UD/TDC Update: Op-Ed Trifecta Plus Alan Muller's Markell Reality Check

We get three News Journal editorial page letters today. First ~ Markell throws Kowalko 'under the bus'

In his recent Delaware Voice column, Gov. Jack Markell has once again shown how vindic­tive he can be when anyone questions anything he proposes. In the column he quotes himself as saying “stop saying no” (to prospective employers). What he means is “Stop saying no ... to me!” Even worse, he seems to want to stifle anyone who has le­gitimate concerns about his proposals.

He has once again thrown John Kowalko under the bus for daring to do the job he was elect­ed to do. John represents the 25th District in Newark, where a proposed data center/power plant would be located (notice that Jack does not mention the power plant in his column). I have not heard anyone, includ­ing John, object to building a da­ta center on that site. In fact, I know John is enthusiastic about that part of the project. Howev­er, John and many others in the district do have legitimate con­cerns about placing a major power plant in a city/suburban area.

Jack Markell writes that “... creating good jobs is Job One.” That is his job as governor as he sees it. John Kowalko’s job as a state representative is to do what the title suggests, repre­sent his constituents. He con­tinues to do an excellent job do­ing just that. Jack Markell should respect that and stop de­monizing him.

Steve Beard 

Newark

Now juxtapose the Markell-hyped fossil fuel power plants against the new Climate Change Champion image he's burnishing....are you chafing yet? ~ Thank goodness Markell understands environment

Residents of coastal Dela­ware know too well what we are facing because of the impact of climate change and increased flooding.

It’s refreshing we have a gov­ernor who gets it.

At a time when everyone is talking about creating jobs, we need leaders in Delaware and across the country who realize this is not an issue just for envi­ronmental activists and people who live on the beach.

Especially in Delaware, our economy is so dependent on tourism, farming and other in­dustries greatly impacted by severe weather.

So, we should be glad Gov. Markell was made part of the White House’s new group deal­ing with climate change, so he can advocate for our state on these issues at the national lev­el.

I hope he can make gover­nors from other states truly ap­preciate the damage of climate change, so that we do something about it not only in Delaware but as a country.

Lois F. Lisett

Bethany Beach

This third letter sort of says "data center good, power plant bad" but I can't be sure because the author is a master of saying nothing and meaning even less ~ The reality of real estate and economic development

In the city of Newark, there is controversy over the development of the former Chrysler site, now owned by UD. Part of the controversy is based on the merits of specific projects with potentially adverse side effects; and part is about the perception of “it’s just another story,” where things might not turn out as we have been led to believe.

This situation has happened many times, so it is not surprising that people take such stories with skepticism. Some examples: paint plants that emit noxious, carci­nogenic, bad-smelling fumes; highway improve­ment projects that sig­nificantly raise ambient noise levels; subdivision developments that turn Persimmon Creek into a torrent of mud, and flood previously dry base­ments every time it rains. Brownfield sites get repurposed on a tem­porary tax-exempt sta­tus, which turns out to be permanent. Public mon­ey loaned to businesses with promises of eco­nomic growth which fails to materialize and then the loan goes into a state of unrecoverable default. No wonder people cringe. Here is the reality about economic and real estate development and any investment in the future: No matter how careful and well inten­tioned the planning and execution, the results will be different than what was initially expect­ed. The very best due diligence might not un­cover every potential risk and project side effects cannot be fully known. Some things will turn out better. Some things will turn out worse. And there might be widespread disagree­ment over which is which.

So does that mean you should do nothing? Some­times, the answer to this question might be yes.

Do nothing. The potential costs and risks might say: Just leave things be.

But, I believe this is rare­ly the case. Most situa­tions that involve risk and have other potential­ly adverse consequences demand that something be done.

The former Chrysler site is a rare opportunity for economic develop­ment for our community.

It is, I am told, the larg­est in the U.S. It also has significant infrastruc­ture which gives it tre­mendous advantages. It also has residential neighbors, who deserve reasonable consideration. I would suggest the following: 1) Don’t let disappointments and the disinformation of the past color our perception about the present and the future; 2) Let’s not be perceived as a place where economic devel­opment is unwelcome; 3) Hold our representatives appropriately account­able.

Let’s consider propos­als on their own merits.

Intelligent planning and community participation can provide a more vi­brant, growing communi­ty with economic oppor­tunities to the benefit of all.

Robert G. Lasher is an independent consultant specializing in the field of commercial bank credit risk management. He has no financial interest in the development of the former Chrysler site or in any of the entities currently seeking approvals. He lives in Robscott.

