr. Dobson which was reflected in court and on the record. The court audiorecord states, by the Judge himself, that the Judge did not review the record, hear the evidence, or reach factual determinations.
Anti-Harassment petitions are not matters that are addressed in the way you have presented it to the public. In such matters, one side files a petition alleging to set a hearing. The other side gets notice and has the right to file competing evidence. A hearing is set, and at that hearing the materials that one side or the other has filed is either subject to oral motion to strike or admitted. The parties then present their case through live testimony and presentation of witnesses. After that happens, the Judge considers all the evidence - on both sides - and makes a ruling.
None of these events took place. None of the events took place because the matter was resolved in the court room hallway by agreement of the parties before any of these events took place.
None of the information you have cited in your story was ever reviewed by the Judge. There was no "Judge apparently agreeing" to any of the one sided recitations you have generated in your story. I have the disc if you would like to come and listen to it. You can also order it yourself from
the Mason County Clerk. The program to listen to it is known as FTR Gold.
The true story that should have been reflected is contained above. The false nature of your story and the presentment of disputed evidence never even considered by the Court, and never subject to rebuttal, paints a picture that is damaging to Commissioner Miles - who utilized my services that day to broker peace.
You were also at the next Commission meeting. You heard Mr. Dobson announce his intent to breach that agreement. You also heard another Commissioner and Mr. Dobson state that "the Judge dismissed it" and "I know, I wa s there". The other Commissioner certainly was there. He was there in the hallway as one of Mr. Dobson's subpoenaed witnesses. I do not recall seeing him in the actual court proceeding where the agreement was reached.
I also know that Mr. Dobson was personally present while his attorney affirmed the agreement and on the record. After the agreement was reached, all the witnesses - on both sides - were told that they were no longer necessary because an agreement was reached and that they could therefore go
home.
Please listen to the proceeding and correct your story to reflect that you are in error, and that the Judge expressly indicated that he had neither reviewed the file nor entered any factual determinations as he had accepted and affirmed that agreement reached on the record.
Sincerely,
John Bonin
Approved by Commissioner Jack Miles for publication
Ms. Natalie Johnson
Mason County Journal
Hand Delivered
Re: Need for correction on pg. 2 of the 2/10/11 Mason County Journal - Miles Anti-Harassment Hearing
Dear Ms. Johnson and Editor,
I have reviewed your story on the Miles Ant-Harassment petition. With due respect, you needto listen to the audio of the proceedings as you have made significant factual errors.
Commissioner Miles voluntarily dismissed his petition without hearing, and reached anagreement with Mr. Dobson which was reflected in court and on the record. The court audiorecord states, by the Judge himself, that the Judge did not review the record, hear the evidence, or reach factual determinations.
Anti-Harassment petitions are not matters that are addressed in the way you have presented it to the public. In such matters, one side files a petition alleging to set a hearing. The other side gets notice and has the right to file competing evidence. A hearing is set, and at that hearing the materials that one side or the other has filed is either subject to oral motion to strike or admitted. The parties then present their case through live testimony and presentation of witnesses. After that happens, the Judge considers all the evidence - on both sides - and makes a ruling.
None of these events took place. None of the events took place because the matter was resolved in the court room hallway by agreement of the parties before any of these events took place.
None of the information you have cited in your story was ever reviewed by the Judge. There was no "Judge apparently agreeing" to any of the one sided recitations you have generated in your story. I have the disc if you would like to come and listen to it. You can also order it yourself from
the Mason County Clerk. The program to listen to it is known as FTR Gold.
The true story that should have been reflected is contained above. The false nature of your story and the presentment of disputed evidence never even considered by the Court, and never subject to rebuttal, paints a picture that is damaging to Commissioner Miles - who utilized my services that day to broker peace.
You were also at the next Commission meeting. You heard Mr. Dobson announce his intent to breach that agreement. You also heard another Commissioner and Mr. Dobson state that "the Judge dismissed it" and "I know, I wa s there". The other Commissioner certainly was there. He was there in the hallway as one of Mr. Dobson's subpoenaed witnesses. I do not recall seeing him in the actual court proceeding where the agreement was reached.
I also know that Mr. Dobson was personally present while his attorney affirmed the agreement and on the record. After the agreement was reached, all the witnesses - on both sides - were told that they were no longer necessary because an agreement was reached and that they could therefore go
home.
Please listen to the proceeding and correct your story to reflect that you are in error, and that the Judge expressly indicated that he had neither reviewed the file nor entered any factual determinations as he had accepted and affirmed that agreement reached on the record.
Sincerely,
John Bonin
Approved by Commissioner Jack Miles for publication
Bills Seek to Limit Public Records Request
Submitted to Shelton Blog by Duff Badgley:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014281074_recordsbills20m.html
Contact Duff Badgley, No Biomass Burn, at: 206-283-0621.
Our campaigns against biomass incinerators have been greatly helped by information we have gotten via the Public Records Request (PRR) law. Now the pols want to charge us for staff time in assembling the data we request. This could effectively stop ordinary citizen access to key public records. Already, we have incurred bills for copying fees under PRR into the hundreds of dollars.
Please call today to help stop HB 1300/SB 5088.
Calling this Washington State Legislation Hotline number, 1.800.562.6000, is a quick and painless way to weigh in on proposed legislation.
Someone at the other end of the call will distribute your comments to your representatives in the house and senate. You can request a response as well.
The hotline is open from 8am – 8pm Monday through Friday and 9am – 1pm on Saturdays.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014281074_recordsbills20m.html
Contact Duff Badgley, No Biomass Burn, at: 206-283-0621.
