SPONSOR LINKS
spacer

PRINT ADS

spacer

TOP HOMES

HomeSeller
Top Homes



TOP WHEELS

WHEELS
FOR YOU




 Home > News > Story

Published - Thursday, April 03, 2008

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (13 comment(s))

Resistance to scrubbers growing: Cooperative members vote for a change

   Advertisement   
Advertise Info. Website Directory
.
The fight over a potential landfill to handle waste from Dairyland Power's coal-fired power plant in Genoa shifted from the town level to the county in two meetings that took place over the last week.

On Wednesday, March 26, more than 100 residents showed up at an organizational meeting to oppose the landfill at the town of Viroqua hall, and on Saturday, March 29, Vernon Electric Cooperative held its annual meeting where about 400 people attended and many voiced their concerns about updates to Dairyland's facilities and the proposed landfill.

The March 26 meeting was organized by those who oppose the secondary choice of placing the landfill in the town of Viroqua next to the existing Vernon County landfill. But members of the town of Harmony group H.O.P.E (Harmony township Opposing Pollution of the Environment) showed up and told the group that it needs to oppose the landfill anywhere it's suggested to be sited in Vernon County.

"When we started our fight in Harmony we said that if we push it out of our backyard and you don't stand up it will come your backyard," said H.O.P.E member Scott Leum. "Well guess what? Maybe if you guys (town of Viroqua) stand up maybe the rest of the county will stand up and make them find a better way. All they did was find a better site, they didn't find a better way."

Leum and fellow H.O.P.E. member Carl Volden both said this is not a "not in my backyard" issue but a "not in anybody's backyard" issue. Leum and Volden said the solution is to not install the scrubbers and find a solution to the outdated coal-fired plant instead of investing $350 million into the 40-year-old existing plant.

Dairyland has said the scrubbers are needed to extract pollutants out of its smokestack discharge in order to comply with Environmental Protection Agency standards that were recently passed. The scrubbers will create tons of ash that currently has no commercial use and will have to be landfilled.

Volden said recycling options exist if there is time to develop them. He added that ad technologies, like coal gasification, that produce much less waste should be considered.

In fact, a number of those who were at the town of Viroqua meeting, also attended the Vernon Electric Cooperative (VEC) annual meeting at Westby High School on Saturday. VEC receives power from Dairyland.

Local resident Charles Doerr, who lives in the watershed below the Vernon County Landfill, made two motions in the new business portion of the meeting that were overwhelmingly supported by the 201 voting members who attended. Doerr said he disagreed with statements by Dairyland officials in previous meetings that there is no other technology available and there is no other choice than to install scrubbers at the Genoa facility.

"There is a better choice," said Doerr. "It is to convert our coal plant to coal gasification technology. Coal gasification is by far the cleanest coal conversion technology according to the Alberta Energy Research Institute."

Doerr's first motion included four parts and was directed at Dairyland Power. The motion stated that Dairyland should convert its Genoa facility from a pulverized coal facility to an IGCC (integrated gasification combined cycle) plant or "coal gasification" plant. Doerr said the technology is available for such a conversion and Westinghouse Plasma Corporation has already done a number of conversions. Doerr said there are five facilities operating worldwide with two in the United States, two in Europe and one in Japan.

Doerr read from a letter he had sent to the DNR pointing out the benefits of coal gasification such as reduced waste and the comparable costs to existing coal-fired plants.

Doerr's motion went on to ask Dairyland to renegotiate with the Alston company, that is providing scrubber equipment, to instead provide gasification equipment, terminate its plans to haul 22 semi loads of lime per week from 200 miles away for the scrubber and to terminate plans to site a landfill in Vernon County.

Thomas Zaremba of Wheeler, Van Sickle and Anderson of Madison, an attorney representing the VEC board at the meeting, clarified that the motions made by the membership were strictly advisory to the VEC board of directors and had no authority over the Dairyland board other than being one of 25 members of the Cooperative. VEC member Carl Volden then offered an amendment to Doerr's motion that the VEC representative on the Dairyland board, Dan Korn, request a meeting between the Dairyland board and a delegation of VEC members who have concerns about the scrubber project.

