FRUITS OF TENASKA -CITY OF BROWNSVILLE "DEAL"

(The City of Brownsville and the Brownsville Public Utility Board has been tight-lipped about the details surrounding the agreement between them and Tenaska in the construction of the 800 MegaWatt gas-fired electric plant they plan to build in the city. The information in this post was taken directly from their application to the Environmental Protection Agency.  Of particular interest is the section dealing with the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of greenhouse gases.)

Tanaska states in the EPA application that the plant will emit the following contaminants:
1. nitrogen oxides (NOX)
2. carbon monoxide (CO) and
3. and volatile organic compounds (VOC)
4. Other air contaminants not listed above: NH3, H2, SO4 Mist and (NH4)2, and SO4 will also be released. The proposed Brownsville Generating Station is within a major facility category and subject to a 100 tpy (Tons Per Year) threshold for classification as a PSD major source.

Based on emissions estimates for the Brownsville Generating Station, the proposed project will be PSD major for

CO2: 3,169,143.4 Tons Per Year
CH4: 3,421.49 Tons Per Year
N2O: 80.254 Tons Per Year
SF6: 0.005 Tons Per Year
Total CO2e: 3,265,993 Tons Per Year

PROBLEMS REMOVING CARBON CONTAMINANTS FROM BROWNSVILLE PLANT (Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):
In order to capture and transport the captured CO2 to a sequestration site, Tenaska suggests the following:
"Prior to sending the CO2 stream to the appropriate sequestration site, it is necessary to compress the CO2
from near atmospheric pressure to pipeline pressure (around 2,000 psia). The compression of the CO2 would require a large auxiliary power load, resulting in additional fuel (and CO2 emissions) to generate the same amount of power."
However, "While carbon capture technology may be technologically available on a small‐scale, it has not been demonstrated in practice for full‐scale natural gas combined cycle power plants, such as the proposed Brownsville Generating Station."
Tenaska would need to either transport the captured CO2 to an existing CO2 pipeline located at the Hastings Oil Field, operated by Denbury Resources (258 miles from the proposed Brownsville Generating Station), or transport the CO2 to a site with recognized potential for storage (e.g., enhanced oil recovery [EOR] sites). The closest potential EOR site is an existing oil well, located in Jim Hogg County, operated by Wynn ‐ Crosby Operating, Ltd. (Jim Hogg Well, API No. 24732057). This well is located approximately 106 miles from the proposed Brownsville Generating Station." 

"...Even though transporting and sequestering CO2 is feasible, CCS is not a viable, technically feasible
option for this project due to the fact that CO2 capture has not been achieved in practice for a large scale, 800 MW natural gas combined cycle plant, which was determined by Tenaska not to be feasible in Section 10.5.2.1.1. Nevertheless, Tenaska has chosen to carry it forward in the Best Available Cost Technology (BACT) analysis to evaluate and present the associated environmental, energy and economic impacts."

"The capital cost for the proposed Brownsville Generating Station is approximately $500 million. Using the same cost factors as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) cost, the amortized capital cost for the proposed project is approximately $52 million/yr (including annual operation and maintenance costs). Based on these cost estimations, implementation of CCS will cost Tenaska almost 10 times the project capital cost on an annual basis, which is economically infeasible."
"Economic Feasibility: The low purity and concentration of CO2 in the combustion turbines’ exhaust means that the per ton cost of removal and storage will be much higher than the public data estimates for much larger carbon rich fossil fuel power facilities due to the loss of economies of scale. Even using low‐side published estimates for CO2 capture and storage of $256 per ton for a new natural gas combined cycle facility, assuming a conservative $6/MMBtu gas price means added cost to the project over $200,000,000 per year."
So instead of transporting the carbon monoxide contaminants that will be created by the Brownsville Generating Plant, Tenaska is proposing that it be allowed to periodically check its emissions and monitor its operations but that it be allowed to release the 90 percent of the 3,265,993 Tons Per Year its BACT cannot capture into the Brownsville environment anyway.

It is noteworthy to point out that on Page 8 of its EPA statement, Tenaska states:
"The Brownsville Generating Station will be located in Cameron County, Texas. An area map is included in this section to graphically depict the location of the facility and the power block with respect to the surrounding topography.
In an area area map tendered to the EPA by Tenaska that is centered on the Brownsville Generating Station and  extends out at least 3,000 feet from the property line in all directions, it depicts the depicts the property line with respect to predominant geographic features (such as highways, roads, streams, and railroads). The image shows there is one elementary school (Rancho Verde Elementary School) within 3,000 feet of the facility boundary.
Given the fact that state state officials estimate that the Rio Grande Valley will need 2,800 MW of power in the next 10 years, and that the plants online – including the Brownsville-Tenaska generating plant – will provide 2,861 MWs, it is obvious that it within 10 years we will be forced to seek power elsewhere despite the multimillion expenditures required from PUB ratepayers for this plant now.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to buy our power off the grid than to encumber our future generations with this costly – and environmentally risky – undertaking?