The majority of our power comes from 2 nuclear plants nearby, 8 hydro dams, and renewables. We also have one of the largest pumped storage hydro facilities a few miles away.

A biomass plant harvesting existing timber would only be better if the alternative were building a new coal plant.

This isn’t replacing anything though. We don’t need an extra 1.5GW, so if this project doesn’t go through the alternative will be that we continue moving towards more solar and wind.

▲

whimsicalism a day ago | parent [-]

Sounds like Tennessee Valley Authority, in which case 50% of your energy mix is fossil fuels and 0% of the biomass plant is fossil fuel and the incremental effect is potentially negative on atmospheric carbon.

	▲	sarchertech a day ago \| parent [-]
		It’s 46% and it’s irrelevant if it’s not replacing any existing power generation. There is more excess data center power demand than there is capability to build plants over the next 10 years, so if this plant isn’t built the likely result is 1 less data center and not releasing carbon from 5.5 million tons of timber per year.