Thank you to the doctors of PG who have taken a stand for the health of our community. Since City Council does not appear listen to the average tax payer, maybe they will when a group of professionals speaks up. Now the rest of the community needs to stand behind them and speak up too!

Right on!
Seems the only ones who really want this farce are the mayor and most of the council?
Nice to see citizens standing up for themselves!
Maybe people CAN control their destiny in the face of political bulls**t?
Keep the pressure on!

Coming from a group who designed their own lives around the best interest of others the city better listen.

Andyfreeze
I believe that someone beside the City Council is pushing this but I am very happy that the Dr's have come out against it maybe now they will come up with a proper alternative

Thank you to the doctors! I understand that at present we have over twenty people die here each year, due to the air quality. That is quite a few....

I agree Big-wayne!
If enough pressure is put on them,I think they will back off...as they should!
Political suicide if they don't!

I guess our mayor has spent so much time in Japan & China he thinks are air here is just great

It is interesting to watch this farce. Neither "side" is really talking sense. It is all emotion.
In my opinion he energy plant should not be built anywhere in the bowl no matter how much offset there might be in particulate matter and whether there is a net increase or decrease for good and solid reason - LEADERSHIP!!!

We all know the city's airshed is one of the worst in BC and Canada. What the reason for that is, is not agreed to and, from the looks of it, will begin to get even more controversial within the next month when more information is released about the airshed in general.

It needs someone to simply say, "enough is enough, there has to be another way" and show others what that way can look like. On top of that, the money is coming because this is supposed to be a “green” project and a “smart” project. If what the city has in mind goes ahead, and this project gets that funding and becomes a “showpiece”, we will be the laughing stock of the world.

The City is throwing the same old, same old, our way.

On top of that, the whole greenhouse gas argument is absolutely ludicrous. Whether one burns wood or oil or natural gas or coal or hay, or whatever, one of the end results is CO2. The only difference is that, for the time being, based on some controversial ecological science, the bean counters are giving biomass CO2 a pass and are not counting it in the world inventory. The big problem is, mother nature is not a bean counter. When she sees CO2 she still bounces the heat energy back to earth rather than letting it escape.

Several people at council last night were scratching their heads and not one single individual from staff gave them anywhere near an explanation as to why it is possible to reduce the CO2 by the phenomenal number of tonnes just by burning biomass alone.

Maybe it is time for the Citizen to write a good article on that since we are not likely going to get a comprehensible report from the City. As always, they are keeping things far too close to the chest, or they too are ignorant of the science. I choose to believe the former rather than the latter.

Well said owl!

I watched this city council meeting from beginning to end and thought at one point in time that the mayor would shut it down when things were not going his way.

In discussions with friends about city issues such as the Cameron Street bridge and others I have always heard different views and different opinions, which is fine.

But, in respect to this mad idea of intentionally introducing into the already compromised airshed new pollutants via the planned biomass burning plant I have yet to find even ONE person who thinks that it should be located in the downtown.

Somewhere far out of town - no problem.

Now, due to the *wisdom* of the Mayor and councilors the studies of the effects of putting it into the downtown are indeed continuing! Why continue the studies when there is no more determination to put it into the downtown bowl?

I believe Mr. Bassermann said during his lengthy, rambling (and often somewhat off the topic) speech words to the effect that this type of plant really only makes sense when it is very large, the larger the better are the economics of it.

If the first plant is built (I hope not) expansions will be contemplated as time goes by and the 80 foot smokestack will be twinned and doubled in height - thereby adding to the already stunning beauty of the downtown area.

We can't allow any of this to happen.

In this case

LEADERSHIP =

1. build plant +1 tonne PM emissions outside of bowl

2. remove 3 tonnes PM emissions from inside bowl

3. NET loss to bowl = 3 tonnes.



LEADERSHIP is not

1. build plant +1 tonne PM emissions inside bowl

2. remove 3 tonnes PM emissions from inside bowl

3. NET loss to bowl = 2 tonnes.

That kind of supposed leadership is second best and in order to get to an improved airshed we need to do better than second best.

