GWF Energy wants to replace this part-time power plant with one that runs all the time. Press file photo
Based on a report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GWF Energy, LLC — the company that owns the peaker plant — needs to figure out how to get its plans in line with the Clean Air Act before it begins construction.
The peaker plant, which lies southwest of Tracy by a biomass plant and a glass factory, has spewed a couple tons a year of nitrogen oxide into the air since it opened in 2003. If it doubles in size to a consummate power plant, as proposed, it would release about 90 tons of the gas, according an estimate by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
GWF Energy applied through the California Energy Commission in summer last year to increase the plant’s energy output from 169 to 314 megawatts by capturing steam to power a new turbine. With the addition of a second turbine, the company plans to up the number of hours the plant runs from about 200 or 300 a year to as many as 5,000.
The plant is already permitted by the state to fire up for as many as 8,000 hours annually. After expansion, it would run cleaner but run much more often, according to the company.
State energy regulators last fall began a yearlong review of the expansion plans, but recent criticism from federal regulators, planned housing development Tracy Hills and longtime Tracy landowners, the Tuso family, has slowed progress. Regulators said they expect the 12-month review to turn into one that lasts at least 18 months.
The Tusos and Tracy Hills worry about the visual impact of a bigger power plant, according to letters sent to state regulators. Expansion plans call to heighten the plant’s 110-foot towers to 140 feet — something the Tusos and Tracy Hills strongly oppose.
Tracy Hills suggested GWF Energy be required to plant tall trees around the plant after expansion to make it easier on the eyes.
The Tusos said through an attorney that they already had a tough time accepting a peaker plant as a neighbor under the assumption that it would last only through 2033 as they said it was originally advertised.
New plans to make it permanent and expand its size and use threaten the family’s “quiet enjoyment” of their 225 acres of adjacent agricultural land, says a statement the family filed with the state in October.
The Tuso family asked the company in its letter to demonstrate why the plant needs to be expanded in the first place and whether the company built the peaker plant only to “get its foot in the door,” while all along intending to build a full-sized power plant.
GWF Energy spokesman Riley Jones said that last assertion is untrue and that the company only applied for a permit to expand to keep up with the public’s energy demand.
Riley said there should be a public hearing in Tracy sometime in August. The latest documents related to the plant’s expansion are available at www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/tracyexpansion/documents/index.
•Contact a Tracy Press reporter or editor at 835-3030 or tpnews@tracypress.com.
http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sjvalley/index.html
San Joaquin Valley OzoneRecent actions
June 2009: Proposed approval and partial disapproval of San Joaquin Valley's 2004 extreme area plan to attain the 1-hour ozone standard.
Proposed approval and partial disapproval of San Joaquin Valley’s 2004 extreme area plan to attain the 1-hour ozone standard
On June 30, 2009, EPA’s Regional Administrator signed a proposal to approve in part and disapprove in part the San Joaquin Valley’s 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. The plan, prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, shows that the area will have in place the controls necessary to meet the 1-hour ozone standard by the area’s Clean Air Act deadline of 2010. EPA is proposing to approve the plan as meeting the Clean Air Act’s requirements for rate of progress, control measures, and rate of progress contingency measures. EPA is proposing to disapprove the plan as not meeting the Clean Air Act’s requirement for attainment contingency measures.
EPA will be accepting comments on the proposed approval for 30 days following the publication of the proposal in the Federal Register.
The following documents summarize the action.
Fact Sheet (PDF) (4 pp, 36K)
Federal Register notice (PDF) (72 pp, 203K) (Disclaimer: This is the signed version of the notice. The version published in the Federal Register is the official version and may vary slightly from the signed version.)
Contact
Frances Wicher (wicher.frances@epa.gov)
Office of Air Planning, EPA Region 9
(415) 972-3957
The two biggest air problems in our area are the Livestock and the coccodioides immitis fungus that was first discovered here in the central valley and causes valley fever. I personally know of 3 people who have gotten it and one of them (a young child) had debilitating effects from it.
Before you guys run around screaming the sky is falling does anyone know how far below the air quality index we are. Based on some of the comments I'd have to guess. Probably not.
Corrections below:
Major sources of nitrogen oxides include:
-LIVESTOCK, decaying plants and ferterlizer.
-Automobiles.
-Fuel combustion in power plants.
-Processes used in chemical plants.
Manteca has been growing and has lots of cool stuff. I heard that they even got approval for a Trader Joes!!!! Dagnabit!!
And this is where they wanted to put our kids to play?
Major sources of nitrogen oxides include:
Fuel combustion in power plants and automobiles.
Processes used in chemical plants.
