Dear Alex,
In any complex analysis there needs to be a weighing factor
assigned to each variable and then evaluated with this weight. Of
course, any objection can be raised, but how valid is it? There are
lots of folks in this world who have no real contribution to society
and simply object to someone else doing something. They can't stand to
see it. A lot of public hearings are witch hunts with someone in charge
who knows the difference.
Dust, road access, truck traffic, site particulate generation are
all factors which are considered in at least an air permit for a
facility. All of this is usually contemplated in the air emission
permitting process and there is no magic in it, just complex rules
which are created to define what the limits to a project are. The
method of creating these rules and their completeness cannot be set
aside by a group which thinks it has a better way. This actually is a
pre-emption of federal regulations set forth for environmental
standards and is inherently stupid and probably unconstitutional. An
agency which sets up it's own environmental regulations without due
process of setting standards, having hearings, etc. is not allowed
under most State laws and certainly Federal. A competent court would
have no trouble setting their actions aside.
Sincerely,
Leland T. "Tom" Taylor
President
Thermogenics Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex English <[email protected]>
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
<[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Feb 20, 2011 8:21 am
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Emissions fines
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