Our campaigns against biomass incinerators have been greatly helped by information we have gotten via the Public Records Request (PRR) law. Now the pols want to charge us for staff time in assembling the data we request. This could effectively stop ordinary citizen access to key public records. Already, we have incurred bills for copying fees under PRR into the hundreds of dollars.
Please call today to help stop HB 1300/SB 5088.
Calling this Washington State Legislation Hotline number, 1.800.562.6000, is a quick and painless way to weigh in on proposed legislation.
Someone at the other end of the call will distribute your comments to your representatives in the house and senate. You can request a response as well.
The hotline is open from 8am – 8pm Monday through Friday and 9am – 1pm on Saturdays.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
ORCAA Releases "Woody Biomass Emissions Calculator"
"Woody Biomass Emissions Calculator" is located here as an Excel file.
http://www.orcaa.org/index.php/download_file/483/220/
List of Study Participants: (this should raise a red flag)
Steve Body, U.S. EPA Region 10
Gina Bonifacino, U.S. EPA Region 10
Mark Goodin, Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
Rachael Jamison, Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Julie Oliver, Washington State Department of Ecology
Craig Partridge, Washington State Department of Natural Resources
John Pellegrini, Grays Harbor Paper
Gail Sandlin, Washington State Department of Ecology
Dave Sjoding, Washington State University Extension Energy Program
 |
| Do you trust these people? |
Friday, February 18, 2011
Peter Goldmark Publicly Opposed to ADAGE?
CPL Goldmark reportedly said in his talk at Lobby Day on the 15th, that ADAGE is not "appropriate scale"
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Keep the Biomass Industry from destroying forests in Wa. State
KEEP THE BIOMASS INDUSTRY FROM DESTROYING
FORESTS IN WASHINGTON STATE
Targeting: The Governor of WA, WA State Senate, and WA State House
Started by: Tom Davis
Forests in the State of Washington are under attack by the predatory biomass industry. Rural, economically depressed, Mason County Washington, located right next to the Olympic National Forest, has been targeted by Adage Mason LLC (pronounced A-dodge) a company that seeks to use our forests as fuel for their 65 megawatt incinerator intended to generate electricity to be sold to California.
Adage is a partnership between French based Areva Corp., and Duke Energy. Both companies have dismal environmental records. This massive incinerator will consume over 600,000 tons of wood every year, the equivalent of one mature tree every 53 seconds. And there are 19 existing or proposed plants slated to be built in the South Puget Sound area alone, and up to 250 more planned throughout rural America.
These plants are highly polluting, contributing to respiratory illness, deforestation and global warming. This one plant alone will emit 600,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide and other air pollutants into our air every year.
LINK TO CHANGE.ORG PETITION:
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-biomass-industry-from-destroying-forests-in-washington-state
FORESTS IN WASHINGTON STATE
Targeting: The Governor of WA, WA State Senate, and WA State House
Started by: Tom Davis
Forests in the State of Washington are under attack by the predatory biomass industry. Rural, economically depressed, Mason County Washington, located right next to the Olympic National Forest, has been targeted by Adage Mason LLC (pronounced A-dodge) a company that seeks to use our forests as fuel for their 65 megawatt incinerator intended to generate electricity to be sold to California.
Adage is a partnership between French based Areva Corp., and Duke Energy. Both companies have dismal environmental records. This massive incinerator will consume over 600,000 tons of wood every year, the equivalent of one mature tree every 53 seconds. And there are 19 existing or proposed plants slated to be built in the South Puget Sound area alone, and up to 250 more planned throughout rural America.
These plants are highly polluting, contributing to respiratory illness, deforestation and global warming. This one plant alone will emit 600,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide and other air pollutants into our air every year.
LINK TO CHANGE.ORG PETITION:
http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-biomass-industry-from-destroying-forests-in-washington-state
Tell the Department of Nothing Remaining (DNR) where they can stick their user fees!
 |
| Typical DNR wasteland on Gold Mountain ($20 a day to hike here?? No way!) |
 |
| Typical DNR Wasteland in the Capitol "forest" |
Pay to hike up a motorcycle rut in a clear cut while surrounded by the sounds of gun fire and fellerbunchers? Hell no!
Tell the DNR where to stick their user fees:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/greentahuyaplan it's one of the last questions on the survey.
While the DNR makes big plans to further destroy state forests for biomass, they also want to start charging hikers just for the pleasure of walking in one of their clear cuts. DNR claims they send all their deforestation dollars to schools. I don't believe them, I think it's a lie to make us complacent while they destroy our state forest lands. The lottery was supposed to support schools too. How much will we put up with under the guise of paying for schools? How much money does Goldmark and his timber baron friends make off clear cutting our state forests? What percentage actually goes to schools? How do states that don't have big timber reserves pay for schools and why are our schools facing such severe cutbacks in the midst of all the DNR logging? Are there any other states that claim to pay for schools with deforestation?
It is high time to fire the DNR and put another agency in charge of our state forest lands.
It will be a cold day in hell before I pay a user fee to access a DNR clearcut!
 |
| Green Mountain, this must have been a beautiful forest before we let the DNR "manage" it |
 |
| This is what happens when DNR is allowed to manage our state lands |
 |
| Green Mountain, Department of Nothing Remaining (DNR) will have to resort to selling brush for biomass next |
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
GOLDMARK “CEASE AND DESIST” PROTEST
GOLDMARK “CEASE AND DESIST” PROTEST
Join us 3PM WEDNESDAY, FEB. 16 AT DNR IN OLYMPIA
Earth Cop is on loan to us from Heartwood via Stop Spewing Carbon Campaign in Massachusetts.
