Here is the text of a letter I sent to the Planning Board on Monday, March 1, 2010.
Re: Geothermal Energy Information Omissions
Dear Planning Board Members:
I have learned some alarming information about RUPCO’s proposed Woodstock Commons development and want to share it with all of you since of course you are in the process of deliberating the question of whether to approve the project.
The issue I am writing about in this letter is the Geothermal Energy System planned for Woodstock Commons. RUPCO states that 53 wells of 300 feet each will be drilled. That comes to over three miles of drilling. Despite this major project, no noise decibel level for geothermal well drilling exists in the construction noise table presented in the DEIS (DEIS Table 5 on page 188.) Is the projection of geothermal drilling noise somewhere else? I could not find it. My own research shows that geothermal well drilling and removal of debris operates at decibel levels of 80-125 dBA. 125 dBA is over 30 dBA higher than the highest noise decibel level projected by RUPCO in the table of noise the provided in the DEIS.
It is absolutely essential that the drilling noise be estimated and included, since noise is an environmental impact, and this noise is going to be louder than any other, and also compounded by all other simultaneous construction noises.
In addition, RUPCO appears to be silent on the duration of the geothermal well drilling. If only one drill is used at a time, how long will it take to drill all the wells? At 150 feet per day, it would take over four months, drilling six days per week. Drilling five days per week, it would take over five months. That is loud drilling, morning until evening, every work day for four or five months. That’s quite a noise to omit from the DEIS, not to mention the vibration in the bedrock all around the project site.
If the drilling will be done more quickly, with more than one drill, then the noise of and vibration from the drills must be added together, producing what could only be described as deafening noise, and shaking of ground.
Aside from the noise and vibration omissions, RUPCO also omits any discussion of environmental benefits of the geothermal energy system. RUPCO does promise that this discussion exists in DEIS Exhibit 4, “Comparative Cost Analysis of Ground Source Heat Pump System and Oil Fired Hydronic System” by Novus Engineering, February 24, 2005.”
The title is descriptively accurate, and this document is a cost analysis and nothing more. There is no discussion, detailed or otherwise, of environmental benefits of geothermal power. The only inference a reader can make is that by using geothermal power, one is not using hydrocarbon-generated power, but this is a far cry from any discussion on the topic.
In addition to the lack of discussion, this cost analysis is completely silent on the electric auxiliary power function within standard geothermal energy systems. Geothermal power is a “slow” heating technology. What that means is that when you have a thermostat set at a certain temperature, and somebody opens a door and walks out, (or a highway garage door and drives out,) the temperature falls and the auxiliary electric heat coils bring the temperature back up quickly while the geothermal power is slowly coming online. In terms of speed, geothermal power works slowly, like a battery, except that it works with a heat exchanger. You can only get so much energy out of the system per minute, unlike a boiler, which cycles on and off and delivers heat quickly since combustion is a very quick way to generate energy. RUPCO claims that its power use will come exclusively from geothermal energy, that there will be no other backup system, except for the built-in electric resistance heating in the geothermal power units. And using this technology in a building’s common areas, where there will be a lot of in and out traffic, implies a very high rate of temperature variation, and thus, high electricity consumption.
In light of all of these factors, I will now give you my opinion as an experienced policy analyst and a Ph.D. in Energy Management and Policy, and therefore a qualified expert in this field: RUPCO is in way over its head with geothermal power, cannot even wrap its collective brain around the basic parameters of well drilling to even suggest a noise level or time frame, and has not demonstrated any awareness of the hidden perils of energy savings in the context of our local climate variations and the effect of various patterns of usage in the buildings in which they propose to use this technology. For the Planning Board to accept RUPCO’s application to install geothermal energy systems for 53 rental units would be a huge and costly mistake.
Thank you for your most serious consideration in this matter.
Yours truly,
Robin Segal
Enc: DEIS p. 188
Dear Planning Board Members:
I have learned some alarming information about RUPCO’s proposed Woodstock Commons development and want to share it with all of you since of course you are in the process of deliberating the question of whether to approve the project.
The issue I am writing about in this letter is the Geothermal Energy System planned for Woodstock Commons. RUPCO states that 53 wells of 300 feet each will be drilled. That comes to over three miles of drilling. Despite this major project, no noise decibel level for geothermal well drilling exists in the construction noise table presented in the DEIS (DEIS Table 5 on page 188.) Is the projection of geothermal drilling noise somewhere else? I could not find it. My own research shows that geothermal well drilling and removal of debris operates at decibel levels of 80-125 dBA. 125 dBA is over 30 dBA higher than the highest noise decibel level projected by RUPCO in the table of noise the provided in the DEIS.
It is absolutely essential that the drilling noise be estimated and included, since noise is an environmental impact, and this noise is going to be louder than any other, and also compounded by all other simultaneous construction noises.
In addition, RUPCO appears to be silent on the duration of the geothermal well drilling. If only one drill is used at a time, how long will it take to drill all the wells? At 150 feet per day, it would take over four months, drilling six days per week. Drilling five days per week, it would take over five months. That is loud drilling, morning until evening, every work day for four or five months. That’s quite a noise to omit from the DEIS, not to mention the vibration in the bedrock all around the project site.
