Biomass Brush-Up

Last week’s announcement of a petition for a legal hearing on the state permitting of a woody biomass plant in Port St. Joe was inevitable.

Despite the efforts of proponents and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to explain the gasification process to be used at the plant and the process for permitting, respectively, it has been evident from the outset of the plant’s proposed move into Gulf County that there was opposition not likely to go away.

Look just up the road at Gretna in Gadsden County where stiff opposition – from many of the same organizations and individuals as those challenging the permitting of plant here – to a similar biomass project has stirred emotions.

Also not of surprise is that the opposition would perceive Gulf County as something of a touchstone for the future of North Florida.

The plant here is one of more than a dozen in some stage of planning or permitting in the region and among those farthest along and closest to construction.

Finally, this is how government is supposed to work. Engagement with the public, soliciting of public input is what it is alleged to be about even though whether anybody is listening is often in doubt.

The issue is whether the discourse can be kept at a civil and educational level.

There is no question there are arguments for debate on both sides of the equation.

Even if the advocacy of local and state elected officials and the permitting of the state agency charged with oversight are unpersuasive there is plenty of support for what is proposed in Port St. Joe.

The plant will not be on the old mill site, as the petition mistakenly states, but at what was a coal-processing point along the Intracoastal Canal. The plant site has as much to do with the Millview section of town as the location of Burger King, another petition error.

Not knowing the landscape is an undermining factor for the petition, written by an attorney in Massachusetts with plenty of feedback from a group building on momentum from pushing this same plant out of Tallahassee.

But that is another roadblock in this opposition. Those who opposed the plant in Tallahassee did so primarily over location in an industrial park located in the midst of a residential neighborhood. That is not the case in Port St. Joe.

That could be considered nitpicking, however.

What is compelling is that a similar plant, smaller yes but similar process, is located at the University of South Carolina.

Also compelling is the test project brought to a workshop about the plant by the University of Auburn, demonstrating how gasification and the burning of woody biomass work.

Also the support of a major non-profit which is advocating for alternative and sustainable fuel sources throughout the Southeast for our energy-hungry society is nothing to shrug off.

And a scientist working on biomass policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote in the Tallahassee Democrat that “if done right” biomass was an alternative source for electricity – two-thirds of this state’s comes from burning coal or other fossil fuels – that offered a reduction in emissions from current technology in use, a reduction in greenhouse gases and economic benefits.

While it might sound small, in a county in which more than one in 10 of working age and ability can not find a job, 30 permanent jobs is nothing to sneeze at.

That said, however, some express skepticism about whether this plant will do it right and whether the gas and particulate pollution from this plant outweighs 30 jobs and could pose a danger in the county.

The American Lung Association and others have expressed concerns about air emissions.

But calling those who question, those who engage from the public, names and tossing around verbal hand grenades like “Communist” and “tree hugger” is unconstructive to the debate.

As is dragging out 20-year-old allegations against a company official. None of us is the same person we were 20 years ago.

And the company that wants to build the plant could be seen as something of a suitor: if a delay in construction due to the petition is a deal-breaker could it be considered much of a deal to begin with?

So, there is a case to, as was stated by the attorney who filed the petition for an administrative law hearing, have a thorough vetting of the petition to ensure that the plant will operate in a safe and viable manner. Elected officials owe the community that.

And there is a compelling case for allowing this plant to move forward as proposed, which seems to include a plethora of safety and health-related equipment aimed at reducing harmful air emissions.

Most of all, though, this is a chance for the community to educate itself, or in many cases re-educate itself, about this plant that seems likely to be a neighbor.

The only way that will happen, that the information will be provided in a fashion that is digestible and understandable for all, is to wash away the rhetoric, deal with current facts and not history and maintain a tone of debate that is not about winners and losers, but an outcome that benefits this community.