Goldmark is pushing his jet-fuel-from-our-forests project plus biomass incinerators that threaten our health and our forests and increase CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming. Citizens across the state are demanding a STATEWIDE MORATORIUM ON BIOMASS PROJECTS like Thurston County imposed last year.
A February 8 Seattle Times OP-ED accused Goldmark of promoting biomass policies that “amount to a war on our forests, our climate, and our lives.” http://www.theolympian.com/2011/02/07/1535301/thurston-commissioners-lauded.htmlhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2014157806_guest08badgley.html
The February 16 protest comes as three internationally acclaimed climate scientists have debunked pro-biomass burning policies by Washington Governor Gregoire and Commissioner Goldmark in a letter to state legislators on February 2 saying, "simply declaring biomass power to be carbon neutral does not make it so." http://nobiomassburning.org/docs/Harmon_Searchinger_Moomaw%20Letter_2-3-11.pdf;
http://www.nobiomassburn.org/
Scientists Mark Harmon, Timothy Searchinger and William Moomaw wrote that Washington State policy "makes it likely that greenhouse gas emissions will increase for many years where biomass replaces or displaces fossil fuels" and "biomass burning emits 150 % the carbon dioxide of coal and 300-400 % the carbon dioxide of natural gas..."
The scientists’ February 2 letter states: “…the number and scale of biomass facilities proposed in Washington strongly suggests that new trees will have to be cut to provide fuel for these plants…” There are at least 20 biomass incinerators existing or planned for the state.
Biomass combustion emits more than twice as much highly toxic particulate matter as coal combustion, and five to 13 times more than natural-gas combustion, according to studies accepted by the EPA.
This kind of exposure to emissions has been linked by the American Lung Association to a lethal brew of diseases and conditions: asthma in children, cancer, cardiopulmonary diseases including heart attacks, strokes, premature death, increased ER visits and hospital admissions, birth defects, and abnormal lung development.
Public outcry against biomass incinerators promoted by Goldmark and the biomass/timber industry is grabbing headlines in Mason, Thurston, Jefferson and Clallam Counties.
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/02/07/1535301/thurston-commissioners-lauded.html; http://www.theolympian.com/2010/04/27/1219841/mason-county-biomass-plant-opposition.html; http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20101007/NEWS/310079995/coalition-appeals-challenges-nippon-biomass-approvals
Appeals have been filed by citizen groups to stop 3 biomass incinerators proposed for the Olympic Peninsula — one of which is a "pilot project" in Port Angeles selected by Goldmark to showcase so-called "green energy."
Another biomass project pushed by Goldmark is the biomass plant slated for the campus of Evergreen State College in Olympia. This project has been stymied by the citizen-driven Thurston County moratorium on biomass plants in the County.
In September, 2010, Goldmark and Governor Gregoire sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson arguing that biomass sources of greenhouse gas pollution in Washington should be exempt from federal GHG regulations in the Clean Air Act. The letter from Moomaw, Searchinger and Harmon exposes the Gregoire and Goldmark proposal as being based on “assumptions” that “disregard” climate science.
Contacts: Pat Rasmussen: 509-669-1549; patr@crcwnet.com; Duff Badgley: 206-283-0621; duff@nobiomassburn.org
Join us 3PM WEDNESDAY, FEB. 16 AT DNR IN OLYMPIA
 |
| Typical DNR wasteland |
Join Earth Cop—in uniform!—at DNR as we serve Public Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark with a CEASE AND DESIST ORDER compelling him to STOP ALL STATE BIOMASS PROJECTS. We’ll have banners, signs, flyers, an electric bullhorn and lots of fellow activists. We’ll mass outside the main entrance to DNR at 11th and Washington Sts. in downtown Olympia. Then we’ll deliver the CEASE AND DESIST ORDER to Goldmark inside.
Earth Cop is on loan to us from Heartwood via Stop Spewing Carbon Campaign in Massachusetts.
 |
| Goldmark leaving a legacy of death and destruction for generations to come? |
A February 8 Seattle Times OP-ED accused Goldmark of promoting biomass policies that “amount to a war on our forests, our climate, and our lives.” http://www.theolympian.com/2011/02/07/1535301/thurston-commissioners-lauded.htmlhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2014157806_guest08badgley.html
The February 16 protest comes as three internationally acclaimed climate scientists have debunked pro-biomass burning policies by Washington Governor Gregoire and Commissioner Goldmark in a letter to state legislators on February 2 saying, "simply declaring biomass power to be carbon neutral does not make it so." http://nobiomassburning.org/docs/Harmon_Searchinger_Moomaw%20Letter_2-3-11.pdf;
http://www.nobiomassburn.org/
Scientists Mark Harmon, Timothy Searchinger and William Moomaw wrote that Washington State policy "makes it likely that greenhouse gas emissions will increase for many years where biomass replaces or displaces fossil fuels" and "biomass burning emits 150 % the carbon dioxide of coal and 300-400 % the carbon dioxide of natural gas..."
The scientists’ February 2 letter states: “…the number and scale of biomass facilities proposed in Washington strongly suggests that new trees will have to be cut to provide fuel for these plants…” There are at least 20 biomass incinerators existing or planned for the state.
Biomass combustion emits more than twice as much highly toxic particulate matter as coal combustion, and five to 13 times more than natural-gas combustion, according to studies accepted by the EPA.
This kind of exposure to emissions has been linked by the American Lung Association to a lethal brew of diseases and conditions: asthma in children, cancer, cardiopulmonary diseases including heart attacks, strokes, premature death, increased ER visits and hospital admissions, birth defects, and abnormal lung development.
