research, questions and concerns about woodchip biomass ... · merits of rblc’s proposal,...

1 of 11

August 14, 2011

Research, Questions and Concerns about Woodchip Biomass Gasification and Roberts Brother’s Lumber Company’s 1.5MW Proposed Plant for Spruce Corner, Ashfield, Massachusetts

Executive Summary

The Roberts Brothers Lumber Company’s (RBLC) plans to build and operate a 1.5 MW biomass Gasification Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant in Spruce Corner, Ashfield Massachusetts. As neighbors of RBLC, we are concerned about this, and have investigated biomass gasification and RBLC’s plan. Our research has uncovered health, safety and environmental problems in woodchip biomass gasification technology – problems that have halted its use in environmentally concerned countries like Europe and the USA. The Feasibility Study prepared for RBLC glosses over these flaws and presents a distorted view of the benefits and economics of woodchip gasification.

- In spite of RBLC’s statements to the contrary, all biomass gasification processes used to generate electricity by running an internal combustion engine require large amounts of water for gas cooling and cleaning. In removing tars and dust from the gas, the water becomes highly contaminated – and water treatment to remove these contaminates is difficult and expensive.

- According to RBLC, ‘there is no waste water generated by the system’. From all we can find this is not a correct statement. In fact, to properly operate a 1.5 MW electrical woodchip gasification facility, a large water treatment plant will be required. There is no mention of gas cooling or cleaning – or of any waste water mitigation in RBLC’s Feasibility Study – and no accounting for the cost of such a facility.

- RBLC claims that no waste water is generated because, unlike the ‘old’ technology reported in our August 2 open letter, they are using ‘new’ technology. This will be the first installation in the US, and there is no operational data from any other site in the world. An investigation into the Italian company selling this ‘new’ technology, and research into their stated gas cooling and cleaning methods, clearly shows that conventional wet scrubbers are used. These scrubbers are common venturi scrubbers – and, as is well known, they require water to remove the tars and dust from the gas stream.

- Air pollution is also a concern. Catalytic converters cannot be used on the exhaust of an engine fueled by syngas. Therefore combusting the biomass fuel to generate 1.5 MW of electricity would pollute the air of our community. Biomass gasification produces toxic

Research, Questions and Concerns about RBLC’s Proposed Woodchip Biomass Gasification Facility

August 14, 2011

2 of 11

gases that are not fully burned by combustion. These are emitted into the air. This is the noisome smell produced by gasification plants.

- Other items of concern include the likelihood of increased truck traffic on local roads to transport the 520 tons of wood chips per month to the plant, and reduced property values due to the pollution, noise and traffic.

From our review of the literature, it appears that woodchip gasification is not a process that can be operated both responsibly and economically. A responsibly run plant includes health, safety and environmental (HSE) safeguards like air and wastewater cleaning systems and monitoring equipment. (For a detailed list of the potential hazards of this technology, and the necessary safeguards to insure safe operation, refer to the “Gasification Guideline and Check List” included with this report.) If these safeguards are required, biomass gasification is not economically feasible. In Europe, where HSE standards are important, there is no commercial use of biomass gasification.

The region where biomass gasification is in commercial use and has proven to be economically viable is in third world countries where HSE standards are non-existent. If the wastewater can be dumped into the nearest river and toxic exhaust emissions are acceptable, then the economics of operating a plant are greatly improved. Given what little technical data is presented in the Feasibility Study, shown on Biogen’s web site (www.biogendr.com) and offered by RBLC, it appears RBLC is bringing the 3rd world gasification approach to Ashfield, MA. As Ashfield, and more specifically, Spruce Corner, is our home, we are alarmed.

Please read over the full open letter. We have attempted to provide useful and validated information and to list our references. We welcome a discussion on the technical and economic merits of RBLC’s proposal, woodchip biomass gasification and any questions on our research and conclusions.

After the August 3rd town meeting, further research was needed to qualify statements made by RBLC during the meeting. The open letter below begins with this update.

