| Through a slideshow of work by Cambridge, Mass. pediatrician Dr. William Sammons, MD, and lively discussion, Duff Badgley of nobiomassburn.org show why they think the incinerators offer a total package that is “dirtier than coal” and decried by the American Lung Association, increases in air pollution and toxic wastes and decimates forests with false promises of long-term jobs and a hefty bill to taxpayers.
Hundreds of biomass incinerators are planned across the nation, inluding ones in Port Townsend at Port Townsend Paper, Port Angeles at Nippon, two in Shelton, and one each in Olympia and Forks, on the Olympic Peninsula alone. “The reason we are hosting this presentation is because nobody here knows what ‘biomass energy co-generation’ means,” said Gretchen Brewer of PT AirWatchers. “We’re being asked to give our blessing to a project based solely on the fact that it’s touted as ‘green.’ Is it? Just scratching the surface of the topic raises big questions.” Read the whole story at: http://ptleader.com/main.asp?FromHome=1&TypeID=1&ArticleID=27472&SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55 |
Filed under: Puget Sound | Tagged: Puget Sound |
Question – This article mentions two in Shelton? I live in Shelton. I know of Adage. Do you happen to know what the other one is?
Comment – I have looked at the SEPA for Adage and peeked at the enormous air quality application (available for public review on ORCAA’s website (the air quality authority).
From what I can see, Adage provided a very comprehensive, well done SEPA package that clearly explains their proposal. The air quality application states they will be a minor stationary source. It does appear their emissions will be just below the upper limits for most of the 6 criteria pollutants. If they remain below the upper limits, since our area is in attainment with air quality standards, their emissions would not impact air quality – that is what I understood from the application.
The technology they will be using is explained in Plain English on Wikipedia, and is cited as some of the best available technology currently available to burn biomass while keeping sulfer and carbon emissions down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_combustion
So, I guess I am confused why we could not use biomass energy as part of our renewable energy portfolio, if the plant can stay below standards in a zone that is in attainment such as ours. Really, the alternatives are to burn slash – not allowed anymore – or leave it and other green biomass to rot in a landfill.
I am further confused by this sudden interest in air quality. Huh? Single drivers in Washington care about air quality? Wood and pellet stove owners in Mason County care about air quality? The Union of Concerned Scientists states on their website:
“Motor vehicles are responsible for almost a quarter of annual US emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary global-warming gas. The US transportation sector emits more CO2 than all but three other countries’ emissions from all sources combined”
I will defer to the experts, however, and here is a Letter written to the Union of Concerned Scientists, discussing many of the concerns I have heard around Shelton.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/done-right-biomass-energy.html
Here is further information on biomass energy, how it works – in plain English – and some of the myths. It also discusses technologies and room for improvement.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/how-biomass-energy-works.html
After reviewing all of this, I remain open to hearing both sides (pro and con), but I continue to support a renewable energy portfolio, as I voted for in I-937.