Community Energy System Hot Button at City Hall

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 04:29 AM

Prince George, B.C. - Prince George City Council is feeling the heat over its plan to build a community energy system.

Opposition is growing throughout the city to the planned facility which would use wood waste to create heat that would be piped into some civic buildings.

The problem is there will be 1 tonne of emissions, including pm2.5, which is linked with health effects.

Councilor Deborah Munoz notified her Council Colleagues she would be introducing a notice of motion to remove the community energy system from the downtown area, and to open the doors to public consultation to see what might be the best type of system for the city (see previous story)

The issue has become so heated, that Councilor Sethen wanted an update on the community energy system " I believe there is some confusion in the community about what the next steps are if we move forward with this."

General Manager of Development Services and Operations, Bob Radloff, says a communication package is being developed to bring the community up to date on the process. "It will spell out in detail, our next steps, and our next step is an environmental assessment. That assessment for this project would involve a considerable amount of public consultation. This proposed project would involve a significant amount of community consultation and would be brought back to Council for their consideration on the project whether it would proceed."

Radloff says the information package will also outline the reasons for the project, describe the pollution control equipment and operational assumptions for this equipment, it will also explain the environmental assessment process and how the community can be involved. The enviorinmental assessment process itself says Radloff, will involve a detailed modelling of the emissions from the plant "In that sense it will give us an idea of the inputs to both the region and the neighbourhood and it will also help us in asessing the exact improvements that will result from the proposed offsets from this project, both in the region and in the neighbourhood proper."

Radloff says the information package will also have information on other alternate energy sources being explored by the city, like purchasing heat from other sources, like geo thermal , Radloff says there will also be some information on "new opportunities for offsets" being explored with the Ministry of the environment.

Radloff says all the offsets will all be new, incremental, and likely all in the downtown area. "So we want to emphasize the project still requires significant scientific information before Council can be asked to consider it further."

The "offsets" all require resident and business "buy in" as they involve replacing old woodstoves with new more efficient models, and convincing some industries in downtown Prince George, to stop burning waste oil.

Radloff says the City is prepared to make those offsets real, "Sometimes you have to put more financially into it, now the Community energy system gives us the resources to do that."

Radloff says they are looking closely at trying to get those businesses that burn waste oil to come on board, as that would make the biggest improvement in the downtown air "I think our prefered method is to use cooperation as opposed to using legislation, having said that, we have to make improvements for this to be sellable in the community, and we’re prepared to do that as well."

Radloff says the City is looking at reviewing its clean air bylaw and that is one area of potential legislation that could be used "I’m not saying it will be, our preference is to get cooperation."

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 04:29 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: guinnessguy on March 18 2008 6:18 AM

thank you Deborah Munoz...there`s at least one voice of reason on the council. Maybe it`s not too late to stop this thing yet.

Posted by: Foo738 on March 18 2008 6:46 AM

If it is like the consultations with the public the City had with residents re. the Cameron Street Bridge location it is a waste ot time as the City had already made up its' mind as to the location. Consultations with the public are futile as this Council is not transparent.

Posted by: red2b on March 18 2008 7:22 AM

What a wicked web they weave

Posted by: diplomat on March 18 2008 7:29 AM

Deborah Munoz - finally a councillor with the guts to speak out on this!

All of Radloff's talk indicates that as far as the city is concerned it is a done deal! The public just needs to be more brainwashed (educated) about how offsets will cancel out the additional new emissions.

The public is stupid. But smart enough to know that all the offsets should be done promptly regardless of whether the new wood burner comes into existence or not.

Radloff:...we have to make improvements for this to be sellable in the community, and we�re prepared to do that as well."

I am not buying, no matter how you spin this thing to make it more palatable.

Posted by: Gampy on March 18 2008 7:40 AM

If I'm reading this correctly, Radloff is basically making a threat by saying he'd rather cooperation instead of legislation. If us taxpayers don't cooperate, whether we want this to go or not, he's going to legislate it into process? Nice.

