Re: Power Plant Blues -- Dracut Information Resource Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:53:52 05/04/01 Fri
Author: Celeste
Subject: Re: Power Plant Blues
In reply to: Ed Valis 's message, "Re: Power Plant Blues" on 08:17:28 04/27/01 Fri

Thanks, Ed! I would like to comment further on what you put forth.

1. I stand corrected, then, on my interpretation of the 6/99 zoning change. Thanks for clarifying that.

Your response prompts yet another reply though. You wrote "Based on our review we found that the zoning by-laws prior to the 6/99 change allowed the siting of a "power plant" in ANY zone including residential."

Well that tells me that everyone in town, prior to 6/99, bought their home with the possibility of a power plant being sited next door. Sounds like we were all in the same boat until you changed those laws...

2. Regarding the zoning of the Brox property as light industrial. All I can do is tell you what the reports I have read say. They say I-1, Light Industrial. They do not say "I-2" Heavy Industrial. These were prepared by engineers. So I stand by my position. A 750 megawatt power plant is not light industrial. If these reports are wrong, please point me to corrected data.

3. You wrote "I am not deluted enough to try to convince you that the exhaust from the Nickel Hill stacks are perfectly 'clean'. But, in the great scheme of things these exhausts are orders of magnitude 'cleaner' (on a pound of pollutant per Btu level) than most industries and even small commercial and residential combustions sources."

Thank you. But, Ed, you are basing your arguement on the measurement of pollutants at the "pound per Btu level" ... but the number of Btu's are the problem. You can hardly compare the Btu's from my home furnace with the Btu's from a 750 megawatt plant -- I don't know what my furnace will put out, but it won't be the 2.8 tons of pollutants a day that this plant will emit. (source: Nickel Hill Final Environmental Impact Report).

The word 'cleaner' just doesn't work for me. I want to know what is coming out of those stacks and how it compares to what else is going on around this valley for pollution.
I want absolute numbers, not relative terminology.
(I will try not to be repetitive with the emission data since it is on my other posts).

4. You had no comment on that one.

5. I don't care if the plumes will or will not be visible from the Campbell School. I do acknowledge that they would be very disconcerting for parents. However, the plumes are from vapor, right? Pollutants are virtually invisible, aren't they?

I do care that the amount of pollutants will hurt the children. You say that the analysis conducted included worst-case modeling of all emissions from Nickel Hill which showed no adverse impacts compared to MaDEP and EPA standards and guidelines.

What does that mean?

Are you telling me that the MaDEP and EPA are saying that with 2.8 tons of pollutants emitted per day, they can guarantee and show models, and have actual measurements and historical fact to prove that our children will not be adversely impacted? This is a very important question, and I am counting on you to answer this.
It just doesn't make sense to me.

And I will go back to what I said in an earlier post. Please do not ask me to prove that I will be unsafe or to ask me to bring forward models and actual measurements. I am not an engineer, and I do not have the money to hire someone to act on my behalf. Rather, it is incumbent upon the proposers to prove to me, and the people of Dracut, and the people of the Merrimack Valley that we will be safe. This has not been done to my satisfaction.

It is a fact of life that we live in an already polluted area. The atmosphere knows no town boundaries. We cannot evaulate this plant in isolation. We should be looking at shutting down heavy polluters in the Merrimack Valley, not adding to them.

As to the arguement that this will drive the closing of dirtier plants, I ask (and no one has answered) which ones? Tell me what power plants are in the Merrimack Valley today and which of those will be closed as a result of Nickel Hill going online - and when they will be closed, and what is the net impact of closing them and running Nickel Hill.

There is substantial opposition to this plant, from groups much smarter and more knowledgable about this than I could be, especially in the spare hours I am able to spend on this. Their opposition is based upon health concerns. I am sure these busy people have other things to do with their lives than spend their personal time and money fighting a non-issue.

Looking forward to answers.
Celeste

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]