Burning Tires and Turning Turbines

Burning Tires and Turning Turbines

You might think that the experimental tire burn at the International Paper (IP) mill in Ticonderoga, NY was only an issue for those of us who live downwind. IP wanted to save some money by augmenting the oil and wood waste in its boiler with shredded tires. There was great outcry from the residents of Vermont, who live generally downwind of the plant, legal resistance from the State of Vermont, and staunch affirmations of safety and economic necessity from IP, the State of New York, and IP employees. As it turned out, IP was unable to burn more than a fraction of the desired Tire Derived Fuel (TDF) without exceeding emissions limits. It looks as if the process isn’t worth the cost for IP. All could be well for the air breathers to the east of Lake Champlain.

The whole IP/TDF issue highlights a greater issue for me, namely the greater good. It brings to mind the wrangling over wind turbines in Vermont. There have been a number of wind power projects proposed for Vermont. All of them have engendered opposition, mostly from those who would have to look at the turbines on a nearby ridgeline.

Both sets of opponents raise environmental issues. The arguments of the IP tire burn opponents are basic – they don’t want soot, heavy metals, and petrochemical residues in the air and accumulating in their soil. The wind opponents raise issues to do with aesthetics, damage from construction and maintenance in sensitive areas and bird kills.

Amid the claims and counterclaims, how do we distinguish the greater good from the lesser special interest? I’d like to offer some basic questions to ask about any controversial project.

1) Is it truly necessary?
2) Is it reversible?
3) How does it stack up against the alternatives?
4) What do the independent scientists say about it?
5) Qui bono? (“Who benefits?” I use the Latin only to illustrate that people have been asking this one for a while)

The answer to the first question, for IP burning TDF, is no. The plant’s spokesperson, Donna Wadsworth, in an interview with the Rutland Herald, stated that the plant was “ …very competitive, in our market.” The 10% savings on energy costs would have added to the bottom line, but it wasn’t make or break for the plant.

The same question applied to wind turbines gets a different answer: Do you need electricity? Right now, a majority of our electricity comes from non-renewable sources – coal, natural gas, uranium, and oil. The supply and energy returns on investment of these resources are going down. That means we’ll be spending more energy to get less out of the ground, and spending more money on the result. Eventually, making electricity by burning stuff that we pull out of the ground will be unaffordable. Renewable sources of electricity will be necessary.

Reversibility: Once those particles of soot, mercury, zinc, and benzene from the tires hit the atmosphere and precipitate into the soils of Vermont, there’s no getting them back. On the other hand, if you don’t like the location of a wind turbine, you can unbolt it from the base, jackhammer the base into bits, and truck the whole deal away. The grass will grow over the fifteen-foot circle.

Alternatives: There are two issues having to do with alternatives to TDF. One has to do with the energy use at the plant. I have insufficient information about what efficiency measures have been implemented and what alternative fuels have been explored, so I won't comment on that. The other issue is the imminent loss of the TDF alternative. Old tires are presently a serious solid waste problem, and using them as fuel is an economically viable disposal method. Not so in the future. Technology is catching up with TDF – there is now a clean process for breaking down old tires into their useful components: crude oil, carbon black, and steel. Scrap tires will soon become too valuable a commodity to burn.

As I stated above, there are no alternatives to renewable energy, including wind energy, in the long run.

The independent expert who I trust on the issue of air pollution and IP was less concerned about the two week test and more concerned about the long term effects of chemical accumulation in the bodies of downwind Vermonters and Vermont soils. This person pointed out that IP’s intent was to see just how much pollution it could get away with without investing in emissions control equipment.

The independent experts that I trust on wind issues say that if designed correctly, sited properly, and installed with care, wind farms are relatively benign in the world of large scale power generation. The aesthetic considerations I give the back of my hand. Tourists come to Vermont and gaze rapturously at our farms – which inevitably have multi-story cylinders of concrete or blue steel rising next to the barns, which are considered more picturesque if they haven’t been painted in a while.

Qui bono? On the TDF side, the shareholders of IP benefit. Maybe not even them, considering that we all share one atmosphere. On the wind power side, the shareholders of the wind turbine and wind farm companies, the property taxpayers of the town with the wind farm, all of us who would suffer from global warming, and anybody who pays an electrical bill.

So why is it that an entire state is unable to even delay a transnational corporation from emitting air pollution as a test for emitting more pollution in the long term, while a handful of people can stall a renewable energy project indefinitely? More on that another time.