Posted by: giterdun on March 18 2008 7:47 AM

My hat off to Deborah.. I didnt vote for her last time but I will if she runs next time. We need more councillors who are not afraid to get up and speak the will of the people. 'TO THE CITY BEAUROCRATES'....WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THIS BIO MESS IN OUR DOWNTOWN, PERIOD. GET THE MESSAGE!! SAVE THE TAXPAYERS MONEY AND GIVE IT UP.

Posted by: owl on March 18 2008 8:12 AM

Why is it taking this long for them to assemble a so called informtion package? They have been pursuing this for years and, I believe, have received money in the past in order to do so.

The are pushing this thing presumably because they know what buildings will be involved on the receiving end of the heat, where the plant will be built, including alternate locations, the emissions, the reduced emissions elsewhere, the costs, the savings and payback period, the recourse if people do not voluntarily participate, etc. etc.

If they don't, the thing is half baked. If it is half baked, the message they should have been sending out so far is that they are exploring a possible project. That is not the message they have been sending.

Posted by: metalman on March 18 2008 8:14 AM

Offsets my A$$, what a load of crap these politicians have swallowed. A tonne of microscopic particulate to be added to our air? in this enlightened era? are they stupid? It should be the opposite, they should be taking a tonne out! They cannot see that by their actions they are committing to make our air quality worsen.
At least they are apparently going to attempt to inform us (sell us on the idea?) I for one am looking forward to discovering what the plans are for pollution control. As I have stated before, there are ways (I believe) to eliminate airborne particulate by means of a wet scrubber, why not consider that?
metalman.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on March 18 2008 8:35 AM

Crazy!....why does council seem to want this so badly that they appear to be willing to go against public opinion and pound it through?
Even to the point of a veiled threats by city employees to get this project done?
Only one councillor is willing to buck the trend?
This is an example of all that is wrong with politics and politicians in general.
They just aren't listening anymore!

Posted by: heidi1555 on March 18 2008 9:05 AM

Looks like they are trying to create a ghost town.

Posted by: owl on March 18 2008 9:19 AM

Metalman ..... with today's technology srubbers will not be able to remove all particulates that size. With the figure they are using, they are already using a hihg end scrubber.

Posted by: owl on March 18 2008 9:29 AM

BTW, the other thing one must consider is that such "scrubbing" is very much dependant on the technology. If the technology breaks down, the choice is to go to a secondary fuel, or to keep on with the burning of biomass and throw the increased particulates inot the air.

The assumption is that on occasion there will be addtional particulates going into the air. The tonnage is a total for the year. At any one particular time there may be more or less.

In fact, we have not been told yet how much would be going into the air on a seasonal basis. I would assume that the amount going into the air on a cold January day would be considerably more than on a warm July day.

The other thing that the city should be doing right now is to set up monitoring stations at the sensitive receptor areas such as the school and two or so other locations so that they get a baseline report on the current situation. They should be using that information for their modeling. Otherwise the best they can do is pick up rooftop information from Plaza 400 which is not adequate since it is too far away and too high.

If they should ever go ahead with a plant, the actual impact of the plant needs to be measured against a current baseline so that one knows what the impact of the plant is. Without that, they will keep using models which really are not the real world. These models have to be "ground-truthed" which they rarely ever are. So, the whole science is more virtual than real. By the time it become a real exercise, it is too late.

Posted by: diplomat on March 18 2008 9:51 AM

Since we ALL breathe the same air we should ALL have a say in whether this thing will go ahead or not!

I strongly suggest that this should be decided by public referendum in November when the next municipal elections take place!

Anything less than that is very undemocratic and disrepectful, in my humble opinion!

Or are the deciders at the City afraid of the will of the people???

Posted by: Bridge on March 18 2008 10:09 AM

Way to go Munoz. Please go one step further and have them scrap the project. We already have heating systems so why go through the expense of building another.