The amendment passed by a wide margin as did Doerr's motion as amended.

Doerr's second motion stated that if the elements of the previous motion are not adopted that VEC should "renegotiate our over 40-year exclusive contract with Dairyland (to buy power)." That motion also passed with little opposition.

Doerr read a couple more motions he had intended to offer regarding joining "Focus on Energy" and paying members retail rates for power they produce because VEC had already adopted those two policies earlier in the year.

Dairyland has said it needs a landfill because it has to comply with new EPA air quality standards by 2010. The scrubbers that are being installed to remove particulates from the exhaust will make the waste unusable for recycling. The scrubbers will remove more sulfur dioxide and mercury from the air, but also increase the volume of waste by as much as seven times. Dairyland initially announced the two sites with the most potential for a landfill were in the town of Harmony, but residents of the area organized by H.O.P.E made Dairyland consider working in conjunction with the Vernon County Solid Waste Department to add on to that facility.

At the town of Harmony locations Dairyland said it planned to acquire as much as 600 acres, but only about 55 acres was needed for the landfill itself. The rest of the 600 acres would be "buffer" area. Dairyland has said it would need only about 40 additional acres at the town of Viroqua site because the existing landfill already provides a buffer area.

Dairyland has been working in conjunction with county solid waste officials to start the DNR siting process, but also has continued to do water and soil testing at all three sites leaving open the option of placing the landfill at any of the three.

Dennis Brault who helped organize the meeting in the town of Viroqua said he would like to see the scrubbers at least delayed to give Dairyland and all other power companies the time to come up with recycling solutions or alternative power production methods.

"The scrubbers are being installed to remove the sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain," said Brault. "They already remove 80 percent of the sulfur with their existing technology, they will only get about another 10 percent, but they will produce an enormous amount of waste. The additional 10 percent is going to create a landfill somewhere in Vernon County. We need everyone to contact their representatives to get a moratorium on these scrubbers and push Dairyland to do the right thing and that is put in a new coal gasification plant in Genoa."

Dairyland currently recycles about 80 percent of its ash by using it for cement or road projects, but the new process will make the ash unusable plus produce more waste.

Brault said he was disappointed at a DNR hearing in Stoddard last week that gave Dairyland the air permit that it needs to get the go ahead to install the scrubber. Brault said the various departments in DNR protect only certain aspects of the environment, but no one is watching the big picture.

"The air people watch the air, the water people watch the water and the land people watch the land, but no one is looking at the overall picture," said Brault.

Another organizer, Tom Wilson, said the group should not lose hope and pointed to similar fights in the 1970's when a group of citizens stopped a nuclear power plant on the Chippewa River in northern Wisconsin. Wilson said the money that would have gone to construct the facility was used to fund energy conservation practices that reduced demand and the facility was not needed.

Volden said the pollution created by trucks to haul lime in to do the scrubbing and haul the waste to the landfill will have to be considered as part of the equation.

Area farmer Dan Peper asked about where the water that is collected at the landfill is treated. Vernon County Solid Waste Administrator Gail Frie, who was in attendance, said the water will either be treated onsite if Dairyland builds a treatment facility at the landfill or be trucked to a wastewater treatment facility offsite.

"So, what happens to the sludge that is produced once the water is treated?" asked Peper.

Frie said the waste is applied to agricultural fields and is regulated under DNR regulations.

Following Saturday’s VEC meeting, Rude commented on the ideas brought up at the co-op meeting.

“Dairyland's elected board of directors has already committed to a course of action of installing scrubbers to meet new state and federal air regulations,” Rude said. “The scrubbers are just part of several upgrades that Dairyland is undertaking to meet these new requirements. Before deciding to invest $350 million in these upgrades, the board, management and staff explored a lot of alternatives using the best advice and information available to the electric power industry.

“As a member of the state of Wisconsin task force that thoroughly studied Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants,” Rude continued. “I am aware of many issues with this type of technology. IGCC has potential for the future, but it is just now approaching commercial availability and is being considered by very large utilities which have the wherewithal to endure the high risks and costs associated with developing a new technology.”
.