Next up: this missive from Alan Muller of Green Delaware ~ “The Data Center,” part #1

All sorts of schemes and scams pop up everywhere.  Some fly, some don’t.  Some make sense, some don’t.
Over the years, a long list of schemes and projects have engaged the attention of Green Delaware and other advocacy orgs.  Indeed, one of our key functions is to analyze proposals and share our opinions.
How does Delaware decide if a project, or a whole industry, deserves public support?  The answer is:  we don’t even try.
Numerous agencies and NGO’s are set up to promote whatever scheme is put before them.  There are NO agencies or offices charged with evaluating whether a scheme is in the public interest.  Let me say that again:  There are NO agencies or offices charged with evaluating whether a scheme is in the public interest.
Occasionally an elected official or agency will try to exercise responsible judgement; ask the hard questions.  Rep. John Kowalko (Newark) does this consistently, and takes a lot of flak for it.  When John Hughes headed up the DNREC, he was supportive of opposition to the DuPont/US Army scheme to dump poison gas residue into the Delaware River.  It made a big difference and the scheme died.
A few years ago NRG proposed a new coal burner at the Indian River Power Plant in Millsboro.  Most politicians and unions signed off on the idea immediately.  Public opposition was broad and deep.  Thankfully, this project died.
Around the same time, an offshore wind project near the mouth of the Delaware Bay, Bluewater Wind, was proposed.  Public support was broad and deep.  Green Delaware supported the project quite vocally but stood alone in also saying a rigorous permitting process was needed because of many unknowns.  The Bluewater Wind people responded by giving money to stooge “enviro” groups.  Rigorous review never happened.  The project has never been built.
Some years ago people were promoting a coal-fired corn ethanol distillery near Claymont–illegally in the (supposedly) protected Coastal Zone.  This quickly died of foolishness.
Green Delaware is following several schemes on the loose in Delaware these days, including a tire incinerator near the City of New Castle, two chicken litter incinerators in Sussex County, and “The Data Center” in Newark.
How to decide if a scheme is a good idea?
Well, if you are Governor Markell or the Delaware Economic Development Office (DEDO), or the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), or the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce, or the Editorial Board of the News Journal, or the Delaware AFL-CIO, the question is simple:  EVERY scheme is a good one, given only that it promises “jobs, jobs, jobs” (very publicly), “growth” (presumed always to be a good thing) and profits for property owners, investors, and various parts of the financial services industries (usually not mentioned so publicly).  Who cares about the environment or the quality of human life in Delaware…?
But if we are concerned about the impacts and costs to society, about limiting climate change so human life can continue somewhat as accustomed, and so some of Delaware can remain above water, about public health, quality of life, residential property values, and so on, we need to make more thoughtful decisions.
What criteria should we use to decide if a project, or a whole new industry, is desirable?  What role should the public have in the decision?  Is Delaware’s political system set up to consider the public interest?  To give the public (us) a say?
The so-called “Data Center” scheme in Newark is interesting because it’s apparently not a “data center” at all.  It’s mainly a power plant.  It’s interesting because all sort of promises are being made that seem unlikely to be kept.  And it’s interesting because the numbers keep shifting.  And because state money has been promised to the project.  It’s interesting because we are hearing reports of threats and intimidation of small businesses and others, and because The News Journal is allegedly refusing to print most letters from opponents.
Data centers typically do need backup generators, and this has been cleverly used by the promoters to muddy the waters of public and official perception.
Lots of interests–unions, various Republican operatives, the City of Newark, the University of Delaware, the Dealer in Chief–are banging the drum for the “Data Center” but as far as I can see none know much about it.  “Due diligence” does not seem to apply.
The Data Centers, LLC, is apparently located in West Chester, PA.  The operation seems not to have any listed phone numbers.  This contact number is found in the air permit:  610-675-6230
Some background
What’s a “data center” (sometimes called a “server farm”)?  Basically, climate-controlled buildings filled with computers on racks.   Since data centers are “mission critical” for their owners, and even a brief power interruption can crash the computers, reliable, backed-up electric power is a key need.
Grid power is highly reliable in the US, with average “uptime” being in excess of 99 percent.  (There are 8760 hours in a year, so if the power is off 2 hours/year the uptime of the power supply is  8758/8760=99.98 percent).  But outages do happen and data centers can’t tolerate that.  They need backup power, which usually takes the form of battery backup systems able to carry the load for a few minutes or hours, and standby generators, usually Diesel, able to carry the load for perhaps a few days.  The backup systems are similar, except in scale, to the “UPS” system you might have sitting under your office desk.   The battery system can carry the load until the generators start.  But some data centers, apparently, run generators a lot, or continually, and many have been cited for air emissions violations.  Some data centers use spinning flywheel backup systems.
How much power a data center needs obviously depends on the size, and is sometimes called out in watts per square foot.  In general, it appears that the amount of electricity used by the computers is about equal to the amount used for air conditioning–keeping the equipment cool.
How much power is actually being used by data centers is unclear but the New York Times reported a year ago that the proportion used for actual computation averaged 6 to 12 percent.  This suggests the possibility of massive improvements in energy efficiency.
A typical “large” data center in 2008 was described as 50,000 square feet and 5 megawatts (MW).  The same source forecast that a “large” data center in 2020 would be 500,000 square feet and 50 MW.  The largest data centers I could find reports on had power supply ratings in the vicinity of 100 MW.  For context, the total peak load of the Newark Electric Department is about 92 MW.
However, a 2002 report by Lawrence Berkeley Lab found the actual electrical consumption of a number of data centers studied to be less than 40 watts per square foot.  The actual consumption was less than the ratings of the supply systems.
The proposed Newark “Data Center,” would, according to a document on the promoters’ website, be 288,000 square feet.  Using the reported 1988 energy consumption of 100 watts/per square foot, that gives us a load of 29 MW.  Using 40 watts/square foot gives 12 MW.  I’ll be conservative and use the 100 watt/square foot figure.
The Data Center says, in the same document:
a. 108 MW is required to support the computer hardware located at the facility
b. 90 MW is required for data center cooling and ancillary equipment, such as lighting
c. 50 MW is required for backup in the event a turbine or engine fails
Total:  248 MW.  8.5 times a reasonable estimate of the actual load.   Disregarding the “backup” capacity, this seems to equate to an energy density of 687 watts per square foot.
But, the actual air permit application submitted to the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control says, at page 2:
” … aggregated combustion units (gas turbines and reciprocating engines) and steam turbines producing electricity will have a combined maximum nominal power capacity of approximately 279 MW, accounting for the capacity of the gas combustion turbine held in reserve. The planned operating electricity output of the CHP, based on six combustion turbines, three reciprocating gas engines and the three steam turbines will be approximately 181 MW. Approximately 131 MW of electricity is required to operate Wolf 1.  Approximately 50 MW is anticipated to be supplied to the City of Newark (through DEMEC) under normal conditions.”
279 MW is almost ten times the reasonable load.
131 MW is different than 198 MW
What’s this all mean?  Which of these various conflicting numbers, if any, should be believed?
Note that the grid is far more reliable than any one generating unit, or even several clustered together as proposed here.  the “PJM interconnection,” the “grid” in this part of the country, is fed by hundreds of generating units, no one of which is vital.  Transmission lines as such, with all their disadvantages, are far more reliable than generating units.
“The Data Center” folks say they are going to forgo all the advantages of the grid and operate as an “island.”  “TDC data center will not draw its power from a local electrical grid (a network for supplying energy), rather it will supply and meet its own energy requirements, standing alone as an ‘island.’”   Yet “The Data Center” apparently also plans to supply the City of Newark, and this raises questions about interconnection with PJM, a complicated procedure.
Are “The Data Centers” really going to build 279 MW of capacity to support a 29 MW load?  How would this be in the public interest?  How could it be profitable for investors?  Whatever is really going on here seems to be different than what the promoters are saying.
More information upcoming in a couple of days on the political and regulatory side of all this.  Why is the DNREC seeking to conceal information?  Why is community opposition so strong?  Why is the City of Newark making the absurd claim that the power plant is an “auxiliary use” to the Data Center, and would not require approval from the City Council?  Lots of questions to explore….

