Environmental group wants to stop N. Shore biomass project
For now, the biomass facility on the North Shore is stalled.
Two weeks after the Placer County Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit and certified the final environmental impact report, the Center for Biological Diversity filed an appeal.
The appeal will be on before the Board of Supervisors by the end of March.
The environmental group believes greenhouse emissions from the project could harm the forest.
— Lake Tahoe News staff report
I wish these so called enviromental groups would just go away. It’s all about the money because it’s not their project, so sick of this stuff.
Full time, I agree, I wish they would disappear. But the reason they are going to sue is because this provides a market for small trees. In turn it will provide funding for forest thinning and that means cutting trees. Then Chad Hansen of the John Muir project has to further sue to try to block thinning projects. So this is a disaster for him because he is rapidly running out of reason to keep blocking fuels reduction projects in the courts. The black backed woodpecker is not gaining traction in California or federal courts.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a leading science-oriented environmental group which seeks to balance human intrusion/destruction of the Earth’s resources with projects that make environmental sense. If it were not for groups like this, we would be living in a smoggy clear cut.
Hikerchick, please post a link to a peer reviewed study that suggests that current forest stocking in the Sierra Nevada Mixed Conifer Forest type is consistent with pre-European settlement stocking. If you can do that, I will take back my post. Just one.
Here is one from that bastion of conservatism….UC Berkeley
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/stephens-lab/Publications/StephensMAD_00.pdf
Who would have guessed.
I never really liked the idea of burning wood for power, but the plants seem to emmit allot less polutants into the air than open burning. and there will be open burning of excess fuel in the Tahoe basin for decades to come.
It a shame that we cannot find a balance of affordable balanced development and solutions for the Tahoe basin.
Every them is drawn out to nausium for the sake of blocking everything and driving up cast.
No private entity can improve anything, it take a multinational corperation with theur own legal department and very deep pockets to get anything done.
What will be left to mom and pop in the future Tahoe Basin.
There must be a way?
Just frustrated.
Darn sorry for the spelling. I should have let Bill G help me out.
Too many lawyers, creating work for themselves with money from Bay Area liberals.
They say they want alternative energy. But then they block it.
They don’t like the transmission lines from solar going across the land, they don’t like the windmills cluttering up the view, it’s always something.
It’s pretty simple… You have a choice between catastrophic wildfires or controlled disposal of underbrush. You pick…
I am for cleaning the forest of the fuels that lie around, but based on the study conducted after the Angora fire, there is not enough slash in the Basin to sustain this project over a long period of time and the cost of removal by the USFS will have to be addressed. The additional truck traffic around the lake along with the environmental impact removal will have are additional concerns that seem to be missed. Tax dollars will have to be allocated for a small amount of electricity to be generated and sold to a utility at wholesale prices. This project should not be proceeding.
Keep in mind that this project is OUTSIDE OF THE TAHOE BASIN! It will in fact serve a large area of forested land including the Tahoe Basin and areas in the Tahoe National Forest (outside of Truckee). The original Biomass Plant was slated for Kings Beach next to a elementary school in a residential area (think health issues). Definitely poor planning on the part of Placer County. The community banded together and got the biomass plant out of Tahoe.
Cabin Creek off of HWY 89 near Truckee is also the region’s waste management facility and includes the collection of biomass that gets picked up/dropped off at the facility (includes pine needles, construction wood debris, and landscaping waste). It’s the perfect location, plain and simple.
I really wonder if the Center for Biological Diversity has weighed in on the air pollution contributed to open pile burning in this area. A cost benefit analysis in terms of air pollution from burning needs to be demonstrated in their appeal. As an environmentalist in nature, myself, I feel that the Center is overstepping their duty to protect the environment by not justifying their decision with sound science-backed data examining both the local impacts/benefits as well as long-term impacts/benefits of the biomass project. And I am aware that the transportation needed to haul the biomass material to Cabin Creek will have impacts that need to be included, but how does that add up with all the impacts of pile burning.
West shore, you are missing the point about why they arae going to sue (although you nailed everything else.) The Center for Biological Diversity sees this as the creation of a market that will encourage and pay for forest thinning. Their tactic is to try to link CO2 emmissions to forest health. But they bottom line is Chad Hansen wants no commercial use of trees whatsoever.
This should be another interesting waste of time, given the range of well-intentioned, yet ill-informed “opinions” expressed. Starting with the comment about some study after the Angora fire: slash left over from the devastation of 1 watershed is of course not viable, while that left over in the other 63 is another, and the reason for the continued threat of catastrophic fire, not only here, but in the entire 10 western states (same ‘big tree’ conditions).
As to “biological diversity”, the ‘conditions’ alluded to above are also detrimental to wildlife, as, for just one example, the predator/prey relationships are impacted by the undue congestion (the ‘prey’ go elsewhere, and the predators follow, affecting the food chain in a habitat).
Those same conditions also contribute to a now-doubling of the growth rate of the beetle population, which is known to add to fire danger, not to mention dividing the available water (which you’ll recall is finite). This compounds the dry-out rate of not only biomass, but the overall forest as well. Very recent research suggests that climate change will drive even drier conditions, so it becomes imperative to effectively utilize what water is available to encourage healthy growth with less hydrologic supply.
