3/8/07 PMEC Community Meeting
Kalama, WA
Click to Download Word Version
Q: What does the acronym EFSEC mean?
A Energy Facility Siting Evaluation Committee.
Q: What do you mix slurry with?
A:Water.
Q: What is the federal nexus to this project? Are the feds involved?
A: The state is more involved at this point through the EFSEC application process, but NEPA will apply and we have to examine the social and economic impact of this project on this community. The impacts will be analyzed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). EFSEC is the lead agency and is working on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) now and expects to issue it to the public in mid-May.
Q: What about the social impacts on the community like traffic and the environment? Is the process public?
A: The Washington State Department of Transportation is part of the project process, and yes, the EFSEC process is a public process.
Q: There is a law that says if the project is more than 350 megawatts, there has to be a public vote. This project is 680 megawatts. What is the rationale for not taking this project to a public vote?
A: The public portion of the bonds required to finance the project and exposure of the public to large financial risks is the reason to take a project greater than 350 MW to a public vote. This project is actually two plants in one. Half of it is public and half is private. Since the vote only applies to the public portion, it doesn’t equal 350 MW and doesn’t meet the threshold required for a public vote.
Q: I have some concerns with the sequestration technology. I am a pilot and I love driving ships on the Columbia. I am a supporter of the project, I think. I understand that the sequestration technology, by putting the CO2 in basalt, is costly and the technology is not there yet. Have you done any worst case scenarios? I’m worried about getting on board with a project that gets up and running, but because the costs are too high, sequestration doesn’t get implemented. I want to know now what will happen. How long will it take to get it? If we are 20 years away from sequestration, tell me now. If you can’t afford to do it, I want to know now. I want to be supportive, but I want to know now if you are willing to commit to doing the sequestration technology.
A: We acknowledge there are risks, but we believe the environment and the local community deserve our best shot to make this technology work. Mastering this technology means we can export it to coal plants around the world and further reduce production of CO2 on a global scale.
We have a fact sheet on sequestration. Big Sky carbon sequestration is doing test injections this fall to help determine if it is uncertain still. Energy Northwest represents the member utilities. It is true that there is risk the technology may be too costly and may not be available for some time. The utilities need to decide if it is worth the risk. We are also looking at other alternatives such as using the CO2 to draw out methane or turning CO2 into a solid for use in fertilizer.
CO2 is different from acid rain. It doesn’t matter what Washington does individually – we need to do this globally. We need to see if we can make sequestration work by putting it in basalt, saline aquifers, oil wells, etc. The technology is needed for the world. If we can master this technology, we can export it to all the coal plants around the world and then we are all doing something to decrease CO2. We need to be able to export this technology to China. We have the opportunity to pioneer this technology for the world. We can’t stop just because we are uncertain it will work. Somebody has to try to make it work.
Q: Could you please expand on the public/private piece? When this project was first introduced, it wasn’t described as two different projects in one.
A: One-half will be public and run by Energy Northwest and public utilities. The other half will be owned by investor-owned utilities. It was always going to be two plants in one.
Q: Is it true that we are taking coal and petcoke and shipping it outside of the US currently?
A: Yes, most petroleum coke is shipped to the far east. More western coal is shipped to the east coast of the United States than overseas. The Chinese are building roughly two coal plants a week. Some Canadian and Alaskan coals are being shipped outside the US too.
Petcoke is a byproduct of the oil business, and the product can be reused with the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology.
Q: What has been going on with the petcoke all along?
A: There are two kinds of petroleum coke. The best has low sulfur and is cleaner. It is used in cement plant boilers, anodes, and mixed with iron in making carbon steel. There are heavier petcokes that are being produced now because of the heavier crude oil, and our process removes the sulfur from this fuel grade petcoke. A lot of petcoke will still be shipped overseas to the Chinese. They are building roughly two large power plants per week.
Q: Fifty years ago we were having the nuclear and fusion power debate. Fusion was touted as clean and providing lots of energy. $100 billion was invested in a fusion plant in southern France, and we still don’t have the technology that was promised. How can you be sure that this IGCC technology will work?
