Biomass Project Will Not Be In Millar Addition

Monday, March 31, 2008 11:47 PM

Prince George, B.C. - Council Chambers at Prince George City Hall were packed this evening to hear City Councilor Debora Munoz present her case to have a biomass community heating system either moved out of the bowl, or scrapped.

In the gallery, representatives from PACHA ( the People’s Action Committee for Healthy Air) residents of the Millar Addition . The residents had submitted a package of comments from the City’s own air quality initiatives which promoted public involvement and improvements to the Prince George air quality.

Councilor Munoz presented a motion that called for the City not to proceed with the project. She says she was very concerned the project has proceeded to the point it had without there being any public onsultation. She asked about the height of the stacks for the plant. There are three models being tested, with stacks of 20, 25 and 30 meters high. Any stack over 24 meters would have to have a variance permit approved by Council.

Munoz also asked if the funding from the Federal Government was contingent on public support. General Manager of Development Services and Operations, Bob Radloff responded saying "An endorsement by Council is considered public support."

Councilor Don Zurowski says he is in support of stopping the bio-mass energy plant in the current proposed location (at 4th and Scotia) "Not because of the science, I am not interested in developing a community energy system that is going to be protested when we should be celebrating it." Zurowski says he isn't prepared to take a community energy system off the table right now, "I am embarrassed how this has rolled out. I agree with the community that we got the location wrong, and I would like to see it taken off the books tonight."

Councilor Glen Scott says he thinks the project is right, but the location is wrong.

Councilor Brian Skakun says he doesn't think the community energy system should proceed. "It doesn't mean we can't have it, if its outside the bowl we can have it." He suggests selling the property and using the money to fund pipelines to pipe the heat from a location outside of the bowl.

Councilor Sherry Sethen says taking two tons out of the airshed "Makes good sense, but I think all the people have been hearing is that we would be putting one ton in." She says the study that is underway is important to find out how the air quality can be improved and options for a community energy system.

Councilor Don Bassermann says he is not prepared to make a decision to scrap the project all together, but is willing to take the current location out of the mix then wait for the balance of the studies before making a final decision.

Mayor Colin Kinsley stepped in saying we know fine particulate is bad. "We are getting hung up on the one ton, foergetting that we are taking two tons out, and that'sjust particulate. I have looked at community energy systems in Finland where they are taking fiber off the forest floor and they are providing heat to all buildings and there isn't one smoke stack in the community. To stop it out right I think is wrong."

Councilor Munoz's motion was defeated, but Councilor Don Zurowski moved the proposed site be taken off the books.

Councilor Bassermann added, "What we are trying to say to the neighbourhood is we hear you, what we are trying to say to the community is give us a chance to look at it."

People's Action Committee for Healthy Air member Betty Bekkering says Council missed the point "This isn't just about the Millar Addition, its about the airshed." She pointed out there were people from all over the Cityinthe gallery. Bekkering says the City should be following through on the recommendations of the Mayor's Air Quality task force and improving the quality of the air before adding anything else to the air shed. She says the City keeps "Hanging on to the reduced emissions but there hasn't been any improvement in the air quality ."

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, March 31, 2008 11:47 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: lunarbase on April 1 2008 7:42 AM

It just came clear to me why the city is so determined to put this downtown. It has a little to do with so called " Green Energy " but rather the boilers in all the city facilities downtown are nearing the end of their lifetime. So instead of replacing them, do this big energy system and then the capital costs come from a different budget and has access to other funding.

Instead of adding more particulate to the bowl area, put this unit up at the University. Heat the University, Northern Sports Centre and easy enough to head down the hill and heat the Pool and CN Centre. Much larger square foot areas then downtown and therefore more green house gases removed from the airshed and the dispersion pattern from the top of the hill is better then down in the valley. UNBC could also use it as a research facility.

Posted by: iwundery on April 1 2008 8:10 AM

I would suggest that the city now conduct meaningful consultation with the citizens of this community as a whole. Endorsement by Council does not in my mind constitute broad public support, as this situation obviously demonstrates.

Posted by: diplomat on April 1 2008 8:28 AM

The Mayor still got what he wanted: It won't be in the location that was his first choice but now the push is on to have it on River Road - still downtown, still in the bowl where the air gets trapped.

He doesn't seem to understand what the people want - no more NEW smoke stacks in the bowl spewing out dangerous particulates!

He doesn't live in that area by his own admission. Still, he ought to show leadership in the clean-up-the-air efforts and show respect for the wishes (in this case demands) of the people.

Councilor Sethen did not seem to have a full grasp of what was at stake here, in my opinion.

Councilor Munoz tried to snuff out this whole bad idea, but unfortunately there will have to be another round of confrontation before the other *representatives of the people* finally agree with her and look for a location far out of town, close to the BC Hydro power grid.

