DECOMMISSION[SCAPE] JB SIMMS III | GRAND HAVEN, MI
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts A46 ARCH 499 SENIOR CAPSTONE IN ARCHITECTURE Fall 2016 INSTRUCTOR Elisa Kim PROJECT BY Rory Thibault
DECOMMISSION[SCAPE] JB SIMMS III | GRAND HAVEN, MI
CONTENTS
04 THE PAST 08 THE PRESENT 16 THE FUTURE
THE PAST
COAL or OUR DIRTY ENERGY DEPENDENCE The primary method of generating energy is at a crossroads. Traditionally, the United States has relied upon fossil fuels to provide this energy. However, a new advent in efficient and economical renewable technology, along with concerns of human and environmental health have changed the dialogue surrounding the continued use of these forms of energy.
The coal industry, specifically power plants, have felt the pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in terms of these new regulations. As a result, instead of meeting the new EPA measures, some power plants have been decommissioned. The design challenge is then, determining what the most suitable use is for the power plants after they are no longer in service.
In order to contextualize the present situation in a locality, a historical analysis must be conducted at the national scale. In which case an understanding of the history, can lead to an understanding for the expediency of the design problem.
THE PAST: A REGIONAL TERRAIN Assume
an
alternate
reality
where
the
re-
formation of the Unites States is based off of energy production. Here, production and output is
maximized
and
environmental
awareness
is nonconsequential. The terrain is regraded, with coal-fired power plants located at the most effective locations, these are the hills. The higher the hill the closer the plants are together. The earth’s crust has been removed and looms above, so that extraction and production can occur simultaneously. The subsurface is likewise regraded with the densest mines at the lowest elevation. The mines are located in a similarly effective and efficient manner and are a quick ride vertically down to the surface. The transportation vectors are a series of rings reaching from the mines down to the power plants. This is not a fiction, but an assumed present. 04
THE PRESENT
THE PRESENT: A LOCAL TERRAIN The investigation will focus on the city of Grand Haven. The Board of Light and Power Company owns the JB Simms III coal-fired power plant a 65 Megawatt (MW) facility, located on Harbor Island adjacent to the Grand River. This plant has been in operation since 1983 and provides power to Grand Haven and parts of the surrounding tri-city area. It has continued to meet EPA regulation, and is still in use.1 However, it will only be a matter of time before the power plant can no longer meet the increased regulation, and will have to be closed. The city of Grand Haven has not completed a feasibility study for the power plant and site,2 therefore the basis of this project, research, and subsequent speculations is aimed at creating a framework possible future which can be theoretically adapted to each newly decommissioned power plant in the future across the United States. In order for an effective design solution to come to fruition, careful analysis must be conducted in order to address the numerous stakeholders, economic jurisdictional
incentives, boundaries,
existing and
operations, environmental
impacts. An effective analysis leads to the formation of parameters in which the design can operate. It would be remiss to suggest that a program can be proposed for the site without due diligence being conducted. In that case, the likelihood of implementation would be essentially null. PHYSICAL PARAMETERS The series of maps created were an effort to develop an understanding of the physical parameters the site must address. These maps showcase relationships between fields of focus as well as limitations on the extent of further development. In the impact series, it becomes quite evident that the site is in a precarious environmental condition. Critical dunes are on the west side of the channel opposite the power plant, and wetlands lay adjacent. In the event of a large flood, all access to and from the island would be eliminated. Therefore, resiliency measures must be implemented in the programmatic design. 08
THE PRESENT
IMPACT This also calls into question the remediation efforts and potential for contamination that could occur due to a flood. The existing coal piles pose a substantial risk for infiltrating into the Grand River basin, provided the flood levels reach the base elevation of the pile. Therefore, re-development must remain within the confines of the existing site condition and attention must be given to the current environmental degradation with the onsite storage of potentially harmful products. JURISDICTION The power plant is zoned waterfront (WF). This zoning
designation
permits
marinas,
marina
