deep mountain’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  As a working person who lives near a proposed biomass plant, I humbly request all environmentally inclined people to help stop this major polluter from being built in my (or anyone else's) town.

  The air quality in Western Mass is already poor.  The developer's own Environmental Notification Form indicates that his (soggy) woodchip burner will emit more CO2, more particulates and more volatile organic compounds per Megawatt Hour than the Mt. Tom coal plant in Holyoke. 

  Investors will cash in on carbon credits and other "green energy" incentives, and my kids will grow up breathing dirty air.  And those ENF numbers are the best case scenario, where the burner will continue to burn only trees and used pallets...

  Did you know that a biomass plant planned for Rhode Island states, from in front, that it will burn tires and municipal waste; that several biomass burners originally put forward as "clean wood" burners now burn construction and demolition debris in the heavily forested state of Maine?

  You bet there's local opposition.  And scientific opposition to the idea that burning trees helps the planet.  Up-to-date science recognizes that mature forests sequester more carbon than cut-over areas and that a tree rotting slowly over decades emits carbon slower than the mad pulse of a biomass burner.

  It burns me up that some con men are inches away from making a killing by exploiting some 90's-era science in Massachusett's fledgling efforts to limit carbon emissions that says burning a ton a minute of green woodchips is cool. 

  Franklin County where my family lives, produces twice as much power as it uses by harnessing the rainwater falling as I write, as it flows down the Deerfield and the Connecticut.  It's beautiful country that doesn't have to have a major plume of CO2 and other pollution added to its environmental profile.

  On Big biomass, bigger opposition posted 4 months ago 11 Responses