Health Effects:
Certain members of this group of pollutants, especially nitrogen dioxide (NO2), are known to be highly toxic to various animals as well as to humans. High levels may be fatal, while lower levels affect the delicate structure of lung tissue. In experimental animals this leads to a lung disease that resembles emphysema in humans. As with ozone, long-term exposure to nitrogen oxides makes animals more susceptible to respiratory infections. Nitrogen dioxide exposure lowers the resistance of animals to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Humans exposed to high concentrations suffer lung irritation and potentially lung damage. Increased respiratory disease has been associated with lower level exposures.
The human health effects of exposure to nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide, are similar to those of ozone. These effects may include:
Short-term exposure at concentrations greater than 3 parts per million (ppm) can measurably decrease lung function.
Concentrations less than 3 ppm can irritate lungs.
Concentrations as low as 0.1 ppm cause lung irritation and measurable decreases in lung function in asthmatics.
Long-term lower level exposures can destroy lung tissue, leading to emphysema.
Children may also be especially sensitive to the effects of nitrogen oxides.
Other Effects
Oxides of nitrogen also can:
Seriously injure vegetation at certain concentrations. Effects include:
Bleaching or killing plant tissue.
Causing leaves to fall.
Reducing growth rate.
Deteriorate fabrics and fade dyes.
Corrode metals (due to nitrate salts formed from nitrogen oxides).
Reduce visibility.
Oxides of nitrogen, in the presence of sunlight, can also react with hydrocarbons, forming photochemical oxidants, as discussed in the section on ozone. Also, NOx is a precursor to acidic precipitation, which may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Is this starting to sound like Enron, yet?
Newsflash:
No energy production equals higher energy costs.
A practice whereby government is pretends there is an abundance of clean energy and you end up finding the truth of the matter from the article about energy expansion in the Tracy Press Peaker article.
Then the "cap" energy companies from producing enough energy for their cities claim you will be able to "trade" energy by purchasing it from the Jamacian Islands, or somewhere.
Next, they turn around and let clean energy companies go out of business because AIG and foreign executives (through Chevy and Chrysler) took all our money.
Kidding of course, but you get the picture.
Oh yes, and you thought "change" was good.
I think generating water from the Mendota would harm the tiny fish that are currently preventing the farmers from getting water.
It's crazy.
"change"
Not sure were seeing the result of our November votes or not.
Surprised the peaker plant can't get a fed stimulus to help reduce emissions, but we haven't heard squat, except Cap and Trade.
Too bad. Here is what the Wikipedia page says.
"Technologies such as flameless oxidation (FLOX) and staged combustion significantly reduce thermal NOx in industrial processes. Bowin low NOx technology is a hybrid of staged-premixed-radiant combustion technology with a major surface combustion preceded by a minor radiant combustion. In the Bowin burner, air and fuel gas are premixed at a ratio greater than or equal to the stoichiometric combustion requirement.[8] Water Injection technology, wherby water is introduced into the combustion chamber, is also becoming an important means of NOx reduction through increased efficiency in the overall combustion process. Alternatively, the water (e.g. 10 to 50%) is emulsified into the fuel oil prior to the injection and combustion. This emulsification can either be made in-line (unstabilized) just before the injection or as a drop-in fuel with chemical additives for long term emulsion stability (stabilized). Other technologies, such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) reduce post combustion NOx.
The use of exhaust gas recirculation and catalytic converters in motor vehicle engines have significantly reduced emissions.
"
Looking at the article it leaves a lot of guesswork for the reader, especially with poor eyesight and bifocols to read through several times to glean anything from it.
OK. Here are some suggested question to ask next time.
1st. We've established that GWF can already run 8000 hours a year and they are NOT doing that because it is not as clean? Right? Did you ask them how much cleaner will the new system gain over the old?
2nd. They are willing to spend more money to make energy that is cleaner and more efficient? Right? How many jobs will it produce and what kind of industries will benefit. Does it introduce new industries or skill sets?
3rd. If the energy they produce is cleaner did you ask them how many additional hours they could run an not produce significantly more pollution?
4th. And if not, then why didn't you ask them this information?
5th. Did you interview Jerry McNerney to see what he had to say and how it relates to Cap and Trade vote?
6th. And if not, then why not?
Methane comes from manure, decaying plans, natural gas that has escaped the earth and landfills. It is definitely something to take serious. Some farmers have tried to convert their manure to methane fuel. I applaud that.
Check out the article in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration magazine article dated 4/23/2008 " carbon dioxide, methane rise sharply in 2007"
I'm not sure about whether we need the power plant or not, but think if they are going to build the plant, put some big trees around it to make it more soft on the eyes. We still need to find alternative sources of energy - wind, water and sun. Does anyone know if we can harness any power for the Delta Mendota canal and the California Aqueduct? When the water is flowing can't that generate power too???? Put some sort of turbines in there and let it rip....???Anyone know???
Tell them.
According to the United Nations website:
“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,”
"It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
"