The principle author of this document is John Madocks. John is a new arrival in Ashfield, purchasing a farm in Spruce Corner this summer. His farm lies about a quarter mile from Roberts Brothers Mill. John is moving from Tucson Arizona where for the last 14 years he has owned and operated General Plasma, a high tech manufacturing business. John founded the business and successfully built it to a leadership position in the vacuum thin film coating industry. He is a mechanical engineer and inventor with over 20 patents pending or issued.

The local Spruce Corner community contributed their concerns and questions about the RBLC proposal at the end of the open letter.


August 14, 2011

3 of 11


Preface added following the Ashfield town meeting on August 3, 2011

In the town meeting, each side, Roberts Brothers Lumber Company (RBLC) and Ashfield citizens concerned about the biomass gasification plant proposal, had opportunities to present information and express concerns to the select board and meeting attendees. During the concerned citizen’s allotted time the August 2 version of this open letter was handed out. In RBLC’s presentation, and later, in answering questions, RBLC made a number of statements that required further research and elicited further concern. Here are two specific statements that called for further research and our response:

1) RBLC Statement on water usage and the generation of waste water:

“The system is completely clean and produces no waste water. To produce 1.5MW electricity only requires 1 gallon of water per day”

2) RBLC Statement on water pollution and air pollution findings presented by concerned citizens in the August 2 open letter:

“This information is for older technology. The technology we are using is new and doesn’t generate any waste water”

To confirm the accuracy of RBLC’s statements required further investigation to learn about the ‘new technology’ being used and its advantages/differences over other biomass gasification technology. As presented by RBLC, their equipment is from a company in the Dominican Republic called Biogen (RBLC is a sales representative for Biogen) (see www.biogendr.com). Biogen’s gasification technology is based upon a design by Giovanni Cappello. Mr. Cappello is on Biogen’s Board of Directors. His company in Italy is Advanced Gasification Technology, SRI.. Mr. Cappello has applied for a US patent on a Gasification Plant (Publication number 2010/0000224 A1, Priority filing date Feb 7, 2007). A reading of the patent application text, diagrams and figures shows this design matches the (limited) pictures and diagrams on Biogen’s website and those in RBLC’s funded feasibility study dated September 28, 2007.

In a direct contradiction of RBLC’s statement that no waste water is generated, it is clearly stated in Cappello’s patent application that gas coming out of the gasifier is cooled and cleaned by a wet venturi scrubber. This unit is depicted in several application figures (his Figure 10 is shown below). Venturi scrubbers are well known in industry and Cappello makes no claim to a new venturi scrubber. As is well known, venturi scrubbers require a substantial flow of water to operate. A typical water flow is 1.5 liters of water for every cubic meter of gas flow per hour (m3/hr). Since the proposed gasifier unit is rated for 1200 m3/hr, the water usage for the venturi scrubber will be 450 gallons per hour. This water is in direct contact with the tars and dust in the

ResearchProposed

gas. As dabsorbingnot possi

Figure 1

Figure 2

Wate

h, Questions d Woodchip

described ing these compible to recirc

. Picture frommill (o

2. From Cappe

er Tank

and ConcernBiomass Ga

the August pounds and m

culate the wa

m RBLC’s Feasne of several p

ello’s patent ap

ns about RBasification Fa

2 open lettemust be trea

ater as the tar

ibility Study shplanned). Note

pplication. ItemScrubber 3

BLC’s acility

4 of 11

r, this water ated by a comrs will becom

howing the 120e presence of v

m 31 is a ventu1 drains into ta

Venturi Sc

r becomes himplex, expenme concentr

00m3/hr gasifienturi scrubber

uri scrubber as ank 41.

crubber

A

ighly contamnsive treatmrated and gum

ier unit to be inr and water tan

described in th

Venturi S

W

August 14, 2

minated by ment system.

m up the pip

nstalled at RBLnk.

he application t

Scrubber

Water Tank

2011

It is ping.

LC’s

text.


August 14, 2011

5 of 11

Therefore, RBLC’s claim of no wastewater generation appears to be incorrect. Large quantities of waste water are generated by this ‘new technology’ - similar to the ‘old technology’ and to the findings in the open letter. RBLC has not indicated any knowledge of this situation nor has there been any mention of this in the Feasibility Study.

