Burning what?

I've read, researched and written extensively on Rock-Tenn, the paper recycling plant, and plans for its energy future. I spent more hours this weekend editing articles about Rock-Tenn, and more hours continuing to read the e-mails that flow back and forth along the Rock-Tenn Community Advisory Panel listserv.

Last year, the questions and answers about Rock-Tenn seemed a lot simpler. The plant was losing its steam line because Xcel was closing the coal-powered High Bridge plant. Rock-Tenn's alternatives were to burn fuel oil and natural gas in its existing but long-unused boilers or to build a new power plant that would use a less expensive fuel. With the support of the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County and the St. Paul Port Authority, Rock-Tenn planned to build a plant to burn refuse derived fuel (RDF).

Most people living near the plant found it easy to oppose burning RDF. RDF is processed garbage (municipal solid waste.) There are many good reasons to oppose RDF. Concerns include potential health effects from emissions and tax subsidies required for processing RDF. Opponents point to the inefficiency of RDF as a fuel. Critics also say that focusing on incineration means de-emphasizing strategies for reducing and recycling waste.

As public consensus against RDF grew, the questions about power for Rock-Tenn multiplied and got more complex:

1. What kinds of fuels are available and economical?

2. What kinds of fuels are unhealthy and what kinds are safer?

3. What is the impact of various fuels on global warming?

4. What is the right size for a Rock-Tenn power plant? Should it just produce enough heat for Rock-Tenn's manufacturing process or should it also produce enough energy for a district heating and cooling system in the immediate area?

5. Would a district heating and cooling system significantly reduce overall emissions by eliminating individual, inefficient HVAC systems?

Ramsey and Washington County governments like RDF. They should -- they keep agreeing to pay millions of tax dollars to the Newport processing plant to convert municipal solid waste into RDF. Subsidies have to flow to garbage haulers to pay higher tipping fees at the Newport plant. More subsidies go to Xcel Energy to induce them to take the processed RDF from the Newport plant and burn it (in Red Wing), because RDF is an inefficient fuel.

Early in the debate, it looked like the environmentally-friendly answer was that the plant should burn "real" biomass. (The legislature classified RDF as biomass, but most people don't buy that designation.) "Real" biomass might be corn cobs and stalks or oat hulls or wood and wood waste or prairie grass. Today, many involved in the debate are denouncing any kind of burning and insisting that no kind of biomass is good fuel.

RDF clearly has enormous problems -- economic, environmental and political. The quickest way to move the process forward is by unequivocally taking RDF off the table. The Port Authority, District Energy and Rock-Tenn need to renounce the use of RDF. So far, they have refused to do so.

Even if RDF were taken off the table, the next question is right-sizing the energy operation. The debate started with Rock-Tenn's need for steam. A plant large enough to provide steam for peak operations needs also would produce surplus heat and energy. That opens the door to a new level of energy politics.

Xcel Energy (privately owned, for-profit company) wants exclusive rights to purchase any excess energy generated at Rock-Tenn. They almost got the legislature to sign on to this deal last year. Any time a seller (in this case, Rock-Tenn) has just one buyer, that buyer can set the price. Being the sole eligible buyer of Rock-Tenn's surplus energy would put Xcel in a good position to bolster its bottom line and increase its profits.

The St. Paul Port Authority (quasi-governmental, non-profit municipal corporation) wants a district heating and cooling system, like the one that District Energy operates in downtown St. Paul. The Port Authority distributed a propaganda piece called "The Energy Independent" in several neighborhood newspapers in early November, saying that a district heating system will be built in the area.

That raises a political problem. The Rock-Tenn Community Advisory Panel has not made any recommendation on a district heating and cooling operation. Now it seems that the Port Authority has made a decision to proceed regardless of what the panel recommends. What does that say about the whole process of citizen input and, when you come right down to it, about participatory democracy?

A district heating and cooling system would mean building -- at Rock-Tenn -- a plant that is significantly larger than needed just to supply Rock-Tenn with steam. Within the panel, and within the community, there is significant opposition to building such a plant.

Facts and figures are missing. What area would the Port Authority plan cover? What are the current and projected heating and cooling needs of that area? Who lives there? What businesses operate there? How are they now heated, and what kind of air emissions do they now generate?

Until that information is on the table, no one can know whether a district heating and cooling plant, located at Rock-Tenn, would increase or decrease air polution.

A whole set of related questions come back to the fuel issue. What kind of fuel would be used? Where would the fuel come from? How would it be transported to the plant? What is fuel availability for the smallest-size plant-- one that would be adequate to generate steam for Rock-Tenn and nothing more? What is fuel availability for the district energy option? What are the comparative costs for various fuels? What kinds of environmental impact (both on air quality and on global warming) does each fuel have?

These questions are complex and require a fair degree of research by people with technical backgrounds. One step, however, is simple: taking RDF off the table would help everyone to focus.