Rate this story:
Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!Rate File:
   Advertisement   
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

kevin foster wrote on Apr 19, 2008 4:51 AM:

" I worked in a PET COKE fired plant here in california where S.O.-2 emmissions are a major headache at 30 ppm, the solution was to capure the so-2 with dry lime stone injected into the combustion zone and monitor the fly ash for the threshold concentration to react with the regular production of cement,sulfur is the glue in cement.water injection was used to crack the lime to capure more so-2 efficently but also created cement layering in low velocity zones in the boiler so if you increase the air flows thru the process {Dilution is a solution}, it is like sandblasting the metal tubes casing leak's and eventual maint. outages,they can re-inject hydrated lime back in the boiler bed but will have to upgrade it's baghouse and flyash handling systems but this increases the heavy metals to a toxic disposal level? So may i suggest with all the flooding and washed out roads why not dilute the fly ash with cement make roads and dam's out of it?they whole thing would be to contain metals leaching? they use this stuff in steel production also. good luck and keep the NIMBY org going good job. "

Vernon County Native wrote on Apr 8, 2008 2:42 PM:

" "The money needs to be spent on determining appropriate conservation measures and sustainable local **decentralized** power generation technologies." - here here!
"

Dennis Brault wrote on Apr 4, 2008 11:30 AM:

" Gambrills, Maryland ? Laboratory technicians found toxic ash residue everywhere they looked as part of a study on exposure to airborne fly ash near a coal ash disposal facility in Anne Arundel County. The report released today by Environment Maryland documents the presence of fly ash in dust samples taken in and around homes near the BBSS ash dump. ?We?ve heard a lot about contaminated drinking water wells in this area, but people have not been informed about the ash particles that are drifting through the air,? said Brad Heavner, state director of Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center. Eastmount Environmental Services, a Massachusetts-based air quality consulting firm, coordinated the collection and analysis in conjunction with EMLab P&K. They analyzed twelve dust samples taken from three clusters of homes around the dump. Fly ash was detected in all twelve samples. Concentrations of the soot particles containing fly ash ranged from less than one percent to five percent of the dust. ?The dust results in this study are disturbing because the samples were taken a month after Constellation?s dumping was temporarily stopped. It seems like it?s everywhere in the surrounding neighborhoods,? said Tim Berkoff, of Crofton First, a local community organization. ?This issue is ongoing since more fly ash dumping could occur at this site.? "

Dennis Brault wrote on Apr 4, 2008 11:22 AM:

" The ash from traditional pulverized coal-fired power plants (PC) contains about 5% hazardous substances including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and mercury. Over 120 sites across the country have contaminated surface and ground water due to improper disposal of ash from coal-fired power plants. At least 3 federal Superfund sites were created by improper disposal of this ash.

However, the gasification byproducts from an IGCC plat are benign, consisting of 99%+ pure elemental sulfur plus an inert and non-leaching vitreous slag that has been approved for use in road construction or as landfill cover. Unlike PC plants, no fly ash is generated, so not only are incremental treatment and disposal costs avoided, there is the potential to sell the gasification byproducts at a profit. SOx and NOx levels well within New Source Emissions Standards can be achieved for coals containing up to 7% sulfur.
Current plant designs are capable of achieving over 40% efficiency, with heat rates in the 8,400 to 8,900 MMBTU/KWh range, depending on configuration. Future efficiency gains from advanced turbine designs and more efficient oxygen production are expected to further widen the efficiency gap in favor of gasification over more traditional clean coal technologies such as CFB and supercritical PC. A detailed comparison shows that because of its higher efficiency, lower operating costs and market for byproducts, IGCC will actually dispatch slightly ahead of supercritical and CFB coal-fired technology. "

Dennis Brault wrote on Apr 4, 2008 11:20 AM:

" To not quite: could you please provide some links to the disastrous results of IGCC. My net surfing has not uncovered this.

To What if: Could you also provide some links showing this interesting promise of a better way using extra strong BTU higher mixed alcohols.

