I Wish Justice Scalia Would Lay off of the Garlic
Neighbors have successfully protested a garbage burner that was to supply the local paper recycling plant with steam. Various options, including burning corn or wood, are now being considered. When asked about the change of focus from odors and cancer causing chemicals to carbon dioxide emissions, I was told, "The Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant." Punchline: Is Scalia's breathe really that bad?
Burning of corn or wood chips is being considered because it is "carbon neutral," and "whatever carbon is emitted is renewed with next year's crop." This is true if we assume zero emissions are emitted to produce the seeds, the farmer emits zero emissions during planting and harvest, and the crop is either burned on the farm, or transported to the burner using a zero emissions mode of transportation. Corn burners typically use shelled corn, so for our process to truly be "carbon neutral," the shelling or chipping needs to be done in a "carbon neutral" fashion as well. (Chemical engineers are trained to see all of the inputs and outputs of processes.) The devil is in the details. Rather than being told a process is carbon neutral, I would like to be shown with numbers.
But, in principle, burning corn seems like it should be more carbon neutral than oil. Self-sufficiency is a good thing, so why not use local product rather than imported oil? Coffee causes me to think of questions during the night.
Should we have the same concerns as we had with the garbage burner? Is corn-burning a clean process emitting only carbon dioxide and water, or will odors and cancer causing chemicals be emitted? There are oil refineries in Vallejo, California that emit zero emissions (and I did not smell any odor), which indicates that processes can be well designed, if the expertise, attention and dollars are correctly applied. But, good processes (and sturdy bridges) do not happen without expertise, attention and dollars.
Ethanol burns cleanly, which is one reason why it is currently used as a fuel. Should the recycled paper plant be located at an ethanol producing plant, given that ethanol producing processes are well defined?
Waste Management Company hauls garbage trucks from Minnesota to landfills in Iowa. Should the garbage trucks return full of shelled corn for burning?
What is the anticipated efficiency and cost of the process, and does this warrant technology scale up?
As energy intensive as paper recycling seems to be, will the company demand the lowest energy rates? Do economics force these plants, like aluminum companies, to be located next to the hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants? Is the plant going to move the moment the government financing ends?
In addition to the office holders who get paid to answer these types of questions, it will be interesting to hear what the chemical engineers have to say.
Another view: TC Daily Planet
Carbon Footprint of Twin Cities Power Plants: Carma.org
Burning of corn or wood chips is being considered because it is "carbon neutral," and "whatever carbon is emitted is renewed with next year's crop." This is true if we assume zero emissions are emitted to produce the seeds, the farmer emits zero emissions during planting and harvest, and the crop is either burned on the farm, or transported to the burner using a zero emissions mode of transportation. Corn burners typically use shelled corn, so for our process to truly be "carbon neutral," the shelling or chipping needs to be done in a "carbon neutral" fashion as well. (Chemical engineers are trained to see all of the inputs and outputs of processes.) The devil is in the details. Rather than being told a process is carbon neutral, I would like to be shown with numbers.
But, in principle, burning corn seems like it should be more carbon neutral than oil. Self-sufficiency is a good thing, so why not use local product rather than imported oil? Coffee causes me to think of questions during the night.
Should we have the same concerns as we had with the garbage burner? Is corn-burning a clean process emitting only carbon dioxide and water, or will odors and cancer causing chemicals be emitted? There are oil refineries in Vallejo, California that emit zero emissions (and I did not smell any odor), which indicates that processes can be well designed, if the expertise, attention and dollars are correctly applied. But, good processes (and sturdy bridges) do not happen without expertise, attention and dollars.
Ethanol burns cleanly, which is one reason why it is currently used as a fuel. Should the recycled paper plant be located at an ethanol producing plant, given that ethanol producing processes are well defined?
Waste Management Company hauls garbage trucks from Minnesota to landfills in Iowa. Should the garbage trucks return full of shelled corn for burning?
What is the anticipated efficiency and cost of the process, and does this warrant technology scale up?
As energy intensive as paper recycling seems to be, will the company demand the lowest energy rates? Do economics force these plants, like aluminum companies, to be located next to the hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants? Is the plant going to move the moment the government financing ends?
In addition to the office holders who get paid to answer these types of questions, it will be interesting to hear what the chemical engineers have to say.
Another view: TC Daily Planet
Carbon Footprint of Twin Cities Power Plants: Carma.org
posted by David Rasmussen at 10:42 AM
<< Home