What ever happened to free enterprise. If this project were viable why would someone using their own funds do this bio-energy plant.

Here is Munoz email so do't forget to drop here a line and encourage and support her in her effoprt to listen to us. deboramunoz@shaw.ca

Posted by: charles on March 18 2008 10:09 AM

It would be interesting to do a lung function test on a number of long time Prince George bowl residents (who are non-smokers and work in a reasonably clean environment) and see how our results stack up against a Canada wide average for the same class of people.

If PACHA ever decides to do something like this, I would be willing to contribute to a fund which would help pay for it.

Posted by: Denial on March 18 2008 10:29 AM

The people will be heard! Upon hearing news of this plant my first inclination was "I'm moving out of PG". I consider this Prince George's last chance to maintain me and my family as residents. We, the Prince George citizens will fight this abomination and slap-in-the-face to our last "breath"! Should the propoganda (information package) prevail and construction go under way, I will be there with bells on until I am removed. Dont' be afraid to take action!

Posted by: Arthur Williams on March 18 2008 10:49 AM

Elaine, you kind of spin-doctored this one. It wasn't really a very heated discussion. You couldn't warm up a cup of tea with the debate they had.

The real fireworks will be next council meeting. Cheers,

Arthur.

Posted by: Harbinger on March 18 2008 11:14 AM

Debbie against this project because of the air, or her chances of being re-elected? Maybe she is the only one at city hall to see the correlation at this time?

Posted by: Andyfreeze on March 18 2008 12:45 PM

I agree with diplomat...a referendum would be the only FAIR way to deal with this project.
But somehow,I don't think FAIR has anything to do with it!

Posted by: owl on March 18 2008 12:53 PM

"Debbie against this project because of the air, or her chances of being re-elected?"

Why not both?

If this goes in as an election issue ... see the waffling of some of the Councillors who will, with every word out ofd their mouth, not be saying anything other than something which can be taken two or more ways. It will make Dan Rogers look like the most decisive person in the community.

This can easily become another Cadillac-Fairview election. Those for the plant will be minus a seat, those against will get a seat. They all know it too since most have been around for that one.

Who has the courage of their convictions? Munoz is out of the starting gate early and has displayed that she has.

Posted by: heidi1555 on March 18 2008 1:56 PM

I just got back from walk with the kids. We went to Cottonwood Park and took pics. of all the wood caught up on the ices edge and in the ice further back...Maybe Ms. Munoz can fight for a proper clean up of this area as well. Spring cleanup. Give her all the tough jobs so maybe hopefully we can have a better P.G.

:)

Posted by: metalman on March 18 2008 3:06 PM

Owl, are you assuming that they are using a dry scrubber? Or do you know what they propose to use? The whole idea behind 'wet' scrubbers is that the fumes/smoke/particulate must pass through a liquid medium, as simple as plain old H2O before being released to atmosphere.
This virtually eliminates airborne particles, as anything remotely solid in the flue gas is subjected to a soaking before it can escape. I am not claiming that this is THE solution, only putting it forth for discussion. Such systems are expensive to procure, install, and maintain, but if we cannot afford to do this properly, we should not be doing it at all. Our health is at stake.
metalman.

Posted by: citizen1 on March 18 2008 3:24 PM

I've noticed that there is not one comment in support of adding one more tonne to our downtown air. To me, this spells that the citizens of Prince George do not want this thing in the bowl. Period. Thank you councillor Munoz for recognizing this.