It is also important to note that several studies and reports have been released subsequent to Mr. Cappello’s patent application without any mention of a ‘new’ gasification technology that doesn’t use water. In an industry as closely watched and highly reported on as renewable energy, one would certainly expect the appearance of an innovation that solved one of the major stumbling blocks of a promising energy technology to have received broad attention. In Appendix D, the Feasibility Study states that “After thousands of hours of operating industrial prototypes, the company (Koar Energy Resources) is ready to install since March 2008 an average of one CHP plant a day using similar modular equipment as shown in the picture” (This is the unit shown above in Figure 1.) That statement was made 3 years ago. Today, there is no record of any installation anywhere. If such installations exist, RBLC should be able to produce detailed photographs and operational data.

To understand what RBLC is proposing, detailed technical information is needed – and should be required by the authorities. This is completely lacking in the Feasibility Study and in answers given by RBLC in the town meeting. An internet search on biomass gasification will quickly lead to numerous resources. While many are biased promoters of the technology, others are respectable government and university groups presenting science on the subject. In any case, there is a wealth of technical information on gas cleaning (tar and dust removal) and cooling systems and the challenges and benefits of the different types. RBLC is claiming that the BioGen plant requires only 1 gallon of water a day to produce 1.5 MW of electricity, a claim that has yet to be supported or substantiated by any hard data or evidence, and that is orders of magnitude different from industry reports on existing biomass gasification plants.

As RBLC’s neighbors, we are worried not only about the wastewater issue, but air pollution, explosion hazards, smell, noise and other potential health, safety and environmental (HSE) hazards as well. Since there is no information in the Feasibility Study and no answers were forthcoming during the town meeting (other than ‘it is absolutely clean technology’ statements), we suggest that RBLC be asked fill out the Check List put forward by a European Energy Commission in November 2009. The check list is part of a Guideline for Safe and Eco-friendly Biomass Gasification. Pdf files of both the Check List and Guideline are attached.

Rather than refute RBLC’s statements, we ask that RBLC proactively engage in presenting all the technical details including accurate energy balances for the plant and details on how effluents will be monitored. This process needs to start with RBLC making significant corrections to the Feasibility Study.


August 14, 2011

6 of 11


Original Open Letter Dated August 2, 2011

Passage from Biomass Gasifier “Tars”: Their Nature, Formation and Conversion, by T.A. Milne and R.J. Evans, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,1998

“While a great deal of time and money has been spent on biomass gasification in the last two decades, there are very few truly commercial gasifiers, operating without government support or subsidies, day in, day out, generating useful gas from biomass. The typical project starts with new ideas, announcements at meetings, construction of the new gasifier. Then it is found that the gas contains 0.1-10% ‘tars.’ The rest of the time and money is spent trying to solve this problem. Most of the gasifier projects then quietly disappear. In some cases the cost of cleaning up the experimental site exceeds the cost of the project! Thus ‘tars’ can be considered the Achilles heel of biomass gasification. With current environmental and health concerns, we can no longer afford to relegate ‘tars’ to the nearest dump or stream”

And 11 years later:

Passage from Downstream Gas Cleaning in Biomass Gasification: Status Report 2009, R.W.R. Zwart, Energy Research Center of the Netherlands

“Still not many gasifiers are operating commercially on biomass feedstock. The need for gas cleaning, and in particular tar removal technology is still the Achilles heel of biomass gasification and gas cleaning. Standard technology has proven to be insufficient for tar destruction or removal and has led to years of (still ongoing) R&D on thermal and catalytic tar cracking as well as (advanced) scrubbing technologies.”

Dear Citizens of Ashfield,

The residents of Spruce Corner valley are concerned about Roberts Brothers Lumber Company’s (RBLC) plan to build and operate a 1,500 kW Biomass Gasification Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant in our community. Our research has uncovered major flaws in woodchip biomass gasification technology – flaws that have stopped its use in environmentally concerned countries like Europe and the US. The Feasibility Study prepared for RBLC glosses over these well-known flaws and presents a distorted view of the benefits and economics of woodchip gasification. In this open letter we hope to clearly communicate these unreported technology


August 14, 2011

7 of 11

flaws – and provide references so our findings can be verified. We also share seeming errors found in the Feasibility Study that require answers from RBLC and the document writers. Finally, a number of questions raised by the Spruce Corner community are listed - questions that reflect the alarm of suddenly learning about this project two weeks ago.