Maybe the petition by half a hundred of health care specialists will have an impact?

One can only hope!

Posted by: Foo738 on April 1 2008 8:42 AM

I think Colin should move into the bowl area. Fair's fair.

Posted by: lunarbase on April 1 2008 8:43 AM

Why on earth would they build it on the flood plain ! Did they learn nothing of recent issues with downtown !

Posted by: getajob on April 1 2008 10:20 AM

Build it in College heights...much better place for it up there.Be nice to look up at a poluted sh%%7hole for a change..

Posted by: Bridge on April 1 2008 10:28 AM

Did anyone hear the words the Mare offered Mr Bates after the motion that the project was not to be constructed at 4th and Scotia? "Continue with the studies on what impact the project would have at a new location when constructed"

It was interesting to see how those for the project played their politcal game by telling us that they were listening to the taxpayer but the project should not be scraped but just needed more study and therefore they would have to vote against Councilor Munoz's motion. The fact that the stack for the Plant would contravene City bylaws was ignored.

John Kenneth Galbraith who was an economic adivsore to John F Kennedy put it this way, " Every corporation has two parts, the Executice (city council) and the operating body (City Hall). Everyone is led to believe that the Executive controls the Corporation. This is completely faults. All the executive does is provide the funding for the Operating body to build their empire.

This is exactly what is happening at City Hall right now. The Empire as we all know is top heavey and they need things to do.They have given us a 200 million dollar debt to keep them busy. And It appears Mr Radloff is the spin doctor that has the Mare and some of th other Councilors under his thumb. It is Radloff as Mr Bates has inherited all of Mr Radloffs dreams. Thje cup is half full.

Cheers

Posted by: Diesel on April 1 2008 5:56 PM

The JFK reference does seem fair. But that's a whole other debate, lets inform everyone including the councilors instead.

The miss information and misunderstanding flying around Council last night was scary and to think some of them are calling the citizens uninformed?

We need to Call, Email or talk directly to our council and friends and let them know whats missing. Things like;

What are the measurable particulate offsets that are tied directly to this project. One tonne is is just PM2.5(the small particles)and where did one tonne come from.

How about PM10(the bigger particles) they have not given us any numbers for this and yet it also has serious health concerns.

A community energy system does not have to be a biomass based system. Why isn't geothermal being talked about, it can provide heating and cooling. Fort St James uses geothermal for municipal buildings. Houston was approved a geothermal system to heat and cool a new public center under the same grant.

Biomass is market influenced and with a number of new systems being proposed the cost will go up. Geothermal is tied less to market conditions because only a small portion of the overall energy generated relies on market conditions (electricity for energy exchange).

I would be happy if they put a geothermal system next door to me. I would hook up my business and home and pay my portion. But not general biomass in the bowl. This isn't a pellet burner or a gas burner that can be finely tunned. This is a mixed biomass burner with lots of room for incomplete combustion. With incomplete combustion comes additional carbon monoxide and VOC's.

Keep the information flowing and lets empower our councilors to make informed decisions. At this point we have at least a few trying to make informed decisions.

Posted by: onemansthoughts on April 1 2008 7:41 PM

Im trying to understand why council has to come up with a solution to this polluter.
They haven even got any information to give to the people of P.G. All I hear is words like mitigate, and infrastructure,going to China to stimulate economy,(he he) I really think we should be voting in people that have a proven history in owning a busuness. They might
be a bit more sensitive on how one spends money of the city. City being 78,000 people
not just city council. I hope I dont offend anyone,I just wanted to vent a little. Thankyou.

Posted by: getajob on April 1 2008 9:10 PM

onemansthoughts
"I really think we should be voting in people that have a proven history in owning a business. "

Would the group that head up the downtown revitalization do any better? Seems to me some own their own business�s and downtown surely is not a gem.

I say get realistic people that have a vision, able to think outside of the box is what PG needs. Owning a business and having a seat on counsel can in my opinion be a conflict of interest.

Posted by: Eagleone on April 2 2008 3:28 AM

If one was a conspiracy theorist then one could easily think that hypothetically the mayors office made a call and RioTinto cut off the water to the Nechako River, so as to freeze the river, then flooded the river, so as to lift the ice and cause an unprecedented ice jam that as a direct result led to the mud-road infrastructure build out by the city, which had the effect of closing a local mill that lasted nearly a 100-years in this city (until this city council of course), and now that the pioneer lumber company is (soon to be)gone the mayor will have his new location that he will instruct his policy enablers to emphasize the new location as a net benefit, because Winton Global will no longer be making emissions, and therefore, the city wins... minus 400'ish jobs and some minor industrial tax revenue. If I hadn't lived in PG long enough I would have never thought it possible, but with the special kind of politicians we have around here anything is possible....

Posted by: govsux on April 3 2008 8:29 AM

cue the x-files theme