Error during command authentication.
Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=10061, phase=CONNECT, target=127.0.0.1:2306). The server is probably not started.
*Since the GREC-DREGS fuel source is a question recently posed by
Alachua County Commissioner Ken Cornell,
*
*this seems a good time to distribute **former Gainesville mayor Tom
Bussing's December 2009 column, The Shell Game.
*
*The Gainesville Sun refused to publish it. *
*The Shell Game *
Gainesville Is Giving Away Its Energy Future
By Thomas Bussing
It defies belief that the biggest utility contract in our city’s
history has been offered to an essentially empty paper entity
whose principle activity is financial speculation, quick profit
and quick sell-off.
We the people are committing to their 500 million dollar
private contract to burn trees so that we can buy back electricity
at more expensive rates.
Until now we were a municipal utility that built, owned and
operated its system on behalf of the citizens. This deal
transfers future ownership to shifting paper corporations who
in turn sell off the rights they acquired from us.
Better hope it all works perfectly, because the bail-out leaves
us bankrupt and in hock forever to outside private financiers.
We have been told that we cannot break this contract. We
have been told it’s too late, that if it is stopped the city might
incur a financial penalty for the default.
What we really worry about is the opposite: that going ahead
with this plant may bring on the biggest financial disaster
possible for a city. We who pay the rates are on the line to pay
the half-billion dollar cost.
But there is hope.
A good start is simply agreeing that building this plant is a bad
idea, and that therefore the agreement is against our interests.
The facts tell us it would be better to not go ahead.
Many letters to this newspaper have presented various
reasons why we would be better off if this plant is not built.
Here are a few more.
The contractor, “Nacogdoches Power,” is a corporate entity
created for a single project, a planned bio-burner in
Nacogdoches, Texas, for which it was named. Quoting from
their December 14, 2007 proposal to GRU: “Nacogdoches
Power was formed in 2005. … the company has no
permanent employees…”
They are not builders or operators of power plants. They are
merely seekers of financial arrangements, which they re-sell.
They have no visible balance sheet and no actual employees.
They recently sold their so-called “Texas Project” to another
outfit, before even getting it constructed. “Nacogdoches
Power” has rebranded into “American Renewables” in the
process.
They will not be running whatever gets built here. They may
not even construct it. But they expect to be lucratively
rewarded for their short time in town.
GRU admits that when completed, this plant will command a
premium (high) price for its output. Rates can be expected to
rise. In the end, to solve such problems we may be forced to
buy them out – and at a price that has not been disclosed.
Amazingly, such key terms have never been disclosed to the
public, nor even our elected commissioners and mayor.
Five hundred million dollars is a lot of money to contract for,
and it is we, the citizens who live here, who will have to pay
unless it is stopped.
There is one thing we can all agree upon - that it would be far
better for this contract to be voided than to take the enormous
risk of bankrupting our utility and our city.
Not a brick has been laid, no equipment purchased for this
proposed plant.
With that as our goal, we can proceed to explore mechanisms
and any costs of extricating our City from this ill-advised and
hastily-agreed-to contract.
In the long run, we will be much better off.
Dr. Thomas Bussing served as Mayor of Gainesville (2001-2004)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAINESVILLE SUN’S BIOMASS COVER-UP
<https://thebiomassmonitor.org/2013/01/05/gainesville-suns-biomass-cover-up/>
Posted onJanuary 5, 2013
<https://thebiomassmonitor.org/2013/01/05/gainesville-suns-biomass-cover-up/>
byTheBiomassMonitor
<https://thebiomassmonitor.org/author/thebiomassmonitor/> Leave a
comment
<https://thebiomassmonitor.org/2013/01/05/gainesville-suns-biomass-cover-up/#respond>
/– by Karen Orr, January 5, 2013, Energy Justice Network/
One of the tragedies of life in Gainesville, Florida is that there is so
little reality based journalism. In today’s /SUN/, editorial page editor
*Ron Cunningham* continues the newspaper’s disinformation campaign on
the city’s *Gainesville Renewable Energy Center (GREC)
*boondoggle. Cunningham rewrites history when he states
<http://www.gainesville.com/article/20121028/COLUMNISTS/121029661/1088/opinion?p=all&tc=pgall>:
“I just wish they had been here hotly debating that issue three, four or
even five years ago, when it might have made a difference.”