Finding energy alternatives to our dependence on foreign oil is an important national priority. This is recognized in the Green initiative being considered by Ashfield. As we look at alternatives, we have to keep an open mind and realize that, as a community, to benefit from energy independence, we may have to bear costs too. This means challenging the NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) attitude. At the same time, we have the right to know about any proposed alternative energy source – not just complacently accept marketing information from a self-interested company. We have the right to a scientific understanding of the technology and all the air, water and ground environmental impacts and all local traffic, noise and visual ramifications.

Independent of RBLC’s proposal, we have a serious concern relating to our Ashfield Township and State governments. The community of Spruce Corner was only inadvertently made aware of RBLC’s biomass gasifier project two weeks ago. Given the tremendous impact such a grand scale project would have on our small community, our immediate question is: How did this process go on for over 3 years and progress so far, with sizeable grants awarded, etc., without any notification of RBLC’s direct neighbors and Spruce Corner? While, at this point, this question isn’t material to challenging RBLC’s proposal, it should alarm all Ashfield residents that such a community changing project could be pushed forward - almost to the installation phase – without local neighborhood knowledge or participation of any kind.

Woodchip Biomass Gasification (WBG) Technology Concerns

As the quotes at the beginning of this letter state, while the technology may be 100’s of year’s old, significant environmental issues remain to be solved. WBG is not like burning wood. It is very different than generating steam from a wood-fired boiler. The technology is flawed and dangerous because in gasifying the wood, vapors are produced that are un-useable in an internal combustion engine (ICE) without cleaning and cooling steps. These steps, totally missing from the Feasibility Study, cannot be accomplished economically in an environmentally sound way. For this and other important reasons, WBG is not the friendly, green technology we are told.

In our WBG research, a concerted effort was made to find unbiased, science-based information. The references quoted and cited below hopefully reflect this and allow the reader to verify our findings. As we sought to learn about what was potentially coming to our valley, we discovered many reasons to be alarmed. Based upon what we have discovered, not only Spruce Corner, but the entire Hill Towns region should be aware of this proposal and the potential negative effects.

Water Contamination due to Woodchip Biomass Gasification

Large amounts of water are required by biomass gasification for raw gas cleaning and cooling. While this is well known in the industry, this is not mentioned in the RBLC


August 14, 2011

8 of 11

feasibility study. Here are quotes from two reputable sources (please see references at the end of the document):

“When the gasifier system is operated at the rated load, the system requires 350 gallons per minute of water for gas cleaning and cooling on a continuous basis for a one MW rating.”

- Quote from manufacturer selling WBG systems in 3rd world countries (They want to make WBG sound good!)i

“All wet gas cleaning systems generate waste water which is contaminated with inorganic and organic pollutants. The concentration of pollutants in the water is always significant even for good gasifiers that produce less than 500mg/Nm3 of tars….In all cases known, the concentration of pollutants in the waste water from gasifiers exceeds the national effluents limits significantly. Therefore a waste water treatment is necessary for every wet gas cleaning system”

- Quote from Swiss report on gas cleaning of wood chip gasifiersii

According to the Swiss report quoted above, 0.2-0.3 kg water for gas cleaning and cooling is required for every 1 kg dry wood chips. In RBLC’s proposal 520 tons of wood chips would be gasified per month. This means 22,800 – 34,300 gallons of toxic waste water (based on 20% moisture content chips) would be generated per month. This would require a large and expensive water treatment plant. This is not mentioned in the report nor is the cost considered.

In the gasification process, a multitude of hydrocarbon compounds evolve out of the heated wood chips. While much of the evolved vapor is carbon monoxide and methane, a significant percentage is larger hydrocarbon molecules called ‘tars’. These are compounds that condense to liquids or solids when cooled (typically a tar is defined as a compound that condenses at 300C or below). As is widely documented, many of these tar compounds are toxic. Benzene, toluene and xylene are carcinogenic and phenol is poisonous. Additionally, most of the compounds are difficult and expensive to remove from waste water.

