Re: Power Plants--More or less -- Dracut Information Resource Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09:20:22 05/19/01 Sat
Author: Celeste
Subject: Re: Power Plants--More or less
In reply to: Roberto D. 's message, "Power Plants--More or less" on 22:58:33 05/18/01 Fri

Roberto,

I agree that power plants are important to build, particularly cleaner gas-fired plants - and that the older ones should either be removed or be retrofitted, which many of them are and will be. Good to hear an honest answer about living near the plant. In Seabrook, the plant is part of the larger landscape and can be seen by many homes. It is pollution I worry about here in Dracut and the Merrimack Valley.

It is just that I believe they should be built in areas that are not already so polluted as this area is (one of the top in the country). We can still benefit from the power produced if the plant is sited elsewhere in MA.

Nickel Hill had other options and chose this one because it was the easiest and cheapest for them.

It is clearly to the negotiating advantage of the power industry to have people nervous and over a barrel. This should not stop us from forcing the right decisions.

Having said that, let me add another point about the plant itself:

IF THIS PLANT WAS TO GO THROUGH, we should be insisting that they must use the best technology available (SCONOx) that will eliminate ammonia (transport and emissions) as well as the particulate matter from the stacks. Both of these are very harmful to people.

SCONOx was not felt to be feasible in 1999 when the Special Permit was granted, but we are in 2001 and the plant has not even completed the permitting process in Boston. SCONOx technology has become a far more viable option and is being planned for plants elsewhere in the country. But at this point it should be required technology for a plant that would not even come on line until at least 2003.

(We have the best location, let's insist on the best technology to protect the people).

I am hoping that the Boston agencies will force this new technology and that they will not be emotionally responding to the current environment. We all know how quickly new technology is adopted and we know that it has to start somewhere. If every company is waiting for the other to do it, it will never happen. But in this highly polluted area, it must.

The Special Permit does address Nickel Hill using new technology, and I will type in the exact words for those who might want to read it directly. But let me point out the two major issues I have with it: (again, correct me if I am wrong)

1. Nickel Hill does not have to address new technology until 2 years after the plant begins operation. So that is now in the year 2005 to be addressed, and then they would not have had to implement it until two years later in 2007.

But worse...
2. If the TOTAL cost of the new technology exceeds $1M, they are not required to implement it. This is approximately a $300 million dollar (cost to construct) facility (using cost estimates provided by a NH town building a similar 720 Megawatt plant). Of course it will cost more than $1M to retrofit. It could be a substantial change and not consistent with the current water cooled design. We shouldn't be looking at a retrofit, it should be designed in as part of the initial plan - again, because we are in 2001.

And the Special Permit does not address changes in technology that could occur between the date of the Special Permit (1999) and the start/completion of construction estimate: late 2001/late 2003).

I do not want this plant in the Merrimack Valley, but if it does happen, at least let us make sure we are making them use the best technology. Let's not sell ourselves short here.

Celeste

For those who might want the specifics:

From the Special Permit granted to Nickel Hill by the Town of Dracut, December 7, 1999.

I. Decision
IV. Conditions Pertaining to Air and Noise Impacts
E. At least once every two years during the first 15 years following commencement of commercial operation of the facility, Nickel HIll shall prepare and submit to the Board of Slectmen a report evaluating the availability of alternative technologies designed to reduce or eliminate the use of ammonia in the operation of the facility. If any such report reasonable deomonstrates that any such alterntive technology is COMPATIBLE WITH THE FACILITY, Nickel Hill shall promptly arrange for the purchase and delivery of such alternative technology to the site, and shall install such alternative technology at the facility during the first planned major maintenance shutdown of the facility following delivery of the alternative technology to the site, but in NO CASE LATER THAN TWO YEARS AFTER SUCH DELIVERY. For the purpose of this condition, a partiular alternative technology shall be considered compatible wiht the facility if:

1. The alternative technology is commercially available for turbines of 250 mw or larger;

2. The alternative technology allows the facility to satisfy all of the requirements of this Special Permit, as well as all other enforceable emission limits, performance standards, and terms and conditions of all permits or approvals applicable to the facility;

3. The alternative technology is available for purchase and installation in accordance with Nickel Hill's planned and major maintenance shutdown schedule;

4. The alternative technology is guaranteed to achieve levels of reliability and availability and performance standards that are equivalent to or better than the levels guaranteed for the technology installed at the facility at the time of submission of the report to the Board of Selectmen; and

5. The net present value, as of the date of submission of the report to the Board of Selectment, as the operating costs of the facility with the alternative technology, including the acquisition and installation costs of the alternative technology, does not exceed, by more than $1 million, the net present value of the operating costs of the facility without the alternative technology, including the cost of ammonia purchase, transportation and storage. Such net present value shall be measured over ten years at a discount rate of ten percent.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Power Plants--More or less -- The Fox, 11:26:24 05/20/01 Sun
- Re: Power Plants--More or less -- Celeste, 13:15:45 05/22/01 Tue