No Public Meeting this Thursday (Sept 30) for Alto Coalition for Environmental Preservation. Will let you know date of next meeting. Information below was on table at the last meeting on 9-16-21

Meeting 9-16-21 Concerned people join Alto Coalition for Environmental Preservation

"Cement is the second-most consumed material in the world, after water"

Are We Stuck With Cement? The cement industry has little reason to improve its material’s enormous environmental impact.

The Outline: Mike Disabato

In early 2018, Sara Law of the Carbon Disclosure Project raised her hand at a conference in New York on government and private sector initiatives to address climate change. She politely asked the panel, which had been assembled to discuss opportunities for investing in low-carbon infrastructure, whether they knew how much cement each project might require. The panel members shifted uncomfortably in their seats and chuckled; no one jumped in immediately to respond.

Law didn’t mean to embarrass her peers. But her question unraveled some of the panel’s forced optimism that has hung around climate conferences of late. Environmental academics and activists have been joined onstage by financiers with promises of investment opportunities in the ongoing transition to a more sustainable economy. Not many want to fret over cement, the world’s second-most consumed material behind water, and how its use in this economic transition might prevent our society from achieving its climate goals.

Because there are just so many opportunities, they say, for savvy investors and conservationists alike: renewable energy projects; new energy grids; updates to our nation’s battered piped water system (which leaks enough drinking water a day to serve 15 million households). Governments and environmentally minded investors luxuriate in these types of projects because they can help prevent human-caused, or anthropogenic, global warming without sacrificing economic growth.

The problem is that many of these projects require concrete. A lot of concrete. This worries Law and her colleagues at the Carbon Disclosure Project, a non-profit that tracks industrial greenhouse-gas emissions and promotes proper carbon disclosure. The CDP recently released a report, “Building Pressure: Which cement companies will be left behind in the low-carbon transition,” warning the cement industry — cement being the main binder in concrete — that “in its current form, it will not be compatible with” any nation’s commitment in the Paris agreement; and if radical changes do not occur the world will “risk missing [its] climate goals.”

Cement is perhaps the most essential ingredient in an economy’s growth. The incredible scale of its importance was illuminated in the historian Vaclav Smil’s book, Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization, which told of Chinese companies using more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the U.S. did throughout the entire 20th century. That staggering figure doesn’t even account for the cement needed to complete China’s ambitious (and environmentally destructive ) Belt and Road Initiative.

According to the CDP report, the cement industry is the second-largest industrial emitter of carbon after the steel industry. And when accounting for its use in human-made structures, it is responsible for more than a third of the world’s carbon emissions. But unlike the transportation sector, in which a new type of fuel can dramatically decrease the sector’s pollutants, cement’s problem is, well, cemented in its formulation: Limestone is mixed with other raw materials in an immense kiln at high temperatures; as the kiln separates the limestone’s calcium carbonate structure, an extremely dirty strand of carbon is emitted by the ton.

The resulting hard substance is called a "clinker” (this onomatopoeia has its origins in Holland from the word “klinken,” which means “to ring”), and it is then pounded into the recognizable powder that is blended with material binders and water to form cement.

For cement companies, lowering emissions would mean either developing a whole new material or investing in carbon-capture systems, a technology that can capture and store the carbon dioxide emitted by an industrial process. Yet the CDP found the industry to be unwilling or unable to finance the research required to develop a low-cost, low-carbon alternative to cement.

The report chalks up the industry’s intransigence to a business model that, economically at least, is doing quite well. Infrastructure projects need concrete and cement, regardless whether they’re for a low-carbon economy. The average wind turbine, for example, needs about 12,400 to 17,700 cubic feet of concrete made with cement. On the conservative end, that’s 57 trucks worth of concrete. The turbine will produce about three megawatts of energy on average which, when working at full capacity, is enough to power 2,400 U.S. homes for one month.