Some other questions on this proposed plant that need to be answered in the City's information package:
- what does the 1 tonne of emissions inclued? PM2.5, PM10, VOC's all must be part of the emissions, not just one or another
- does the proposal require there be continuous stack monitoring to ensure emissions are accurately known?
- the proposal calls for an ESP. Does it call for a scrubber to remove VOC's? If so, how will the creosote be dealt with? How will the waste water be dealt with?
- the ash that remains in the burner is very fine. City estimates between 200 and 300 tonnes of ash per year will have to be trucked away. Even with enclosed facility, how would they propose to control ash dust from trucks in the area?
- how would the City propose to control dust/airborne particles from the fuel being brought into the site?
- how does the installation of natural gas fired boilers for peak demand affect the overall cost and does this not just contribute to the green house gas problem? Has this been factored into the ghg reduction figure provided?
- the stack height currently being modelled by the city is between 20m and 30m. That is between 65ft and 100ft in height. This will make a great postcard backdrop for the city as it will be seen from anywhere in the viscinity
- in the winter, the postcard would look even prettier with white plumes coming out in cold weather. Just what I want to send to my family on a Christmas Card!
- what sort of continuous noise/drone can the children of the neighboring school/daycare/residents expect from the stack?
- these systems have complex controls and cannot simply change from one type of fuel (say, beetle kill) to another (say aspen or pellets) on a dime without affecting emissions due to moisture content fluctuations. How does 1 tonne of emissions stand up to a variety of different fuel types, including resident's own backyard wood waste that the city is soliciting to reduce backyard burning? Sounds like a pipe dream to keep emissions down to me.
- what alternatives are being evaluated? I would completely support geothermal heating of civic buildings - no emissions, no land site requirement, no staffing (better for taxpayers). A number of buildings in town are heater via geothermal and have great results. Ground conditions are ideal. Ft St James has their civic buidings on geothermal, why can't we? This would create a win win - the city would achieve ghg reductions they are looking for, taxpayers would save $$ in the long run and we would be able to avoid one more tonne of fine particulate into the bowl.

The 3 tonnes of offset should be done regardless of this plant and that is where city council has the opportunity to start showing some real leadership, starting with Councillor Munoz.

I look forward to the City's info package addressing some of the real concerns identified above.

Posted by: Old Hippy on March 18 2008 4:01 PM

Hey, i just had a revelation. Maybe we could "mitigate" the "offset" if we all bought into the "spin package" that's taking a while to write up and release.

Posted by: Jack on March 18 2008 4:07 PM

Bob Radloff, Director of Development Services
Job: Plan and sell projects to council

(wife) Jane Radloff, Deputy City Clerk
Job1: Freedom of Information/Protection of Privacy
Job2:Election Process

Comments?

Posted by: owl on March 18 2008 5:59 PM

Metalman ...

Other than knowing that 1 tonne/annum of PM2.5 emissions from a plant like that means that they would be using a Best Available Technology system, I do not know which they are proposing to use. ESP? Wet scrubber?

Here is some technical literature on one: http://www.mikropul.com/products/pdf_files/wetscrubbers.pdf

Wet scrubbers are not 100% efficient. The smaller the particles and the lower the pressure drop, the less the efficiency. Look at the graph on page 7.

So, if you look at the graph and the plant puts out 1 tonne of PM2.5 using a pressure drop of 1.2 to 1.5 kPa the input into the scrubber would be about 8 tonnes.

What the actual numbers are, I have not the faintest clue. All I know is that the efficiency is not 100%, that 1 tonne per year is a very low output and that the scrubbers do break down.

Posted by: owl on March 18 2008 6:00 PM

BTW, the particles would be passed through a mist, not a liquid bath.

Posted by: metalman on March 18 2008 6:16 PM

Owl sir, you are of course correct.
Wet scrubbers are not 100% efficient.
In my humble opinion the wet COULD be more efficient than the electrostatic precipitator, however, I may be incorrect. It is true that the flue gas would be passed through a mist of (water?) droplets, and it is inevitable that there will be some particles that escape a drenching. Either method requires fairly constant maintenance, are the powers factoring these operating costs in?
We are at this point speculating until the politicos share their plans with us.
I look forward to seeing and learning what is actually being planned for this operation.
metalman.