Lastly, there is no one doing R & D in the biomass/energy conversion field that doesn’t place air quality 1st on the list of parameters that has to be dealt with – ignoring that is business suicide.
Biomass is a simple conversion of a “non-merchantable” supply into a societal gain: embedded energy converted into a useful alternative, happening to be ‘renewable’ (in measured amounts). This would be a switch from the current Corn-to-fuel situation,in which a food source competes as fuel, ultimately unsustainable & untenable in being a “depletable” vs renewable. Wood grows every year, needing to be managed due to urban interface issues (I.e., people)
It is indeed ironic that a ‘Center for Biological Diversity’ might actually impede the vital necessity to begin a process of restoring the health of our forest, the very seat of biodiversity. There is immense societal redemption to the arena of biomass-to-energy, aside from any specialized advocacy for the biologic life-forces.
Look to the success of the two biomass plants in the region. The Sierra Pacific Loyalton plant has never been run to capacity and the Carson City plant at the Prison facility sits idle. If the thinning of the forest within the Basin is being used to fuel the biomass plant, trucks will be travelling along 89, 50 and 28 to deliver materials for the next several years during daytime hours, causing additional commercial traffic and CO2 emmissions. With there being a cost of delivery, i.e. wages and fuel, every mile traveled away from the plant makes this project less profitable. After a certain amount of miles traveled, it becomes cost prohibited to make the journey as the Loyalton plant has proven.
Additionally, I have yet to hear or see a commitment from the USFS or California State Parks to how much slash they have committed and funded to supply. Last I heard, there are only 29,000 acres within the Basin that are available for clean up based on slope and accessibility. Outside the Basin would require other USFS Districts to participate and fund. A 2 Megawatt plant requires more fuel than what the area is designed to hold if the plant is to run at full capacity. Although biomass plants can burn wood garbage, it must be processed into small particles or chips for burning.
This project has been a pet project for certain individuals in Placer County and will affect individuals in other counties who will not reap the benefits of its production. Most biomass projects have not sustained full capacity operation over a period of time for these reasons as well as many others. If linking CO2 helps stop this waste of public funds or tax dollars without having these issues solidified, then so be it. After the Angora fire, several private energy companies explored creating a biomass plant and did not pursue it because of the risk and lack of financial benefits. Now, government knows better and will continue down this wasteful path of our federal and state dollars.
Mark: You are correct: there are +\- 30,000 acres in the Tahoe Basin already approved for restoration. I’m fully aware of the political oddities of the Basin’s biomass attempts: most were ill-thought out as to supply routes, whether obtaining any within their business plan, or in trying to use locations “convenient” without due respect for neighborhoods. These anomalies common only to Tahoe belie projects elsewhere in the nation, perhaps skewering one’s view of the overall value of the concepts.
I’ve personally seen really interesting & profound uses of biomass energy projects. The now-vast numbers of unburnt piles accruing will be added to in the 30,000 acre restoration unless innovations are also added.
The overall deal-breaker has always been the transport, which contributed to the term “non-merchantable” – transporting a dozen logs with linear board feet is the given algorithm, unavailable to the Basin’s logging ban.
Embedded energy conversion can be accomplished with “net metering” common to other alternative formats, made useful to Tahoe’s predicament.
Gary: Interesting you bring up net metering. The maximum capacity for net metering in California is 1 MW and 5 MW for systems operating under the bill credit transfer program authorized by Public Utilities Code 2830. Systems must be owned by, operated by, or on property under the control of, a local government. This is part of my issue, that government should not be in the business of producing energy for distribution. Additionally, it would be interesting to know if part of the financial feasibility report includes RECs which have not evolved into a sustainable market. Being that the Waste Management Station does not use 2 MW worth of electricity, the electricity would have to be sold at wholesale rates ($.035 to $.045) to a utility for distribution. These contracts required a certain amount of guaranteed production along with a 10 year commitment with substantial penalties if not met. The amount of slash within the area if harvested and collected would be eliminated within a 6 to 7 year period.
Mark, lets do look at the area biomass plants in a little detail. Nevada built a biomass plant to provide heat for a 150 year old prison. Secondary to providing heat, it also provided electricity that was sold on the open market. Nevada closed the prison Mark. The entire engineering of the plant was based on creating heat primarily. The prison is gone and the plant closed.
Mark, you left one key ingredient out of your analysis…the contract amount per kilowatt hour of electricity. Loyalton had a contract, and could not get out of the contract, to Sierra Pacific Power, and then Nevada Power for $0.07 per kilowatt hour. That is the same rate paid to coal fired power plants. Why? Because the state of California doesnt provide subsidies to biomass plants that burn forest residues. I hope it is not shocking that biomass does not compete well on a cost basis with coal. But at $0.09 per killowatt hour Loyalton would be working today.
