[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SG-W:/ Dexter Power Plant?!



I can think of three possible environmental impacts.

1)  The loss of so much water from the Huron River might create environmental
impacts.  I don't know if the amount that would be evaporated would materially
affect water flow levels downstream of the Ann Arbor treatment plant, but it
might be worth examining.

2)  The production of NOx from the power plant, though perhaps lower than from
a coal-fired plant, would still contribute to higher ozone and particulate levels
downwind -- i.e., in the Detroit area, which is likely to be classified in nonattainment
under the new NAAQS.  EPA's new source review and prevention of significant
deterioration regulations might come into play, or be triggered by citizen complaints.


3)  The construction of the pipeline might create wetlands, drainage, or land
use problems.

HAving said that, I'd take this new plant if we could guarantee that an older
coal-fired unit would be retired earlier as a result -- on a regional/global
basis, the new plant is better from every standpoint.  Of course, local esthetic,
traffic, health & safety, and land use/sprawl concerns would still exist and
be valid.

  - Mike Sklar
>>Yesterday Isaac Elnecave, MEC's Air Quality specialist, met with a planning

>>group that is preparing to build a natural gas power plant in Dexter Twp on

>>a "non productive" farm.  The plant would use forty acres of the 100-some

>>acre parcel allowing the remainder to be used as wetland mitigation land or

>>parkland for the community. The project would, of course, include a couple

>>200 foot smokestacks.  Has anyone been involved in the planning of this
>>project?  What's the word?!  What in the world?!  What about using a
>>brownfield instead of a greenfield?
>>Conan Smith
>>Land Programs Director
>>Michigan Environmental Council
>>119 Pere Marquette, Suite 2A
>>Lansing, MI  48912
>>p. (517) 487-9539
>>f. (517) 487-9541
>>www.mienv.org
>>conanmec@voyager.net
>
>I attended that meeting as did Barry Lonik of Washtenaw-Potawatomi Land 
>Trust, Jeff Geerhart of the Ecology Center, David Wright of the Sierra 
>Club, and Eric Campbell(?) of the Huron River Watershed Council, as well 
>as representative John Hansen, among others. The purpose of the meeting 
>was to introduce the environmental community to the process and get their 

>feedback on the proposal. Part of the presentation was how the project 
>will meet the Sierra Club's published siting guidelines for such 
>facilities.
>
>As for who is in on the planning of this project, Panda Energy, the 
>electric power supplier company proposing this facility, has an option on 

>the land. Beyond that, not much more than the necessary background work 
>as part of the site selection/feasibility process has been done. They've 
>communicated with Washtenaw Development Council and the Ann Arbor 
>wastewater treatment facility, at the least. (The proposal includes a 
>plan to pipe treated effluent water from the AA facility to the power 
>plant (20 miles), where it will be used for cooling. Approximately 6.5 
>million gallons a day will be sent, 5 million gallons of which will be 
>evaporated in the cooling process, leaving 1-1.5 million gallons or so to 

>return to the wastewater facility for full treatment.)
>
>I didn't take notes on the size of the exhaust stacks, but I think their 
>height was projected to be closer to 145 feet. There would also be 
>four(?) cooling towers that would emit steam. My notes say the site is 
>110 acres and the plant footprint would be about 30 acres, leaving about 
>80 acres of open space, much of which (I'd guess 40% from the site map) 
>is wetlands, which could be expanded with the removal of the drain tiles.
>
>The plant itself is a cookie-cutter, 1000 mega-Watt, natural gas-fired, 
>combined cycle power plant (very efficient and very clean compared to a 
>coal plant) that would provide electricity primarily to southeastern 
>Michigan. Estimated time of completion would be fall of 2003, assuming it 

>is approved and there are no delays in the process.
>
>Jeff raised the same question of greenfield vs. brownfield siting. A 
>Panda Energy employee and one of their consultants (from Environmental 
>Technology Services, or something like that, of Brighton) responded that 
>the location was chosen primarily for its proximity to an electricity 
>substation. This site would also preclude the addition of transmission 
>infrastructure, which is very difficult.
>
>This is not a done deal, although in many ways it makes sense and I don't 

>expect it to be stopped. What might stop it? NIMBYism for one, and I 
>don't use that term lightly. But in this case if people just don't want a 

>power plant nearby, I think that would qualify as hypocritical.
>
>Ecological concerns are another possibility. If threatened or endangered 
>species are found on the site, or if the modification or filling of 
>wetlands is proposed. I don't think this is too likely (Barry may have a 
>better perspective than I do though.)
>
>Otherwise, I think the state, or at least our corner of it, would have to 

>make some kind of commitment to a combination of improved energy 
>efficiency and installation of renewable sources of electricity to the 
>extent that we could say that this plant is unnecessary. Not impossible, 
>but the state will not take even the smallest step in this direction as 
>long as Engler is governor. I have other thoughts on alternatives, but 
>I'll leave it at that for now.
>
>Some interesting economic tidbits: The project would get a 50% tax 
>abatement from the state for 12 years and would bring in $3 million in 
>annual tax revenues to the state, township and school district. I don't 
>know how that would be divied up. The projected life of the plant is 30+ 
>years.
>
>On the bright side, Panda is opening up the process to public fairly 
>early on, so we have an opportunity to tell them what we want and expect 
>from them as a community member. That's something we should take full 
>advantage of if the proposal goes through. I'll share my thoughts on that 

>later too.
>
>I do have some concerns about this project in the long term and will be 
>asking more questions about it.
>
>Steve
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Steve Bean
>sbean@berginc.com
>
>www.votenader.org
>www.billionairesforbushorgore.com
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
>sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw

>County.
>
>Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
>email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info

>smartgrowth-washtenaw"
>===============================================================
>
>
--
http://www.provide.net


===============================================================
smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
County.

Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
smartgrowth-washtenaw"
===============================================================