A: Gasification is a proven technology that’s been used for decades.
Q: I am concerned about your answer regarding the vote. It’s like you’re saying because we’re not required to do it, we won’t do it.
A: If the plant were completely public then, yes, we would have a vote. Because the public bonds are a concern to public utilities, they don’t want the public to bear all the risk with a large plant. There are two gas turbines, one is private and one is public.
Q: Are you using water from the Columbia River for cooling?
A: No.
Q: What are you using then? Will it be treated and monitored before being dumped in the river?
A: Water from a well. The water will be treated and monitored for metals and other chemicals in accordance with regulations and will meet or exceed requirements.
Q:What about habitat? What about deer?
A: We have reviewed the impacts and that the main area of concern is a wetland for which we have a mitigation plan.
Q: How many waterfront jobs will there be? Will they be local?
A: The jobs will be mostly local. The contractor will be looking to hire local labor for construction. There will be long shore jobs, too. There will be ships with fuel that need labor to offload the ships.
Q: Is there a temptation to use power lines south out of the old Trojan plant or will there be new towers built?
A: No, there are no plans for transmission across the river. We’ll use existing right of way with BPA. KV line runs east and uses slightly bigger towers that can combine three sets of poles into one. It will be on the same route to Longview as the BPA substation.
Q: How tall will the poles be?
A: By law, since the voltage is higher, the lines need to be higher off the ground. They will be approximately 85 – 90 feet high.
Q: What about cooling of wastewater? Will it be similar to Trojan?
A: The cooling tower will be smaller than Trojan, not a big cement structure like Trojan. Our cooling tower will be about 40 feet high, or between 3-4 stories.
Q: What kind of emissions can we expect to see? Will it be like Longview?
A: The emissions of the project are examined by EFSEC during the application process. The plant will meet or exceed environmental regulations.
Q: Where are the mercury emissions? Will they be gas or a solid?
A: Mercury is captured as a gas. We will have a place to process it. This plant will be much lower than what is produced at the plant in Centralia. 90-95% is taken out through our process. In our permit application, we’ve asked for 60 lbs of mercury total from all plant sources.
Q: What effect will the Washington Renewables legislation have on the ability to market this power?
A: It has some effect, but renewables can’t be counted on for everything. There needs to be some base load and some renewables. They will need to meet certain levels of renewables by a certain timeframe.
Q: The first time this was presented, it wasn’t presented as two parts, why it is bigger?
A: The design has been refined from 600 megawatts to 680 megawatts, but it was always split into two plants.
Q: What about the slag? How realistic is it that you won’t have to dump it around here somewhere?
A: Actually, it is very likely that we won’t since it has a consistency like sand. It has metals that can be smelted down and can be marketed for several uses.
Q: What is the realistic availability of petcoke versus using coal?
A: Oil currently used in refineries has heavier materials in it, and that creates more petcoke. Right now, we export about 70% of the petcoke. In the future, we would just keep more of it instead of exporting it. It can be used to make carbon anodes, cement, and in the steel industry. Eventually, it’s possible that PMEC would be 100% petcoke. We are building a plant to operate 30 years and anticipate using the plant’s fuel flexibility capability. We anticipate Canada tripling its production of petcoke in the future.
Q: How will it be transported?
A: It will be brought in by rail, ship, and barge.
Q: There is a similar plant in Tampa. How does this compare or will it be better as far as emissions are concerned?
A: Tampa and another plant were built in the 1990’s. This is the next generation and we can better capture the sulfur.
Q: Is this in the plans or are you just looking at it?
A: Yes, this is in the plans and we will definitely be doing it.
Q: You hope to get the CO2 all underground, but what if it is not economically feasible or if technology just doesn’t exist?