Posted by: Chester on March 18 2008 6:35 PM

HOw many of the posters above either attended the city council meeting, or watched it on Cable 10?

My comments follow Arther Williams, what heated debate. There wasn't any. So, what's up with all of the criticism?

Seems to me that due process is working and council is asking for and Bob Radloff is providing public consultation and input before anything is decided.

To, get involved and provide your input and consultation. Then provide your negative comments. Chester

Posted by: pgproud on March 18 2008 8:57 PM

Why is it taking so long for the information package to be available? What is the mechanism for public consultation? For those people who are informed about this issue there are big questions about the misleading idea that there will be an environmental assessment... what exactly does this entail? The project as it stands seems to be exempt from several regulations so that does not offer a sense of security. Is there anything to the rumour that the pipes have already been installed by the city?

Posted by: Palopu on March 18 2008 9:59 PM

This project doesnt deserve being debated. It is a stupid project from the ** get go** and is all about spending the 7 or 8 million dollars from other levels of Government. The reason it is not being built outside the City to generate electricity is because if it was the City would get no money to spend, and would quickly lose interest in the project.

This is about spending money and giving out contracts and has little if anything to do with heating buildings that already have Hydro or Natural Gas or both.

The City knows that after it is built there will be huge maintenance, and labour costs, however most taxpayers 20 years from now wont have a clue.

Colin Kinsley (Daddy Warbucks using tax dollars) is the big push behind this project, and would love to get it off the ground before the next election. Is he leaving Municipal Politics? I certainly hope so.

BOTTOM LINE; KILL THE PROJECT.

Posted by: metalman on March 19 2008 8:18 AM

Good point Chester! how many of us were at the last council meeting? Hm. I was'nt. I think I will read the paper and try to be at the next meeting where this topic is on the agenda. Anybody else?
metalman.

Posted by: TaxpayerPG on March 19 2008 9:14 AM

Good call Metalman. We should all be there for the next meeting - Councillor Munoz has filed a Notice of Motion to disallow this type of plant from the M4 zoning, and council will have to vote on this, so the more people who show up, the more they will realize that this is a hot issue, largely due to the lack of transparency by the City.

Regarding the technicals for this proposed project, the city's consultant has proposed a dry ESP system. They are looking at a scrubber but are looking at the associated creosote issue from condensing the VOC's and their related impact. After all ESP's, scrubbing etc, the City-stated emissions are 1 tonne of PM2.5. This is under ideal conditions, consistent fuel supply and does not include PM10 or VOC's. The total particulate release is more than 1 tonne, and that is after all emissions controls.

I too want to know when any city info package would be coming out. I do know that we surely don't need even another tonne let alone the additional tons that this will put out in the bowl. And that is just phase 1.....

Posted by: metalman on March 19 2008 12:35 PM

Thanks, taxpayerpg. So the emissions i.e. particulate could be even worse then, say if moisture levels fluctuate, which they of course will. Others have proposed geothermal as an alternative heat source, that is definitely a viable option. The technology is proven, examples abound,
this part of the world is quite ideal for ground source, hell, I'm convinced!
metalman.

Posted by: thereasonableman on March 20 2008 11:24 PM

Is this thing still alive ?? And why ??

Posted by: TaxpayerPG on March 20 2008 11:25 PM

Good call metalman. The city could buy a lot of geothermal for $8.3M. There would be zero emissions, no staffing, no land requirement, no massive smoke stack/eyesore. There are many buildings in town on geothermal, and the ground is ideal for it. The town of Ft St James heats a few of their civic buildings this way, why can't we? And it would achieve the ghg reductions that the city is after. Win-win.

Alternatively, the pulpmills are only a couple km's away. A 6" insulated line for either hot water or steam would provide the same end result with no new emissions, no truck traffic and for way less $$ than this rediculous biomass plant.

The City needs to get off of their one track mind and take an honest look at some alternatives - I guarantee there are better solutions out there for less tax money and less pollution.