LEADERSHIP = strive for the best.

Any less is FOLLOWERSHIP

;-)

Like I have said before. City Hall is top heavy and needs things to do. Spin Doctor Radloff has the Mare and some of the councilors under his thumb to provide him with the funding for his dream projects.

Nice pony tail, Owl.

Cheers

Want a biomass energy project in Prince George ?

Go outside of the populated area, build an electrical generation plant and a wood alcohol fuel plant. What isn't suitable for burning, can be fermented into fuel.
The sales of electricity and fuel should at the very least subsidize the operation.

Good to see the physicians doing the right thing.

"Yet a national poll by the Foundation has revealed that only 13% of Canadians have made the connection between air pollution and cardiovascular disease."

http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c.ikIQLcMWJtE/b.3848067/k.EC3B/2008_Report_Card__Air_Pollution.htm

Noon CBC News: Mayor Kinsley says that the plant location will be moved to a location not far from the rejected first one and that the City failed miserably in getting the message across that the biomass energy plant is less polluting than a fast food restaurant!

Oh, o.k. - now I get it: Today is April Fools Day!

Had me worried for a moment or two! Yikes!

At least the fast food only pollutes your body, clogs up your veins and arteries. (Except for all the particles exhausted from the cooking process, that stuff clogs up your lungs)
metalman.

The mayor has a problem when it comes to using the word "proposed". If he could use that word every now and then, he would not get as deep into trouble as he seems to be getting himself into.

Then again, this is third hand information. Maybe he did say "proposed".

Here is the way I see it:

1. There is a study underway on what the effect of a plant will be.

2. In order to do that, at least one, preferrably more sites will need to be looked at to see the impact.

3. The originally proposed site in the old City Works Yard is out of the picture now.

4. Council based no other restrictions on site locations. In fact, if they were to be beligerant, they could move it a bit further west along the Patricia Blvd ROW and they would not be in contravention of the motion that was passed.

Something many people appear to be missing at this stage is that in order to get any meaningful information one needs to take actaul measurements of air quality at some of the "sensitive receptor" sites in the are a plant is being proposed. Ideally that needs to take place over a year period. Without that, any modeling is pure conjecture.

If the city's plan for offsets is bulldozing over all the fast food joints in town, I would have no personal objection.

I'm not really understanding what the existing pollution has to do with added pollution. We're not allowed to complain about future bad stuff because we already have bad stuff so obviously we're all okay with that? I don't burn in my yard. I don't have a woodstove. I don't eat fast food. I don't spend every morning in the Timmie's lineup. I would certainly be happy to take a bus to work (if the city provided me with such a service). I walk whenever I can. So don't talk to me like I don't care about the existing pollution. I do my part and I expect the city to do their part.

So far no one has indicated to the public just how exactly they intend to remove 3 tonnes of particulate from the air each year. They keep saying that it is required of them, but they don't seem to know how they are going to do it. A few biodiesel city trucks and the hopes that citizens will turn in old wood stoves aren't going to cut it. We've got the plan for adding pollution, so where's the plan to take it away?

"I'm not really understanding what the existing pollution has to do with added pollution."

Each building produces particulate matter in the heating process.

If you remove their systems, they will no longer be producing particulates from that source.

If you then add a single plant to feed heat to those buildings, you have a new plant with new emissions, but have removed the old individual plants with old emissions.

So, we need to determine what that difference will be - the same? a net increase? or a net decrease?

Any other reduction which is independent of the plant should not be brought into the equation since that gets done anyway. On top of that, they are generally not point sources.

So, again, do we have monitors on those buildings which may come offstream? I doubt it. So all we are using are some tables based on manufacturer's literature and ideal operating conditions. To me, that is inadequte.

In addition to that comes the fact that a plant's location should not be close enough to what are called sensitive receptors, such as a residence, a school, an office, etc. etc. The closer one is to a source of emission, the more it will impact the sensitive receptor. So, the greater area may benefit, but the very local area will not.

But, we see often enough that local people are really not protected by the city. The city has to look out for the greater good. And other citizens will pounce on those few and lable them with the NIMBY name and figure that is enough to get rid of that small group causing all that fuss.