accessory, open space, restaurants, and waterrelated (re)development.3 The plant lies adjacent to the planned development zoning designation, and old town. It is also situated near parks on harbor island and across the channel. Therefore, the re-development must take into account a mixed-use and residential context. This allows for a focus on smart growth, walkability, pedestrian safety, and increased environmental connectivity. The power plant is also only accessible by auto and by water, the existing rail network does not reach the western part of Harbor Island, rendering any material delivery by rail ineffective. As such, if the site retains any industrial production, materials must be delivered by truck or by freighter. FACILITATION The existing freighter traffic primarily consists of coal, sand, and aggregate delivered to the JB Simms III power plant and VerPlank Dock Company. The US Army Corp of Engineers conducts annual dredging of the canal in order to maintain the necessary shipping depth.4 The canal is designated for commercial port use and therefore must have an average of one million tons of cargo transported annually through the channel to receive federal funding. The JB Simms III plant receives roughly 170,000 tons of coal each year, and VerPlank receives roughly 800,000 tons of coal, sand and aggregate. As a result, when the power plant is decommissioned equal tonnage should replace the coal, although the USACE will not suffer from a lack of funding and will still be able to continue dredging the canal.5 10
A PATH FOR THE FUTURE: A FRAMEWORK In addition to the physical parameters of the site and situation, there are also immaterial forces at play. These are the networks of politics and economics, which impose additional metrics that must be met in order to render a sustainable solution. The flow network illustrates the forces at play and the impact they cause. Using the same fields of focus as the mapping exercise, a pathway through actants and time is elucidated. COALITION FORMATION The Grand Haven Board of Light and Power, (GHBLP) like many other power companies is a member of a larger group which participate in a shared grid to distribute power. GHBLP is a member of the Michigan Public Power Agency (MPPA) among 17 other cities. This coalition is project based, investing in shared goals and common resources and infrastructure. GHBLP is a partner in their Transmission Project and their Landfill Energy Project. The transmission project was an acquisition to obtain the bulk system right and an undivided interest in the transmission grid.6 This allows the coalition complete control over the grid and any infrastructural improvements. The electricity is shared between these members. The landfill energy project was a joint purchase to diversify the power generation from each of the members, by supplementing a portion of the energy in the grid with a renewable energy source, landfill gas. This was in reaction to the MI Public Act 95 in 2008, calling for renewable energy optimization and security.7 PRIMARY PLANT CLOSURE STEPS There are three main steps that a power plant goes through when it is in the closure process. An environmental assessment must be conducted, then there is the physical decommissioning process, and finally the closure. In the initial steps, along with the environmental assessment, attention must be drawn to politics and enacted legislature, to ensure compliance with federal and state legislation. There are multiple standards that have to be met at the federal level, but there are opportunities within them. THE PRESENT
12
FEDERAL FUNDING PATHWAY The contentious Clean Power Plan is an example. Although the EPA is currently being sued over this plan and it is tied up in the supreme court,8 the underlying act is promising. Emission rate credits and the Clean Energy Incentive Program are the two main parts. These provided incentives for sustainable renewable energy generation. Under the plan, credits obtained by generating clean energy could be used to offset harmful generation methods by the power companies or it can be sold to other power companies who are not able to meet the generation standards. The EPA would match credits 1:1 if the units are still in operation in ‘20/21.9 In addition to the Clean Power Plan is an assortment of acts that serve a more regulatory role rather than an opportunistic one.10 STATE-LEVEL POLITICS Increased legislation at the state level has also put the pressure on the coal industry. Through senate bill 437, the state must meet 35% of their total energy production through renewable energy by 2025. However, each utility still maintains 10% of their diversified energy choice in any supplier they choose.11 Also a newly passed accord, even amidst the contention of the CPP, was the Governor’s Accord for a New Energy Future.12 This effort signed by many states, was to diversify and expand reliance on