If the drilling will be done more quickly, with more than one drill, then the noise of and vibration from the drills must be added together, producing what could only be described as deafening noise, and shaking of ground.
Aside from the noise and vibration omissions, RUPCO also omits any discussion of environmental benefits of the geothermal energy system. RUPCO does promise that this discussion exists in DEIS Exhibit 4, “Comparative Cost Analysis of Ground Source Heat Pump System and Oil Fired Hydronic System” by Novus Engineering, February 24, 2005.”
The title is descriptively accurate, and this document is a cost analysis and nothing more. There is no discussion, detailed or otherwise, of environmental benefits of geothermal power. The only inference a reader can make is that by using geothermal power, one is not using hydrocarbon-generated power, but this is a far cry from any discussion on the topic.
In addition to the lack of discussion, this cost analysis is completely silent on the electric auxiliary power function within standard geothermal energy systems. Geothermal power is a “slow” heating technology. What that means is that when you have a thermostat set at a certain temperature, and somebody opens a door and walks out, (or a highway garage door and drives out,) the temperature falls and the auxiliary electric heat coils bring the temperature back up quickly while the geothermal power is slowly coming online. In terms of speed, geothermal power works slowly, like a battery, except that it works with a heat exchanger. You can only get so much energy out of the system per minute, unlike a boiler, which cycles on and off and delivers heat quickly since combustion is a very quick way to generate energy. RUPCO claims that its power use will come exclusively from geothermal energy, that there will be no other backup system, except for the built-in electric resistance heating in the geothermal power units. And using this technology in a building’s common areas, where there will be a lot of in and out traffic, implies a very high rate of temperature variation, and thus, high electricity consumption.
In light of all of these factors, I will now give you my opinion as an experienced policy analyst and a Ph.D. in Energy Management and Policy, and therefore a qualified expert in this field: RUPCO is in way over its head with geothermal power, cannot even wrap its collective brain around the basic parameters of well drilling to even suggest a noise level or time frame, and has not demonstrated any awareness of the hidden perils of energy savings in the context of our local climate variations and the effect of various patterns of usage in the buildings in which they propose to use this technology. For the Planning Board to accept RUPCO’s application to install geothermal energy systems for 53 rental units would be a huge and costly mistake.
Thank you for your most serious consideration in this matter.
Yours truly,
Robin Segal
Enc: DEIS p. 188
Video of discussion about geothermal well drilling, at March 4 meeting. Notice how nobody really knows how many wells there will be, what times of the day the drilling will be permitted, and most important, nobody even addressed HOW LOUD the drills are, in decibels, or HOW LONG the drilling will go on, in terms of number of days. The DEIS is full of decibel levels and schedules for different construction phases. It is shocking that RUPCO has such a poor grasp of this element of the project. It is not as though they were unprepared for this question. They paid for a recording of my presentation, given Feb. 23, and had plenty of time to answer the questions. The planning board had my letter on the topic. Clearly, nobody really wants to look seriously at this issue. Enjoy the movie:
RUPCO drilled 20 geo-thermal wells (400' deep) for the ground source heat pump system at the Kirkland Hotel, a national and state historic landmark they restored in Kingston. The system at the Kirkland seems to operate efficiently.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the geo-thermal wells drilled at 24 Playhouse Lane? Were there any complaints to the building department about the noise when they went in?
Dear "anonymous"
ReplyDeleteIt is not surprising that you write that the Kirkland Hotel system "seems to" operate efficiently. Does it seem that way to you? Who are you? Have you read the meters? Did you study the electricity consumption and usage patterns? Or are you just scanning headlines to check for problems.
As for the geothermal wells at Playhouse Lane, I was not here when they were drilled, but I do know that one next door neighbor suffered terribly during that project. However, she did not complain because she realized that an existing homeowner had the right and the building permits to do a limited amount of work.
Did YOU know that the drilling "hit a gusher" to use the words of the owner of that property? Reportedly, there was water everywhere.
You cannot be selective about what matters and what does not matter. The DEIS was SILENT on noise and SILENT on duration of drilling. Everything else was on the construction list: tasks and noise sources. Geothermal was left out. It was omitted. It was either forgotten or hidden.
Whoever it was who reviewed the DEIS for noise levels did NOT review the noise of the drills, because that noise was never reported.
So quit trying to use other projects to justify this one. If we all did that, we could just hand in an environmental impact statement from another project and be done with it.
I live in the house next door to 24 Playhouse Lane where they drilled a few geo-thermal wells. The construction on that house took every day of one year and the noises was constantly annoying and disruptive. Being homebound very often made the sawing/drilling/building noises very intrusive. I did not make any complaints, not because it wasn't too loud but because I assumed that rebuilding a house was noisey. I do not know the decibel levels but the idea of the noises being multiplied and extended is a horrible thought.
ReplyDeleteJust because I didn't report my car accident at the corner of Playhouse Lane and Rt. 212, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just like the fact that the noise from the construction and drilling next door went unreported, didn't mean it wasn't very loud and annoying.
ReplyDelete