Public outcry against biomass incinerators promoted by Goldmark and the biomass/timber industry is grabbing headlines in Mason, Thurston, Jefferson and Clallam Counties.
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/02/07/1535301/thurston-commissioners-lauded.html; http://www.theolympian.com/2010/04/27/1219841/mason-county-biomass-plant-opposition.html; http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20101007/NEWS/310079995/coalition-appeals-challenges-nippon-biomass-approvals
Appeals have been filed by citizen groups to stop 3 biomass incinerators proposed for the Olympic Peninsula — one of which is a "pilot project" in Port Angeles selected by Goldmark to showcase so-called "green energy."
Another biomass project pushed by Goldmark is the biomass plant slated for the campus of Evergreen State College in Olympia. This project has been stymied by the citizen-driven Thurston County moratorium on biomass plants in the County.
In September, 2010, Goldmark and Governor Gregoire sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson arguing that biomass sources of greenhouse gas pollution in Washington should be exempt from federal GHG regulations in the Clean Air Act. The letter from Moomaw, Searchinger and Harmon exposes the Gregoire and Goldmark proposal as being based on “assumptions” that “disregard” climate science.
Contacts: Pat Rasmussen: 509-669-1549; patr@crcwnet.com; Duff Badgley: 206-283-0621; duff@nobiomassburn.org
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Shelton is not a Safe Place to Raise Children
Two more incinerators will only make Shelton less safe:
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Dear Members of the Washington State Legislature
Mark E. Harmon
Richardson Chair and Professor in Forest Science,
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University
Timothy D. Searchinger
Research Scholar and Lecturer Princeton University,
Transatlantic Fellow, The German Marshall Fund of the U.S.
William Moomaw
Professor of International Environmental Policy
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
February 2, 2011
Dear Members of the Washington State Legislature,
Several new wood-burning biomass electric power facilities are planned for Washington State. Recently, the Washington Department of Natural Resources provided you with a report stating that generating power from biomass reduces greenhouse gas emissions.[1][1] We write as climate researchers concerned about the approach to carbon accounting endorsed in that report.
A critical conclusion of the report is that biomass of all kinds, including harvested trees that would otherwise remain standing, should be treated as a “carbon neutral” fuel, an assumption the authors ascribe to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, this conclusion is based on a misinterpretation of IPCC accounting, and is inconsistent with the best science of forest carbon accounting. Crafting a biomass policy based on this report’s conclusions could lead to an increase in total carbon emissions from the power sector, an increase that would be incompatible with Washington’s goals of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to no more than 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.[2][2]
The DNR report states:
The Department of Natural Resources supports the approach wherein a neutrality determination for a State’s greenhouse gas emissions from forest biomass energy production is made so long as the state’s forest carbon stocks are either stable or increasing. This is the case in Washington’s forests. In addition, forest biomass energy production can have positive greenhouse gas results to the extent that it displaces energy production from fossil fuels.
This approach ignores critical factors and makes it likely that greenhouse gas emissions will increase for many years where biomass replaces or displaces fossil fuels. Biomass has a lower energy density than fossil fuels,[3][3] and is inefficient because its generally high moisture content requires that energy be expended to evaporate water before useful energy can be obtained. Because wood burns at a lower temperature than fossil fuels, the efficiency of electricity production is also lower. This means that in practice, burning biomass emits 150 percent the carbon dioxide of coal, and 300 – 400 percent the CO2 of natural gas, per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated.
If the biomass burned is truly from “waste” wood normally generated in the course of timber harvesting, then these combustion emissions are approximately equivalent to what would occur over the course of natural decomposition, although they are emitted instantaneously instead of over a longer time period as occurs in nature. However, if fuel is obtained by harvesting trees that would not otherwise be cut, a position that appears to be rationalized in the DNR report, then the carbon “payback period” is decades to more than a century, even if the harvested trees are replaced. The report’s approach to carbon accounting does not acknowledge this, instead assuming that the carbon from trees harvested for fuel does not need to be re-grown in place as long as forest carbon stocks remain constant within the state as a whole.
Forests in the northern hemisphere are on balance growing and accumulating carbon for a variety of reasons, and that ongoing growth is helping to hold down the rate of global warming. The DNR report’s assumption that as long as forest carbon stocks remain constant, the amount of CO2 being emitted by bioenergy is balanced by forest carbon uptake[4][4] disregards this ongoing increase in carbon storage. Using wood for power generation that would otherwise be added to forests thus not only increases the rate of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour but also reduces the critical forest carbon “sink”. If forests harvested for energy are allowed to re-grow, that re-growth absorbs carbon dioxide and helps to offset the carbon released from the initial burning of the trees for energy. But paying back the carbon released will nearly always take many decades, and in some cases centuries.
For the DNR scenario to work, where constant forest inventory guarantees biopower carbon neutrality, forests would need to somehow “compensate” for the net increase in carbon emissions that occurs when trees are cut and burned for energy. However, taking credit for forest carbon uptake that is happening elsewhere (that is, not on the plot that was cut for fuel, but on other forests) is not legitimate, because cutting and burning trees in one place does not by itself increase forest carbon uptake elsewhere. In fact, applying the carbon gains of other forests within the state to the credit of biomass fuel amounts to double-counting, because these gains in other forests are already accounted for in the carbon balance. DNR’s approach is similar to declaring that every business in Washington State is profitable, even a business that loses millions of dollars, so long as the State’s businesses are profitable in aggregate. In short, the proposal is an accounting scheme with no accountability.
