Tom,
I spent some time with the Thurston County Moratorium link. I waded
through the presentations then turned of the tv sound on Hockey Fight
in Canada and listened to the audio from the very civil public hearings
on the moratorium. There was a comment that the ratio of those
for-and-against the moratorium on "biomass" was about 70-1. That sound
about right. Non loggers and farmers to loggers and farmers. Can't do
math to those who can. Uninformed to informed.
How unfair, simplistic and cynical of me. I love trees and clean low
CO2 air too.
Perhaps they know at a deeper level that as a fossil/nuke society we are
sinners and bioenergy talk is just a weak kneed genuflect towards the
cross of sustainability and then back to work. We are going to heat our
bricks and mortar,( or plastic tunnels :) one way or another, no
sweaters required.
To be fairer, many just thought the issue was complex and needed the
extra time for more analysis. They quoted the Mass study on the biomass
CO2 pulse, the lower efficiencies of electrical power generation from
biomass, the concerns about PM 2.5, problems with dust at McNeil in
Vermont, diesel truck emissions, and on. There are thoughtful responses
to all points but inevitably they entail a cost/benefit analysis that
provides fuel to both sides of the debate.
Can we successfully weigh distant benefits with local costs? Is there
any real way to weigh the raising one pollutant level against the
lowering of another?
It isn't getting any easier is it?
Alex
.
On 2/19/2011 12:48 PM, Tom Miles wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
[email protected]
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org
for more Gasifiers, News and Information see our web site:
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org/
