All posts in the topic Is REALISTIC discourse possible here? (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in Pioneer Valley Base Camp

Summary

There are 4 posts — by 4 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Jonathan Edwards at 2007 Jun 06 18:12 UTC

From: Jeff Lacey Date: 2007 Jun 06 14:41 UTC Short link

Folks:

First, I will say these comments are mine and do not necessarily
represent my employer.

I have been monitoring these exchanges with interest for weeks, but have
resisted participating until now.  What did it was Mr. Muller's remark
below:

"I could go on and on, but I don't need to read the proposal to reject
it.  Rejecting burners and sticking with wind, solar, conservation... is
a no-brainer."

Rejecting biomass by labeling it as just another "burner" seems like an
oblivious statement to make considering where most power now comes from.
If burning anything is out, the other option, of course, is nuclear, as
the founder of Greenpeace and our own Congressman Olver now suggest.

Thinking that conservation, wind, and solar can make a significant
enough dent in power demands in the near term just puts us so far out in
left field no one will take us seriously.  Any transition to a "cleaner"
energy future will not be abrupt, and I can assure you that "burners'
will be a part of it.  That said, what is burned, where it occurs, and
the technologies employed are all legitimate inquiries.  In general
though, biomass from sustainably harvested carbon sources now
circulating in the biosphere would be a great advance over the now
dominant practice of unlocking securely sequestered carbon.

Great thread, best I've seen since the Mass Historic list serve debated
Cape Wind.

Regards,

Jeff Lacy

-----Original Message-----
From: pv-basecamp+jeff.lacy=state.ma.us@forums.e-democracy.org
[mailto:pv-basecamp+jeff.lacy=state.ma.us@forums.e-democracy.org] On
Behalf Of Alan Muller
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 8:19 PM
To: BASE CAMP
Subject: Re: [PV-Base Camp] Is honest discourse possible here?

Dear People:

(1)It's very easy to toss around terms like "green," "renewable," and
"clean."  But when we look for an actual definition of these terms, in
the context of a burner, we find they HAVE no meaningful definitions and
are actually propaganda items.

(2)Any "biomass" burner will have not only smokestack emissions but many
others, notably including emissions from trucks/trains hauling the fuel
in and the ash out.

(3)The health impacts of air pollutants don't BEGIN at the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.  They begin, generally, at zero
(dose/response relationship).  This means that any burner will increase
asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, cancer, etc.  The effect may or may
not be readily detectable by the health monitoring systems in place, but
it will be there.

(4) Do the promoters propose to collect baseline health data and install
sufficiently sensitive health monitoring programs to detect any impacts?
(I am sure not because they couldn't possibly afford this.)

(5)A solid fuel burner in a valley with inversions and such is
particularly unwise.  Do the promoters intend to install weather
monitoring and have enforced protocols--part of their operating
permits!--to shut down when inversions or high ambient pollution levels
occur?  If so--unlikely--how will they offer "firm" power?

(6)Have the ecological impacts of biomass burning been investigated from
a soil science point of view?

I could go on and on, but I don't need to read the proposal to reject
it.  Rejecting burners and sticking with wind, solar, conservation... is
a no-brainer.

Sincerely

Alan Muller

Info about Alan Muller:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/alanmuller

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4VyecDNvxLrYts95xs2QZs
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about BASE CAMP:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/pv-basecamp

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

From: Jana Chicoine Date: 2007 Jun 06 15:23 UTC Short link

Hi Jeff:

I am glad you wrote. It has been a great thread and it is very good to have new
people give input. One easy way to indicate that the comments do not represent
your employer is to use a personal email address and thus not put the
Department of Conservation and Recreation on your title.

Tina Clarke of Clean Water Action has pointed out that a mere 800 wind farms
worldwide could provide more energy than we are now consuming here on planet
earth.

What seems more realistic: building incinerator/generators that are
unsustainable, obsolete, and carbon-rich, or finding good sites for wind towers
that are beautiful, renewable (in the truest sense), and also long-lived? The
idea that we can go ahead and build more incinerators and coal plants and
nuclear plants, further toxifying our environment beacuse we need "gap
measures" theory is just a terribly environmentally costly fallacy.

We do not need "gap measures." We have known what we need to do for at least
thirty years. We have the means to do it. We only need the political will.

Best -- Jana

From: Tina Clarke Date: 2007 Jun 06 17:47 UTC Short link

FYI - Here is the link for that statistic on wind power for global
electricity demand.  The number of wind turbines needed to meet overall
global energy demand is much larger.


A study by Stanford researchers identified ~800 sites that together could
generate more electricity than current global use.

News story:  www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=32617.

Abstract of study: www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005.../2004JD005462.shtml

From the Abstract:  "13% of all reporting stations experience annual mean
wind speeds ? 6.9 m/s at 80 m (i.e., wind power class 3 or greater) and can
therefore be considered suitable for low-cost wind power generation. This
estimate is believed to be conservative. Of all continents, North America
has the largest number of stations in class ? 3 (453)...
...Assuming that statistics generated from all stations analyzed here are
representative of the global distribution of winds, global wind power
generated at locations with mean annual wind speeds ? 6.9 m/s at 80 m is
found to be 72 TW (54,000 Mtoe) for the year 2000. Even if only 20% of this
power could be captured, it could satisfy 100% of the world's energy demand
for all purposes (6995-10177 Mtoe) and over seven times the world's
electricity needs (1.6-1.8 TW)."

(Note: "TW" means terawatt.  A terawatt is 1 trillion watts, the power
generated by more than 500 nuclear reactors or thousands of coal-burning
plants.)