The DNR report claims that the IPCC treats biomass as carbon neutral as long as forest stocks in a country do not decrease, but this is not correct. The IPCC did not assume that the burning of trees has no effect on global warming. The reference is to guidance provided by the IPCC on country-level reporting of all greenhouse gas emissions, which requires that countries report in separate sets of books not only their energy emissions, but also their emissions from land use change. In effect, once trees are harvested for any purpose, IPCC rules require that their carbon be reported as a land use release. Because that carbon is already counted, and to avoid double counting, the IPCC rules appropriately provide that the carbon should not be counted again if the trees are burned for energy.
It is true that on a national basis under the IPCC guidelines the emissions from harvesting trees may be offset by positive land management elsewhere. But that is allowed because a national accounting system intentionally looks at the net sum of positive and negative effects. To evaluate whether any particular bioenergy activity increases emissions, its consequences must be assessed alone rather than hidden by the total mix of a nation’s or state’s total emissions.
Will Washington’s growing biomass power sector rely on increased forest harvesting for fuel? The number and scale of biomass facilities proposed in Washington strongly suggests that new trees will have to be cut to provide fuel for these plants, because mill residues and logging residues are inadequate. A National Renewable Energy Laboratory report[5][5] establishes that there is only a negligible amount of mill residues in Washington left unused. As for forestry residues, a recent state-level biomass inventory[6][6] estimates that there are about 3.5 million green tons of residues generated annually in Washington State. However, only about half of this, or 1.75 million tons, is really collectable due to the need to retain material onsite for soil fertility and the logistical constraints of collection. In contrast, the combined wood demand of just the biomass power facilities proposed in Washington is more than 3 million tons of wood per year;[7][7] and new wood pellet plants and biofuel plants will require another several hundred thousand tons per year, for a combined demand that is currently two to three times the realistically available supply of logging residues in the state.
The amount of new biomass generation currently proposed in Washington would amount to less than 1 percent of the state’s electricity generating capacity. Yet even this relatively small amount of power generation seems likely to put new demands on Washington’s forests and their delivery of multiple ecosystem services including timber. This will transfer standing forest carbon into the atmosphere, thereby increasing carbon emissions from Washington’s power sector. Simply declaring biomass power to be carbon neutral does not make it so. Policy must distinguish among sources of biomass if it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We urge you to insist that any use of biomass for fuel require proper carbon accounting that accurately reflects the impact of biomass carbon emissions on achieving Washington State’s climate goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to communicate our concerns regarding the impacts of increased biomass electricity production in Washington. --
Mary S. Booth, PhD
mbooth@massenvironmentalenergy.org
**********************************************
check out our website:
http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org/
Richardson Chair and Professor in Forest Science,
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University
Timothy D. Searchinger
Research Scholar and Lecturer Princeton University,
Transatlantic Fellow, The German Marshall Fund of the U.S.
William Moomaw
Professor of International Environmental Policy
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
February 2, 2011
Dear Members of the Washington State Legislature,
Several new wood-burning biomass electric power facilities are planned for Washington State. Recently, the Washington Department of Natural Resources provided you with a report stating that generating power from biomass reduces greenhouse gas emissions.[1][1] We write as climate researchers concerned about the approach to carbon accounting endorsed in that report.
A critical conclusion of the report is that biomass of all kinds, including harvested trees that would otherwise remain standing, should be treated as a “carbon neutral” fuel, an assumption the authors ascribe to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, this conclusion is based on a misinterpretation of IPCC accounting, and is inconsistent with the best science of forest carbon accounting. Crafting a biomass policy based on this report’s conclusions could lead to an increase in total carbon emissions from the power sector, an increase that would be incompatible with Washington’s goals of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to no more than 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.[2][2]
The DNR report states:
The Department of Natural Resources supports the approach wherein a neutrality determination for a State’s greenhouse gas emissions from forest biomass energy production is made so long as the state’s forest carbon stocks are either stable or increasing. This is the case in Washington’s forests. In addition, forest biomass energy production can have positive greenhouse gas results to the extent that it displaces energy production from fossil fuels.
This approach ignores critical factors and makes it likely that greenhouse gas emissions will increase for many years where biomass replaces or displaces fossil fuels. Biomass has a lower energy density than fossil fuels,[3][3] and is inefficient because its generally high moisture content requires that energy be expended to evaporate water before useful energy can be obtained. Because wood burns at a lower temperature than fossil fuels, the efficiency of electricity production is also lower. This means that in practice, burning biomass emits 150 percent the carbon dioxide of coal, and 300 – 400 percent the CO2 of natural gas, per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated.
If the biomass burned is truly from “waste” wood normally generated in the course of timber harvesting, then these combustion emissions are approximately equivalent to what would occur over the course of natural decomposition, although they are emitted instantaneously instead of over a longer time period as occurs in nature. However, if fuel is obtained by harvesting trees that would not otherwise be cut, a position that appears to be rationalized in the DNR report, then the carbon “payback period” is decades to more than a century, even if the harvested trees are replaced. The report’s approach to carbon accounting does not acknowledge this, instead assuming that the carbon from trees harvested for fuel does not need to be re-grown in place as long as forest carbon stocks remain constant within the state as a whole.
Forests in the northern hemisphere are on balance growing and accumulating carbon for a variety of reasons, and that ongoing growth is helping to hold down the rate of global warming. The DNR report’s assumption that as long as forest carbon stocks remain constant, the amount of CO2 being emitted by bioenergy is balanced by forest carbon uptake[4][4] disregards this ongoing increase in carbon storage. Using wood for power generation that would otherwise be added to forests thus not only increases the rate of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour but also reduces the critical forest carbon “sink”. If forests harvested for energy are allowed to re-grow, that re-growth absorbs carbon dioxide and helps to offset the carbon released from the initial burning of the trees for energy. But paying back the carbon released will nearly always take many decades, and in some cases centuries.
