http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20130310/OPINION06/703109938
Keywords: Rutland Herald,
Vermont, state, loud voices, future generations, large-scale biomass burning, plants, terrific green initiative, alternative energy initiative, efficient energy projectsg, good conscience ignore, green energy alternatives, Springfield, community, decision, big business, Springfield location, government subsidies, new technology, Gayle Morabito, Springfield community, biomass industry, higher standards, auto industry, large investments, great success, greenhouse-gas-reducing initiatives, exciting technologies, green state, public awareness, North Springfield, poor decisions, state s energy, opportunity, legislators, place, time, facts, plans, matter, cars, wayside, Mar, Article, precedent, beasts, issue, meetings, forums, husband, works, health, communities, production, market, electricity, vote, ball, money, play, businesses, world, tide, table, price, Massachusetts, understanding, subject, behalf, door
The usual carping from a N. Spfld resident with an agenda. For all the "research" that was allegedly done, virtually no meaningful facts were presented. Just another hit piece - green good, big business bad. And "not in my backyard" everywhere between the lines!
ReplyDeleteThe term “green” is nothing more than a bastardized marketing term used to sell a product that has yet to be proven. No product is Zero Emissions but instead is Displaced Emissions.
ReplyDeleteThe manufacture of solar panels is very energy intensive. It takes 2 to 3 years for the energy produced by a solar panel to equal the amount of energy it took to manufacture it. But even though the manufacturing of thin-film solar photovoltaics employ heavy metals such as cadmium recovered from mining slimes, the overall toxic emissions during manufacture is still 90 to 300 times lower than those spewing from coal power plants. The panels have a effective lifespan of 30 years, although many will be discarded sooner as more efficient panels are developed.
ReplyDeleteThe complete process for making corn ethanol (farming, harvesting, distilling and trucking) uses up 1 unit of energy for every 1.3 units of energy produced. Not a very smart way to get usable energy from the sun.
Admin: Thank you for presenting facts by which people can make up their minds. It is a refreshing change from what seems to be almost a majority of comments on this blog.
ReplyDeleteAdmin & Chuck fails to take human life into account. Obviously solar is far safer than biomass burning. It is not about one form of energy over the other--it's about being put in the right place at the right scale. A 35 Megaw. biomass plant in a residential area!!!!!!!! that is the concern--not just the fact it is Biomass. No one is ruling out any type of energy. You two obviously do not really know what this discussion is about!
ReplyDeleteIt is not in a residential area, it is in a zoned industrial park.
DeleteThe plant would be on industrial zone property, but it is in a residential area.
DeleteSo if it's industrial area it's okay to dirty the air and maybe make the area unlivable? Yeah that makes sense.
DeleteI did not say that, I just said that the proposed plant is being built in a zoned industrial area, not a residential area.
Delete8:03 AM-- The two comments before admin were devoid of data; admin's contained data that can be either verified or disproved. None of the four dealt directly with the proposed biomass plant. So, your comment re-defines what this discussion is about.
DeleteChuck, stop try to impress us. We're a bit tired of you.
ReplyDelete@11:00 AM, Amen to that Brother!
ReplyDeleteHis unrelenting, in-your-face comments are a case study of self-verification.
Why because he has a name associated with his comments?
Delete@Admin, please site your sources.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think that the rest of you who post anonymously on here are cowards.
I've said it many times. I am a total NIMBY from North Springfield. However, I firmly believe that this plant belongs in NOBODY'S backyard. Not just mine. If they were trying to put it in your backyard, I would protest as well.
- Sandy D. - North Springfield
re: "If they were trying to put it in your backyard, I would protest as well" Sandy D.
DeleteB.S.!!! How many bio mass protests have you attended opposing facilities in Burlington, Fair Haven, Montpelier, and our own High School? My guess in NONE. Makes you just another self-serving liberal. Good chance you voted for Scumlin, Emmons, and Martin who are directly reasonable for the alternative energy mandate that makes this necessary.
The chickens have come home to roost. Suck it up and live with it.
Vermont seems to be taking a fairly psychotic approach to energy creation. We all know that dependence upon foreign oil is dangerous and gets us involved in a lot of wars that we cannot afford. Further we know that we eventually need to move onto to renewable fuels. Despite that we turn around and attack bio-mass, solar, wind, and nuclear power generators. Our schools are increasingly heated by bio-mass, we still have sugar-shacks dotted around the countryside fueled by wood, we burn wood in our woodstoves and pellet stoves...but a few people who live near an industrial park have been complaining about putting a needed industry in the industrial park. They primarily use hyperbole to attack the plant.
DeleteComparing a biomass plant that generates electricity and burns 24/7 365 days a year to sugar shacks, woodstoves, and heating systems is like comparing apples to oranges. These heating systems don't run year round, and they aren't all grouped together creating a massive amount of pollution in one area. To say this plant will be clean burning is simply false. Look at the developers own report showing the tons of pollutants emitted. They had to get special permits for 4 or 5 of the substances that will be in excess of permitted levels. Depending on where a plant is sited the effects and dispersal of the pollutants may be minimized. One of the major problems with the proposed North Springfield plant is that it's site is in a hollow. The stack height is significantly lower than it should be because of the airport. The emissions from the stack will not simply go up and dissipate evenly, they will be carried in the direction of the prevailing winds and weather patterns at about the same height as the residential neighborhoods on the hillsides surrounding the site. The heavier, and most toxic, stuff like the 40 tons of particulate matter will settle in higher concentrations when they encounter the hills. In a hollow a plant of this size will likely create it's own micro climate in certain weather conditions like when we have stagnant air and temperatue inversions during hot weather.
DeleteFrom Scientific American: Dark Side of Solar Cells Brightens; From Wikipedia: Ethanol fuel energy balance
Delete