Finally Mark, just to be clear, there is no increase in truck traffic either. Currently there are about 15 loads a day generated from forest thinning. 15 truck trips is not a big deal in anyones book, but more to the point, the loads are still leaving. They just drive further to markets now. So the net increase is a flat zero. But the trucks drive further generating more emmissions and CO2. So you must be for the biomass plant if that is a concern of yours.
John, First, the biomass plant at the prison was turned off prior to the closing of its gates.
The Loyalton plant has never run at capacity of 2.4 MW. Part of the issue has been lack of available fuel due to transportation and distance to the plant.
When researching Serria Pacific/Nevada Power’s Power Purchase Agreement, the cost quoted for wholesale power purchase was $.045 per kWh for a ten year commitment of production. That amount has not changed. It is most likely that Liberty Energy would purchase the power due to it being in its territory. Under the California RPS guidelines, because Liberty is an Investor Owned Utility and not a large enough one to mandate participation in RPS standards, they would most likely only pay the minimum wholesale rate and being that RECs are an commodity that has not gained a sustainable trading price, the value of electricity would be minimal. Yes, Nevada Power could purchase this power but it would not help them meet Nevada’s RPS guidelines.
And finally, 15 trucks a day during operational months will not sustain a 2 MW biomass plant for 365 days a year. The amount of required fuel to operate at that capacity would need to increase as well as a commitment from the USFS and State of California to provide such fuels. the additional mileage added when 89 is closed will only increase travel on the east side of the Lake through places like Kings Beach, Carnelian Bay and Tahoe City. The 15 trucks you refer to exiting the Basin without traveling through these beautiful areas of the Lake and single lane roads with speed limits required to navigate the curves and tight lane roads.
Mark, Really? The Nevada bioass plant was turned off well after the legislature announced that the prison would close. But thats hardly the point, the entire plant was designed to produce heat, which is cheap, and not electricity. The plant was doomed by design. But the manager that was hired there in the final year had that plant running at capacity.
Mark, a standard load is about 20-30 bone dry tons. It takes about 50 BDT to produce 2 megawatt of electricity.
Mark you are choosing to ignore the price paid per BDT, and the influence that has on biomass availability. As the price per killowatt hour increases then the amount available to purchase biomass also increases. At about $50 per BDT biomass outcompetes most secondary uses of wood products except dimension lumber. Loyalton would have gotten buried in biomass at $60 / BDT. That would have taken $0.09 per killowat hour.
Finally, you dont understand how the trucking will work. The point is that all of the loads necessary to run the plant will be stored at Cabin Creek. It is nearly impossible to run trucks during chain controls, so that would be stupid to plan for that.
Fuels projects run from Mid-april through November usually, that is better that 200 days and 15 loads per day. That is 300 loads just from Tahoe. Diversions from Cabin Creek nearly equal that. There is no need to add any trucking or any additional agreements. It is just the same 15 loads a day that has been driving those roads for the past decade. But instead of driving all the way to the valley, they stop before they get to Truckee.
O.K., I’ll admit right up front that I don’t know diddly squat about the logistics and economics of biomass electricty generation. From reading THE SEEMINGLY WELL-INFORMED POSTS ( are you listening Kae?) l get the impression that transportation costs and truck emissions along with wholesale pricing of power to Liberty Energy are the major issues here.
So how about if the operation were run with electric powered trucks (no emissions / quiet) that get their batteries recharged at the biomass plant thereby getting full value for the power and creating a closed loop system?
While I could not find any existing electric trucks that might fit this application, I did find this….who knows what the near future will bring?
So, Freightliner has started purchasing the same electric motor used in the Tesla roadster for use in their trucks. It will be used to make big power on a small environmental foot print.
Freigtliner hopes to be the first to enter this type of commercial niche, where cargo vans are powered by a hydraulic hybrid. It has the opportunity to revolutionize the industry, where thousands of vehicles post up thousands of miles. Imagine all the UPS and FedEx trucks on the road, now imagine if they weren’t using gas as fuel. The environmental impact of that alone would make the technology worth it’s weight. In addition, Freightliner claims that going to an EV fleet will save up to $15,000 per year, per vehicle! Although the electric truck will cost more up front, the real savings will be in the fuel and maintenance cost over the 12 months.
The initial electric truck offerings will be capable of handling a 2,500 lb payload. Without battery cell expansion Freightliner claims the EV Truck will be capable of a 100 mile range and require to be plugged into a 220v line for 6-8 hours at night for a full charge. There are future plans for battery expansions, which will allow for further trips without the need to charge up. The future of commercial truck fleets will be changing, perhaps Freighliner will be leading the way.
Stirred up a bit of conversation, did we ? Aside from the tangent away from the Biologic suit & delay, the points made are somewhat valid, except the full understanding is still missing.
• the Forest Service has taken delivery on larger units through the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, WI
• some utilities are now required to pay “retail” rates, as renewables take significant pressure off the need to replace outdated hydroelectric dams, a looming infrastructural issue.
• the CA Public Utilities Commission, for which I am in contact, is aware of the above issues and are amenable to discussion.
That is why my original post talked about an “interesting waste of time”. . .good comments, though.