Posted by Frank on April 11, 2007, 2:41 pm, in reply to "A Different per spective form our sister site" So, I will start by first stating - Is this a clean plant, as proposed – absolutely. As proposed - This is one of one of the cleanest power systems I have ever seen. (That’s the short end of the positive side.) Will it stay as clean as proposed? – No – Says the history and the economics of the situation say. Even the designers admitted the cost to produce energy this clean is not competitive in any real-time electric market. For the supporting history look at this document (already approved by the state for another plant) here: http://tinyurl.com/3bczeq Now, a few more not so pleasant truths: The power would really not be used for our Zone. Power facilities of this size are to make up for the shortcomings of other much dirtier “base-load” facilities and to address the over use of power in regions other than our own. The fact is, there is nothing GREEN OR CLEAN about this project. While it is “cleaner” than other facilities the bigger picture is this: A) There is no part of this plan that addresses any of the “dirtier” base-load needs. My burning question - Why should Billerica become a power provider, subjecting our health and local environment, for communities outside of our own who are in no way seeking to implement real solutions to address the larger problem? I cannot in good conscious say that this sort of plant should be put in someone else’s community - because my kids are no more important than anyone else’s. What I can say is that no plants should be built anywhere unless part of the plan incorporates real deliverables of real green power. For anyone that has not seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". I suggest you do and do it before the 24th. I am talking to town government now on how to arrange a real town meeting where everyone gets a chance to voice their questions and learn a bit about what history may have to offer. See you on the 24th.
66.31.107.131
Who am I - I’ve been in the environmental energy technology business for years so I’d like to discus and present all sides of the issue.
and look at section "ANALYSIS OF PROJECT CHANGE".
B) These engines are capable of burning much dirtier fuel with zero modification. So, when the economics prevail, my guess is that dirtier fuel will become an option. However, I also can’t imagine how they would ever get that much oil to a remote location. This alone would be an environmental disaster, which I would never rule out.
C) There is no part of this plan that addresses “forced OR voluntary” conservation – such as Demand Response Systems. -- Does this technology exist? It sure does! Is it widely used? NO! Why not? Because it does not meet the energy companies idea of "affordable technology." So here’s the equation - Cost of conservation (or clean) technology “IS GREATER THAN” The value of your health and the world’s environmental future.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread