Is Berlin a third world example of forest liquidation?

Sometimes it amazes me how important this little northern NH city is when it comes to world wide discussions pertinent to global warming, and the push towards green energy in efforts to keep our world from falling apart.

The recent Copenhagen climate change summit meeting is in the news a lot these days and today it reached the Berlin Daily Sun. For our children's sake, I'd suggest everyone read the New York times article on page 4 and 5 of the link below entitled "Clear Cutting the Truth about Trees" very very carefully. Our world leaders are meeting to discuss the very issues that plague our north country with liquidation harvesting over the years and the importance of well managed forests and the key word to our very survival being "forest sustainability". Anyone who tells you that there is plenty of wood to go around amidst numerous wood studies that show otherwise is really risking a great deal in the following quote from this article.

"This is horrifying. The world’s forests are
a key to our survival, and that of millions of
other species. Not only are they critical to
providing us with building material, paper,
food, recreation and oxygen, they also ground
us spiritually and connect us to our primal
past. Never before in earth’s history have
our forests been under such attack. And the
global-warming folks at Copenhagen seem
oblivious, buying into the corporate view of
forests as an exploitable resource"

As the holidays are a time of giving, let's remember that we gave birth to our children and need to plan for their survival going into the future. If anyone ever refers to you as a tree hugger, smile and wish them a happy new year. Clearly all of us need to understand the value of the forest as there is a world of corporate greed acting against our children's future and it is our responsibility to understand we don't own the land we walk on, we simply borrow it from our children. With care, our children will enjoy many more happy holidays after we're gone.

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/12/22B.pdf

Bullet Holes in Laidlaw's application?

Some concerns evident with the Laidlaw application of note:

1.Appendix P deals with fuel availability. In it, Landvest (Laidlaw's wood study
company) states conclusively that there is already 6,000,000 annual tons of
biomass being used by existing paper mills and energy plants, and that there is
710,000 additional supply within the 100 mile radius. The Laidlaw project will
require approximately 750,000 tons of fuel annually therefore the study would
imply not quite enough fuel. More telling is the aspect that this is all the
fuel available with the existing mix of users. Therefore if Laidlaw goes forward
there will be no fuel for any expanded paper mill consumption, for any of the
other proposed new biomass energy facilities, for any use by municipalities for
schools or district heating,  or any potential left for wood pellet production
with the 100 mile radius. Bravakis suggests that harvesting ratio related to
annual re-growth be increased from 50% to 70% to make more biomass available.
This is exactly the opposite of what the growing concern related to forest
sustainability will require. The Landvest study confirms and Laidlaw depends
upon a New Hampshire state approval that Laidlaw alone will be anointed to 
utilize 100% of the biomass potential within the 100 mile radius and that all
other uses of merit need not apply. Bravakis' testimony assumes 70% of
utilization which is more than the industry standard and the entire application
assumes that this higher number is the magical way for Laidlaw to exist and
utilize all available biomass grade wood at the expense of all other potential
uses. Good luck with this approach.

2.Appendix M deals with environmental concerns.  There seems to be almost a
complete disregard that this is a brownfield site. In the application it seems
studies of contamination are completely ignored, that the company simply plans
to dig and store materials dug up on site, with no plans for a study to
determine what impact disturbing the ground may have on mercury contamination or
the like that may be currently pooled but upon disturbing the ground could leach
into newly formed cracks creating huge issues downstream on the Androscoggin
river.

3.Pertinent to carbon neutrality with significantly more harvesting and long
distance deliveries planned by Laidlaw, missing from the application are any
analysis of carbon footprint or analysis of just how sensitive this approach
will be should there be a sharp increase in diesel fuel cost.

4.Ownership:  Northstar Ownership is 25%.  The application does not state who
the individuals or entities are who make up Northstar.  I wonder about conflicts
of interest that may come out later.

5.If Laidlaw is assuming it will utilize all the remaining supply of wood, they
must figure they will be able to pay more for biomass fuel than any of their
competition. Laidlaw apparently assumes an open ended pass thru on fuel cost to
PSNH. Will the NH PUC consider such fuel pass through advantage for Laidlaw to
be in the best interest of the rate payer? Most recently a PSNH lawyer stated
that Laidlaw has no deal with PSNH. But even if a deal develops it is unlikely
that the NH PUC would approve such an arrangement that would be bad for the
consumer and a monopoly utility backed competitive edge for one merchant energy
producer over all others.

The following post was provided by a poster by the name of "Sundowner" who posts frequently on Yahoo's message board on Laidlaw Energy. It is interesting to note that some locals are betting that the following track record is not an indication of future performance.

information provided by Sundowner


"Some have started to question the time line for Laidlaw to move forward in Berlin or MA. Actually, their current performance is fully in keeping with the company's history of making announcements and then not delivering.