Nice world we live in, isn't it? The larger ME ME group battling the smaller ME ME group. As always, survival of the fittest. After all, we are a democracy where the majority rules. Or does it?.

;-)

I think they are looking at a site around Lakeland Mills. I hope the Millar Addition group will support the other citizens in the bowl who will be adversely affected by that site.

I think they will. We need a City-wide group such as North Nechako and Millar Addition have. Both groups do their research and great presentations.

We need numbers of people if we are going to get Prince George cleaned up. It can't just come from the 7 that are elected. We have a responsibility too.

Oh and thank you doctors, well done.

Owl, the biomass energy plant should be way out of town, close to the fibre source. It can produce electricity which can be fed into BC Hydro's grid.

The downtown buildings you are mentioning should convert to non-polluting electric heating, thereby shutting down their previously polluting heating systems which used fossil fuels.

Then the trucks with the biomass don't have to come downtown to deliver the fuel for a woodburning energy plant, there will be no ashes to be hauled away, no fine particulate emissions...nothing but pluses all around!

Why MUST this new polluter be placed in the downtown airshed?

I yet have to hear one valid argument WHY the thing must be located downtown. Somebody has this fixed idea that it must produce hot water to heat buildings and therefore it must be located next to the buildings.

It can (like in other countries) be located away from town and generate steam to produce electricity which can be used in any location.

I don't believe we have been told the whole story.

Speaking as a citizen of the Millar Addition, I can certainly say I would not want this plant in close proximity to other residences. It's not a NIMBY issue for me. What's bad for me is bad for others.

I've heard speculative talk about Lakeland Mills, which is why I was surprised that it was not mentioned last night - or least that there was no suggestion of such a thing. I heard the mayor mutter something about biodiesel and that sort of talk concerns me.

Speaking as a citizen of the Millar Addition, I can certainly say I would not want this plant in close proximity to other residences. It's not a NIMBY issue for me. What's bad for me is bad for others.

I've heard speculative talk about Lakeland Mills, which is why I was surprised that it was not mentioned last night - or least that there was no suggestion of such a thing. I heard the mayor mutter something about biodiesel and that sort of talk concerns me.

Oi. I refreshed the page long after posting and it double posted. Strange.

owl - I wasn't referring to the existing pollution by the existing municipal buildings. I was referring to the mayor's talk about fast food restaurants and Basserman's speech about what he sees in our neighbourhoods. None of those items have anything to do with the proposed facility. The insinuation was that those opposed have no right to be opposed because PG citizens voluntarily contribute to our poor air through these activities.

Personally I took offense to those comments. I don't partake in those activities and I feel like my opposition to increased pollution in this city is valid. I suppose we are being called hypocrites because we have not opposed backyard burning, etc. Well, if Councilor Basserman would like to hear me complain about such things, I will take him up on it.

Good for the Doctors!

There are a few things I really don't think our councilors get.

The existing heating systems they plan to replace with this community energy system are Natural Gas. Natural Gas burns very clean in general but specifically in terms of particulates. So they really won't gain any particulate offset from replacing existing gas boilers.

One of the councilors slipped up last night stating the total PM 2.5 emissions of one tonne was just the minimum number one consultant had given them. Interesting enough, I believe one tonne is also the maximum number of new particulate emissions exempting them from Provincial review. They have not even mentioned how much PM10 there will be, have they?

Bottom line at this point, they have no directly related reductions in particulate emissions.

The Co2 is also kind of miss understood. The reason this biomass plant is said to produce 22 tonnes less Co2 by burning biomass, is that it is considered carbon neutral. At the source it will actually produce just as much CO2 as the gas boilers plus more carbon monoxide and other nasties. Due to the in-efficiency of the biomass burn because they will be using using a varying biomass source.

Biomass is considered neutral because trees and plant matter remove co2 from the atmosphere when growing and when dead it rots producing CO2. Co2 has very little if anything to do with our air quality problem

Whatever I'm getting off track. It is great to see the citizens trying to grab back some control of their destiny. One day we will have a Council full of individuals who actively look for their citizens input not just administrations.