Cunningham knows citizens strongly and publicly opposed the tree burning
incinerator plan three, four and even eight years ago. Maybe more. The
Gainesville city commissioners were well aware of the bad environmental
consequences a biomass incinerator would have on North Florida. Alachua
County citizens told them so over and over.
2005 example: “GRU’s Developer Welfare Plan
<http://alachuapost.com/All/3103.html?1075>” – the first published
article on the city commission’s biomass discussion that I’m aware of.
But there weren’t nearly as many citizens back in the day opposing the
biomass debacle as there are now. That’s because the public at large was
the victim of The Gainesville SUN’s cover-up of this story that would
have informed them of the impending biomass disaster.
The SUN kept the public in the dark as former Gainesville mayor *Pegeen
Hanrahan’s* plan played out at City Hall. Only after the SUN considered
the city’s GREC boondoggle to be “a done deal,” and a citizen lawsuit
unveiled the biomass rate hike buried in the secret contract, did the
newspaper begin reporting on the tree burning electricity generator in
any meaningful way. Not only did the SUN news editors hide the story as
its’ details unfolded at City Hall, SUN editorial page editor Cunningham
refused to publish some of the columns that would have alerted SUN
readers to what could be in store should the biomass boondoggle go forward.
One important piece Cunningham refused to let see the light of day on
the SUN’s editorial page was former Gainesville mayor, *Tom Bussing’s
* “The Shell Game: Gainesville is Giving Away Its Energy Future.
<http://gretnaflorida.biomess.us/2009/12/21/gainesville-is-giving-away-its-energy-future/>”
On December 21, 2009 *James Maloy* of Gretna, Florida wrote: “Since the
Gainesville Sun editorial page Editor, Ron Cunningham has refused to
publish this column by former Gainesville Mayor Tom Bussing, we offer
this information to the visitors of this website with thanks to Mr.
Bussing for sharing his opinion with the citizens of Florida who depend
on the media and government officials to defend their best interests.”
http://www.energyjustice.net/content/gainesville-suns-biomass-cover
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Biomass plant fuel source
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:04:36 -0400
From: Karen Orr <[log in to unmask]>
To: CityComm <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask], Hayes-Santos, Adrian
<[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask], GIGI SIMMONS
<[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask], BOCC
Alachua County <[log in to unmask]>
*Regarding Alachua County Commissioner Ken Cornell's request for
information on the biomass plant fuel source.*
Dear Mayor Poe and Commissioners,
The following piece was sent to the Gainesville city commission in 2004
and published in The Alachua Post in March 2005.
Some information in The Alachua Post article is dated but it shows the
Gainesville commission knew - or should have known - the environmental
costs of "biomass."
No one on this commission should be surprised if there is current or
planned clearcutting for the GREC/DREGS biomass incinerator.
Yours truly,
Karen Orr
Alachua Post
http://alachuapost.com/
GRU`s Developer Welfare Plan
Karen Orr
GRU`s toxic expansion plans are a forced taxpayer gift to developers.
GRU and the City want the expansion because the utility is the cash cow
for the City of Gainesville.
The moneys received by manufacturing excess power to sell elsewhere
(while we breath the poisons) is to create infrastructure for future
mega development.
The Florida Public Service Commission stated that our energy needs can
be supplied by GRU`s existing plant for at least the next 10-12 years.
That`s with the current pitiful conservation programs. Even some GRU
staff have stated that conservation of 10 percent of existing
consumption is a fairly easily obtainable goal.
To lock ourselves into polluting technologies when clean technologies
may arise in the interim is idiotic.
GRU and our elected officials ignore the fact that our air quality is
horrible NOW. (http://www.scorecard.org)
<http://alachuapost.com/%28http://www.scorecard.org%29> With Florida
Rock`s next incinerators, the asphalt plants and other polluters, we`re
well on our way to becoming the New Birmingham.
The evils of coal burning, mercury, mountaintop mining etc. are well
known to many Alachua County citizens.
On the other hand, the local newspaper has carried little information to
counter the biomass promoter`s greenwash campaign. As a result, many
well intended people are lost in the smokescreen.
Biomass energy is just the latest greenscam. Fad pollution.
What the biomass incinerator promoters call "waste," is, in fact,
topsoil for forests and farms.
The downed trees and limbs from the hurricanes, for example, can be
mulched and turned into topsoil on farms. Some of it has been.
