As to Mr. Wilkes’ reply to my concerns about the proposed biomass project in the July 21 letters to the editor, I reiterate that I simply urged a cautious approach to so much municipal borrowing including showing the potential differences between a city-based versus county-based debt.
His urgings before the county and PUC board to have them adopt the biomass project as their own made such a comparison valid and his request for endorsement of his “work still in progress” rather premature.
As to my supposed errors, a bit more study of his own commissioned Phase One Study shows on Table 5.4, pg. 25 a 106% Loss of Investment over 20 years amounting to $22,056,000.
This is for a district wide pellet system, the obvious default, since the hog fuel scenario of that study is fatally flawed. Per table footnotes, this loss is above and beyond energy cost savings. To make the “levelized cost of energy” palatably low, the plant is to operate unsustainably to over one million dollars per year. No matter the fiscal permutations, ultimately such losses will become the greater communities’.
As to pollutants, Table 6.2, pg 32 under “total emissions” shows a comparative rate of 25 to 40 tons yearly for district wide biomass compared to 0.1544 tons for oil and 0.0435 tons for propane.
As to the environmental benefit of biomass over oil and propane carbon. The environment and its carbon cycle is wholly indifferent as to rates of carbon recovery. Only man debates the distinction in anthropocentric musings.
And umbrage over “starry-eyed”? Turning to page “viii” the study openly admits that its “comparisons do not capture … the drawbacks of biomass.” A one-sided offering does not a study make. “Starry eyed” was as “Minnesota nice” as I could muster.
The information in my original letter as well as here comes from the original source study noted above rather than the euphoric and often contrary spin in the air and print.
Vilnis Neilands
Grand Marais
Leave a Reply