The second poultry litter to energy working group meeting has been scheduled for 1:00pm Monday, March 28, 2011 at the DEQ office in Harrisonburg (address and directions: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/regions/valley.html ). Continuing on the topic of Fibrowatt for today, I am reposting from the archives an “Open Letter to Fibrowatt.” I wrote this post after an exchange with Terry Walmsley of Fibrowatt, where he accused me of spreading misinformation on my blog about his company.
The irony of that accusation was that most of the material I originally referred to comes from the Fibrowatt web site. There are plenty of alternative locations where you can find information about the company or its practices, however, my initial research in March 2010 was drawn from their own information sources.
Page County and the rest of the Shenandoah Valley are enjoying the beginning of an active tourism boom, which celebrates outdoors activities. From Roanoke to Front Royal there are hundreds of events in this sector – marathons, fun runs, endurance bike races, etc. – that one could logically expect to be harmed by such a prominent and visible source of air pollution. In Page County’s case, where employment has been a chronic challenge, active tourism has been among the bright spots; while a Fibrowatt plant located there might have an impact from adding a few jobs, it would certainly offset those gains with losses in the tourism sector.
Here is the repost, with a few edits for brevity.
Terry,
As I mentioned privately last week, I appreciate your candor and support in the research. I'm disappointed now that [you'll] be calling into question the language I use to describe the potential impacts of industrial uses of land that is currently open farmland and part of the overall character of Page County.
I gave you and Fibrowatt a fair shake and treated the research with an arm's length approach. While I read the press and other side's perspective, I avoided the use of the word "incinerator" to describe the furnace process. I have argued here that maybe Fibrowatt's process is part of a solution that bridges the fossil fuel society we currently are to a sustainable zero impact society of the future. I have come to a fairly complex conclusion and stand on middle ground about this prospect.
In the end I didn't even draw on the Yadkin River Keeper or the other Fibrowatch material to make my decision. The "alleged" shake-down violation and "alleged" late compliance with self reporting that I read about on your own site led me to the Minnesota permitting document and the list of what's allowed in the plume coming out of the 300-foot stack.
…readers can imagine for themselves the impact a plant [in Page County] will have on tourism...since Shenandoah National Park attracts 1 million visits annually and Luray Caverns another half million; and we now have 3 triathlons, 2 state level bike races, and quite a few 5 and 10Ks going on in the area, I think the impact of a 300 foot stack and a plume - no matter how benign one might say that plume is - will have a very serious impact on a County that has [no other economic advantage]. Have you modeled the economic impact your plant would have on these industries upon its prospective arrival?
Those triathlons would end when groundbreaking occurs. That means several hundred room nights and meals go up in smoke, since the tri-athletes come for the weekend and enjoy the area before and after their event.
Now, I don't hold [Fibrowatt] entirely responsible for this potential impact - it is [Page County EDA] that is trying to change the balance with the discussions you are now having.
I'll stand by my descriptions. I have written my stand against any industrial use of the [proposed Page County location] long before I heard about Fibrowatt. Any industrial use of that site is going to have a devastating impact on the Page County economy - including a Fibrowatt plant.
Best,
"Cabin Jim"
No comments:
Post a Comment