VoyForums
[ 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: 12:27:06 04/08/01 Sun
Author: Dennis Williams
Subject: Re: Power Plant Blues
In reply to: SHOCKED 's message, "Power Plant Blues" on 21:15:51 04/04/01 Wed

I'm always happy to keep my mind open about issues on which I have already voted. But to make me "see the light", I need a reasoned exposition of new data and factors. Regarding the power plant, none has been forthcoming in the last two years since we approved it. If you truly believe that we made a mistake, schedule some time before the Board of Selectmen and state your case. Of course you will have to back up your statements, unlike on this website.

I stopped reading Laura's editorial after I discovered a series of misstatements of fact. Now I find that "shocked" (a pretty clever name for someone opposed to a power plant) has repeated some of these attributions.

To be specific:

1) Laura says, "I discovered that the town officials had decided a massive 750 MEGAWATT power plant should now be zoned." That's a misstatement of fact on several counts. First, town officials such as selectmen cannot rezone property. Only the Town Meeting can (which it specifically did to correct a technicality that might have prevented this plant from being built, but that's beside the point). Second, this kind of activity, along with the existing industrial activity (excavation, blasting, sand and gravel, etc.) is already zoned for that area. It was zoned that way well before most of the homes out there were built. What Laura should have said is that the Selectmen "permitted" the activity under existing zoning laws, which, by the way, it must do unless there is a legal reason not to. Otherwise, the rights of the property owner are violated. Third, and this is less obvious, is the implication that the new activity is worse than what is already permitted. I think not. Pick one: a) existing gravel operations and blasting extended out to the limits of the Brox property, or b) clean burning, combined cycle, natural-gas-fired power plant -- the kind of plant that the Conservation Law Foundation says we should be building to replace the killer coal and oil burners in current use throughout the US. I pick b) -- and I would pick b) if I lived on Rinzee or Poppy or anywhere else nearby.

2) Laura says that the current zoning is light industrial. Just not true.

3) Laura says there are two smoke stacks. Actually, there will be one. And to call it a smoke stack is an inaccurate pejorative. 99% of what comes out is water vapor -- the result of the cooling of the exhaust from the gas-fired first cycle, creating more efficient energy during the second cycle as the steam turns turbines. After nights and nights of hearings, I determined that nothing else coming out of that stack will be within one order of magnitude of the EPA limits. So to refer to that as "smoke" is unnecessarily provocative.

4) "Shocked" says "I STRONGLY SUSPECT THAT THE VISUAL EFFECT OF THE PLANTS PLUMES will pose several questions from parents and may potentially cause removal of students from the school thus resulting in a loss of revenue." I'm not sure I even follow this one, but it seems to imply that losing school children from our school system will cost the Town money. Quite the opposite. It's clearly proven that households with children in the schools system pay less taxes than the services they receive. The majority of the people in Town who do not have children in the system pay more taxes than the services they receive. I'm not complaining. I had kids in Dracut schools and now I do not. I'm still happy to support our schools. But to worry about "losing revenue" if kids leave our system misses the larger point.

5) Finally, here's one misstatement that most people should be able to validate without too much research. Laura states, and "shocked" repeats, that the Campbell School is one mile away. Maybe Campbell School is within one mile of the current Brox property, which extends west from the access road toward Parker Road. But it is well past a mile away from where the plant will be, which is on the eastern portion of the property, much closer to Wheeler Street than to Parker Road, well east of the main entrance.

To summarize, as one of five selectmen who voted unanimously to issue a special permit for the plant, I voted in the affirmative because of the following factors.

I. First and foremost, there are data to support that 50,000 people die each year in the US because of pollution created by old coal- and oil-fired power plants. Very few of these deaths occur in California -- which is very polluted (I should know, I was born and raised there) but which primarily uses gas powered plants -- and to a much less extent nuclear plants. Electricity is fungible. What is produced here can be used here and elsewhere, reducing the need for the killer plants. IMHO, it would be socially irresponsible to ignore this fact.

II. I believe we will implement a fair property-value guarantee program for the closest neighbors. We have designed it and have now set it aside because we would have to spend some money acquiring a real estate index. This plant is not yet approved, so why spend the money if it's not going to happen?

III. I believe the Utility Environmental Committee and others did yeoman work to mitigate any impact this plant will have.

To repeat, if you truly, truly believe that we should not build this plant, I would go about your protest differently. Posting poorly researched, overly emotional, mistake strewn opinions will make me tired, but they will not change my mind. Bringing forth authoritative positions that refute what I have said above will. And you've got at least three minds to change if you want the Selectmen to try to stop this plant now.

Good luck.

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

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.