By
admin on February 3rd, 2008
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
by Willy Ritch
The federal government has pulled the plug on what was to be the demonstration project for the brave new world of “clean coal.” The Department of Energy had been promoting the FutureGen plant in Illinois as an example of how coal gasification and carbon capture and storage (CSS) could make coal a global-warming-friendly fuel. FutureGen was supposed to prove the technological and economic viability of CSS but what it proved instead was just the opposite: DOE killed the plant because the cost had nearly doubled to $1.8 billion. And they hadn’t even broken ground.
The FutureGen cancellation is only the most recent and most spectacular in a long list of coal gasification plants that have been canceled (you can read about a few in the stories below.) Andy Revkin, writing about the story in his New York Times blog, asked “is capturing CO2 a pipe dream?”
(Interestingly Revkin cites a MIT report which calls into question the feasibility of CSS in the immediate future. The lead author of the MIT report is Howard Herzog, the biggest name at the Chewonki conference on CSS last fall. The developer behind the Twin Rivers coal gasification proposal cynically tried to use the conference, with Herzog and others, as evidence that their plan would work. At least according to the Times’ Revkin, the “experts” sure don’t think so.)
We knew the proposed coal gasification plant in Wiscasset was a bad idea from the start—for lots of different reasons. But it’s now becoming abundantly clear that it just wasn’t (and isn’t) a real life, feasible proposal.
Back River Alliance Update: Things have been pretty quiet in the Midcoast area. The Back River Alliance is still alive and well and ready to kick into action if there is any attempt to restart the failed and misguided proposal for a coal gasification plant. Meanwhile, Alliance members have been talking about remaining engaged in a community-wide dialog about economic development.
We won’t be putting much up on this website on a regular basis, but you can still contact us through the “contact” button at the top.
By
admin on November 29th, 2007
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
by Willy Ritch
Regulators in Washington state have told Energy Northwest they are putting an end to the permitting process for a proposed coal gasification plant there. The state has a law limiting the amount of carbon dioxide a new plant can release and Energy Northwest said they would comply with it by figuring out how to capture and store the carbon at some point in the future when it became feasible. Maybe by 2020. Or maybe not.
Regulators said their plan wasn’t a plan at all and it was time to stop wasting the state’s time and money. Stick a fork in this one, they said, it’s done.
Here a really interesting part of the story–the utility proposing the plant acknowledged that they couldn’t come up with a plan to capture and store the carbon now or in the immediate future because of the “technological and economic infeasibility of geological sequestration.” (Click here to read more.)
In October leading experts on carbon capture and storage came to Chewonki to say the same thing about the proposed coal gasification plant in Wiscasset. It is a near-universal conclusion and really the only people in our debate who wouldn’t acknowledge it were the folks at Point East/Twin River Energy and Potomac Hudson, the engineering firm they hired to look at their proposal.
By
admin on November 16th, 2007
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
by Willy Ritch
It seems like a week doesn’t go by without us learning about another coal gasification plant being canceled. This week it was a gasification project in Orlando, Florida that had actually gotten so far along that the ground breaking ceremony had even taken place. The details of this plant might be slightly different than others that have been canceled, but the reasons are the same: rising costs and the growing realization that new power plants are not going to be allowed to spew carbon dioxide into our rapidly warming atmosphere.
Even with $293 million in federally-subsidizehe companies behind this plant had already spent $22 million, it just didn’t make sense to keep throwing good money after bad. As an official for the company said, if they went much further they expected their losses would double.
When it came down to it, the companies had to come to grips with this reality: they had no place to store the carbon dioxide from the plant, even if they were able to capture it.
(Gasification) produces just as much carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, as a traditional coal plant. Experts say that IGCC, which turns coal into a compressed gas before combustion, is the best platform for capturing carbon. But capturing the carbon and storing it, perhaps in saline aquifers deep underground, remains unproven in Florida.
The bad news for coal plants doesn’t end in Florida. China, of all places, may abandon their plans to build coal-to-liquid facilities that make diesel fuel because of the cost, pollution and the incredible amount of water that is needed for the process. If this technology isn’t even acceptable in China, it’s hard to imagine it getting any traction here in the U.S.
Interestingly, officials in both Florida and China have talked about putting more emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources to meet growing demand.
Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, wrote a column recently calling coal “the new American outcast.” And not just among environmental groups:
Coal has lost its luster on Wall Street as well. In July, Citigroup moved away from the positive view it held all year on coal and downgraded the financial outlook for coal stocks in 2008 based on “grim” future earnings. With the costs of building new coal plants skyrocketing 40-100 percent in just the past year, and imminent carbon regulations that will further increase costs on the horizon, coal investors are pulling out.
