Biomass monopolizes fireside chat

Lynn Volkens

02/15/2007 - Commissioner Nicholson held the first of several planned monthly “fireside chats” on February 8^th at the Community Center. Fifteen Gilpin citizens showed up to discuss their concerns and ask questions about County developments. Commissioner Al Price also attended, though he was there “just to listen,” he said. Most of the hour-long session was spent drilling Nicholson about the biomass heating system planned for the new Road and Bridge building. None but Nicholson actually spoke in favor of biomass.

  Nicholson re-capped the route Commissioners had taken to arrive at choosing biomass and offered several reports for citizens to review. The process began with the prior Board of Commissioners, Nicholson explained, when Web Sill and Ken Eye were Commissioners and all were looking to reduce the energy costs of County facilities. Solar and wind energy were looked at. (Wind isn’t feasible at the site because the facility will sit in a topographic bowl. Solar will be utilized for some purposes.) Most citizens’ questions focused on cost, fuel and whether the system will work: does the County have biomass (wood chips) sources pinned down, will the County need to increase labor, is the boiler system reliable and how bad will emissions (smoke and particulate pollution) be? Nicholson answered most of the questions based on consultant reports and research done by Commissioners during the process. There will be enough wood chips to partially heat the facility for most of the first year’s operation, just from clearing the site to build the structure, she said. After that, the plan is for the County to purchase chips, possibly from the Colorado and United States Forest Services. Citizens remained unconvinced that Forest Service chips would be available and said they didn’t feel those entities could be counted on to provide the chips even if contracted for them. Nor did several Gilpinites present trust the consultant reports regarding the reliability of the system, or the emissions information. The latter, said Nicholson, researched carefully, showed this biomass system is very similar to natural gas in emissions. There would be visible smoke/particulate matter only when the system is first fired-up, Nicholson explained. Just because the emissions weren’t visible doesn’t mean they aren’t there, one countered, but another acknowledged the proposed “gasification” biomass process burns hotter and does reduce emissions. As for labor, Road and Bridge personnel will not be out cutting trees, said Nicholson, and it will take only one-quarter of one full-time employee’s hours to operate the system. That would be incorporated into the current Road and Bridge work schedule, she said. Nicholson said she was satisfied that the boiler system design (similar to that of a system in Boulder that is successfully heating a campus of five buildings, she said) can be adjusted for oxygen intake at Gilpin altitude to work successfully here.

  “Is there anything that would change your mind (about installing the biomass system)?” Nicholson was pointedly asked. “If someone could show me there’s no way it would work,” she conceded, “That’s about the only thing that would change my mind - and it would be a costly change,” she said, referring to the approximate $300,000 research, design/engineering costs the County has so far expended.

  Those at the meeting remained unconvinced the County “had all its ducks in a row” prior to committing to the biomass system. Nor were some convinced that heating as much of the building as proposed is necessary. At the cost of the biomass system ($900,000+), one estimated that “heating one building with two people in it for approximately 102 days, when it’s cold, would cost about $20,000 per day. “Keep the offices warm a different way,” she insisted, “the trucks should be out on the road and we don’t need to warm the inside. You’re just building a monument.” Questions the Commissioner couldn’t answer: Nicholson did not have the report with her that compared the cost of biomass versus natural gas or propane, so couldn’t provide the figures on the spot. “I can get that information for you,” she offered. She also couldn’t give a definite answer as to how long it would take for the return of the biomass investment to be completed. “I don’t have a crystal ball,” she said, but noted that if the County buys wood chips at $20 per ton, the estimated payback is 17 years. That time period is based on an estimated increased natural gas cost of three percent. Nicholson invited all to attend a Colorado Extension Office symposium on March 10^th   when the person who did the biomass feasibility study will be available to ask detailed questions. That person had no financial interest in promoting the system, she said.

  With citizens vying for “just one more question,” it was difficult for anyone with other interests to ask their questions. Only the last seven minutes of the “chat” were left for different topics. Nicholson spent a few minutes confirming that the County had approved Ameristar Casino’s warehouse building in mid-County and explained the special use process the casino had gone through to meet zoning requirements. Of concern: Ameristar’s use of a commercial well to maintain water storage there (up to 140,000-gallon capacity). A Colorado Sierra Fire District firefighter at the meeting said the water is to be stored in a cistern and is required for fire protection purposes. Another citizen expressed concern about drivers speeding through residential neighborhoods that frequently have children and other pedestrians walking on the roadways. She asked if speed limit signs could be posted. Sheriff Bruce Hartman, who announced at the start of the meeting that he was attending as a civilian, said he could answer that. “We are working on it,” he said, noting that deputies were patrolling the areas more and that the County’s mobile flashing signs were being used in some places.