Biomass energy demands have already lead to extreme biomass removals
from logging sites, leaving little to return to the soils but chemicals
and pesticides.
There`s nothing left to slow wind and rain erosions of those soils.
With each harvesting of tree plantations, the size and health of the
trees decrease.
Short Rotation Woody Crops for biomass incineration wear out the soils
on marginal lands in a short period.
With biomass incineration, local landowners will be increasingly
targeted by loggers to clear cut their properties. Poor rural landowners
sell off logging rights now for very little money.
Our natural forests are already under severe pressure from the pulp and
paper industries and engineered wood products.
Florida Chapter Sierra Club position on biomass production:
"We continue to oppose the development of biomass production as an
alternative to solar and wind power. Biomass production depletes the
environment by decreasing topsoil, using more water, fertilizer and
diesel fuel than it is worth and creates more pollution."
The 2004 Florida Chapter Sierra Club Water Policies are attached in Word
Document.
Soil forms an integral part of the environment. All plants depend on it
as a reserve of nutrients for a healthy functioning, thus making soil
essential for the production of food and other crops, but also for
maintaining biodiversity and for the landscape. Major nutrients
contained in fertile soil are phosphorous, potassium, nitrogen, calcium,
magnesium and sulfur. Dissolved, they are taken up through the roots of
plants, incorporated into plant biomass and finally returned to the soil
when plants die or shed.
Bioenergy production, both from energy crops and from forest and
agricultural residues, can affect the naturally balanced nutrient cycles
leading to degradation of soil fertility. Removing nutrients when
biomass feedstock is harvested from the field, especially in the case of
rapid-growth bioenergy crops and complete removal of agricultural
residues, ultimately interrupts the natural process by which decomposing
plant matter would replenish soil nutrients and effectively makes the
soil less fertile. Adverse affects on the community of micro-organisms
responsible for nutrient cycling or chemical and physical changes in the
soil causing nutrients to be converted into compounds less usable to
plants also contribute to the decreased soil fertility.
Biomass incinerators compete with recycling, and composting programs for
materials. Wood can either be recycled and composted, or incinerated --
but not both. It`s an either/or proposition.
When an incinerator is built, recycling and composting options for the
lifetime of the incinerator (usually 20 years or more) are foreclosed.
Conversely, when a successful recycling and composting program is
instituted, the incinerator is starved. Many incinerator companies
require guarantees on the amount of biomass a community must send to an
incinerator for that reason.
Once the biomass incineration route is taken, communities are trapped
burning up their valuable natural resources.
Recycling wood conserves energy, preserves natural resources, and
reduces pollution. Raw materials processing, such as wood pulping, is
extremely energy-intensive, and both the generation of energy and the
production process itself produce toxic pollution.
Biomass conversion, like all incineration -- is a doomed technology.
These processes generate hazardous emissions and toxic ash or residue,
are very expensive, compete with recycling programs, and destroy
valuable resources.
The Energy Justice Network is an excellent energy resource.
Energy Justice:
http://www.energyjustice.net <http://www.energyjustice.net/>
The Burning Issues With Biomass
http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/
Incineration Repackaged:
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2002/Incineration-RepackagedJul02.htm
George Monbiot column
Feeding Cars, Not People: The adoption of biofuels would be a
humanitarian and environmental disaster:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/
The City of Gainesville must institute good energy conservation
programs. The last thing we need is more incineration.
Karen Orr
Florida Chapter Sierra Club
Water and Wetlands Chair
*Florida Chapter Sierra Club Comprehensive Water Policy Paper*
This comprehensive paper was prepared to delineate water protection
issues and the numerous categories that define that protection.
Water is Florida`s most precious natural resource. It is a basic human
need, as well as the vital element in all natural ecosystems.
Our water supply belongs to the people. We oppose privatization of our
water and any water transfers from one part of the state to another. We
oppose decisions about the future of Florida water being determined by a
Governor appointed State Water Board Commission.
The Floridan and Biscayne aquifers are major state water sources.
The Biscayne aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for
Miami-Dade, Broward and part of Palm Beach County.
MAP- http://capp.water.usgs.gov/aquiferBasics/ext_biscayne.html
The Floridan aquifer underlies most of Florida and is one of the most
productive aquifers in the world. It is the sole source of drinking
water for a majority of the state. It is a carbonate-rock aquifer with
intergranular porosity containing large solution openings.