A vice-president of the company that canceled the Orlando gasification plant said “Everybody knows the environment for carbon regulation is becoming intense. The political climate has changed dramatically.” All the people who worked to defeat the coal plant proposal in Wiscasset and those who are supporting the bill in the Maine Legislature banning coal plants that don’t capture and store greenhouse gases should take a moment to pat themselves on the back: you are part of the rapidly changing political climate.
By
admin on November 7th, 2007
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
In July, Scott Holdin said what matters most to his company is whether or not Wiscasset residents support their proposal to build a coal plant. Yesterday they got the answer: NO.
After a clear 55%-45% decision (none of the current Selectmen were elected by that big a margin) from Wiscasset voters, Twin River said thanks for the”input” but said they would go ahead anyway. (Click here to read their press release.)
The Portland Press Herald has a story on the vote, the fallout and the bill that Rep. Bruce MacDonald has introduced that would prohibit the construction of any new coal plant that doesn’t capture and store its greenhouse gases.
Channel 6 was one of the media outlets covering the vote and our reaction. You can watch it here.
By
admin on November 7th, 2007
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
by Willy Ritch
By a 55% to 45% vote, Wiscasset voters defeated a proposed ordinance change that would have allowed them to go forward with the coal plant proposal. The turn-out was very heavy–despite the pouring rain–and the message could not be more clear: Wiscasset doesn’t want a coal power plant.
On a personal note, I want to say what a great experience the last few months have been. I have come to know so many honest, hard-working and dedicated people who truly care about our community. It’s really been an honor to work with them and learn from them. When you this group of people in action you can feel pretty good about the future of our area.
The debate over the proposal wasn’t always easy or pleasant–but it is behind us now and time to move forward (see our open letter to Wiscasset citizens below.) Sadly, Point East/Twin River Energy seem to be saying that they want to put Wiscasset through this all over again. We were told repeatedly at public hearings that if the people of Wiscasset rejected this proposal, then the company would not try to go forward. Now, they seem to be saying Wiscasset voters should vote again. I’m not sure which part of “no” they don’t understand.
In this morning’s Portland Press Herald, Joe Cotter said this:
“The Wiscasset voters have spoken, which is what we’ve asked since we announced the project,” the company’s president, Joseph Cotter, said in the statement.
So why, then, can’t we just move forward?
Why don’t you send Joe Cotter an email and encourage them to abandon this idea and get back to work on Point East?
jcotter@nationalresources.com
By
admin on November 7th, 2007
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
We are probably not alone in saying that we’re glad the referendum campaign for the height ordinance change is over. The phone calls, the mailings, the leaflets, and the signs—we are just as tired of them as you are.
Company officials have said they would not proceed with their proposal if they did not have the support of Wiscasset residents. The people of Wiscasset have spoken and rejected the ordinance change and with it Twin River Energy’s proposal for a coal gasification plant.
Now it is time to move forward, and look toward the future economic development of Wiscasset and the Midcoast.
When Point East first proposed developing the former Maine Yankee and Mason Station properties with houses, condos, shops and restaurants, they were welcomed with open arms. It was a good idea then, and it remains a good idea today.
The debate over the coal plant was spirited– at times even heated–but that was a debate over a coal plant and not residential and mixed-use development. The company should not see the rejection of the coal plant as a rejection of their Point East plans. And they should not see it as a rejection of them as a company.
Over the last few months, we’ve all learned a lot about some very important issues. Before this summer, who even knew what “gasification” meant? In particular the symposium at Chewonki, in which leading experts gathered to talk about new ways to deal with the carbon dioxide that comes from coal power in our rapidly warming world, stands out as an example of some of the “good” that has come out of this debate.
We found, as we talked to people outside the Post Office, the Transfer Station, at Shaws and on the street, that almost everyone was willing to listen and consider the facts. In the end, we didn’t all agree, but we found we could disagree without animosity or bitterness.
Occasionally issues of native versus transplant, or one town against another were raised. But the fact is that all of us—those of us who were born and raised here and those of us who were smart enough to move here—are neighbors. We all want the best for this community and this region for ourselves and our children and grandchildren.
In the days, months and years to come, we hope we can work together to make this very unique part of the world even better.
Back River Alliance
Wiscasset
By
admin on October 27th, 2007
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Last week an A-list group of scientists gathered at Chewonki to talk about the feasibility of carbon capture and storage (CCS). If it’s possible to capture the carbon dioxide from coal power plants and put it someplace safe—-like deep down in old oil wells—then that CO2 wouldn’t be contributing to global warming. The consensus was that somethink like that is very possible—but we’re decades and billions of dollars in research away from it becoming feasible and the storage part is not likely to ever work in Maine. As John Richardson wrote in the Portland Press Herald, “Overall, it was a tough day for the coal project.”