renewables for energy generation. It was also an accord to address the aging infrastructure, in an effort to modernize it.13 STATE-LEVEL ECONOMICS Tangential to the political factors at play are the economic ones. Funding for a re-development project is obtained both through public and private means. Through federal funding, there is a securitized corporate bond, which provides a portion of the funding pending approval.14 This type of bond was created through the commission act of 1939 and establishes that the funding is not generated nor is the offset and subsequent debt the obligation of the taxpayers or state.15 This special bond is submitted to the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) and must be approved by those state regulators. Normally an electric rate policy is established in order to pay off the bond. This is typically conducted through small surcharges in a consumer’s electric bill.16 THE PRESENT
FRAMEWORK END CONDITIONS
PRIVATE FUNDING PATHWAY Funding is also obtained in the private sector. A developer has two main options in order to supplement any original capital investment. The Next Michigan Development Act, a new legislative measure established in 2010 by PA 275,17 facilitated the creation of Next Michigan Development Corporations in order to foster economic activities in Michigan. These corporations, such as the West Michigan Economic Partnership, allow for multicity cooperation and trade for the maintenance and development of current and future properties.18 Grand Haven is not currently a part of this, however neighboring cities to the north are. Therefore, if there was reason to explore this alternative, the means are in place. More substantially, taking advantage of Low Tax Renaissance Zones foster further development.19 Under this provision a development is tax free from Michigan business, state educational, personal, property, and local taxes for fifteen years.20 While this can inherently be used for profit-centered operations, there is the opportunity to utilize it for renewable and sustainable re-development. LOW TAX RENAISSANCE ZONES The Michigan Strategic Fund (MSF) is focused on the redevelopment of former manufacturing sites. The Renewable Energy Designation, more importantly, is focused on promoting renewable energy in the state.21 The aim is to research, develop, and/or create energy, fuels, and/or chemicals from food production and processes, sun, wind, agricultural commodities, trees and paper products, biosolids, and algae. Ottawa county is an eligible county, and could take advantage of one of the remaining seven zones available.22 The application is submitted and reviewed by a joint meeting with the community officials and an MEDC business manager. The city also must approve of the tax abatement, and the development must demonstrate positive economic impact on local government and state.23 Through these mechanisms, future economic, political, environmental, and social avenues can be explored. This framework for exposing methods of funding, legislation awareness, and physical parameters can lead to a responsible design decision and program. 14
THE FUTURE
PROSPECTIVE FUTURE: BIOMASS A concern associated with a rapid transition from traditional fossil fuel energy sources to renewable sources is in regard to the grid. Energy sources such as wind and solar are intermittent power sources. As a result, if one of these sources stops generating energy at any point in time, there must be a careful calibration of energy inputs in order to equalize the system so that power loss does not occur. Currently renewable energy sources are supplemented by traditional base loading energy sources, such as coal and natural gas. Biomass however, is both base loading as well as renewable, meaning that it can provide continuous renewable energy with low risk of power loss. Biomass energy is “carbon neutral,� since it releases carbon back into the atmosphere in the same proportion to what would occur naturally in the carbon cycle.24
TYPOLOGIES Biomass power plants do not have to be a new construction, rather than can be retro-fitted into existing coal-fired power plants due to the similar progression of raw material into energy. The pulverized coal burning process of the JB Simms III plant is illustrated on the left. A biomass retrofit would utilize similar components and follow a similar conversion process. A pulverized coal plant can therefore, under minor upgrades such as modifying the on-site storage means from coal to woody material, modifying the burners, and the dust control system, fire wood pellets. This conversion process is only slightly more expensive per MWh than building a new Natural Gas facility. The conversion process can also be done to burn wood chips but it is more expensive, even though the cost of the material is relatively less expensive than pellets.25 Co-firing of wood chips is also an option, although not as renewable as pure biomass energy production. However, it can be done without any machinery replacement in the existing pulverized coal plant.26 Both of these options have been proven to reduce Carbon Dioxide, particulate matter, SO2, and NOx, but full biomass combustion has a larger reduction.27 16