A: There is a risk that could happen. However, we can use the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery by injecting it into the ground and separating out the methane. There is gas exploration going on near here, and using CO2 for gas production is a possibility. There are beneficial re-uses for CO2 such as turning it into a solid for fertilizer. The world emits a lot of CO2 naturally. If everyone built IGCC plants, then the CO2 can be realistically reduced on a global scale.
We will do the best we can to make it work. We have to try or else we will need to give nuclear power another look. Nuclear is not a greenhouse gas producer, but it has other issues involved. There are trade-offs.
Q: How many trains and how many cars?
A: There will likely be two or three trains per week assuming everything was taken out by train. There are usually 100 to 130 cars in a unit train. Sending it by ship or barge is cheaper overall but suppliers of petcoke are not usually near water. It will depend on where the source of fuel is located. There may be a combination of ships and trains.
Q: How much cost for sequestration per kilowatt hour?
A: The current estimate is $0.05 per kilowatt hour.
Q: I am upset by the attitude that “we all generate CO2 anyway, so why not just generate some more here?” In 1970, this would be great technology to propose, but now it is just burning dinosaurs again. We need renewables like wind and solar.
A: We agree with providing renewable resources. Energy Northwest owns and operates a wind project and a solar project. We actively prospect for additional wind power sites. Some renewables like wind can run $0.05 to $0.09 per kilowatt hour. Manufacturing products are going up because of competition. China is building roughly two coal plants every week. This drives up demand for things like this. You can do renewables as fast as you can, but intermittency is an issue. I believe we would be worse off if we have a situation where we don’t have power. We have to do this as responsibly as possible and blaze a trail that is the least damaging.
Q: But in 2000, we didn’t run out of power.
A: There are still lawsuits pending regarding contracts signed in 2000 and there were rolling brownouts and blackouts in parts of California.
Q: Yes, but how much of that was as a result of energy company manipulation and exploiting the market for money like Enron?
A: Yes, but blackouts were happening. We don’t want to relax the environmental standards.
Q: How do we avoid the sulfur smell?
A: The liquid is pumped into a rail tanker car, not into the air. It is enclosed as it goes into the car, so there is no smell. Also, we can capture the air coming out of the tank. Everything is carefully controlled because the gases can be poisonous. Sulfur can be used for fertilizer.
Q: Where is the site exactly?
A: It is next to the Steelscape facility.
Q: Will the facility use liquefied natural gas (LNG)?
A: It will have pipeline gas.
Q: Trojan used to provide newsletters and updates to the community on how to evacuate in the event of an emergency. Will that be coming back into our lives?
A: No, nuclear power is one of the most heavily regulated and is required to provide those notices to the community. The plant doesn’t present any radioactive danger to the community. There are already chemical plants in operation nearby, but the community doesn’t receive newsletters from them. There is natural gas usage at the Port of Kalama already, and we would just be adding pipe for it to be used at the plant.
Comments:
I think we are all aware of Three Mile Island. I’m glad you are trying to control emissions. If we don’t get new sources online, then we need to look at nuclear since green power alone won’t generate enough power to keep up with demand.
(The following comments are from Mr. Sid Morrison, Chairman of Energy Northwest’s Executive Board and former U.S. Representative, WA) We are a not-for-profit and operate as a joint operating agency. We can only construct what our partners want, and the power comes back to you at cost. I hired John Fratt when he was the Director of the Port of Kalama. I have congressional subcommittee experience. The US has tremendous sources of energy, and now most of it is in coal. We have a chance to demonstrate how to use the energy sources while being responsible to the environment. There is a balance of gases in the atmosphere. I have grandkids, and I don’t want to leave them worse off in terms of the environment and energy. We are also excited by our Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership and the basalt options. We know there is a price tag of $0.05 per kilowatt hour. Wind is between $0.07 and $0.10 per kilowatt hour. Hydropower is only at $0.015 per kilowatt hour. Nuclear power is at $0.03 per kilowatt hour. Solar power is free, but it takes about $1.20 per kilowatt hour to install. We can work together to have a great energy source, be environmentally sound, and create jobs. We can take the petcoke and do something with it by separating out the parts and selling them.