What the heck is with some of councils comments that we don't understand. From the media comments I read here and other places, the problem is, We Do Understand.

Maybe some day council will see the light after someone decides that we have a legal problem here and take the City to court and challenge their cavalier attitude towords the tax payer.

How can Docters tell us that we have about 19 deaths annualy because of poor air quality and let the City get away with it.

Cheers

Maybe the doctors above can write a joint prescription suggesting hizzoner leave office now rather than November. After all, it is for the good of our breathing health. And get him to forego all this stinky foolishness and bother.

Way to go doctors!! Way to go MACC!! Way to go Munoz! It is really encouraging to see this level of interest and effort into this major health concern. This is a city-wide issue that started with PACHA and the Millar Addition residents joined forces and protested this project that affects us all. The petitions are still available for everyone to sign. Check out Zoe's coffee shop, Ave Maria, WD West. Couldn't believe it when Kinsley said " I don't buy that..." in reference to Munoz stating that we have the fourth worst air quality in the country! Isn't he relying on the "science" to inform him on the project? ... cause that's what the science is telling us! Or is he buying a salesman's marketing tagline?

It is great to see everyone coming together and being concerned about the quality of life in Prince George. I think it is sad that the Mayor doesn't honour the citizens of this City by being open and sensitive to the issues that affect our everyday life and our children's children's lives.

Kudos to the docs and EVERYONE else who has put in their two cents on this issue. As many of you have already commented, this seems to be the one issue that most everyone in the City is in agreement with.

NO ADDITIONAL POLUTION SOURCES IN THE BOWL AND START REDUCING THE EXISTING SOURCES AT THE SAME TIME. PERIOD. CASE CLOSED.

I congratulate the doctors for coming together in agreement and bringing their concerns to the municipal level. Don't recall that happening very often, but I sure appreciate it now.

I for one, who works and lives in the bowl and is exposed to our air quality 24/7 is very concerned about 1 more ppm of anything added to our current air mass. I refuse to support any project that will increase the particulates we struggle with daily. I don't know why they continue to ignore us. I will remember each one at election time and not vote for anyone who does not listen or has not listened to the citizens who have voiced their concerns against this bio-mass project. Chester

Made me think of my furnace filter and if the air is so bad out there then what's it like in your home. They say to change your filter 3-4 times a year.

http://www.nationalfurnace.com/advice.htm


We can't count on anyone to keep us safe and healthy better than our own knowledge and awareness.

"As many of you have already commented, this seems to be the one issue that most everyone in the City is in agreement with."

It took 10 years ..... but it appears some are finally coming around to being in agreement.

The fact still is that the Pellet plant which just had an explosion is permitted to produce in the order of 180+ tonnes of particulates which are undefined as to size. it is a brsand new building and was built without a peep from anyone (except for one) on this page.

Now we have a one tonne PM2.5 proposal, which is about how much a modern 20 story gas fired office building would put out and people are up in arms about it.

So, I find it interesting. We moved from the recent complacent attitude in the 180+ tonnes pellet plant and its effect not only on postal and other office workers in the area, but also on the likely affects on the southern extent of College Heights, to suddenly beig concerned about a mere one tonne proposed emission in the First avenue Corridor and its likely effect on the Miller subdivision.

I find it very ironic. If this is not NIMBY, then why all this fuss now but not over the Pellet plant? What happened in the last few months? Why did others not enjoin the appeal by the postal workers?

"Made me think of my furnace filter and if the air is so bad out there then what's it like in your home."

It is a question you do not wish to raise in any discussion about outdoor air quality. Unless you are living within 200 metres or so of a highway or within less than a kilometre of a major emitter of PM and VOCs, etc. then your in-house generated off gassing of chemicals such as formaldehyde in carpets and glues used in composite wood fibre materials in the house will mean the air in the house is worse for your health than the air outside.

On top of that, this region has one of the highest radon concentrations in Canada. About 10 years ago that was a concern of the city and the province to such an extent that they sent out notices with the city utility bills.