Dec. 1999 - Acquired Ellicottville Energy
Oct. 2002 - Ellicottville in receivership and closes shortly after
Dec. 2004 - Announcement of receiving a $1 million NYSERDA grant to restart Ellicottville. Actually receive less than $200,000 of that grant.
Sep. 2005 - Announcement that Ellicottville will restart in 2006
Jan. 2006 - Announcement of a new joint venture with EcoPower
Feb. 2006 - Announcement of a 20 MW project in New Bedford, MA
Feb. 2006 - Announcement of a 20 MW project in Alexandria, NH
Oct. 2006 - Announcement of a 16 MW project in NH with start up in 2007
Jan. 2007 - Announcement of plans to obtain 1,000 acres of land in western NY to grow willows for closed loop project
Apr. 2007 - Announcement of plans to develop 50MW project in Berlin, NH an commence operations in 2008
Jun. 2007 - Announcement of a joint venture with Triangle Equities to develop the Berlin Project
Aug. 2007 - Announcement of Berlin plant being 60 MW, with operations commencing 2008
Jan. 2008 - Announcement of plans to move up to the OTCBB (from the pink sheets)
Jan. 2008 - Announcement of plans to complete purchase of the Berlin site by the end of the year
May 2008 - Announcement that Berlin site would be purchased within 90 days
Jun. 2008 - Announcement of a 20 MW project in Henniker, NH
Jan. 2009 - Announcement that Laidlaw would shortly be applying for permits through EFSEC, with commercial operations in 2010

There is more that could be listed, but that's enough for now.

Given the history, is it any surprise that the EFSEC application has yet to be filed, despite multiple announcements that it would be filed early in 2009, by the end of summer, within 6 weeks, etc.?

As always, just the facts. You make the decision, is this the type of company you want to trust with your investment?"

America needs a truthful answer

Could Berlin be part of the Cause of Global Warming by allowing a massive 66MW plant into the city?

Interesting reading from http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org/press.html

"The best and most credible science indicates that greenhouse gas emissions should be
reduced in the next decade to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate warming.
How does biomass burning, and the associated emissions from deforestation, wood
cutting, grinding, and transport over hundreds of miles in trucks that get less than five
miles to the gallon qualify as reducing greenhouse gas emissions? How does building a
plant with greater carbon emissions than many fossil fuel-burning plants and a lifetime
measured in decades get us closer to our goal? Repeating the mantra that biomass is
carbon neutral is not sufficient, because given the need for immediate reductions in
emissions, this statement is only true if the carbon equivalent of all the emissions
associated with biomass burning is immediately re-sequestered in forest plantings.
MassDEP should respond to show upon what basis biomass burning for energy can be
considered carbon neutral. On what basis does the agency make this conclusion?
It is of the utmost urgency that the state adopt a “reality-based” standard for what
constitutes carbon neutrality and air quality impacts, starting with requiring a full
accounting of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass projects – the stakes are too high
for human and environmental health to be entrusted to semantic manipulations. With
regard to emissions, MassDEP must truly scrutinize the assumptions and data behind the
air quality modeling before allowing a precedent-setting project of this magnitude to go
forward, and ensure that the Town of Russell is not be made a sacrifice area for air
quality just because the state needs to achieve a certain number of so-called “renewable”
fuels projects – at any cost.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary S. Booth
13"

Fraser filing for bankuptcy protection

Fraser Papers is expected to file for bankruptcy protection in Ontario Canada sometime this week, and it's unclear what that means for the Gorham Mill according to a new release from WMUR this morning.

Here's where efficient plants such as Clean Power blow Laidlaw completely out of the water.

y Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: November 26th, 2009

208 Comments Comment on this article

Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.

Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.

At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.

The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.

At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.

Boston.com recent article

"Wood-fired power plants are no environmental cure-all

November 28, 2009

IT ALWAYS seemed bizarre to think that cutting down trees and burning them for fuel could be a good way to reduce carbon emissions. And yet both the Kyoto climate change treaty and a key bill in the US House look favorably on generation not just from biofuels such as ethanol but also from so-called biomass, including wood. Fortunately, scientists are beginning to consider biomass with a more skeptical eye. Late last month, Massachusetts launched a study on whether biomass power-generation plants are sustainable - the crucial question in the debate on four plants proposed for the western part of the state.

These plants could burn wood left over from landscaping, milling operations, and forest-thinning projects. But these unobjectionable sources might not be enough to feed the plants; their operation, critics worry, would require major cuts in private and public woods, reducing the forests’ ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The state’s study, which will be reviewed by an independent advisory panel, should ensure that the state does not give a boost to biomass plants that harm both the atmosphere and the state’s forests.

Biomass and biofuels have won privileged status in global warming agreements in part because the carbon dioxide they absorb from the atmosphere would return to it no matter what - either through burning or through natural decomposition over time. But only recently has it begun to sink in that, far from lowering emissions, leveling a forest full of carbon-absorbing trees adds to emissions - whether the trees are burned in a power plant or simply removed to clear land for biofuel crops like corn or soybeans.

In the future, utilities will be required to obtain an increasing percentage of their power from renewable sources. The Massachusetts study will inform new state regulations on whether and how biomass and biofuels facilities will qualify to meet that rule. Thanks to good marketing and good lobbying by agribusiness and forestry interests, biomass and biofuels are prominent in many discussions about green energy.

But Massachusetts should make sure that supposedly renewable energy sources don’t make a global climate problem worse."