And wind farms require less cement than most other proposed infrastructure projects. The turbine hall of a nuclear reactor requires 945,000 cubic feet of concrete (4,400 trucks); a wastewater treatment plant requires 270,000 cubic feet of concrete (1,100 trucks).

Concrete is needed to upgrade all our roads to accommodate the autonomous vehicles being developed by tech companies, to construct and upgrade buildings to be LEED certified, to secure all the solar panels being fitted here and abroad, and to build desalination plants for water-stressed communities. The report exposes quite the paradox: We desperately need these infrastructure projects to transition to a carbon-neutral world, but in doing so we will have to emit a massive amount of carbon.

The issue goes beyond the industry. Material scientists, those best suited to study and improve cement’s molecular chemistry, have begun developing a form of cement that uses far less calcium (the pollutive material in cement) in its production. Franz-Josef Ulm, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at MIT, has worked with his team to lower the amount of pollutive calcium in cement’s molecular structure, dramatically decreasing the emissions associated with it and increasing its strength two-fold. The material is in production but not yet feasible for widespread use and hasn’t been tested for long-term durability.

“We have created the Ferrari, now we need to create the Ford,” Ulm said. To accomplish this, Ulm and his team have partnered with the Portland Cement Association, a non-profit that promotes the use of concrete, to bring their alternative cement into the mainstream. “We desperately need more industry partners,” Ulm told me. “The cement industry is a business, they will keep selling the product everyone already knows and wants. Really, what we need is [carbon-pricing] legislation.”

This would require the cement industry to explore the use of alternative materials in their factories, but according to the CDP report, the industry has only used a token amount of their revenues to explore alternatives. And due to their lack of scientific acumen, they’ve focused on using different raw material mixers for cement which are introduced after the carbon intensive portion of the process.

We desperately need new infrastructure projects to transition to a carbon-neutral world, but in doing so we will have to emit a massive amount of carbon. No one in the cement industry has seriously engaged in the herculean task of enhancing the material’s molecular chemistry, nor have they looked to use Ulm’s alternative at scale, according to the professor. Why introduce a new product if everyone is already buying your old one?

Ultimately, the wider consequences of the CDP’s findings are hard to predict. But its conclusions savagely lay bare the fallacy that, at our current state, we can solely use large scale infrastructure to develop ourselves out of the problem of anthropogenic global warming. The CDP’s findings suggest that we scale back development, focus on enhancing the materials we encounter every day, and push governments to regulate the cement industry.

This was the hope of Marco Kisic, the report’s main author. In a recent interview with The Outline he was optimistic, speaking about new technologies for cement plants that have been brought to market in places like Norway and Belgium that are 80 percent less polluting than their traditional counterparts.

Kisic said companies are beginning to understand that the tide is moving against them. “There is some low-hanging fruit the industry can take advantage of to become more sustainable; like changing the fuel used to make cement from coal to clean sources,” he said. “After that, you hit the hard stuff: retrofitting [plants with] carbon capture systems, pushing for legislation on carbon pricing, and using low-carbon cements that are slowly being developed.”

Kisic believes the sector will see the risks its creating and act accordingly. It’s a gesture discordant with the report’s findings, which emphasize that “companies see a much higher likelihood of opportunities occurring than risks, and those opportunities occurring” before the risks manifest themselves, a mindset that prevents their “investing in solutions to reduce [cement’s] carbon intensity.”

As long as the world clamors to build, the cement industry has little incentive to disrupt the status quo.

Feel like this relates. How can any intelligent person even think that a industrial cement plant belongs in the middle of a tourist-driven economy on a scenic, forested mountainside?

Other communities fight Concrete plants

Read the following article from San Antonio that a neighbor forwarded.

Four things I immediately picked up on: WE need a big sign close to the property

Need to write NMED Air Quality with concerns of Cystalline Silicia. Its Periodic Table symbol is SiO2. Do not see that listed in Roper's list of expected air emission pollutants per day during normal plant operations (3am to 9 pm).

