I used to live across the street from that plant. It essentially has no inventory, and relies on nearly continuous rail deliveries (particularly in the witer - I remember the horn). Biomass has about 12-15% the energy density of coal, so I’m not sure where 1) they’re going to put a pile 7X the size of the one they have now, 2) how they’re going to accomodate deliveries essentially around the clock in a somewhat congested area, and 3) how they’re going to find enough fuel to keep that station fed, since ag residues are seasonal and the nearest real forestry is located well to the north. I could see making capital retrofits to get this boiler up to 15-20% biomass, but a complete switchover just isn’t going to be economic. Might as well build a natural gas pipeline and switch to that, since it’ll be a heck of a lot cheaper. Then, if you still believe in biomass to energy, build an efficient plant closer to a sustainable fuel supply, and buy the credits from them. What Doyle is suggesting is a boutique, centerpiece investment that makes absolutely no economic sense and serves as rather expensive clean energy bunting for the UW. Students and their parents shouldn’t have to pay for a political stunt.

“A biomass boiler will be installed by 2012, which will produce 250,000 tons of biomass each year…”

Really? The new boiler will actually produce biomass? I wonder where they will burn all of the biomass that will be produced at the power plant?

“[It’s] taking … heating from the 19th century into the 21st century,” Fish said. “It’s a more than $200 million investment by the state, and will eliminate the burning of over 100 tons of coal and have the potential to burn 250,000 tons of biomass.”

Really…it takes 250,000 tons of biomass to replace 100 tons of coal?

Does anybody read these articles (for type-os), or are the authors so far from understanding what they are “reporting”, that they don’t even know how out-of-whack their misreported stats are?

Doyle again finds great ways to waste more taxpayer money. At a time when the state budget deficit is in the billions and Doyle is on his knees begging Obama for a bailout, he has the nerve to approve this crap.

BTW, great point from those who noted the 2500x MORE tons of fuel needed to run the plant! What’s it going to cost to get 2,500 times more shipments of fuel to the plant? This is the same problem with the biomass the lefties wanted at the coal plant in Cassville: you’d have to have semi trucks running 24hrs a day to get the needed biomass delivered to keep the plant running.

Think about it: 250,000 tons of biomass. That’s 685 tons PER DAY. This biomass boiler uses over SIX TIMES the weight in fuel per day as the coal boiler would use IN AN ENTIRE YEAR.

I’m guessing that the 100 tons of coal per year number is wrong. That’d be about 4 truckloads, and I’m guessing they burn a wee bit more than that. Each rail car holds about 100 tons, and I know they receive more than one of those per day. Energy policy being as important as it is, it seems like a good journalist would acquaint himself well enough with his topic to know which numbers pass the laugh test.

@1:14

So if the 100 ton number is wrong, how do you explain the 250,000 ton biomass number? Are both wrong?