The First Facility Management Blog

A national poll of 800 U.S. residents by the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute found a nearly even split between those suggesting nuclear energy was very or somewhat safe (46.1%) and those who said somewhat dangerous or very dangerous (44.7%).

“Americans are split about whether nuclear power is safe or not, and many people have specific security concerns about nuclear power. The two dangers that concern a majority of Americans are the problems with radioactive waste storage, a top criticism of nuclear power, and possible plant meltdowns,” says Dr. Josh Klein, assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Sacred Heart University.

A majority of Americans (58.4%), however, indicated that nuclear energy’s radioactive waste is a danger that humans will face for thousands of years to come. Over one-third of respondents, 36.8%, expect the number of nuclear weapons to increase worldwide as a result of building more nuclear power plants.

Poll respondents did consider other energy sources as significantly more safe than nuclear energy. A large majority, 94.6%, saw wind energy as very or somewhat safe. This was followed by river and tidal energy (80.0%), geothermal energy (68.5%), fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas (56.1%), and biofuels (55.6%).

While over half of those surveyed, 53.6%, were concerned about the danger of future nuclear energy plant meltdowns, nearly the same percent (54.2%) suggested that nuclear power plants will be safer in the future because of newer technologies making plants meltdown proof.

And, 36.8% did not see a proliferation of nuclear weapons because nuclear energy and nuclear bombs utilize significantly different technologies.

Three-quarters of Americans (76.5%) were aware the United States Environmental Protection Agency had begun the process of listing carbon dioxide emissions as pollution that endangers public health. And, 77.0% of all survey respondents strongly or somewhat supported the EPA’s decision to regulate carbon emissions.

According to Dr. Klein, “The survey mixed pro and anti nuclear statements in equal measure. As a result, we found that about the same proportion expressed concern about future meltdowns (53.6%) as said that nuclear energy will be safer because they will be meltdown-proof (54.2%). Similar splits occurred in this survey regarding other nuclear safety concerns. These reflect some confusion, which is to be expected, given the limited information in major media.”

Electric power production in New Hampshire got a little bit greener this month—and the air may even smell a little bit sweeter—thanks to a collaboration between Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) and premium chocolate maker Lindt USA. On March 3, 2009, PSNH’s Schiller Station in Portsmouth tested a new fuel mix combining the coal it normally burns in the unit with a new ingredient: cocoa bean shells. Designated by the state of New Hampshire as biomass, cocoa bean shells are a byproduct of the production of chocolate.

When Lindt USA begins producing its own chocolate from raw cocoa beans, as it expects to do at its Stratham facility by the end of 2009, the company will produce these shells each week. The test burn at Schiller will determine the feasibility of putting these shells to use as a fuel source.

“Sending shells to Schiller Station would be a win-win for us,” says Thomas Linemayr, Lindt USA’s President and CEO. “Not only would it be a quick, local solution for disposing of a byproduct, but it would afford us another opportunity to reduce our carbon footprint as we bring our chocolate production in-house.”

Currently, Lindt & Sprungli subsidiaries in Europe process the chocolate that Lindt USA uses for products such as the iconic Lindor Truffles collection. The chocolate is shipped in the form of huge blocks, across the Atlantic to the Stratham facility.

When Lindt USA imports the beans directly from the source and manufactures its own chocolate, the company will eliminate the need for these overseas transports and will become one of the only US chocolate manufacturers to manage the chocolate-making process from raw material to final product. Although shells from some of Lindt’s competitors are reused as garden mulch, Linemayr is not aware of any other cocoa-bean-shell-to-energy projects in the U.S. chocolate industry.

For PSNH, the addition of cocoa bean shells to its fuel mix is not expected to bring any significant changes to Schiller Station, since the ratio of shells to coal is so small: about 1 part shells to 33 parts coal. Still, the company sees it as another opportunity to expand its green-energy repertoire.

“At PSNH, we are always looking for ways to increase our use of cleaner, renewable, local energy sources,” says Schiller Station Manager Dick Despins. “If all goes well with the test, our collaboration with Lindt will allow us to replace a portion of coal with a portion of biomass, and each step we take toward replacing a fossil fuel with green power is a step in the right direction.”

In 2006, another boiler at Schiller Station (Unit 5) became one of the largest renewable energy projects in the country, when PSNH permanently replaced the 50-megawatt coal-burning boiler with a wood-burning boiler of the same capacity. In addition to reducing emissions levels from the plant, the Northern Wood Power Project, as the conversion was called, qualifies Schiller Station to produce Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) that are required by various states’ Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).

Renewable Portfolio Standards require energy suppliers to support the growth of new renewable energy sources by purchasing RECs from generators that produce fuel from wind, solar, biomass, etc. PSNH can use RECs it produces at Schiller Station to meet its requirements under the State of New Hampshire’s Renewable Portfolio Standards.

The burning of biomass at a PSNH generation facility also reduces the amount of fossil-based carbon dioxide (CO2) the power plant would otherwise emit. That helps meet requirements of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or “RGGI.” RGGI is a cooperative agreement among 10 states in the Northeast, including New Hampshire, to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel power plants to a target level that is 10 percent lower than 2002-2004 emissions levels by the year 2018. The RGGI compliance rules went into effect on January 1, 2009.