Pollutant / Pounds Per Hour / Tons Per Year

PM10 / 3.50 pph / 5.72 typ

PM2.5 / 1.26 pph / 1.95 typ

SO2 / 0.00068 pph / 0.0030 typ

NOx / 0.063 pph / 0.28 typ

CO / 0.053 pph / 0.23 typ

VOC / 0.0070 pph / 0.031 typ

HAPs / 0.0012 pph / 0.0052 typ

TAP / <0.0001 pph / <0.0001 typ

CO2e / na / <10,000 typ

Instead of spending money on a lawyer - spend the money on making a park. Not really. Just my wishful thinking that maybe a park could solve all our problems AND we'd have a park! From the article:

As previously mentioned at Alto CEP meetings: Elect future County Commissioners willing to implement zoning laws. That is our problem here, likewise in this Texas town the article is about - No Zoning Laws. Change is needed to protect our prestine forested mountains and valleys.

Letter received from NMED-Air Quality. When you write opposing the cement plant - they keep you informed. Please note last paragraph on page 2

Initial Citizen Letter (9295)

Saikrishnan, Deepika, NMENV Attachments Sep 17, 2021, 5:10 PM (1 day ago) to Deepika,

Dear Concerned Citizen,

The New Mexico Environment Department's Air Quality Bureau (AQB) has received your comments expressing concern about Roper Construction Inc’s application for an air quality permit to construct the Alto Concrete Batch Plant near Ruidoso, in Lincoln County, near your home or property.

Your comments will be included as part of the permit application record.

This letter is intended to provide general information about the permit process and to inform you that the public notice is available in the Department’s website at the following link under the Lincoln County dropdown option: https://www.env.nm.gov/public-notices/.

Thank you,

Deepika Saikrishnan

If guidance or a determination is included in this email, it is intended to serve as general guidance and is in no way a formal statement of Department policy. New information or changes to regulations may result in a different determination or guidance.

Deepika Saikrishnan

Environmental Scientist

Permitting -Technical Services

NM Environment Department – Air Quality Bureau

525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1

Santa Fe, NM 87505

Work Cell: 505-629-3593

Deepika.saikrishnan@state.nm.us

www.env.nm.gov

Fighting the Cement Plant

At the Alto Coalition for Environmental Preservation meeting Sept. 16, the environmental lawyer, Tom Hnasko, said to keep writing letters opposing the plant to the NMED-Air Quality. The more they hear the community complianing and protesting, the better.

There are many other reasons besides Air quality to oppose the plant - water, endangerment to wildlife and bats, located on a scenic by-way, less than 3 miles to a Wilderness area, traffic/road conditions, operating hours of 3am to 9 pm (lights!), noise, declining property values, and protecting Snowy River Cave / Little Creek and the Bonito River. But it is important to limit your letter to reasons pertaining to air quality. This branch of NMED does not deal with nor cares about all the other reasons. Supposedly, when you write an opposition letter to NMED, they keep you in loop, letting you know when any action is taken by their department.

Original application can be read at: https://www-archive.env.nm.gov/air-quality/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/06/AQBP-Roper-AltoCBP-Application-Recv-2021.06.22.pdf

Write or email, including this heading to your letter: Reference: AQBP-Roper-AltoCBP-Permit Application Roper Construction’s Alto CBP

Deepika Saikrishnan

Environmental Scientist

Permitting -Technical Services

NM Environment Department – Air Quality Bureau

525 Camino de los Marquez, Suite 1

Santa Fe, NM 87505

Work: 505-629-3593

Deepika.saikrishnan@state.nm.us

www.env.nm.gov

Realtors of Lincoln County opposed concrete batch plant with letter to Lincoln County Commissioners, Office of the State Engineer, NMED Air Quality and Water Quality

More detail on What's Happening with the Roper Cement Plant Opposition

Opposition to Concrete Batch Plan: What’s Happening

Hearing Info: Our phone calls, letters, emails and signing the petition have worked!!! The New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) has agreed to hold a public hearing regarding the proposed Concrete Batch Plant at a yet to be determined location in the Alto-Ruidoso area. Due to Covid-19 related schedule delays, the date for the hearing has been set back to sometime in the winter of 2021-2022.