For the DNR scenario to work, where constant forest inventory guarantees biopower carbon neutrality, forests would need to somehow “compensate” for the net increase in carbon emissions that occurs when trees are cut and burned for energy. However, taking credit for forest carbon uptake that is happening elsewhere (that is, not on the plot that was cut for fuel, but on other forests) is not legitimate, because cutting and burning trees in one place does not by itself increase forest carbon uptake elsewhere. In fact, applying the carbon gains of other forests within the state to the credit of biomass fuel amounts to double-counting, because these gains in other forests are already accounted for in the carbon balance. DNR’s approach is similar to declaring that every business in Washington State is profitable, even a business that loses millions of dollars, so long as the State’s businesses are profitable in aggregate. In short, the proposal is an accounting scheme with no accountability.
The DNR report claims that the IPCC treats biomass as carbon neutral as long as forest stocks in a country do not decrease, but this is not correct. The IPCC did not assume that the burning of trees has no effect on global warming. The reference is to guidance provided by the IPCC on country-level reporting of all greenhouse gas emissions, which requires that countries report in separate sets of books not only their energy emissions, but also their emissions from land use change. In effect, once trees are harvested for any purpose, IPCC rules require that their carbon be reported as a land use release. Because that carbon is already counted, and to avoid double counting, the IPCC rules appropriately provide that the carbon should not be counted again if the trees are burned for energy.
It is true that on a national basis under the IPCC guidelines the emissions from harvesting trees may be offset by positive land management elsewhere. But that is allowed because a national accounting system intentionally looks at the net sum of positive and negative effects. To evaluate whether any particular bioenergy activity increases emissions, its consequences must be assessed alone rather than hidden by the total mix of a nation’s or state’s total emissions.
Will Washington’s growing biomass power sector rely on increased forest harvesting for fuel? The number and scale of biomass facilities proposed in Washington strongly suggests that new trees will have to be cut to provide fuel for these plants, because mill residues and logging residues are inadequate. A National Renewable Energy Laboratory report[5][5] establishes that there is only a negligible amount of mill residues in Washington left unused. As for forestry residues, a recent state-level biomass inventory[6][6] estimates that there are about 3.5 million green tons of residues generated annually in Washington State. However, only about half of this, or 1.75 million tons, is really collectable due to the need to retain material onsite for soil fertility and the logistical constraints of collection. In contrast, the combined wood demand of just the biomass power facilities proposed in Washington is more than 3 million tons of wood per year;[7][7] and new wood pellet plants and biofuel plants will require another several hundred thousand tons per year, for a combined demand that is currently two to three times the realistically available supply of logging residues in the state.
The amount of new biomass generation currently proposed in Washington would amount to less than 1 percent of the state’s electricity generating capacity. Yet even this relatively small amount of power generation seems likely to put new demands on Washington’s forests and their delivery of multiple ecosystem services including timber. This will transfer standing forest carbon into the atmosphere, thereby increasing carbon emissions from Washington’s power sector. Simply declaring biomass power to be carbon neutral does not make it so. Policy must distinguish among sources of biomass if it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We urge you to insist that any use of biomass for fuel require proper carbon accounting that accurately reflects the impact of biomass carbon emissions on achieving Washington State’s climate goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to communicate our concerns regarding the impacts of increased biomass electricity production in Washington. --
Mary S. Booth, PhD
mbooth@massenvironmentalenergy.org
**********************************************
check out our website:
http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org/
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Thurston commissioners lauded for biomass moratorium
Thurston commissioners lauded for biomass moratorium
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/02/07/1535301/thurston-commissioners-lauded.html
Be sure to add your comments to the comment section.
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/02/07/1535301/thurston-commissioners-lauded.html
Be sure to add your comments to the comment section.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
SAVE THURSTON COUNTY BIOMASS MORATORIUM
Tell Your Legislators to vote NO on House Bill 1081 & Senate Bill 5228
We need your help NOW to stop a highly polluting biomass incinerator proposed for the campus of Evergreen State College next to its child daycare center. This incinerator would endanger human health and our environment throughout the region. Here’s how you can help:
1. We need you to click on the two links below and send urgent letters to state politicians.
2. On Feb. 2, at 1:30pm in Hearing Room # 4 of the Cherberg Building on the State Capitol Campus, we need you to come to Olympia to speak against the incinerator and a state bill that would allow it to be built. Or come to support others who speak. We need lots of people present. You can register opposition simply by signing in. Any Washington resident is welcome.
3. On February 7, at 5:30pm in Building # 1 of the Thurston County government campus in Olympia, we need you to speak in support of a moratorium that would delay permitting biomass facilities in Thurston County for one year so health and environmental impacts can be further studied. Or come to support others who speak. We need lots of people present. Any Washington resident is welcome.
On December 21, 2010, the Thurston County Commissioners imposed a 12-month moratorium on issuing permits for biomass facilities in the county. Burning biomass for energy threatens serious impacts on the health of our communities and on the health and vitality of our treasured forest land.
Two bills introduced in the state legislature would end the Thurston County Biomass moratorium and remove authority from our elected officials in any Washington county to protect the health and environment of citizens. HB 1081 and SB 5228 are companion bills that would, “if passed, mean the end of the moratorium”, according to a highly placed Thurston county government official.
1. The Evergreen incinerator would not be ‘carbon neutral’. It would emit twice as much carbon dioxide as the current natural gas boiler heating campus buildings. Source: Manomet Study conducted for State of Massachusetts, July, 2010.
2. Fuel supply for the Evergreen incinerator could harm our forests. Until the Washington Department of Natural Resources completes its statewide Biomass Inventory later in 2011, no one can say if the Evergreen incinerator—or any incinerator in the state-- can be fueled without causing serious harm to our forests, wildlife, and waterways. Source: Washington Forest Law Center letter to Port Angeles Planning Commission, 9/22/10.
3. All biomass incinerators emit large amounts of toxic pollutants. Per unit of energy produced, biomass combustion emits twice as much particulate matter (PM) as coal combustion. PM is a sinister pollutant that studies link to premature death, heart attacks, strokes, birth defects, pulmonary diseases, asthma in adults and children, and abnormal lung development in children. Sources: Dr. Wm. Sammons, MD and the American Lung Association.
Tell state legislators to keep this authority at the local level so that our elected county officials can do the job we pay them to do – to protect the health of our communities and the health or our region.
Please click on first link below to send our letter, or a custom one written by you, to all 19 members of the House Technology, Energy and Communications Committee. Please click on the second link below to send our letter, or a custom one written by you, to all 9 members of the Senate Environment, Water, and Energy Committee. Even if you cannot attend the Feb. 2 and Feb. 7 meetings, PLEASE CLICK!!!
House of Representatives: http://www.votervoice.net/groups/sscc/advocacy/?issueid=23532
Senate: http://www.votervoice.net/groups/sscc/advocacy/?issueid=23530
Thank you!
No Biomass Burn
World Temperate Rainforest Network
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Vote NO on HB 1198!
 |
| The Port of Shelton |
Vote NO on HB 1198!
HB 1198 is an atrocious bill that would punish citizens who seek to protect our environment under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
HB 1198 would allow anyone who loses a challenge against a SEPA review to be sued and forced to pay for attorney's fees, court costs, and up to $50,000 damages. This is an exceedingly dangerous law that treads on a citizen's right to have the law properly enforced and environmental protections properly implemented.
Vote NO on HB 1198!
Thank you.
Duff Badgley
1900 W. Nickerson St., # 116
Seattle, WA, 98119
206-283-0621
From HB 1198:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 43.21C RCW to read as follows:
(1) (a) Any person or persons adversely affected by the commencement of a judicial review of the adequacy of an environmental impact statement prepared under RCW 43.21C.031 or of a threshold determination made under RCW 43.21C.033 may bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover any attorneys' fees, court costs, and actual damages relating to the underlying project that were reasonably incurred as a result of the judicial review, including any delay in commencing or continuing the underlying project resulting from the judicial review, from the person or persons who brought the judicial review.
(b) An action under this section may only be commenced if the ultimate result of the judicial review of the environmental impact statement or threshold determination was either a dismissal by the court or a finding by the court that the environmental impact statement or threshold determination in question was adequate.
(2) In addition to actual damages recovered under subsection (1) of this section, a party bringing an action under this section may recover exemplary damages of up to fifty thousand dollars if a court finds that the primary motivation of the original judicial review of an environmental impact statement or threshold determination can reasonably be identified as creating delay in the underlying project, increasing expenses for the underlying project, or improving the petitioning party's position in future negotiations regarding mitigation and other protective measures.
The 100 year sustained steal by Simpson aka Green Diamond aka Olympic Panel aka Solomon
 |
| Simpson fouls the air over Evergreen Elementary School 24/7 |
The agreement was very controversial because it excluded all other timber companies from the opportunity to bid on timber in the area. (Source, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 281, “The Future of Our Natural Resources. (May, 1952), pp93-98) for this reason many locals refer to this agreement as the one hundred year sustained steal. Simpson, as the only bidder, bid low and subtracted the cost of road building from what it paid us for the trees.
 |
| Typical Simpson aka Green Diamond Clear-cut |
But under the Cooperative Sustained Yield Agreement more timber would be available to Simpson so that jobs would not be lost. This timber was all in the National Forest. Simpson promised us one thousand jobs for one hundred years in exchange for destroying our National Forest.
The idea was that by the time Simpson had clear cut all the forest service land under the agreement, Simpson’s own tree stands would have grown enough to reach a marketable size. This way the supply of timber to Simpson would be uninterrupted and Mason county and Shelton residents would have a steady source of employment for years to come.
Instead of "sustainably" cutting the forest for one hundred years Simpson Timber Company savagely clear cut the southern flank of the Olympics in just forty years. Many recreational trails were destroyed and 90% of the Skokomish Basin was clear cut, leaving it as the most flood prone river in the state. The Cooperative Sustained Yield Agreement turned out to be very unsustainable.
 |
| Our National Forest is starting to grow back but will it survive under the pressures of biomass extraction? The clear-cut marks the property line between Simpson aka Green Diamon and our National Forest |
 |
| A tree farm is not a forest! Simpson liberally sprays Oust in our foot hills. Ous is toxic to fish fry and has a half life of 8 months in akaline waters (our water is alkaline) This was above Lake Cushman http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/pyrethrins-ziram/sulfometuron-methyl-ext.html Accord is a trade name for the herbicide "Round up". Round up is also harmful to fish. |
 | ||||||
| A hint of what our National Forest looked like BEFORE Simpson destroyed it. |
Simpson tried to sue the Forest Service for what it perceived as a breach of contract. Simpson had been promised timber and that timber had been taken away. There was a prolonged legal battle that culminated in a mutual agreement between Simpson and the Forest Service to terminate the 100 Cooperative Sustained Yield Agreement. The agreement was terminated in July of 2002
During the hey days of logging Simpson timber company used to be not just the main employer in Mason County and Shelton, but the largest source of jobs in the entire state state. (Source http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7730 History Link .Org article “Mason County – Thumbnail History)
Today the Simpson is only the 7th largest employer in the county. The forest products industry still employees the largest number of people in the county but the top ten employers in Mason County in 2006 were:
Top Ten Mason County Employers
(Mason Shelton Journal)
1) Little Creek Casino
2) Washington Corrections Center
3) Shelton School District
4) Wal-Mart
5) Mason General Hospital
6) Mason County
7) Simpson Timber Company
8) Taylor Shellfish
9) Olympic Panel Products
10) North Mason School District
Simpson is now nothing more than a filthy dirty anachronism that the county would be better off without. But some of our politicians want to turn Simpson loose to create another boom and bust at the expense of our health and our forests.
