'Green' Energy Plant Proposed for Loudoun
Article Tools
Share This +
Wastewater Would Be Used for Steam
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Loudoun County would be powered by electricity generated in its back yard under a proposal to build an $813 million plant using natural gas, steam and solar energy.
Green Energy Partners is proposing to build the facility on 80 acres just east of Leesburg, on property with two existing natural gas lines. To create the steam, the plant would use up to 5 million gallons a day of treated wastewater it would purchase from Leesburg. The treated water is now discharged into the Potomac River.
John Andrews, who co-owns the company with his father, said it plans to sell the energy wholesale to Dominion Virginia Power and Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative, the two utilities that provide service to Loudoun consumers.
Company officials said that if the project is approved by federal, state and county officials, Loudoun will be consuming electricity that is produced within the county for the first time.
"There is no energy production of any sort in Loudoun County that I'm aware of, except for individuals with solar panels on their homes," said Charlie Jackson, a spokesman for Green Energy Partners. The plant would use no diesel fuel, he said.
Andrews said the hybrid facility would be "the lowest emitting plant in the state of Virginia."
Green Energy Partners applied to the county Friday for permission to build the plant. It is part of a larger project that includes a business park the company hopes to open on adjacent property.
The plant would generate 300 megawatts of energy from natural gas, 300 megawatts from steam and one megawatt from solar energy. Two gas turbines could produce an additional 300 megawatts during peak demand times, company officials said.
Andrews said he expects the plant would produce enough energy to power Loudoun County and possibly enough to sell to neighboring counties.
Judi Birkitt, the senior county planner assigned to review the project, said the review has not begun. But Andrews said the idea, which is similar to models used in some European countries, has drawn positive reactions in informal discussions with county and town officials.
"We need energy, and either you import it or you produce it — and we believe the best way is to produce it," he said, adding that the proposed hybrid system is less polluting than coal and more realistic than other "clean energy" solutions.
"We didn't see Loudoun County agreeing to windmill farms, and the sun doesn't shine enough for us to be able to run our energy on solar, so this is the next best alternative," he said.
Najib Salehi, energy manager for the county, hailed the idea, saying it would probably save money for the county and Leesburg.
"I think it's a very good proposal," he said, adding that the county is constantly looking for ways to cut energy costs, down to the level of turning off computers and vending machines at night.
Leesburg Town Manager John Wells said he had not had a chance to study the proposal. Andrews said that if town officials decide not to sell wastewater for the project, he would look at other options.
If the county approves the project, the company would need to apply for state and federal permits. The approval process is expected to take a year, followed by two to three years for construction of the plant, company officials said.
Tagged: Dominion Power, energy, environment, Green Energy Partners, Leesburg
Deal of the Day
$25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please!
Maid To Please is offering LoudounExtra.com readers $25 off their first house cleaning, or $10 their third house cleaning.
• View all deals from Maid To Please | All deals
Latest Deal
• $25 Off House Cleaning From Maid To Please! posted: 4/28/09
|
Search Deals and Business Directory |
Your Thoughts...
Are you happy that the school year is over?
Comments:
Note: LoudounExtra.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Peruse our reader agreement and privacy policy
This power plant isn't exactly "green". It will still give off pollutants and putting this right next to a new park full of ball fields and families may not be the smartest idea. Would YOU want to have a picnic next to a belching factory?
Posted by GenuineRisk (anonymous) on March 4, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This looks very intriguing from an economic development stand point. What would an 813 million facility mean in terms of tax revenue?
And this would seem to be much greener than coal. And I love that they want to reuse trated waste water.
Posted by louiebird (anonymous) on March 4, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since when did burning natural gas qualify as "green". I think people need to come to an understanding of this term. If it adds Carbon Dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere and contributes to "global warming" then it's not really green and burning natural gas does just that. It may add less of other pollutants to the air, but it still pours out the CO2. These plants are a cleaner source than coal, but they are also more expensive overall and will drive the cost of electricity up faster. I do support this effort and hope these guys will have more luck than the last group (Trachtabel) who tried to build a similar plant in this same area about 10 years ago. Let's see who comes out of the woodwork against another plan to provide power to Virginia(I'm sure the PEC will offer their support).
Posted by nucleardoo (anonymous) on March 4, 2009 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unless they are using magic the only way I see to create steam from wastewater is to heat it. That being said all this plant is is another fossil fuel power plant the only exception is they use Natural Gas vs. Coal. What makes this plant any different then the Dickerson plant over in MD? Not appropriate for an area so close to the residential areas bordering.
Posted by billecaps (anonymous) on March 4, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you want to be downwind (east) of this thing?
Posted by you-dont (anonymous) on March 4, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see the NIMBYs are out already. Natural gas produces 50-70% lower greenhouse emissions than coal. Plus it uses solar, as well. Sounds like a win-win.
Posted by dingus5 (anonymous) on March 5, 2009 at 7:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The 'green' label is an overdose of marketing energy, but this could be a vast improvement on the current way of doing business. When I've read about the transmission line proposals to bring electricity from distant plants to the data farms and high tech employers near Dulles, I've often wondered why a generating plant wasn't built nearer to the load.
Most of these IT facilities have N+1 diesel generators for backup. A gas-fired plant would provide the cleaner power more efficiently and reliably than having all the geeks try to generate power on their own.
There's additional opportunity to use the steam exhaust from the electrical generator turbines to fuel a district chilled water plant using absorption chillers. That could extract a little more efficiency out of the gas combustion and satisfy some of the huge demand for cooling that the data centers impose. Loudoun is a great spot to demonstrate the best available technology for providing power and cooling to the high-tech industries.
Posted by jhuenn (anonymous) on March 5, 2009 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
nucleardoo, jhuenn may have it pegged that "green" is a marketing word.
No word of persuasion is going to stay static for long.
And it is much more efficient for the marketers (primarily of our state-sponsored green religion) if the words remain fuzzy, but produce a visceral impact all the same.
As long as we speak a living language, that will be the case, and will be leveraged.
That said, this looks like a good idea, and yes, the NIMBYs will no doubt be out in force.
We COULD solve the NIMBYs problems by obediently filing back into the cave, and have NO power, or anything else, anywhere near anything and anyone.
But then where would the NIMBYs get THEIR power?
This looks like a good idea.
Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on March 7, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good points, Barbara. Honestly, it does look like we can't put anything anywhere because everything is always going to be too far away or too close to this or that!
Posted by momof2 (anonymous) on March 7, 2009 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I support any type of alternative energy, but the Post article states that, with the Green Energy Project, only 1 megawatt of energy out of 600 is produced from solar. Is this all the solar they could produce or does this comparatively small amount make the project seem "greener" than it really is. Also, 300 megawatts of energy is from steam. What is heating the water to produce steam? Coal, gas? This project could be more environmentally friendly.
Posted by howardm55 (anonymous) on March 13, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"This project could be more environmentally friendly"
And it could be much less friendly as well.
This is how you start the march towards green initiatives, people. You never get it all at one time. We take "baby steps" , and with each new step, we refine the materials (due in large part to evolving technologies)and the process until we get to the point where green energy becomes a viable alternative to Coal-fired and natural gas powered models.
We didn't jump right out of Model A's and into Hybrid cars, folks. It took an awful lot of technology to get from one point to the other. But this is a start, and will help refine those technologies.
Posted by Bulletproof (anonymous) on March 25, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dont have an account? Sign up!
Post a comment