ResearchProposed

In Euintrodkey p3rd wdump

As thidea oand Rwasteissuecruci

In cothere wasteunlikStudycleansameconce

h, Questions d Woodchip

urope, whereduction of biprocess with orld countrie

ped in the ne

he feasibilityof their planRecycling’ oe water reclas and solutioal steps are n

nversations is practicall

e water per wkely. In gasify), a large amn and cool th water to waentrates the t

and ConcernBiomass Ga

Figure 1: Abb

e water qualiiomass gasif35% of the

es, Biomass earest river.iv

y study is wri for reclaman the diagram

amation. A qons constitutnot even me

with Leonarly no water wweek. Basedfying 100’s mount of tar e gas is re-c

ash your clottar and dust,

ns about RBasification Fa

breviated list of

ity standardsfication. Whtotal biomasGasification

v

itten, there isation of wastm on page 6quick literatute the bulk ontioned in th

rd Roberts lawaste. He sd on all the iof tons of wand dust muirculated witthes. In the , reducing cl

BLC’s acility

9 of 11

f tar compound

s are importahere it is impss energy expn is more ‘ec

s no acknowte water othe63. Also, theure review wf most reporhe Feasibility

ast week, he said that the nformation woodchips anust be removthout treatmcase of WBGeaning effec

ds from wood c

ant, this wastplemented, wpended onlyconomical’ a

wledgement oer than a boxere is no coswill show tharts on biomay Study is su

stated that isystem will we can find

nd biomass (aved from the

ment, it will bG, recirculatctiveness and

A

chip gasificatio

te water issuwaste water ry for water reas the waste

of this issue x called ‘Wast or energy aat gas cleani

ass gasificatiuspiciously a

it is a ‘closedproduce onlon WBG, thas stated in t

e gas. If the be like repeating waste wd clogging th

August 14, 2

on.iii

ue has stalledreclamation eclamation. water is sim

and we haveater Treatmenaccounting fing and coolion. That thealarming.

d system’ anly 1 gallon ohis is highly the Feasibiliwater used t

atedly using twater further he cooling a

2011

d is a In

mply

e no nt for ing ese

nd of

ity to the

and


August 14, 2011

10 of 11

cleaning equipment. If this is a new breakthrough gasification technology, then there must be data we can review and/or existing installations we can contact. It must also be a well-kept secret as even the latest information on WBG (see Downstream Gas Cleaning in Biomass Gasification: Status Report 2009, R.W.R. Zwart, Energy Research Center of the Netherlands) sees no simple answer for cleaning tars from the gas – or the waste water.

Local Air Pollution

From what we can learn, wood chip gasification produces CO and NOx emissions far in excess of equivalent diesel generators and there are no controls on what is released. Presently RBLC, according to the feasibility study, uses a 500kW Caterpillar D398 motor/generator to make electricity. Per the Study, the mill uses about 500 gallons of diesel fuel every week. While this is not ideal for the Spruce Corner community due to the noise, environmentally it is not overly burdensome. The chemistry of diesel fuel is government controlled (limits on carcinogens, etc.) and per Federal law, the motor must have a catalytic converter to remove CO and NOx.

This situation would dramatically change for the worse if RBLC is allowed to build the CHP plant:

- As described in the Feasibility Study, operation of Phase II would require 720 gallons of diesel fuel and 122 tons of wood chips be burned per week. Using a conversion factor between lbs. of wood chips and gallons of diesel fuel, this equates to over 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel being burned per week. This is 40 times more than is currently combusted.

- Importantly to emissions, catalytic converters cannot be used on motor/generators fueled by WBG gas. This is because the gas is not clean enough and has phosphorus and other compounds that contaminate the catalytic converter.v Without a catalytic converter, CO and NOx are released directly into the atmosphere.

- Even with expensive gas cleaning and filtering steps, the resulting gas is not 100% free of tars and dust and a portion of these toxic compounds slip through the ICE into the environment. Biomass Gasification plants can be smelled – because formaldehyde and other aromatic (and toxic!) tar compounds are in the air.v

- There is no control of the biomass material. Whatever gets mistakenly or otherwise put in the hopper is burned – and goes into the local atmosphere.