I take exception to Not Quite's comment that a landfill where the waste can be contained, and monitored is still better than spewing it into the air. We have been living with air pollution for the last 40 years. The Scrubbers reduce SO2 emissions by 10%. SO2 is what creates acid rain. We don't here much about acid rain anymore because currently about 80% is already being removed. Can we live with this amount of SO2 air pollution for another five to ten years? If so than we will have the time we need to look at recycling options and new cleaner energy solutions. There would be no need for this landfill. "

What If? wrote on Apr 4, 2008 1:02 AM:

" What if there was something else in the technology pollution solution background which would work better than IGCC? What if coal were gasified to produce syngas and this syngas were efficiently catalyzed into a blend of extra strong BTU higher mixed alcohols? Then what if these alcohols were utilized to clean and beneficiate the ground coal being conventionally combusted at the old power plant? What if this process would would cut the amount of coal needed by 10% or more to create the same kw of electricity? What if the overall pollution from this old plant were reduced by 40% to 70? What if the CO2 emitted from the coal gasification process used to produce the alcohols were not vented to the atmosphere? Instead, what if this CO2 was recycled as more carbon feedstock (just like carbon from coal) to produce even more alcohol volumes even cheaper? What if a new solution is at hand - yet is simply not known. Then, what if? Should the citizen NIMBY's become more aware? Do we all live downstream on this polluted planet? "

Not Quite wrote on Apr 3, 2008 10:28 PM:

" IGCC is not the answer. Coal gasification was done many years ago and the results were disastrous. As for the $350 million, that amount is not for the Genoa plant alone, that is for all of the plants DPC has according to the presentation.
Until a recycling alternative is available, a landfill where the waste can be contained, and monitored is still better than spewing it into the air--where it goes when airborne is anyones guess.
How would you like it if we just took all of our garbage up in airplanes and spread it across the country?
"

EPA wrote on Apr 3, 2008 7:10 PM:

" I agree the EPA regulations are driving this problem. Spending 350 million on a 40 year plant is a poor investment.

More to the point Dairyland and other utilities will face power generation shortages shortly. In an increasingly tight global energy market all energy prices are rising, and fast! The money needs to be spent on determining appropriate conservation measures and sustainable local decentralized power generation technologies. "

EPA wrote on Apr 3, 2008 4:45 PM:

" why aren't we going after our elected officials? because of EPA mandates dairyland has to do something, it's the law. i think people have done a good job of slowing dairyland down, and keeping them in check, but its time to go to the source of the problem. "

Is anyone Dying? wrote on Apr 3, 2008 6:46 AM:

" Just Leave things as they are. everyone should write the head of the EPA and show how much polution this will cause, (from trucks and stuff). compared to what the bag room is suppose to help stop. As George H.W. Bush said "Don't do it wouldn't be prudent"
"

Be Smart wrote on Apr 2, 2008 5:00 PM:

" Maybe if the cost increases everyone will look more seriously at reducing their use of electricity as well as their dependency on it. Renewable energy is where Dairyland Power should be investing that $350 million. That will cost less in the long run than spending it on that dirty, old coal plant. "

dodger wrote on Apr 2, 2008 12:31 PM:

" IF they have more costs,we pay more for power.
They pass the cost on to us. "

Thank you wrote on Apr 2, 2008 11:02 AM:

" Thank you to H.O.P.E and everyone else who recognizes that better AND cost-effective solutions already exist and for not having a "not in my backyard" mentality about looking for a solution. Thank you thank you! There is H.O.P.E! "What blesses one blesses all." MBE
"


PLEASE NOTE: Comments on stories that frequently update through the day disappear with each update.
The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Vernon County Broadcaster.

Click here to report offensive or inappropriate comments. Please identify the comment you're concerned about, the story to which the comment was attached, the date of the comment and the person who made the post.

 Post a comment (150 word limit) »

Log In - If you have already signed up with The Vernon County Broadcaster, please sign in now!
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Sign Up - To encourage intelligent and meaningful conversation, The Vernon County Broadcaster requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!

**Your Member ID and password will be required to log in. Your comments will appear under your user name.

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
 

(children under 13 cannot register)

*First Name:
*Last Name:
Company:
Home Phone:
Business Phone:
*Address:
*City:
*State:
*Zip Code:
 

About Us | Advertise Online | Contact Us | Disclaimer | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | RSS | Webmaster | Website Directory
Copyright © 2010 The Vernon Broadcaster. All rights reserved.
Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.