[Gasification] Emissions fines

Alex English english at kingston.net
Sun Feb 20 09:20:22 CST 2011


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:




More information about the Gasification mailing list