Concerns and Questions Related to the RBLC WBG Feasibility Study

A detailed look at the Feasibility Study raises a number of questions and concerns. While several of these are presented below, given the missing information and seeming errors


August 14, 2011

11 of 11

throughout the Study, it would be preferable to meet with Mr.’s Ross and Coler and go through the Study numbers with them.

In the Executive Summary, it is stated that the gasification technology is currently being commercially deployed in Italy and the Dominican Republic (assumed to be Koar Energy Resources). A thorough internet search could not produce any evidence of these or any other installations relating to Koar. There are vague press releases on a $30 million biomass gasification project in the Dominican Republic from 2008 but then no word. The reason for pursuing this information was to gain a better understanding of the down draft gasifier design planned, on the gas cleaning and cooling technology, and on how the waste water was handled. As stated above, there is no mention of gas cleaning or cooling steps in the Feasibility Study, let alone a description of the technology to be used. These are questions for Mr. Ross.

There appear to be errors in the Study numbers early on. If this is the case this will alter the efficiency and economics conclusions. These items need clarification:

- On page 6 of the Study RBLC produces 25 tons of dry wood chips per week. On page 21 this changes to 25-30 tons of fresh woodchips per day resulting in 12 tons of dry woodchips per day

- On page 16, the LHV (Lower Heating Value) for dry wood is given as 18 MBtu/ton. This value is used consistently through the Study in calculating the energy available in wood chips. The actual LHV should be 13 MBtu/ton (for wood chips with 20% moisture content per the literature). The Study actually comes close to this on page 17 (13.9 MBtu/ton) but doesn’t use this number in the calculations.

On page 25 the blend ratio of 95% woodchip producer gas to 5% diesel fuel is given with a reference to ‘thousands of hours of testing an IVECO diesel engine in Italy’. From all the references found, a blend ratio of 80% is typical with 90% being the absolute maximum. This extreme ICE efficiency needs to be confirmed. We’d like to get specific information and contacts for the referenced Italian plant.

Similarly, the Study’s estimate of wood chip-to-electricity conversion efficiency appears to be high. From several references (including the documents listed at the end) an optimistic conversion efficiency is 1 ton of dry (15-20% H20) wood chips to 750kW-hr electricity. When the 20% diesel fuel is added on to the woodchip energy the amount of electricity goes up toward 1MW-hr for the mix. If the study’s assumption, that it can produce 1,500kW-hr of electricity from 1 ton of wood chips is wrong, it changes the economics and other proposal conclusions. If Koar has operated these CHP units for ‘thousands of hours’ as is stated, they should have detailed performance data available.


August 14, 2011

12 of 11

It’s incorrect to say that biomass gasification can supply the ‘maximum load’ of the lumber mill (441kW as stated). Biomass gasification produces gas at atmospheric pressure and temperature. This is fed directly into an internal combustion engine (ICE) to generate electricity. There is no storage and therefore surges in demand cannot be met. It’s like having your foot on the gas pedal without being able to move it. Therefore, BG can only be applied to the idle load of RBLC and the feasibility study numbers must be radically changed.

The wood chip size and consistency is very important in down draft type gasifiers. This is recognized in by the Study on page 16. Then on page 20 it’s stated that ‘the most available biomass resource on the RBLC site is wood processing residue: bark, round-offs, end cuts, trimmings, sawdust, shavings and reject lumber’. As can be easily verified, this type of gasifier cannot be operated with this variety of biomass.

Questions and Concerns about WBG and the Projects’ Impact on Spruce Corner and the Swift River Valley by Local Residents

1. Why are we just finding out about this project now? Why has there been no attempt to communicate with local residents, those of us who would be directly affected by the plant, during the planning process?