THE FUTURE
18
SUSTAINABLE SOURCING Biomass plant types can vary based on the prevalent source of biomass available in the vicinity to the plant. In Michigan, biomass plants are classified as Wood/Waste Biomass, Municipal Solid Waste, or Landfill Gas. Biomass plants typically source their materials from within a 5070 mile radius and rarely exceed 100 miles. This is due in part to minimize transportation costs but also has the added benefit of stimulating the local economy by keeping jobs relatively close. Wood/ Waste Biomass plants source a large amount resources from forest harvest residues, conducted annually by the Department of Natural Resources. The Forest Service does an annual inventory of all the forested land in the United States. One fifth to one seventh of all the plots are harvested each year. Harvest volumes are then calculated by determining the absence of a tree from one year to the next. Top wood, or residues, are what is left of the tree on the ground after the round wood has been collected. Currently portions of these residues end up in the landfill. These harvest residues, as part of the traditional timber harvest, can be used for biomass fuel after they have been ground down. The sustainability of the practice can be estimated by comparing the net annual growth to removals ratio. While biomass may be perceived to perpetuate a cycle of deforestation, in practice this is not occurring. 80 percent of the harvests conducted by the DNR regenerate naturally. Clear-cutting and thinnings do occur in select areas, but only where the predominant species are able to rebound and where it’s approved by the FSC. Aspen and Oak are examples of trees able to regenerate quickly after clear-cutting. The DNR does not harvest cedar stands.28 PREDICTED RESOURCE AVAILABILITY In order to depict the quantity of harvest residues available, Michigan forest data was filtered to only include softwood. A density map was created of the resultant parcels. This illustrates the concentration and existing relationships between current Wood/ Waste Biomass plants and the potential for the JB Simms III plant to access these resources. As evidenced on the preceding page, the JB Simms III plant could potentially access an estimated residual harvest in a 70 mile radius, equivalent to existing high capacity biomass plants within a 50 mile radius. An estimated 13,000 tons per MW per year is needed to run a biomass plant, running at 35 percent efficiency.29 In order to depict the relative overlap of sourcing areas by biomass plants in close vicinity to each other, 50 mile radii were created around each biomass plant. This is then compared to the density mapping of residual harvest timber. It can be inferred then, that the JB Simms III plant, if converted to Wood/Waste could sustain itself at a generating capacity of at least 35 MW, as evidenced by the supporting data of the other Wood/Waste Biomass plants in Michigan. THE FUTURE
AN ADAPTED CONVERSATION WITH: MIKE WELLING 30 What is your position at the Grand Haven Board of Light + Power?
I am an engineering assistant. I started at BLP
How long has the company been around?
The Board of Light & Power was founded around
[Board of Light and Power] in 1983.
1896, 120 years ago. Back then the load was mostly lighting, street lighting and some toasters. They had an old steam plant in what is now the Diesel Plant parking lot. They were ‘standalone’ until about 1967 when Wolverine Coop ran 69kV transmission line through Grand Haven. We were an ‘Island’ before that, Wolverine connected us to the ‘outside’ world and another source of power besides just our own internal.
Only one of the three main units is still in operation. Certainly legislation and technology have changed since it’s implementation. What has the BLP done in order to meet the federal and state environmental regulations?
We’re pretty proud of the unit, we loved our generation, Sims was paid for this July, 2016. Roughly an 88 million mortgage paid off, they spent ‘around’ in 1978, 46 million in generation equipment
and
42
million
in
environmental
equipment. We remove 99% of fly ash, 98% of the SO2 from the flue gas (exhaust) and we have low NOX burners in the boiler. Our big EPA issue is Mercury, which is in the coal, and released when burned, there is little that can be done about that. Summer time, when you look at the stack, you will see nothing visible at all coming out the stack, even though were running full load, + 73 megawatts In Winter what you see is just the moisture from wet lime scrubber in the flue gas.