It appears to have been a fad. Yet the radon has not gone away. It is likely one of the confounding factors in determining why we have higher than normal respiratory cancer rates.

[url]http://www.bccdc.org/content.php?item=69[url]

Of course, our notion of superinsulated houses, with very tight air barriers, weatherstripping, etc. goes contrary to the practice of ensuring that a house is well ventilated with a controlled system which draws air in through a heat exchanger. Another one of those improvements which was common in houses built here in the mid 1980s or so, but has since been virtually forgotten.

So much knowledge .... so quickly lost .....

:-(

I can see the highway from my kitchen window. One thing we didn't think of when deciding on this place. Time to rip out the carpets.

Very interesting link owl thanks!

:)

Now we have a one tonne PM2.5 proposal, which is about how much a modern 20 story gas fired office building would put out and people are up in arms about it.

Owl,,your starting to sound like Basserman, the green guy, the other night at the meeting.

Cheers

I will take the support and interest for air quality however citizens come to their understanding. Industry is a differnt storey it's thier money our air. This is our air our money. And there are better options. I think this is the difference with this.

I understand the frustration of how we let things go in the past but please don't pee on us newbies now. You have our ear now and possibly for the future if we lead by example. We don't want to be back in the place where a big industrial emmiter moves in with little particulate control and all we hear is a deafening silence.

For me and other technicaly inclined citizens, show us the numbers that the emissions from this plant are comparable to a 20 storey building with a gas boiler. If you want to call it modern then a modulating condensing boiler or give us old school 80's style atmoshperic boiler numbers if that's all you have. Gas can be burnt very clean, mixed biomass is different and has so many other associated emmisions. The only major bennefit of biomass is less reliance on fossil fuel, which is good I'm 100% for that. Apparently it is the same as 8 city busses running 24/7 to and a fleet of city lawn mowers. Show us the numbers period and how they came up with them.

I will take the support and interest for air quality however citizens come to their understanding. Industry is a differnt storey it's thier money our air. This is our air our money. And there are better options. I think this is the difference with this.

I understand the frustration of how we let things go in the past but please don't pee on us newbies now. You have our ear now and possibly for the future if we lead by example. We don't want to be back in the place where a big industrial emmiter moves in with little particulate control and all we hear is a deafening silence.

For me and other technicaly inclined citizens, show us the numbers that the emissions from this plant are comparable to a 20 storey building with a gas boiler. If you want to call it modern then a modulating condensing boiler or give us old school 80's style atmoshperic boiler numbers if that's all you have. Gas can be burnt very clean, mixed biomass is different and has so many other associated emmisions. The only major bennefit of biomass is less reliance on fossil fuel, which is good I'm 100% for that. Apparently it is the same as 8 city busses running 24/7 to and a fleet of city lawn mowers. Show us the numbers period and how they came up with them.

Just heard River Road is the location of interest -

"NO ADDITIONAL POLUTION SOURCES IN THE BOWL AND START REDUCING THE EXISTING SOURCES AT THE SAME TIME. PERIOD. CASE CLOSED."

The Citizens of Prince George should be able to vote on this project its a lot of money and do we really want it. It was nice to see some of the Council listened to the people in the area,not like the Backpacker Issue, to have Pedophiles around children would be worse than bad air.

River Road so when the fine particulates lower themselves into the river does this mean instead of air pollution we'll have polluted waters with deformed fish, sick dogs and children who splash around in it?

"How can consumer electricity choice address fine particulates?
As noted above, emissions of fine particulates are strongly connected to certain types of energy production facilities; namely, uncontrolled emissions from coal-fired, oil and many waste-to-energy facilities. More discerning consumers can help clean the air of fine particulates by supporting those forms of generation that are non-polluting such as solar photovoltaics and wind."

http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=3

So would photovoltaics work for what the city wants to do? I'm trying hard to understand all of this and in return it's rattling my brain so if this has no meaning to what the city wants to do i'm sorry. :)
Photovoltaics is non-polluting and by 2010 will be cheaper as it's becomming more and more in demand.



Photovoltaics (encyclopedia meaning)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics