I was pleased with the large and well-informed audience for the hearing on the Woodburning Biomass Generating Plant proposed for LaGrange. These are difficult economic times! And for a city that levels no property tax it is easy to see why the annual addition of $450,000 to its coffers is tempting. I was amazed at the variety and huge quantities of HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants) that will be produced. To list a few: hydrogen chloride, mercury, arsenic, lead, formaldehyde, ammonia, carbon monoxide, acrolein, benzene, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, nickel, selium, mercury, nox, SO2, and VOC.
Carbon dioxide was not even listed as a pollutant and it will be a major one. Margaret Sheehan, attorney for Echolaw, testified before the U.S. House on June 19, 2009 that the CO2 emissions from a 50 mgw biomass plant in Massachusetts will be 3 billion pounds a year. CO2 is what we are trying to control in order to limit global warming. So, this will not be a green plant. It will actually ADD to the global warming and use up carbon credits and funds that should go to developing solar and wind-generated power. (Both can be successfully developed in Georgia.)
I am grateful to our mayor for requesting this hearing and also pleased that he and Commission chairman, Ricky Wolfe were in attendance. It is my hope that the city council and the county commission will think long and hard about allowing a facility here that could affect the health and well-being of our citizens for years to come.
Edna Foster
LaGrange, GA
I learned: First, biomass is the second largest amount of renewable energy in the nation. Biomass has been going on for a while. In fact, many cities burn methane generated from landfills as a source of power.
Landfill space is preserved, and electricity can be produced at any time, unlike wind and solar power sources. I do like the idea of the latter sources over biomass.
The collection of biomass fuels can have significant environmental impacts. Harvesting timber and growing agricultural products for fuel requires large volumes to be collected, transported, processed and stored. Biomass fuels may be obtained from supplies of clean, uncontaminated wood that otherwise would be landfilled or from sustainable harvests. In both of these fuel collection examples, the net environmental plusses of biomass are significant when compared to fossil fuel collection alternatives. On the other hand, the collection, processing and combustion of biomass fuels may cause environmental problems if, for example, the fuel source contains toxic contaminants, agricultural waste handling pollutes local water resources, or burning biomass deprives local ecosystems of nutrients that forest or agricultural waste may otherwise provide. In addition, the burning process can produce more environmental harm than the burning of coal.
The question remains: Should we risk the health of the citizenry as we so often do to gain a renewable power source? Is the biomass plant and its emissions worth the price we may eventually have to pay?
Well, take a look at these comments for the future use of biomass: Aggressive action to develop advanced biofuels between now and 2015 could allow America to produce, by 2050, the equivalent of more than three times as much oil as we currently import from the Persian Gulf. Coupled with making our vehicles more efficient, this could virtually eliminate our demand for gasoline.
Flexible-fuel vehicle requirements are being considered at the national level that will prompt manufacturers to make all new cars and trucks capable of running on both conventional gasoline and biofuels by 2015.
Improved high-tech "gasification" systems could bring down the cost of biomass energy to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Farmers will plant energy crops on a large scale. Researchers are testing fast-growing, cost-efficient trees such as poplar and eucalyptus, and grasses such as alfalfa and switchgrass, to be harvested as biofuels.
More power plants will burn biomass along with coal to produce electricity in the near future. This system curbs pollution, and existing plants can recover the cost of adopting the technology within a few years (Natural Resources Defense Council Website).
My conclusion is dependent on the technology and the plan for the plant. What process will be used? How will the pros outweigh the cons without destroying or endangering the local environment and population? What good is power source if the air we breathe and the water we drink is contaminated?