Twin River Energy, however, did their best to twist and misrepresent what happened at Chewnoki. And they got caught. They issued a press release that claimed that “the scientific analysis has proven what we’ve said all along” and that the coal plant “was the centerpiece of discussion at the seminar.”
Not quite. Howard Herzog from MIT, for example, said this: “I have not reviewed either the Twin River project nor the Potomac Hudson report. As a result, I am not in a position to comment on either.” The presenters at Chewonki were only talking about the technical issues around coal power in general. Like when Herzog said “these gasification plants look more like refineries than coal plants.” Or when Eric Larsen from Princeton said “coal without CCS doesn’t have a future.”
What really happened (and I was there) was this: At the end of the day a consultant from a company called Potomac Hudson who was hired by the developer got up and gave her analysis of the power plant. Her conclusion (I hope you’re sitting down for this) was that it’s a pretty good deal. The report then got “feedback” from a panel that she had picked. But the whole report and the way it was handled lacked what you might consider scientific objectivity. For example, at the beginning of the day we were all given a booklet with the details of each presentation….except for the one from the consultant. Her presentation and all the data she used were kept secret until the very end. By then all the heavyweight experts had left.
And to top it all off, the press release went out at 2:00 pm–when the conference was barely half over.
When Chewonki saw the press release the you-know-what hit the fan. This is what Chewonki President Don Hudson had to say:
We were appalled by today’s press release by Twin Rivers…and we feel that we have been poorly used in this process. The company’s manipulation and spinning of the lessons learned for the day should be as embarrassing to the people at Potomac Hudson Engineering as it is to us.
Caught trying to mislead the public (again) the developer quickly issued a “corrected” press release that removed some sentences and added others. They said they were the victims of a “typing error.”
The coal plant developer approached the Chewonki seminar the same way they have approached the town of Wiscasset–with secrecy and sneaky tactics, and topping it off by lying to the public. They were exposed for what they really are at Chewonki, and they are being exposed for what they really are in Wiscasset: desperate and willing to say anything to get this ordinance passed.
By
admin on October 23rd, 2007
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
posted by Willy Ritch
I’m in Philadelphia, where I talked this morning to Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. When I asked Rendell about energy security, you know what his answer was? Energy efficiency and renewable power. And don’t forget: Pennsylvania is a big time coal state.
Governor Rendell made it very clear we need to wean ourselves from our dependence on oil–but not by becoming dependent on another fuel that is dirty, polluting and contributes to global warming.
Maine is leading the way on renewable power. The wind power projects in our state that have applied for connection to the New England grid would produce about as much power as the proposed coal plant. And up in Aroostook County, which is not part of the grid (having grown up there I can tell you it’s disconnected from the grid in many ways.) another 500-800 megawatts of wind power has been proposed. There is another coal plant. All of that, zero emmissions. That’s energy security.
By
admin on October 23rd, 2007
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
posted by Willy Ritch
Twin River’s idea to build a coal power plant and diesel refinery in Wiscasset is a really bad idea. And I don’t just mean because of what it would do to the community. Even leaving all of that aside, it’s just a lousy idea in this country at this time.
The AP ran a story this week (click here) on the death of coal power plant proposals. The numbers are staggering: Of the 151 proposals that have been announced in the last few years, only 15 have been built. And in recent months that trend has accelerated: 16 cancelled, 36 delayed in the last few months.
A big reason for those cancellations is that investors don’t want to sink money into a project that is likely to run up against limits on how much greenhouse gas a plant can spew into the atmosphere (the one in Wiscasset would send more into the air than just about all the other power plants in Maine combined.) Here in Maine, state Rep. Bruce MacDonald has introduced a bill that would prohibit the construction of any new coal plant that doesn’t capture or store CO2.
But there are other reasons, too:
Material costs and demand for skilled labor has prompted plant costs to spike 40 percent or more. Industry representatives blamed increased competition from China and other developing nations aggressively pursuing new coal plants.
“This is like a tsunami attacking the whole industry all at once, with very limited amounts of solutions going forward,” said Daniele Seitz, an industry analyst with Dahlman Rose and Co. in New York.
If Wiscasset approves this ordinance change, you can bet that Twin River/Point East will completely abandon any effort to keep their waterfront projects and the iPark going. That means those valuable resources will be tied up while a company that can’t even get a marina built tries to find someone to give them the money to buy an enormously complex coal plant at a time when even real energy companies are giving up on the idea.
By
admin on October 19th, 2007
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Actually it was two. Kansas has denied permits for two coal fired power plants because they would produce 11 million pounds of CO2 a year (on a per-plant basis exactly what the proposed plant in Wiscasset would release.) And, according to a front page story in today’s Washington Post, that decision comes after a major investor had already pulled out, apparently realizing that building a coal plant that generates this much CO2 is a pretty dumb place to put your money these days.