 |
| Each time they log they cut smaller and smaller trees and now they want to haul the brush out of the forest! |
 |
| Celebrate 100 years of environmental destruction! |
Biomess in Novia Scotia
This video walks you through one peaceful forest in Caribou Gold Mines, Nova Scotia, Canada, that was turned into a wasteland by industry.
Nova Scotia's forests are being ravaged by clear cutting. Great old giants, which took a century to grow, along with their tiny offspring saplings,are being ground for biomass and burned in just minutes. These trees, left standing, give back much more than we can ever count in dollars. Wildlife, plants and insects are losing their habitat. Waterways are being destroyed. Stand up and speak out for those great old giants that can't speak for themselves
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Biomass supporter comes out in favor of the moratorium
The following is a statement made by Dani Madrone. Don't be confused by it, she is not against biomass. But still, we applaud her for supporting the Thurston County biomass moratorium.
To: The Sustainability Council of the Evergreen State College
Fr: Dani Madrone
Re: Final recommendation on the biomass project
These words are an expression of the fondness I have for my colleagues and my affection for a college that has provided me an excellent and pivotal education.
This isn’t working.
There is something intrinsically wrong with the way we approach sustainability as an institution. We are pursuing ambitious goals to tread lighter on an increasingly delicate planet, but as we make plans for the future we are stuck in this moment. We so are focused on reducing our adverse contribution to the atmosphere that we have forgotten about preparation for a climate that is changing. The most imperative action we must take when facing a leaking pool of common resources is to build a positive and collaborative relationship with our local community.
This is not a failure of the college. On the contrary, we have discovered an incredible opportunity for transformation and growth, but only if we release our current system and reorganize organically.
My final recommendations for the Sustainability Council on biomass gasification:
I request that the moratorium be honored as an offering of peace for the community.
I request that the remaining fund for the biomass research be returned to the Clean Energy Committee.
I request that the campus Climate Action Plan be revisited. A Renewable Energy Task Force, as described in the CAP, should be established for 2011-2012. Biomass gasification, should it be recommended by the task force, would be pursued in the 2013-2015 biennium.
I request that the community engagement for the task force adopt core values outlined by the International Association for Public Participation. On controversial issues that require decisions over common resources, I request that a trained facilitator be involved in the process, such as what is offered through the Coordinated Resource Management program.
I understand that these recommendations may look like a list of setbacks, but I assure you that this is the most direct way to address the climate crisis. This is an opportunity to change our world. If Evergreen truly wishes to be a leader in sustainability, we must model not only the appropriate actions but also a process that demonstrates strong community values. We have all of the resources we need to accomplish our goals: dedicated staff, knowledgeable faculty, a steady stream of creative and eager students, a passionate community, and just enough time to get started. We need to work through the barriers that keep us from working together.
The other day, I was taken aback by something that somebody said. “What a great school. Evergreen has made this community what it is.” I was surprised because it has been so long since I have heard a compliment on the influence that Evergreen has on the local community. Let’s return to the mission and values of the college, and move forward in unified fellowship.
Dani Madrone
Student at the Evergreen State College,
Intern at the Office of Sustainability through the Center for
Community-Based Learning and Action
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Area Unions Duped by ADAGE (Duke Energy) - Construction Jobs in Shelton
200-950 construction jobs in Shelton apply now! Visit http://www.dukeemployees.com/duke9.shtml to learn more.
My spouse is a shop steward in the local ILWU. My spouse is also on oxygen and my spouse lives two miles from the proposed ADAGE incinerator.. I had hoped that we could sell our house to one of the ADAGE construction workers before the plant was built. But, I don't think an apprentice makes enough money to buy a modest home. So, I guess we will have to turn our house over to a rental agency. Then we can move to California where ADAGE would not be allowed to build a monstrosity like this. There in California we can have clean air and we can have all the electricity that ADAGE produces. Imagine that, Washingtonians flooding into California!
 |
| By far the best hat at the Civic center yesterday |
Sadly, some of our union sisters and brothers from other counties have been duped into thinking that ADAGE (Duke Energy and Areva nuclear combined) will provide them with lots of great paying jobs. ADAGE has publicly stated that it is going to use mostly apprentice labor and that in the end there will be only 24 permanent jobs. The number of construction jobs promised by ADAGE keeps on changing, it was 200 temporary construction jobs but now it's up to 750 temporary jobs. Wow, how did Duke energy grow all those jobs? What kind of record does Duke Energy have with its union workers? Visit Harlen County USA to find out and see the Duke "gun thugs" going after the union.
What kind of record does AREVA have?
What kind of record does AREVA have?
 |
| Lance of ORCAA speaks to the crowd at the Shelton Civic Center |
 |
| Jobs from ADAGE, it's just a mirage |
 |
| Matt of the Mason County EDC and Tom of Duke/Areva/ADAGE "son of a gun, we'll have some fun burning bio!" |
 |
| Claiming jobs by the gobs, they got the County Drooling |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)