Other power companies across the state of Michigan and the United States have begun to decommission coal power plants in favor of more renewable and frequently cheaper technology. What do you see in the future for the power plant and does this project elicit any interest from BLP?
We might be interested in the final, since Sims 3 is slated for decommissioning in the next 5 to 10 years. If current political forces stay in place, maybe sooner than later. If the White house changes hands that too will affect Sims 3. Which is a little sad, but at least we paid off the bonds and its free and clear. Problem is (in today’s market) we can buy power cheaper then we can make it most of the time. The price for power is dynamic now days, depending on what/and how many power plants are up running and wind speed now days plays a roll too. The price changes by the hour. Summer time the price goes up with demand, so we can make money. The unit will shutting down more often for maintenance as power price’s decease. The reason for lower power price is the lower price for natural gas, which is because fracking has made the US the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. If something like ground water contamination were to happen, all bets are off and were back to clean coal and nukes. 20
NOTES 1. Welling, Mike. “J.B. Simms III – Student Interest.” Message to Rory Thibault. 2016. Email. 2. VanPortfliet, Matt. “2016 Grand Haven Master Plan.” 24 Apr. 2016. Web. 11 Sept. 2016. 3. Ibid. 4. Schropp, Chris. “GH Harbor Info.” Message to Rory Thibault. 2016. Email. 5. Knight, David. “Making Topsoil from Sediment at Grand Haven Harbor.” Great Lakes Dredging. N.p., May 2005. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.; Schropp, Chris. “GH Harbor Info.” Message to Rory Thibault. 2016. Email. 6. Michigan Public Power Agency. Michigan Public Power Agency, 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. 7. Ibid. 8. Balaskovitz, Andy. “Michigan halts Clean Power Plan work, but joins clean energy accord.” Midwest Energy News. N.p., 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. 9. “Renewable Energy in the Clean Power Plan.” Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, 16 Oct. 2015. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. 10. Biolchini, Amy. “Planning begins to decommission Holland’s James De Young coal plant.” MLive. MLive, 15 Apr. 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.; “Basic Information about Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.” Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, 8 June 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.; “Status of Major EPA Regulations Affecting Coal-Fired Electricity Generation.” American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, 25 Jan. 2015. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.; Roberts, David. “The two biggest (non-CO2) threats to coal power from the EPA.” Grist. N.p., 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.; Roberts, David. “The other new EPA rules that could threaten coal plants.” Grist. N.p., 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. 11. Lawler, Emily. “35% clean energy goal for Michigan in overhaul approved by Senate panel.” MLive. N.p., 25 May 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. 12. Balaskovitz, Andy. “Michigan halts Clean Power Plan work, but joins clean energy accord.” Midwest Energy News. N.p., 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. 13. “Governors’ Accord for a New Energy Future.” Governors’ Accord for a New Energy Future. N.p., 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. 14. Alexander, Dave. “Demolition of Muskegon’s B.C. Cobb plant up for consideration by commission.” MLive. MLive, 30 Oct. 2013 Web. 14 Sept. 2016.; Alexander, David. “Demolition City: Muskegon eyes future without B.C. Cobb plant; excited about a new Muskegon Lake.”MLive MLive, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. 15. Alexander, Dave. “Demolition of Muskegon’s B.C. Cobb plant up for consideration by commission.” MLive. MLive, 30 Oct. 2013 Web. 14 Sept. 2016. 