2. What, exactly, is being proposed?

a. How large would the plant be? Where would it be located?

b. How loud would it be? What would be the hours of operation?

c. What regulations are in place to control and limit the amount of allowable noise from the operation of the plant?

d. How does the proposed plant work exactly? How is the electricity produced? Our understanding is that the cleaned gas is burned in a modified diesel generator, but that it is mixed with diesel fuel in the combustion process and not burned by itself. Is this accurate, and if so, how much diesel fuel will be burned on a daily basis in the operation of the plant?

e. How much wood would the plant consume in a day? Where would this wood come from? What would be the increase in daily truck traffic on Rt. 116?

f. If the wood fuel for the plant is to be sourced locally, will this result in an increase in the logging and cutting of our local forests?

g. If it is to be sourced outside the area, where will it be cut, and how much carbon will be released into the atmosphere as a result of its transport? Is this figured into the overall carbon budget for the plant?

h. If this wood is “green,” a considerable amount of the heat energy required for the gasification process will go into simply evaporating the water. How does this affect the energy in/energy out equation?


August 14, 2011

13 of 11

i. How much electricity would the plant produce? How much of this would be consumed by the plant itself and the lumber mill? How much would be fed back into the grid? What is the economic gain associated with this excess energy production?

3. Water. The gas produced by the “cooking” of the wood chips must be cleaned before it can be burned to remove harmful by-products of the gasification process, including known carcinogens such as benzene, toluene and xylene, poisonous phenol and ammonia.. The cleaning process is accomplished by bubbling the gas through water. The resulting wastewater must itself be treated and cleaned before it can be returned to the environment. The process requires large quantities of water.

a. How much water will be required to operate the plant on a daily basis?

b. Where will this water come from? How might it affect the Swift River and local water table?

c. How is the wastewater to be treated? How large an area will be required for the treatment part of the plant? Where and how will the treated water be reintroduced to the environment?

d. What regulations and oversight will be in place to monitor the quality of the treated water? Who will be responsible for insuring that the treated wastewater is safe?

e. What systems will be in place to monitor the groundwater around the plant for possible traces of contamination? How frequently will the monitoring be conducted? Who will be responsible for this monitoring? Who will they report their findings to? How will local residents be informed of the monitoring results?

f. Under worst case/disaster conditions, what provisions, systems, and/or safety mechanisms would be in place to prevent a spill or dumping of the contaminated water into the local watershed?

g. The Swift River empties into the Westfield River, which is designated as a Wild and Scenic River. What is the long-term potential for contamination of the watershed, and consequently of the Westfield?

h. Why is the wastewater treatment issue not addressed in the feasibility study?

4. Air Pollution:

a. What elements of the plant will produce waste gases (exhaust)? What will be the composition of these gases?

b. How much waste gas will be produced on a daily basis by the operation of the plant? How many pounds of the various constituent gases will be produced (carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfides, other gases)?

c. How much particulate matter will be released as a waste product of the combustion process?


August 14, 2011

14 of 11

d. What systems will be in place to monitor the composition of the exhaust fumes and insure that they are, in fact, safe?

e. If these exhaust fumes will contain low levels of dangerous chemical compounds, what are the federally designated “safe” levels of exposure to these chemicals?

f. What are the potential short- and long-term health risks associated with exposure to these chemical compounds?

g. It is often the case that children and older people are at greater risk for exposure to certain chemicals than healthy adults. Is that the case here? What studies have been conducted that would convince us that the long-term exposure levels would be safe for our children growing up in the vicinity of the plant?

h. Under worst-case weather conditions (still air, heavy humidity, thermal inversion, etc.), what is the potential build-up and concentration of these gases in the vicinity of the plant? What are the maximum levels and/or concentrations of these gases that have been measured around other biomass gasification plants?

5. Other concerns:

a. How would our property values be affected by the presence of the plant? Are there other communities where a biomass plant has been installed that could be referenced for data on the impact to property values?

b. Rt. 116 is a narrow, winding road that is frequently traveled by adults and children on bicycles and on horseback. What provisions will be made for insuring their safety in the presence of increased log truck traffic to the plant?

c. At first glance, this seems to be a “tragedy of the commons” scenario…a small group stands to gain (economically/materially) while the costs (both short and long-term) are born by the local community and eco-system surrounding the plant. In what ways do local residents and the Town of Ashfield as a whole stand to gain from the operation of the plant?

d. Who or what company is designing and building the plant? Where are they located? How long have they been in business? What is their track record with these plants? If they have designed and built other biomass plants, where are they located and what is their history/record of operation? What assurances do they give about the safety of operation of the plants? How do they back up these assurances?

e. Who could we talk to in communities where plants such as the one being proposed here have been installed? Can the company designing and building the plant provide us with references from other projects – business owners, local officials, and residents?

f. In the event of a spill or other contamination of the local environment, who would be responsible for the clean-up, and how would it be paid for? Will Roberts Brothers carry insurance against the possibility of environmental contamination? How much coverage will they carry? Does history suggest that this will be sufficient to cover the possible costs of a clean-up?