Coalition Info: The newly formed group, “The Alto Coalition for Environmental Preservation” or Alto CEP has been established by The Ranches of Sonterra Property Owners Association (ROSPOA), and includes representatives and participation from other neighborhoods including Alto Lakes, Rancho Ruidoso Valley Estates, Enchanted Forest, Sun Valley, Legacy Estates and Gray Fox Lane, as well as participation from a number of local businesses. A web page is under construction at AltoCEP.org so everyone can follow and keep up on the fight forward.

Attorney Info: Mr. Tom Hnasko from Hinkle Shanor LLP of Santa Fe has been hired and is actively working our case. Mr. Hnasko is a well respected and a nationally recognized environmental and natural resources attorney with lengthy credentials. Mr. Hnasko has estimated legal costs could be as high as $500,000 due to the complexity of our case. The Ranches of Sonterra Property Owner’s Association has contributed $10,000 to fund Mr. Hnasko’s initial work on our case.

Donation Info: The Alto CEP is requesting donations of any amount to help fund our legal objections. Ruidoso CPA Phyllis Bewley will oversee the account, which will be used exclusively for legal costs.

Currently donations can be made in two ways: 1. Checks or Money Orders payable to “ROSPOA”, with a memo note designating “CBP Legal Fund". Send to: Phyllis Bewley, CPA-POB 123, Ruidoso, NM 88355 Attn: ROSPOA CBP Legal Fund

2. Or donations can be made via PayPal at theranchesofsonterra.com or AltoCEP.org. Monthly account statements showing balances, contributions and expenditures will be made public and available at theranchesofsonterra.com website. The identity of all donors will be anonymous. Please note - DONATIONS ARE NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE.

Next Meeting Info: The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday September 16 at 7 pm at the Alto Lakes Country Club in the Pavilion Room. Mr. Tom Hnasko will be present to field questions. Everyone concerned about the proposed concrete batch plant on Hwy 220 is invited to attend.

The rain in August was Phenomenal

Roper Cement Plant UPDATE

Hearing Info:

Our phone calls, letters, emails and signing the petition have worked! There will be a hearing in Alto with the NMED Air Quality Division, but due to covid-19, the date for the hearing has been set back to some time in the winter of 2021-2022.

Coalition Info: The newly formed group, “The Alto Coalition for Environmental Preservation” has been set up under the Ranches of Sonterra Homeowner’s Association. A web page is in the works so everyone can follow and keep up on the fight forward.

Attorney Info: Mr. Tom Hnasko has been hired. Mr. Hnasko is a well respected environmental attorney with lengthy credentials throughout the country. Mr. Hnasko has predicted, worse case scenario could be up to $500,000 in costs. Ranches of Sonterra has put up $10,000 to get the ball rolling.

Donation Info: The Coalition is looking for donations of any amount to help defer the legal cost. Phyllis Bewley, CPA will oversee the account. Scrutiny as to monies donated, how the monies are dispersed and the disposition of surplus funds, will be the responsibility of the Chair, Vice Chair and Treasury Team.

To Donate Info: Money orders and checks please make out to “ROSPOA , For/Memo” designating the Concrete Batch Plant Legal Defense. Send to Phyllis Bewley, CPA - POB 123 Ruidoso, NM 88354 Attn: ROSPOS CBP or go to Ranches of Sonterra web page and on the left you will see a menu and a place to click on, to donate using PayPal.

Next Meeting Info: The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday September 16 at 7 pm at the Alto Country Club in the Pavilion Room. Mr. Tom Hnasko will be present to field questions. Everyone concerned about the concrete batch plant on Hwy 220 is invited to attend.