A step towards diversification and economic stability.

7000 homes in PG or is that figuratively? Probably figuratively. By not using Tims drive thru, I figuratively save the carbon emissions of ten SUV s while dining in. I feel good.

An interesting concept. Bring all the wood from within a 3 or 4 hour turn around time to be burned in a few cyclones which will still have emissions. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is, this is a new plant and will be around for 20 or so years at least. Instead of investing in that much money in that location, this plant should be going outside of the sensitive airshed into a new heavy industrial green park.

The Ministry of Environment is continuing not to protect the intersts of the health of PG, despite of what the candidates might be saying. As I said in another post, these people simply do not understand this.

gus, read the article! 70% lower than the emmissions that are curently coming from the site!

Sparky ... I read the article ....

70% less than what amount? Do you know?

The pellet plant used the same argument. The original plant was permitted for about 50 tonnes, if I remember correctly. It was unmonitored for almost 10 years. They then discovered it was putting out 7 times as much as it was permitted for.

Pacific Bioenergy was given a permit because the MoE had egg all over their face. The permit was for about half of what was actually put up in the air and about 3 times what the orginal permit was for.

Now do you know why it is important to know what the base number is, not the reduced number?????

Besides, it is called cap and trade .....

Cap the total emissions, and trade the offsets. Guess what. The pellet plant is looking to up its capacity. There ois nothing to say that other plants will not bring the total emissions back up to the so called cap.

Do some research sparky. These are politicians and this is election time and they can pull the wool over lot of people's eyes. It is the simplest thing in the world.

This planned plant's purpose is to burn wood waste in order to generate electricity.

The story is very sketchy as it doesn't say how that will be done. Anything that generates useful power from the burning of slash and reduces emissions by 70% gets my nod, all politics aside.

Why condemn the whole thing without knowing all the details?

"Why condemn the whole thing without knowing all the details?"

You got it!!!!! We do not know all the details. Why do we not know all the details?

Did we know all the details of the proposed City energy plant? Other than location, no.

I believe we were told that the offset of the City energy plant would reduce the particulates in town.

Emissions with respect to particulates are measures in total particulates, PM10, and PM2.5.

PM2.5 is the most important.

Do I think they are talking about PM when they speak of a 70% reduction? Yes.

Do I think they will be reducing PM2.5 by 70%? No.

There is not even a PM2.5 monitor in the BCR.

70% less emissions. I am assuming this is particulate matter. Reducing emissions can be slight of hand. The MOE corrects the PM to 8% oxygen for wood burning appliances. This eliminates dilution being the solution. I can only assume much more wood waste is going to be consumed in this new plant than previously. Is the reduction in emission from say, 100 mg/dscm to 30 mg/dscm? If you burn more wood the cubic meters of flue gases increases so even if the pm loading per cubic meter goes down it is still quite likely that with the increase in cubic meters of flue gas the total pm liberated to the atmosphere will increase. The real answer is if the public is told how many tonnes of emissions are taking place right now and how many tonnes will take place in the future.
During the gasification process and the burning of this syn gas in an internal combustion engine generates high levels of NOX. How will the NOX and other gaseous emissions be handled.
A full eviromental audit needs to be done on this project.
Right now this project announcement is nothing more than a LIBERAL good news story.

Politicians lie, Gus, that is taking the sugar coating off the statement 'pull the wool...' This Dakus deal is going to put more particulate into the P.G. bowl airshed, is that not obvious?
It is way easier to locate such an enterprise at the old N.O.M. because of existing infrastructure but that should not be permitted in this case because we are trying to reduce our particulate, and this proposal will not accomplish that. By the way, I read that "70%" as referring to the old N.O.M. operation, when they had beehive burners on the claim. Gus, the cyclones are not used for burning, they are used to seperate dust and solid matter from an airstream in a duct or pipe.
metalman.

I am sure not voting Liberal if they are condoning and promoting putting more particulate in our air shed. As Gus says:

"this plant should be going outside of the sensitive airshed into a new heavy industrial green park"

Very definitely. I wonder why the people in College Heights are being so quiet?

Probably a better solution is to locate it way out of town where 300 cars plus service vehicles and big trucks have to drive back and forth every day.

Sometimes I think it's a shame, when I think that I'm winning, but I'm losing again.

Without more details it is hard for me to be overly critical. It sounds like a step in the right direction for jobs and generating renewable energy. A 70% reduction in emissions is a very good number. So far I like what I hear. They need to do what they say they will do and we need to hold them accountable.

Suppose they don't build this plant? Then we can call it a 100% reduction in emissions plant! Such a deal, eh? I love percentages. I love percentages about 80% of the time.

Well maybe if we had a newspaper worth the name in this city they woulod be running more articles on these projects. Maybe they could even explain some of the technology. I should think that it would solve some of the problems we have in this town with lack of, or mis information. Is there really a plot to keep us uninformed or is it the newspaper journalism is dead?

carnmacil, check out yesterday's PG Citizen, it was front page. If you have already put it into recycling (as the good citizen you are) then check the article online.

Harbinger, how can a 70% reduction be equated with "don't build the plant...100% reduction"????
Your numbers don't add up.

I like what I have read, they just need to be held accountable.

carnmacil, check out yesterday's PG Citizen, it was front page. If you have already put it into recycling (as the good citizen you are) then check the article online.

Harbinger, how can a 70% reduction be equated with "don't build the plant...100% reduction"????
Your numbers don't add up.

I like what I have read, they just need to be held accountable.