16. Alexander, Dave. “Demolition of Muskegon’s B.C. Cobb plant up for consideration by commission.” MLive. MLive, 30 Oct. 2013 Web. 14 Sept. 2016.; Alexander, David. “Demolition City: Muskegon eyes future without B.C. Cobb plant; excited about a new Muskegon Lake.”MLive MLive, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. 17. “Next Michigan Development Act.” Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Aug. 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. 18. Alexander, David. “420 acres on Muskegon Lake: Will Sappi and B.C. Cobb sites be liabilities or assets?.” MLive. MLive, 11 Aug. 2015. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.; Alexander, David. “Muskegon eyes port development zone including Fisherman’s Landing as part of regional partnership.”MLive. MLive, 12 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.; Alexander, David. “Demolition City: Muskegon eyes future without B.C. Cobb plant; excited about a new Muskegon Lake.”MLive MLive, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.; Alexander, Dave. “City of Muskegon backs West Michigan Economic Development Partnership.” MLive. MLive, 10 Apr. 2012. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. 19. Alexander, David. “Muskegon eyes port development zone including Fisherman’s Landing as part of regional partnership.”MLive. MLive, 12 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.; “Renaissance Zones.” Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Michigan Economic Development Corporation, 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.; Alexander, Dave. “City of Muskegon backs West Michigan Economic Development Partnership.” MLive. MLive, 10 Apr. 2012. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. 20. “Renaissance Zones.” Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Michigan Economic Development Corporation, 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. 21. “Renewable Energy Renaissance Zones.” Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Michigan Economic Development Corporation, 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. 22. “Survey of Economic Development Programs in Michigan.” Citizens Research Council of Michigan. Citizens Research Council of Michigan, Feb. 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. 23. Ibid 24. “Biopower - It’s Not Just Carbon Neutral.” Biomass Power Association16 Oct. 2014. Accessed 19 Oct. 2016. 25. Strauss, William. “A Strategy for converting coal fueled power plants to biomass that does not raise the cost of electricity and creates jobs.” FutureMetrics Sept. 2014. Accessed 11 Nov. 2016.; Marshall, Les and Stan Kmiotek. “Coal Pulverizer Modifications To Enable 100% Biomass Pellet Firing”. 2011. Lecture. 26. Boylan, Doug, Keith Roberts, Bill Zemo, and Tom Johnson. “CO-MILLING GREEN WOOD CHIPS AT ALABAMA POWER COMPANY’S PLANT GADSDEN UNIT 2.” Cawaco Resource, Conservation& Development Council6 Dec. 2009. Accessed 5 Dec. 2016. 27. Simpkins, Dulcey, Nicole Allard, and Jan Patrick. “Clean Energy from Wood Residues in Michigan.” Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth June 2006. Accessed 19 Oct. 2016. 28. Neumann, David. Phone Interview. 28 Oct. 2016. 29. Melow, Gary. Phone Interview. 28 Oct. 2016 30. Welling, Mike. “J.B. Simms III – Student Interest.” Message to Rory Thibault. 2016. Email. 21
BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, David. “420 acres on Muskegon Lake: Will Sappi and B.C. Cobb sites be liabilities or assets?.” MLive. MLive, 11 Aug. 2015. Web.
14 Sept. 2016.
Alexander, Dave. “City of Muskegon backs West Michigan Economic Development Partnership.” MLive. MLive, 10 Apr. 2012. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. Alexander, David. “Demolition City: Muskegon eyes future without B.C. Cobb plant; excited about a new Muskegon Lake.”MLive MLive,
31 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.
Alexander, Dave. “Demolition of Muskegon’s B.C. Cobb plant up for consideration by commission.” MLive. MLive, 30 Oct. 2013 Web. 14
Sept. 2016.
Alexander, David. “Muskegon eyes port development zone including Fisherman’s Landing as part of regional partnership.”MLive. MLive,
12 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.
Balaskovitz, Andy. “Michigan halts Clean Power Plan work, but joins clean energy accord.” Midwest Energy News. N.p., 16 Feb. 2016.
Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
“Basic Information about Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.” Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, 8 June 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. Biolchini, Amy. “Planning begins to decommission Holland’s James De Young coal plant.” MLive. MLive, 15 Apr. 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. “Biopower - It’s Not Just Carbon Neutral.” Biomass Power Association16 Oct. 2014. Accessed 19 Oct. 2016. Boylan, Doug, Keith Roberts, Bill Zemo, and Tom Johnson. “CO-MILLING GREEN WOOD CHIPS AT ALABAMA POWER COMPANY’S
PLANT GADSDEN UNIT 2.” Cawaco Resource, Conservation& Development Council6 Dec. 2009. Accessed 5 Dec. 2016.
“Governors’ Accord for a New Energy Future.” Governors’ Accord for a New Energy Future. N.p., 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. “Increasing Use of Surcharges on Consumer Utility Bills.” AARP. AARP, May 2012. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. Knight, David. “Making Topsoil from Sediment at Grand Haven Harbor.” Great Lakes Dredging. N.p., May 2005. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. Lawler, Emily. “35% clean energy goal for Michigan in overhaul approved by Senate panel.” MLive. N.p., 25 May 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. Marshall, Les and Stan Kmiotek. “Coal Pulverizer Modifications To Enable 100% Biomass Pellet Firing”. 2011. Lecture. Melow, Gary. Phone Interview. 28 Oct. 2016 Michigan Public Power Agency. Michigan Public Power Agency, 2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016. “Next Michigan Development Act.” Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Aug.
2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.
Neumann, David. Phone Interview. 28 Oct. 2016. “Renaissance Zones.” Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Michigan Economic Development Corporation, 2016. Web.
14 Sept. 2016.
“Renewable Energy Renaissance Zones.” Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Michigan Economic Development Corporation,
2016. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.
“Renewable Energy in the Clean Power Plan.” Environmental Protection Agency. EPA, 16 Oct. 2015. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. Roberts, David. “The two biggest (non-CO2) threats to coal power from the EPA.” Grist. N.p., 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. Roberts, David. “The other new EPA rules that could threaten coal plants.” Grist. N.p., 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 8 Oct. 2016. Schropp, Chris. “GH Harbor Info.” Message to Rory Thibault. 2016. Email. Simpkins, Dulcey, Nicole Allard, and Jan Patrick. “Clean Energy from Wood Residues in Michigan.” Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth June 2006. Accessed 19 Oct. 2016. “Status of Major EPA Regulations Affecting Coal-Fired Electricity Generation.” American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. American
Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, 25 Jan. 2015. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
Strauss, William. “A Strategy for converting coal fueled power plants to biomass that does not raise the cost of electricity and creates
jobs.” FutureMetrics Sept. 2014. Accessed 11 Nov. 2016.
“Survey of Economic Development Programs in Michigan.” Citizens Research Council of Michigan. Citizens Research Council of
Michigan, Feb. 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
VanPortfliet, Matt. “2016 Grand Haven Master Plan.” 24 Apr. 2016. Web. 11 Sept. 2016. Welling, Mike. “J.B. Simms III – Student Interest.” Message to Rory Thibault. 2016. Email.
22
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Washington University in St. Louis | Sam Fox School of Design Printed + Bound by Rory Thibault Research + Design + Development Rory Thibault Washington University in St. Louis | Student Project Advisors Elisa Kim Washington University in St. Louis | Lecturer Frank Hu Washington University in St. Louis | Lecturer Research Advisors Gary Melow Michigan Biomass | Director David Neumann Michigan Department of Natural Resources | Forest Products Utilization + Marketing Specialist Shane Pavlak County of Ottawa | GIS Supervisor Chris Schropp US Army Corps of Engineers | Chief, Construction, and O&M Branch Mike Welling Grand Haven Board of Light and Power | Engineering Assistant Photography Mike Welling Grand Haven Board of Light and Power | Engineering Assistant
Rory Thibault Bachelor of Design in Architecture Landscape Architecture + Environmental Studies minors Washington University in St. Louis Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts [c] 616 283 7429 issuu.com/rorythibault linkedin.com/in/rory-thibault
Coal Delivery
Main Entrance
East Pond