The greenies are all for renewable energy until someone invests their time and money and takes a risk on it. Then they fight tooth-and-nail against the actual project. They find every imaginable objection, while still taking up the green dream - somewhere over the rainbow.
In Port Townsend, WA, Port Townsend Paper wants to expand its existing biomass energy generation plant. The greenies fought and lost. But they have appealed and will continue to appeal and appeal. What do they want? The impossible. To keep their lights on and drive their cars without any impact on the environment at all.
The company says the expansion will power 46,000 electric cars.
Via Seattle Times.... The place where they have sited the project is environmentally unsound, something that needs to be taken into consideration for any new project," [Gretchen Brewer of PT Airwatchers] said.
The biomass plant when constructed will provide an important source of alternative energy, mill officials said.
"We will continue to evaluate the co-gen project and other measures we can take to reduce our dependence on oil and ways to continue our progress with reducing our greenhouse gas emissions," the company said.
"The co-gen project would provide 25 megawatts of alternative green energy to the grid, which is the equivalent of more than half of Jefferson County's electricity consumption [and] is enough to power 46,000 electric cars each year."
"The suit urges the requirement of an environmental impact statement prior to construction of the expanded facility that burns wood waste to create electricity."
That does not seem unreasonable to me.
Posted by: Stan on December 25, 2012 07:48 AMI'd expect that in looking at their various 'boards of directors' or 'commissariats' or whatever 'grand kleagles' rule their activities, you'd find an interlocking directorate worthy of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on December 25, 2012 03:31 PMBoth [proposed biomass-burning plants] have been opposed by environmental groups who say that the facilities will increase pollution, especially of ultrafine particles that can lodge in lungs.
Also, proper reading-comprehension skills can assist in learning about the issues upon which one chooses to comment:
The company says the expansion will power 46,000 electric cars.
Nope. That's a bit of feel-good greenwashing:
"The co-gen project would provide 25 megawatts of alternative green energy to the grid, which is the equivalent of more than half of Jefferson County's electricity consumption [and] is enough to power 46,000 electric cars each year."
There's nothing to suggest the electricity will go for either purpose. Paper mills serve a declining use in our digital age, and the paper mills around here have always depended upon hand-outs from the government, in the form of below-market prices for the unsustainable removal of trees from public land. There's nothing particularly 'green' about any of that, and labeling it in the title of this post, again, doth not make it so.
Have a merry and green Xmas!
Posted by: tensor on December 25, 2012 05:20 PMMERRY CHRISTMAS!!! =:D-
Posted by: Roger Rabbit on December 25, 2012 05:43 PMRegarding paper mills in general, newsprint and writing paper use has been declining for a decade, but packaging and tissue use has not. Ask the Chinese if paper production is declining.
I have watched industry leave our state for all of my employed life. These are not dying industries, just dying here. Shipbuilding, Aluminum, Timber, Cement and Paper too.
My company has been located in the northwest for 70 years. We make more equipment for the paper industry then ever. We just don't build it or sell it here.
anymore
Regarding paper mills in general, newsprint and writing paper use has been declining for a decade, but packaging and tissue use has not. Ask the Chinese if paper production is declining.
I have watched industry leave our state for all of my employed life. These are not dying industries, just dying here. Shipbuilding, Aluminum, Timber, Cement and Paper too.
My company has been located in the northwest for 70 years. We make more equipment for the paper industry then ever. We just don't build it or sell it here.
anymore
Wait -- I thought this project was a risky proposal, for which we greens were required to show great respect for such gutsy riskiness! Are you saying the author of this post is not well-informed about the issue?!?!
(Seriously -- as a fellow engineer, you know it should still have a valid environmental-impact study, right?)
We make more equipment for the paper industry then ever. We just don't build it or sell it here.
You're saying that an industry built on unsustainable levels of resource extraction, made possible by government subsidy, will decline as the resource declines? Wow, it's almost as if you're writing a post about how government distorts the economy. Maybe there's a local web site which might publish it?
Posted by: tensor on December 26, 2012 09:13 AMAnd only someone who is not much of an engineer would think that every capital improvement requires an impact statement.
Posted by: Engineer on December 26, 2012 02:52 PMIs the PTP Paper Mill in Port Townsend currently in compliance with EPA standards and regulations regarding air pollution?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 26, 2012 03:15 PMThe PTP mill is currently licensed and operating per standards in existence when its license was granted. That includes State and Federal. It's in compliance as far as the law is concerned - meaning it met the standards and regulations required at the time the permit was issued.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 26, 2012 04:37 PMBeing contrarian against the interpretation of any political topic by conservatives is all that matters. The fact that marxism parallels a good number of their views doesn't phase them unless they are called on it.
Posted by: KDS on December 26, 2012 08:43 PMThe answer is as plain as the nose on your face - Nuclear power !
That ought to tighten your leftist sphincters.
Posted by: KDS on December 26, 2012 09:52 PMWe've been hearing that idiocy about peak oil for the past 35-40 years, rodent. Time to grow up, son.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 26, 2012 10:55 PMYou are ignorant of so much. Blinded by the groupthink that dominates the Left. Here's your chance to educate yourself: Thorium
Posted by: Leftover on December 26, 2012 11:00 PMYour claim, of this being a relatively minor capital improvement, contradicts the claim made in this post, that it is a major new investment. You and the author of the original post can fight that out amongst yourselves.
Meanwhile, if significant new emissions will result from operation of this project, then why would an EIS not be required? It doesn't take much of an engineer to see that would be a good idea.
Posted by: tensor on December 27, 2012 11:58 AMOn the other side, we realize that by using resources and technology wisely we can have sustainable abundance. This seems impossible to the typical Green supporting Democrat because you have been told to dutifully repeat peak oil myths and focus hate on fossil fuels and love on wind and solar. That is the extent of the Democrat universe. Anything outside that box does not exist.
Posted by: Leftover on December 27, 2012 01:09 PMLet's try again, shall we?
"The co-gen project would provide 25 megawatts of alternative green energy to the grid, which is the equivalent of more than half of Jefferson County's electricity consumption..."
That's quite a bit of power generation, and the concern about the type of emissions -- "ultrafine particles that can lodge in lungs" would seem to justify an EIS. Since the entire rest of your comment is nothing more than empty repetition of cheap anti-Green talk, why don't you instead tell us what your version of a rational threshold for an EIS might be?
Posted by: tensor on December 27, 2012 01:18 PMWhat will be produced by PTP is insignificant in the larger picture, but you are concerned because you do not really understand the world around you.
Table of typical micron particulate.
Posted by: Leftover on December 27, 2012 02:02 PMhttp://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-20-273
Then have a gander at this article where outgoing beloved Gov. moved things forward:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2017692472_apwaxgrrenewableenergy1stldwritethru.html
Then you must ask yourself, if the law provides environmental energy credits, aka "green tags" for biomass what's the beef?
Could it me we have not in my yard syndrome?
Or is the entire program a fraud?
I vote the latter!