Tina Clarke
Clean Water Action
office/home:  (413) 549-6834
cell:  (413) 658-8165
<email obscured>
www.cleanwateraction.org, www.cleanwaterfund.org

Clean Water Action - New England Headquarters
262 Washington St., Suite 301
Boston, MA 02108

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the
person(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you receive this communication in error, please notify me immediately by
e-mail, telephone or fax and delete the original message from your records.
Thank you.

From: Jonathan Edwards Date: 2007 Jun 06 18:12 UTC Short link

I can't believe I am biting on this and weighing into this discussion,
however...

I am sure that everyone on this forum would love to have the entire country
realize all of its electricity demand from wind energy.  And there is no
question that it is a goal that the country collectively should work toward.
It is also true that the wind generation capacity in this country could meet
this demand.

However, let's not think for a second that we can currently turn this source
into country-wide electricity generation.  Unfortunately, electrons are
fickle animals and transmission realities make this a non-starter in a
cost-effective way.

This is about the diversification of our energy portfolio at this point and
to make statements that lead people to believe that we can realize 100% of
our current electricity demands from wind generation or an even an
aggregation of clean energy is simply misleading.  Hopefully we can achieve
this tomorrow, but we aren't there yet.

And please don't twist this into being a for or against argument for biomass
or specifically the Russell biomass facility.  It is however, an attempt at
a mainstream statement to encourage valid arguments and not red herrings
from either extreme of the spectrum.

The entire group should remember we are simply trying to diversify our
electricity portfolio in the Pioneer Valley.  Our "Call to Clean Energy
Arms" if you will should be about goals and let people in Russell or
Springfield or wherever have their own internal debate about what gets cited
and where.

Citing isn't just about biomass, but as we have all seen, it is also about
wind farms, methane gas and most other clean energy sources so let's keep
everything in perspective here.

Now you can feel free to beat me up over this posting as I won't respond
anymore and I will be comfortable that any comments in opposition will win
the day due to my removal from this debate.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tina Clarke [mailto:ticlarke@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 1:47 PM
To: 'Jana Chicoine'; 'BASE CAMP'
Subject: Re: [PV-Base Camp] Is REALISTIC discourse possible here?

FYI - Here is the link for that statistic on wind power for global
electricity demand.  The number of wind turbines needed to meet overall
global energy demand is much larger.

A study by Stanford researchers identified ~800 sites that together could
generate more electricity than current global use.

News story:  www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=32617.

Abstract of study: www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005.../2004JD005462.shtml

>From the Abstract:  "13% of all reporting stations experience annual mean
wind speeds ? 6.9 m/s at 80 m (i.e., wind power class 3 or greater) and can
therefore be considered suitable for low-cost wind power generation. This
estimate is believed to be conservative. Of all continents, North America
has the largest number of stations in class ? 3 (453)...
...Assuming that statistics generated from all stations analyzed here are
representative of the global distribution of winds, global wind power
generated at locations with mean annual wind speeds ? 6.9 m/s at 80 m is
found to be 72 TW (54,000 Mtoe) for the year 2000. Even if only 20% of this
power could be captured, it could satisfy 100% of the world's energy demand
for all purposes (6995-10177 Mtoe) and over seven times the world's
electricity needs (1.6-1.8 TW)."

(Note: "TW" means terawatt.  A terawatt is 1 trillion watts, the power
generated by more than 500 nuclear reactors or thousands of coal-burning
plants.)

Tina Clarke
Clean Water Action
office/home:  (413) 549-6834
cell:  (413) 658-8165
<email obscured>
www.cleanwateraction.org, www.cleanwaterfund.org

Clean Water Action - New England Headquarters
262 Washington St., Suite 301
Boston, MA 02108

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the
person(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
you receive this communication in error, please notify me immediately by
e-mail, telephone or fax and delete the original message from your records.
Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jana Chicoine [mailto:janachicoine@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 11:24 AM
To: BASE CAMP
Subject: Re: [PV-Base Camp] Is REALISTIC discourse possible here?

Hi Jeff:

I am glad you wrote. It has been a great thread and it is very good to have
new people give input. One easy way to indicate that the comments do not
represent your employer is to use a personal email address and thus not put
the Department of Conservation and Recreation on your title.

Tina Clarke of Clean Water Action has pointed out that a mere 800 wind farms
worldwide could provide more energy than we are now consuming here on planet
earth.

What seems more realistic: building incinerator/generators that are
unsustainable, obsolete, and carbon-rich, or finding good sites for wind
towers that are beautiful, renewable (in the truest sense), and also
long-lived? The idea that we can go ahead and build more incinerators and
coal plants and nuclear plants, further toxifying our environment beacuse we
need "gap measures" theory is just a terribly environmentally costly
fallacy.

We do not need "gap measures." We have known what we need to do for at least
thirty years. We have the means to do it. We only need the political will.

Best -- Jana

Jana Chicoine
Russell
Info about Jana  Chicoine:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/janachicoine

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1kbNiKN4fdsluolOGKaUVK
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about BASE CAMP:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/pv-basecamp

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

Tina Clarke

Info about Tina Clarke: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/clarketina

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6XYz03dnsOQrH8SNoOyRkt
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about BASE CAMP:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/pv-basecamp

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

Add to the topic Is REALISTIC discourse possible here? [?]

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member Pioneer Valley Base Camp, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of Pioneer Valley Base Camp, and post to this topic.

Need help? Please contact technical support. To support your forum, please donate. Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.