NJ BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES PRESIDENT ANNOUNCES THERE WILL BE NO PURGEN COAL PLANT At NJ’s Energy Master Plan hearings, President Solomon released that Governor Christie said NO to all coal and carbon sequestration plants in New Jersey.
August 26, 2011– Linden, New Jersey – Over the last two months there have been several hearings for input on New Jersey’s draft Energy Master Plan, which outlines Governor Chris Christie’s plan for use, development and management of New Jersey’s energy over the next 10 years and beyond. During each of these hearings, members of the Stop PurGen COALition have been present to strongly voice their concerns about a proposed experimental coal and carbon sequestration plant called “PurGen,” which would require the construction of a 140-mile long pipeline through New Jersey’s coastal waters and would pump carbon dioxide 1 mile below the earth’s surface.
On July 26, 2011, at the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) New Jersey Energy Master Plan (EMP) hearing, Lee Solomon, the President of the BPU, interrupted Stop Purgen COALition member Barbara Conover’s testimony to announce, “There will be no PurGen. That project is not going forward as a coal carbon sequestration plant. The Governor has said ‘no’ to any coal…I say that publicly, and on the record, and so did the Governor.”
At the August 13, 2011 BPU EMP hearing, another activist questioned BPU about the PurGen project. Though she commended the EMP’s commitment to refuse coal as a source of energy, she called attention to the fact that there was no specific statement within the EMP that addressed the administration’s stance on “clean coal” technology, and more specifically, their position on PurGen. Once more, Solomon stated, “There will be no PurGen. The Governor has been clear about this.”
Stop PurGen COALition activist Sally Jane Gellert, attended the final hearing this week and asked Solomon, “Does this mean that there will be no PurGen – that the experimental so-called “clean coal” plant that was proposed for the state-designated environmental justice community of Linden in Union County has been rejected”? He responded clearly, “There will be no coal plant.”
The Stop PurGen COALition, comprised of almost 40 groups from around the state including New Jersey Sierra Club, Edison Wetlands Association (EWA), New Jersey Environmental Federation (NJEF), and Clean Ocean Action, consider this a small victory for those who live, work, and play along the New Jersey coastline.
“Mr. Solomon’s assurance that PurGen ‘is not going forward as a coal/carbon sequestration plant’ is welcome news not only for those of us who live in Linden, but for the entire region that would be affected by pollution emitted by such a plant,” said Linden resident and Stop PurGen COALition member Ada Brunner. “Linden already fails to meet clean air standards, and this plant would only make that worse.”
“It is a welcome relief to hear that the President of the BPU, Mr. Lee Solomon, has stated that there will be no PurGen and clarified there will be no carbon capture/sequestration here in Linden. We have been assured before by DEP Commissioner Bob Martin, but hearing it again from another individual is welcomed news,” said another Linden resident, Rebecca Kerins-Tattoli. “Although I am not resting easy yet, this is a major hurdle in the battle to stop PurGen.”
SCS plans to process coal for energy in Linden and then send a trillion pounds of pressurized, liquid carbon dioxide waste via a 140-mile pipeline through the Raritan Bay and out into the seabed off Atlantic City.
EWA Toxics Coordinator Dana Patterson is very concerned about health and safety. She explains, “New Jersey is one the most densely populated areas in the country, our Jersey Shore produces millions economically, and this pipeline from Linden to Atlantic City could seriously affect that. Our communities must not be put at risk of a dangerous release of carbon dioxide into the Atlantic Ocean. If the pipeline was damaged, it could potentially destroy our water quality, kill sea life, harm our fisheries, cause major ocean acidification and threaten our human health and safety.”
Citizens United for Renewable Energy member Georgina Shanley is also concerned with safety, “Given our mandatory evacuation order in the path of Hurricane Irene what perverted logic could allow the sequestration of millions of tons of CO2 off our coast. You just can’t mess with Mother Nature!”
SCS Energy is still moving forward with this project and claims they will pump their liquefied carbon dioxide through the pipeline from Linden to Atlantic City, and down one mile below the Atlantic Ocean’s surface, where they expect the carbon dioxide to remain immobile.
“The governor has said that he is opposed to the PurGen project. The question is will he do anything to block it? Under current rules and regulations, they can get all their permits,” stated New Jersey Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel.
“They’re up for a draft air permit now, but unless the governor passes rules and regulations to block this facility from piping CO2 and pumping it offshore, then this facility could get built no matter what the governor’s opinion is. We would like to see legislation to ban the practice of carbon sequestration off the coast.”
“It’s clear the Christie Administration opposes this, what the coal industry calls ‘clean’ but the rest of us call ‘still plenty dirty and dangerous,’ plant. Faced with this adversity, PurGen should exercise some corporate responsibility and close up shop,” said NJEF Campaign Director David Pringle. “Failing that, as I testified before President Solomon at the last Energy Master Plan yesterday and as he acknowledged, the Christie Administration will have to take stronger action to stop this environmental and economic injustice.”
“I’m glad to hear another top state official say that PurGen will not be built, but until SCS Energy announces they are no longer ‘in the game,’ we’ll keep on the alert and keep organizing,” said Essex/Passaic Greens Coordinator Ted Glick. “And there is a big question: If not a coal plant with carbon sequestration, what then? Fracked natural gas? That’s unacceptable to me and the Essex/Passaic Greens.”
###
For more information on the Stop PurGen COALition, please visit: www.StopPurGenCoalPlant.org.
I testified at the Board of Public Utilities “draft 2011 Energy Master Plan” Public Hearing in Newark on August 26th.
The opening part of my statement was to commend the statement in the EMP: “…coal is a major source of CO2 emissions and New Jersey will no longer accept coal as a new source of power in the State.” Then I went on to say this left a loophole for PurGen since it would sequester its CO2…
Lee Solomon, president of the BPU, interrupted me and said: “Stop. You don’t have to say anything more about PurGen. There will be no PurGen. That project is not going forward as a coal carbon sequestration plant. The Governor has said ‘no’ to any coal. That’s a done issue. It cannot even be inferred. There is no loophole. I say that publicly, and on the record, and so did the Governor.”
to which I replied: ” Well that’s great news! I have not heard the Governor say so publicly since he was elected, only as a campaign statement…”
President Solomon said: “Well I’m saying it publicly: there will be no PurGen. I can’t see how it can be more public or more clear.”
Wow.
Again, at the BPU Public Hearing in Pomona on August 11th, another activist again asked about PurGen. She also commended the draft EMP for its commitment to refuse coal sources of energy. Again, she pointed out that there was some concern still because there was no specific statement in the EMP addressing the administration’s position for or against so-called “clean coal” technology, and more specifically, PurGen. Once more, Board President Lee Solomon said, “Haven’t I said this before? There will be no PurGen. The Governor has been clear about this.”
He then caught himself and clarified what he meant by saying that he shouldn’t speak about PurGen (SCS) as a corporation since that would be biased against one company; his comment was about carbon capture and sequestration in general terms. Our activist then requested that this strong ‘no-carbon capture and sequestration’ phrasing be clearly added to the EMP… we shall wait and see if that will be added.
Today, August 24th (at the continuation of the August 3 hearing), Sally Jane Gellert testified on behalf of the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey. She asked, “Does this mean that there will be no PurGen—that the experimental so-called ‘clean coal’ plant that was proposed for the state-designated environmental justice community of Linden in Union County has been rejected?” President Solomon asked her, “Would you like me to answer that?” When she replied in the affirmative, he once again stated that there would be no coal plant in Linden.
Does BPU President Solomon’s statement have any power or validity behind it? Only time will tell; the DEP still has a preconstruction air pollution permit application under review. But this was the president of the BPU speaking publicly – ‘on the record’ – at the time. He should be accountable for his statements.
The press release from EPA follows. The StopPurGen campaign feels that Rules regulating CCS should focus on “safety” not “easy“…
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 4, 2011
EPA Takes Action on Reducing Barriers to the Use of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies
Action supports national framework for the safe use of clean energy technology
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a rule to advance the use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies, while protecting Americans’ health and the environment. CCS technologies allow carbon dioxide (CO2) to be captured at stationary sources – like coal-fired power plants and large industrial operations – and injected underground for long-term storage in a process called geologic sequestration. The proposal is consistent with recommendations made by President Obama’s interagency task force on CO2. sequestration and helps create a consistent national framework to ensure the safe and effective deployment of technologies that will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.
Today’s proposal will exclude from EPA’s hazardous waste regulations CO2 streams that are injected for geologic sequestration in wells designated for this purpose under the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA is proposing this exclusion as part of the agency’s effort to reduce barriers to the use of CCS technologies. EPA requests that comments submitted on the rule share analytical data on the overall composition of captured CO2 streams, including physical and chemical characteristics, to help the Agency determine if additional actions are necessary to ensure the safe use of CSS technologies.
Based on review of existing regulatory programs, EPA’s proposal concludes that the management of CO2 streams under the proposed conditions does not present a substantial risk to people’s health or the environment, provides regulatory certainty to industries considering the use of CCS technologies, and encourages the deployment of CCS technologies in a safe and environmentally protective manner.
The proposed rule is complementary to previous EPA rulemakings, including final rules under the Clean Air Act that require reporting by facilities that capture or inject CO2 streams, and Safe Drinking Water Act regulations that ensure the wells used for geologic sequestration of CO2 are appropriately sited, constructed, tested, monitored, and closed. EPA will accept public comments on the proposal for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
More information on the proposed rule: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/geo-sequester/index.htm More information on the Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm
Atlantic City on Nov. 10 became the first municipality in New Jersey to oppose the Linden-based PurGen project, which would sequester its carbon dioxide waste under the seabed off the coast of Atlantic City.
Since then, a coalition of grassroots environmental and governmental groups have joined forces to oppose the PurGen project.
They include Resolutions opposing PurGen from the following groups:
The Atlantic City Commissioners
The Atlantic County Board of Freeholders
The Atlantic County Utilities Authority
The Surfriders Foundation
WaterWatch International
The Atlantic City Visitors and Convention Authority
The Atlantic City Public Relations Council
The Greater Atlantic City Regional Tourism Council
The project, which proposes to pump liquified carbon and sequester it off our coastline, could have serious negative impacts for our area’s environment and tourism.
It is an experiment we don’t need off of our coastline.
Our oceans are already under enormous assault by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. The CO2 descends into our seas, creating acidity levels not seen in human history. The effects have been to create dead zones, devastating microbial growth that is the base of the food chain for most sea life and the producer of much of our oxygen.
As far as the effects on tourism on our region, one only needs to reflect back on the 1980s, when medical waste washed up on the New Jersey shores and tourists stopped visiting many of our resorts because of the perception of an unclean sea.
Using our coastline as a waste depository would not help the image of our oceans as a clean and safe place to visit, and any accident could be devastating.
Joel S. Fogel
please contact the Stop PurGen COALition if you think your municipality would oppose PurGen. info@stoppurgencoalplant.org.
Linden, NJ – Following yesterday’s earthquake, the Coalition to Stop PurGen called for SCS energy to abandon its plans to build a 750 megawatt carbon capture and sequestration coal and chemical plant in Linden, N.J. The 3.9 magnitude earthquake in the Atlantic Ocean shook New Jersey and New York and tremors were felt as far north as Boston.
The earthquake raises more concerns about the proposed PurGen coal plant, specifically the experimental carbon capture technology SCS Energy plans to use. If built, the coal plant would capture and pressurize most of its carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution. The pressurized CO2 would be piped 138-miles down the coast of New Jersey and injected into the sea floor 70 miles east of Atlantic City.
“SCS Energy’s plans to process coal in Linden and pump liquefied CO2 waste under the ocean for storage is dangerous and short-sighted,” said Peter Montague, Director of the Environmental Research Foundation.
“The PurGen technology is unsafe and unproven. An earthquake like this could be disastrous for New Jersey if PurGen moves forward,” said Christine Guhl, Sierra Club Field Organizer.
An earthquake could cause the pipeline to rupture or cause a leak of CO2 from the storage site. Pressurized CO2 can kill through suffocation and even a small leak could have devastating effects on marine life.
“This is a very experimental project with many risks. The fact that this region is susceptible to earthquakes should eliminate this ocean from further consideration,” stated Heather Saffert, Clean Ocean Action Staff Scienctist.
“This earthquake shows the disposal area for CO2 from the PurGen plant will not work. This is a $5 billion gamble that would harm the environment and put people at risk. That money would be better spent on safer, cheaper renewable energy,” said Jeff Tittel, New Jersey Sierra Club Director.
A recent report, State of Texas Hazards Analysis, states that “some human activities are known to cause or trigger earthquakes”. Human activities that can potentially trigger earthquakes include the injection of fluids into the earth for waste disposal or petroleum production.
In 1987 a magnitude 3.8 earthquake hit Ashtabula Township, Ohio, located on Lake Erie after millions of gallons of hazardous fluids were forced under high pressure into a 1.8 kilometer-deep well. In 2001, a stronger 4.5 quake damaged 50 homes and businesses: ceiling tiles fell, plaster cracked and gas lines broke causing people to evacuate.
“The New York-New Jersey area is one the most densely populated areas in the country, and our communities must not be put at risk for a dangerous release of carbon dioxide into the Atlantic Ocean,” said Edison Wetlands Association Toxics Coordinator Dana Patterson. ”This would potentially destroy our water quality, kill sea life, harm our fisheries, cause major ocean acidification and threaten our human health and safety.”
“There are many reasons why this unproven, untested coal plant should never be built. Yesterday’s earthquake in the Atlantic is the latest reminder of one of them,” said Jane Califf, Stop PurGen Coalition.
The Stop Purgen Campaign is proud to share three videos exploring the impacts of PurGen and ways which you can get involved. The videos were created by filmmaker Rachel Weinrich and with the help of the broad coalition of organizations who oppose PurGen.
Please take a moment to watch these short – but entertaining and informative – videos:
Thank you for watching the “Stop PurGen Coal Plant Video Series.” I hope the videos have helped you understand how this coal plant could affect New Jersey and why the people in Linden and surrounding areas should be protected. Video is an extremely effective way to reach citizens of all ages and engage them in these critical environmental and public health issues. I tried to capture the honest stories of concerned citizens and the realities of this experimental plant. The final products show the serious concern that many people share. I really enjoy the documentary process of talking with the subject, capturing footage, and editing it all together.
In a few months I will be a Rutgers University graduate with a degree in Environmental Policy, Institutions and Behaviors, with a minor in film and agriculture. I hope to continue making environmental and health-based films to shed light on the muted voices in communities like Linden and to help protect my home, the Garden State. I really appreciate the opportunity to work with the Sierra Club and the stop PurGen coalition on these videos. I hope these videos will help.
(editor’s note: CURE makes the 35th member of the COALition against PurGen – but the first to essentially form around the issue… the rest of the organizations are established groups who oppose PurGen. We are truly excited to have CURE as an active COALition member not only for their activism and commitment, but because they are situated down near the sequestration site, filling a “volunteer void” in our campaign.)
CURE opposes the PurGen project. by Georgina Shanley
The group is based in south Jersey which is the terminal point for the proposed toxic waste. We are a broad based group that grew out of the “Hands Across the Sands” effort opposing offshore drilling and calling for renewable energy. We have members from Cumberland, Atlantic, Cape May and Ocean County. Angela Jones, a local Sierra Club member, invited Dr Peter Montague to speak at one of our early meetings.
He educated us on the hazards of PurGen and its impact on the community of Linden and potential hazards of deep sea sequestration of waste from the plant. We are completely in favor of jobs for union and non-union workers but believe that money should be spent, not on perpetuating the use of fossil fuel, but on re-training in renewable energy technology. We have chosen PurGen to be our target project because it represents all that is wrong with our energy direction both state and nationally, and it highlights the squandering of tax money on research and investment in a destructive industry.
for more information, contact Georgina Shanley
609 398 1934
<shanleyg2001@yahoo.com>
NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark
Shows that Capturing CO2 and Storing it Underground
Is Not a Solution to Climate Change
COPENHAGEN, DENMARK, June 2, 2010 – The technology known as ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’ (CCS) cannot deliver the reductions in CO2 emissions that the proponents of CCS are claiming, according to a report published today by NOAH/ Friends of the Earth Denmark.[1]
If CCS is chosen as a major strategy to mitigate carbon emissions from coal power plants and coal fuelled industries, nearly 90% of emissions expected between 2010 and 2050 from the large coal fuelled plants would reach the atmosphere anyway, according to the new report.
Palle Bendsen, spokesperson for NOAH / Friends of the Earth Denmark said, “When CCS technology is observed over time and across the sectors where it is planned to be applied – when we watch the whole film as opposed to the single snapshot of one power plant or a single year in the far future – it is obvious that CCS cannot deliver. Institutions like the International Energy Agency and IPCC must take into consideration the whole picture and review their assessment of this dubious technology”
The available global carbon budget is so small that global emissions must peak before 2015 if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. That is a clear message from recent scientific studies. From 2015 onward, emissions must decline rapidly. Any mitigation tool must be seen from this perspective. However, carbon capture and storage cannot fit into such a scenario because it is impossible to deploy early enough. On top of that, CCS will be ineffective and extremely costly.
Countries like China, the US, Germany, Spain, Australia and South Africa, among others, plan to use CCS to try to mitigate the contribution of fossil fuel emissions to global warming. EU has set large sums aside to finance 12 demonstration plants over the next 10 years. The climate law proposed in the US has similar provisions for CCS.
Palle Bendsen said: “Financing CCS is doomed to be a huge misuse of public funds. Our report shows why. EU and governments should direct their subsidies exclusively to energy conservation, energy efficiency and renewables, as well as finance development of sustainable energy supply systems in developing countries. That’s the way to secure decreasing emissions.”
“CCS will lock in coal. Though far from being commercially ready, CCS is being used as an excuse to continue to build coal power plants that are ‘CCS-ready.’ But such plants will be preserved unchanged for many years to come. ‘CCS-ready’ is a meaningless term,” he added.
“It is obvious that CCS is competing with renewables for R&D resources and capital, thus preventing the rapid development of sustainable energy supply systems.. What we need is a fossil free future. We must reduce energy demands in rich countries with high emissions, and we must increase energy efficiency.” Palle Bendsen added.
CCS is often called a “bridging technology,” connecting a dirty fossil fuel present with a bright green future. This is a false picture. It will take a very long time before CCS would be able to deliver any significant reductions.
CCS is a technology to keep the fossil fuel industries in business with large public subsidies.
Main findings of the report:
More than 350 billion tonnes CO2 will be emitted from coal plants to the atmosphere despite a fast deployment of CCS in a scenario with CO2-emissions decreasing to 50% by 2050.
Emitting 350 billion tonnes of CO2 will make demand on 90% of the remaining budget for CO2 from all fossil fuels 2010-2050. (Coal represents only 42% of emissions from all fossil fuels).
Only 46 billion tonnes of CO2 or 11% of CO2 emissions will be avoided between 2010 and 2050. Until 2030 only 7 billion tonnes of CO2 will be avoided despite a fast deployment of CCS.
# # #
For more information please contact:
Palle Bendsen, climate spokesperson for NOAH / Friends of the Earth Denmark,
NOAH/Friends of the Earth Denmark’s website exclusively dealing with CCS: http://ccs-info.org (in English)
NOTES:
[1] The report by NOAH/ Friends of the Earth Denmark, “An assessment of cumulative CO2 reductions from carbon capture and storage on coal fuelled plants in a carbon constrained world,” is available at http://ccs-info.org/
Alternative scenario without CCS:
“Europe’s Share of the Climate Challenge: Domestic Actions and International Obligations to Protect the Planet”
A study prepared by Stockholm Environment Institute in partnership with Friends of the Earth Europe showed that emission reductions of at least 40% below 1990 levels within Europe by 2020, and cuts of 90% by 2050, are possible without CCS, nuclear, agrofuels and offsetting. www.sei-international.org/climateshareeurope
Apart from this the downsides of carbon capture and storage technologies are many:
a. CCS will not only mean a prolongation but even entail an increase in the use of coal of 25-40%, which in itself is linked with serious negative social, health and environmental impacts.
b. CCS applied worldwide would according to IEA require infrastructure for transport (pipelines and ships) that is much larger than the present transport infrastructure for all commodities put together.
c. CCS will require much more water per produced kWh, thus competing for a vital resource already in great demand. This especially disqualifies CCS as a technology to be applied at inland facilities with freshwater cooling in countries like China, India, Spain, South Africa and the US.
d. CCS will be extremely expensive. The chain of costs of a coal-fired CCS plant involve: extraction and transport of approximately 40% more coal, construction of the CCS plant, capture of CO2, construction of transport infrastructure, transport of captured CO2, injection and storage of captured CO2, safeguarding storage, monitoring and control of storage facilities. This is why CCS will require large-scale public co-financing. There is no way it could be commercially viable to introduce CCS without this.
e. The environmental, social and health damages due to extraction of coal is most often incurred upon people not benefitting from the energy services that rely on coal as fuel. The same goes for the risks related to possible leakages from underground storage.
f. The long time liability concerning carbon storage is an issue that remains unsolved. According to the EU-directive on CCS, private operators can transfer liability to governments only 20 years after the storage site is sealed and closed.
g. CCS will not work well together with an energy supply system with a large share of renewables. The costs of CCS would mean that the plants will be set to deliver base load at full steam, thus not working well with oscillating renewables like wind and solar.
h. Last but not least, as CCS competes with renewables for R&D resources and capital, CCS will in itself prevent the rapid development of sustainable energy supply systems for an energy efficient future with reduced energy demands.
