[Greenbuilding] "Renewable" Energy and Power--- From Radioactive Garbage: “Subsidy debate on burning trash” by Brian Nearing (Newsday 8/12/11)

[Carmine Vasile]

Gennaro, Reuben, Nick & Richard: Do you believe a subsidy should be granted to incinerator owners that burn E- & N-waste to help NY or any other State  "meet its renewable energy goal because it is a reliable source of energy that operates continuously, unlike wind and solar"? Some of the same state and local officials that support Covanta allowed them to burn radioactive garbage as discussed in the NY Times Story: "Garbage Plant Stirs Fears of Radiation", by DAVID WINZELBERG (January 19, 2003,http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/19/nyregion/garbage-plant-stirs-fears-of-radiation.html). Contrary to false and misleading statements published in by the Times, high-level, long-lived radioactive waste like that from Fukushima was routinely shipped to the Northport incinerator operated by Covanta (f/k/a Ogden Martin). This is confirmed in several RADIAC reports @ http://www.gfxtechnology.com/RADIAC.pdf. Instead of forcing Covanta to clean up long-lived radioactive fallout from its incinerators, and removing its radioactive fly ash from the Brookhaven Landfill, Covanta wants to be rewarded and subsidized for poisoning Huntington and Brookhaven residents and their environment.Carminegfxtechnology.com________________________________________Subsidy debate over trash-burning for fuelAugust 11, 2011 by BRIAN NEARING. Times Union, Albany /ALBANY -- A fight is brewing over whether burning residential trash as fuel to generate electricity will be considered renewable energy, which would make the plants eligible for state subsidies.New Jersey-based Covanta Energy Corp., which operates seven burn plants in New York, wants its generating process to be added to the state Public Service Commission list of renewable energy sources, like solar, wind, biomass and methane gas from landfills.The company and its supporters, which include numerous state and local officials, maintain the technology is clean, helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserves landfill space. But environmental opponents said subsidizing burning will discourage recycling to feed refuse to plants and will divert state support from cleaner energy sources.This would be the third time during the past decade the commission has considered adding "energy from waste" plants to the state Renewable Portfolio Standard. Both times, the commission rejected the move, spokesman James Denn said Wednesday.The standard requires the state obtain 30 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015. The current figure is 22.7 percent.To encourage renewable developers, the state since 2004 has offered subsidies that now total about $250 million a year. Much of the funding has gone to wind-power sites to make them more competitive with traditional power plants.The subsidies come from a surcharge on residential utility bills that average about 25 cents a month.Covanta operates plants in Nassau and Suffolk counties; Dutchess County; in Onondaga County in central New York; and Niagara County in western New York."This technology is already recognized as renewable energy in 25 other states, by the U.S. government and the European Union," said Paul Gilman, Covanta chief sustainability officer. He said waste burning will help the state meet its renewable energy goal because it is a reliable source of energy that operates continuously, unlike wind and solar.Gilman declined to say how much of a subsidy the seven plants could receive, but said the subsidies might allow existing plants to expand. 

Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 18:12:40 -0500
From: kaze0010 at umn.edu
To: greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org
CC: ghowell at hme.ca
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Energy and Power...



  


    
  
  
    That's a good presentation/PDF.  I suggest anyone who isn't
    completely clear about energy vs. power to take a look at it.

    

    I also suggest that part of the kWh /  kW per hour confusion is
    based on how we see speed measured.  Our speedometers says MPH not
    M/H, even though 'per' means divided by.  We are familiar with
    speed, but less so with invisible electricity flowing in wires. 
    When people see KWH, perhaps the more familar MPH comes to mind
    eventually leading to other confusion as the meaning of P as 'per'
    evades them.

    

    
<snipped> 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20110812/3cb819d8/attachment.html>