MAP- http://capp.water.usgs.gov/aquiferBasics/ext_floridan.html
These aquifers are being threatened by pollution and overpumping.
Conservation policies should protect Florida's ground and surface water
supplies for future human needs and water needed for natural ecosystems.
The rate of water pumping and natural discharges should not exceed the
rate of natural recharge. The United States Geological Survey (USGS)
should be the authority to establish data showing optimum minimum flows
and levels and average flows over time for the water bodies of the
state, including aquifers. USGS has determined that saltwater intrusion
has been spreading inland, where fresh water tables are lowered by
overpumping.
Florida is now populated with 16,713,149 people, a population that has
nearly doubled since 1980. There are negative impacts with this
tremendous population growth and unbridled rampant development. A major
problem is the wasteful use of water. Nearly half of all water used by
humans in Florida is for agricultural irrigation. Half the water used
for household consumption is for watering lawns and landscaping (USGS
1995 � p. 5, Orlando Sentinel Series on Florida's Water Crisis, April 7,
2002). Excessive groundwater pumping has put lakes, springs and wetlands
at risk and increased the threat of sinkholes.
There are many ways to cut the waste of water, such as the use of
xeriscape landscaping with native plants, and drip irrigation in
agriculture. Reduction in the use of fertilizers and pesticides is also
important.
OPPOSE:
We oppose any proposal that would privatize public water and its
distribution.
We oppose interbasin water transfers. Water transfers for new
developments would deplete water that supports existing ecosystems, and
fuel more inappropriate growth in areas that already stressed by
overdevelopment.
We oppose a politicized Water Supply Commission that would supercede the
authority of the Water Management Districts.
We oppose the further loss of wetlands in Florida. Wetlands are critical
to water quality, aquifer recharge and flood control.
We continue to oppose wetland mitigation policies. Wetland mitigation
policies and "mitigation banking" encourage wetland filling, do not
replace destroyed wetlands and lead to wetland elimination.
We oppose the state's delisting of impaired water bodies to avoid the
imposition of EPA-mandated Total Maximum Daily Loads.
We oppose aquifer and springs withdrawals for water bottling plants. The
transfer of water robs the existing ecosystem and depletes surface and
ground water resources. Water should not be viewed as a private,
corporate commodity for profit.
We oppose injection wells. These wells are used to inject industrial
waste and partially treated sewage beneath Florida's porous aquifers.
Sewage may include fecal coliform dangerous levels of nitrates, pathogen
contamination and other toxics that can migrate into private and
municipal wells.
(See - http://www.home.earthlink.net/berniew1/damspr2f.htm.)
<http://www.home.earthlink.net/berniew1/damspr2f.htm.%29>
The Dade County municipal well contamination is a significant example of
that failure. The karst geology throughout the state of Florida allows
contamination to spread easily.
We continue to oppose the sale of reclaimed water for reuse until and
unless proven technologies are used to make it safe enough for return to
a potable water treatment facility.
We oppose Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR's). Pumping water that does not
meet drinking water standards into the aquifer for highly questionable
future use is not acceptable.
We oppose the exemptions to the Clean Water Act awarded to the U.S.
Military by the Bush Administration. In some areas of Florid, the U.S.
Military is responsible for large toxic dumps that have contaminated
local water supplies. They should be required to clean up those dumps.
Other sources that contribute to contamination of local water supplies
are: unlined C & D landfills that accept ash from coal plants and solid
waste incinerators, sludge spreading sewage lagoons located on dairies
and air pollution from power plants and garbage burners.
We oppose the Bush Administration exemptions to the Clean Water Act
given to polluting industries in Florida. Toxic emissions from coal
burning power plants, pulp mills, and cement plants put high levels of
lead, mercury, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, dioxin, dibenzofurans and
volatile organic compounds that eventually migrate to our water
supplies. Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) should be
required to reduce the pollution plume hovering over Florida.
We oppose all exemptions to environmental laws which should be enforced
without compromises or negotiated settlements.
We oppose changes to law pertaining to the definition of "water
reservation." The water needs of the natural system such as the
Everglades, should have priority over uncontrolled, unwanted urban growth.
We oppose future developments where there is insufficient "local" water
supply.
We continue to oppose the development of biomass production as an
alternative to solar and wind power. Biomass production depletes the
environment by decreasing topsoil, using more water, fertilizer and
diesel fuel than it is worth and creates more pollution.