August 14, 2011

15 of 11

Additional References (also see the endnotes)

Passage from Biomass Gasifier “Tars”: Their Nature, Formation and Conversion, by T.A. Milne and R.J. Evans, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,1998

Passage from Downstream Gas Cleaning in Biomass Gasification: Status Report 2009, R.W.R. Zwart, Energy Research Center of the Netherlands

Toxicity of wastewater generated from gasification of woodchips, The Danish Energy Agency Follow-Up Program for Combined Heat and Power Production, J.nr.51166/01-0008, 2003

Guideline for Sampling and Analysis of Tars, Condensates and Particulates from Biomass Gasifiers, Dr. T Nussbaumer, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich

Advanced Biopower Technology Assessment, Prepared for the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources & Massachusetts Department of Conservation & Recreation, Prepared By: Black & Veatch, 11401 Lamar Ave. Overland Park, KS 66211

Here is a quote from the Massachusetts report:

The potentially significant increase in efficiency has made biomass IGCC attractive to many developers and governments. Unfortunately, biomass IGCC projects around the globe have struggled to reach commercialization:

• ARBRE, UK Project – The 8 MW ARBRE IGCC project located near Eggborough in the United Kingdom was designed to use a TPS atmospheric circulating fluidized bed gasifier. The project included gas clean-up and a 5 MW Typhoon gas turbine. The project was to be fueled with locally grown wood. The project, originally estimated to cost over $40 million, was declared bankrupt after failing to achieve commercial operation. It was recently bought for around $4 million. Future status is unclear.

• FERCO, Vermont Gasification Project – The Vermont biomass gasification project, developed by Battelle/DOE and Future Energy Resources Corporation (FERCO), was only partially more successful. The project was sized to gasify up to 200 tpd of wood chips. Although FERCO did announce some successful extended gasification trials, the project was never advanced to the

IGCC stage (the syngas had been cofired in the adjacent wood stoker boiler). FERCO declared bankruptcy in 2002 after investing $10 million of its own money into the project (in addition to more than $30 million U.S. government funds).

i Global Energy Collaborations, A Division of J.N.M. Inc.; 111 Frank E. Rodgers Bld.,South, Ste 205, HARRISON, NJ 07029 (USA) - Indian biomass gasification manufacturer. Product is an open top down draft gasifier similar to the type proposed for HBLC.


August 14, 2011

16 of 11

iiEvaluation of Gas Cleaning Technologies for Small Scale Biomass Gasifiers: Final Report; P. Hasler, R. Buehler and T Nussbaumer; Swiss Federal Office of Energy, 1997

- Good information on downdraft wood chip gasifier gas cleaning technology iii Guideline for safe and eco-friendly biomass gasification; Intelligent Energy – Europe (IEE); Biomass gasification – State of the art description; Authors: Friedrich Lettner, Helmut Timmerer, Peter Haselbacher; Graz University of Technology - Institute of Thermal Engineering; Inffeldgasse 25B, 8010 Graz, Austria; December 2007

- Good overall reference on gasification systems iv Wood Gas as Engine Fuel; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, 1986

- Quote from article: “Waste water and ashes (1000 l and 19 kg a day) are discharged downhill to a remote swamp” referring to a small, 40kW generator in Paraguay for a lumber mill. Note that 250 gallons of waste water are generated per day for only 40kW of electricity. In the RBLC proposal, 1,500kW will be generated requiring far more water.

v Proceedings of the International Workshop: Health, Safety and Environment of Biomass Gasification, September 28, 2005, Innsbruck, Austria

research, questions and concerns about woodchip biomass ... · merits of rblc’s proposal,...

Documents