by Gina Hamilton
Coastal Journal staff         

                                                                                                                                                                   
WISCASSET - At a rally on October 18, Dylan Voorhees of the Natural Resources Council of Maine announced that NRCM is opposing the proposed coal gasification plant by Point East/National RE/sources/Twin River Energy Center.

“If built,” Voorhees said, “this massive coal plant would result in a giant step backward for Maine’s environment and our way of life.  It would result in increased mercury pollution and global warming pollution, and despite claims that it would be a ‘clean’ operation, a complete analysis shows that the use of coal at a facility like this would be anything but clean.”

Voorhees went on to state that the debate about the toxicity of mercury is long over, and that his organization has been working to keep mercury out of the environment, even in very small amounts, such as might be found in a compact fluorescent bulb or a thermometer.  “With all this effort,” he asked, “why would Maine move backward by building a giant coal plant with more mercury emissions than any other plant in the state?”

He also discussed the carbon footprint of the proposed plant, which, without carbon sequestration, will be no better for global warming than any other older technology coal plant.  “That,” he said, “is the conclusion of the best academic work in the country, even by those who think we should be developing new coal-based technology.”

The press event, which featured a dump truck full of coal, was organized by the Back River Alliance.  The truck held a thousand pounds of coal. 

Back River Alliance president Willy Ritch said that every day, more and more Wiscasset residents are joining the opposition to the coal plant.  “As it becomes clear how massive this facility would be, people are quickly coming to the conclusion that it would be a bad deal for Wiscasset.”

Ritch went on to say that it would take 14,000 pickups full of coal ... enough, end to end, to stretch from Red’s Eats to Portland ... to feed the massive coal plant every single day.

Scott Houldin, in a press release sent to the Coastal Journal on Friday, quipped, “This is great.  I wish I could actually be there today to see this domestic fuel source displayed that has supported American families and American businesses for generations,” referring to the truckload of coal. “What is missing from the rally is a barrel of foreign crude oil as a painful reminder that the current status quo has cost American families so much and continues to threaten our national security.”  He went on to say that the debate boiled down to  “emotional misinformation” versus “facts and science”. 

However, neither Houldin nor anyone connected with the project are currently providing “facts” about the proposed plant, such as how the coal will be transported or where the water needed for the project will come from.  Those facts, they say, will come out only when and if Wiscasset approves the height ordinance change on November 6.

Meanwhile, across the country and around the world, coal plants, many of which had planned to integrate carbon capture technology for hoped-for eventual sequestration are being cancelled.  Such plants are often referred to as coal integrated combined cycle plants, evoked by the acronym IGCC.  Just last week, two coal plants in Kansas lost their permits because of carbon dioxide pollution.

This was possible because in April, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.  With the spectre of possible litigation to shut down coal plants, even those IGCC plants listed as “clean”, more and more plants are electing not to go on line, or, in the case of Kansas, are being denied permits by the regulating agencies.

Representative Bruce MacDonald (D-Boothbay Harbor) has proposed a bill (LR 3033) which would not allow any new plant to be built if it could not capture and sequester 90% of its carbon dioxide.  The proposed Twin River plant would be unable to do so within the next 10-15 years, so it would be denied a permit if MacDonald’s bill were to pass.
The precedent set by the denial of the two Kansas permits, and the voluntary withdrawal of projects in Florida, New York, and a number of other sites, will inform the decision whether or not to take up MacDonald’s bill during this session.