SUPPORT
We support the current Water Management District structure and the
retention of Florida's Local Sources First rules. Every area should be
protected from "water grabs."
We support water conservation measures for every user group.
We support strengthening and full enforcement of all rules promulgated
by Federal and State Agencies and local governments to achieve
compliance with the Congressional Intent of Safe Drinking Water Act,
Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act.
We support the preservation and restoration of natural wetlands.
Wetlands protect our water quality, quantity, wildlife habitat and
prevent flooding. Florida has already lost half its natural wetlands.
Many of the remainder have been degraded by pollution and siltation.
We support the establishment of wetland buffers to protect wetlands and
provide a transition zone for wildlife habitat.
We support further protection of springs and spring runs by expanding
sufficient buffers of land.
We support future regulation of agricultural runoff. For example, Best
Management Practices (BMPs) in the dairy industry have failed. Water
quality monitoring results over a ten year span have shown an alarming
spike in nitrate pollution. Wells in the Suwannee River Basin are
showing dangerous levels of nitrates that are three times higher than
the acceptable federal limits. Bottled water is now being delivered to
residents at the expense of the taxpayers.
We support metering of water use by agriculture, industry and utilities
when consumptive use permits are issued. We also support retrofitting
current water users with meters.
We support requirements and incentives for agriculture to utilize
water-saving irrigation techniques and technologies.
We support continued Development of Regional Impact (DRIs) reports
reviewed by all agencies on all projects for impacts to water supplies
and water quality in order to ensure protection of aquatic preserves,
healthy estuaries and the survival of the endangered manatee.
We support water concurrency in growth management. If the water supply
is not there, the development should not be permitted.
We support the use of reclaimed water for irrigating lawns and
landscaping only from Advanced Wastewater Treatment facilities.
We support requiring phosphate and limerock corporations being held
accountable for their own cleanups, reclamations and restorations. Toxic
runoff into water must be prevented.
We support energy conservation state of the art technology in order to
reduce the current corporate utilities excessive use of water.
We support legislation that stops the spreading of sludge on farms when
pollution limits have been reached.
We support increased funding for Northwest Florida Water Management
District to bring that district's resources at balance with other Water
Management Districts.
John Swingle
Florida Chapter Chair
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Betsy Roberts
Florida Chapter Conservation Chair
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Susie Caplowe
Florida Chapter Lobbyist
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Karen Orr
Florida Chapter Wetlands and Water Chair
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
December McSherry
Florida Chapter Agriculture Chair
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
John Glenn
Safe Drinking Water Chair
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://alachuapost.com/All/3103.html?1075
http://listserv.alachua.fl.us/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1904A&L=KEN-CORNELL&F=&S=&P=14436
: Message View
Back to message results|Download Message (.eml)
<http://ccemail.cityofgainesville.org/Message/GetMessageDL?mid=AAMkADg2YzA0Mjk4LWZkMTEtNDY3NC1hMDU5LWE1MWYyOWNkMDJmNABGAAAAAAC2xWYLo%2Bp0QKql28qqqjVsBwCw0kteFOJlTJrhEj2GqA00A7qzjmLbAACw0kteFOJlTJrhEj2GqA00BkCTouBkAAA%3D>
Date Received: 3/31/2019 1:57:23 PM
To: citycomm
Cc: Board O. CountyComm
From: Ken Cornell
Subject: Biomass plant fuel source
Attachments:
Message:
Honorable Mayor and Commissioners
During your annual deliberations regarding the Biomass plant’s fuel
source, could you please ask your staff what the predictions look like
for the supply of Biomass fuel material over the next decade?
In recent discussions I had with a knowledgeable forester, he indicated
great concern about running out of material over the next five years for
Biomass within a 75 mile radius and he also indicated that there was
major clear cutting deforestation going on in our area which has
recently become necessary to feed this plant.
I told him I would follow up with you all, perhaps the GRU GM could
provide a written response to this inquiry.
Thanks in advance!
Ken Cornell
Alachua County Commissioner
352.281.4000 <tel:352.281.4000> cell
(Sent from my iPhone)
PLEASE NOTE: Florida has a very broad public records law (F. S. 119).
All e-mails to and from County Officials and County Staff are kept as
public records. Your e-mail communications, including your e-mail
address, may be disclosed to the pu
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MARIHELEN-WHEELER list, click the following link:
http://listserv.alachuacounty.us/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MARIHELEN-WHEELER