Also read Muller's "adventures" in getting public brownfield remediation information out of DNREC staffers ~ Just how disgusting can the Markell administration get? Is there any bottom?

Is there any fundamental difference between this chicken plant scheme and the reopening of the Delaware City Refinery, one of the worst polluters and fish-destroyers in North America, and the proposed new power plant in Newark, in a time of decreasing power demand and intense need to curb fossil fuel use?  Probably not.  They all reflect the same unwise, short-term thinking, and the same profound disregard for, democracy, public welfare and environmental/climate concerns.
This is no path to sustainable prosperity for Delaware.
One difference is that in Newark, at least, local legislators John Kowalko and, to a lesser extent, Paul Baumbach, are providing some support and leadership to their constituents..  The Millsboro area is represented by Sen. Gerald W. Hocker and Rep. John C. Atkins.  These are among the most special-interest-serving pols in Delaware and there is little chance of them helping their people.

And see: (News Journal) Jeff Montgomery reporting yesterday ~ Cleanup, use of old Millsoboro pickle plant to be discussed at workshop

 A plan to clean up and redevelop a shuttered pickle plant south of Millsbo­ro will go to a citizen advisory group public workshop Thursday, after months of attacks by neighbors and some environmental groups on plans to reuse the site for poultry processing. The Department of Natural Re­sources and Environmental Control’s Community Involvement Advisory Council scheduled the session for 3-5 p.m. at the Millsboro Fire Hall, 109 E. State St.

~*~