Outside Erie

36 Responses to “Tires-to-Energy Plan Deserves Full Debate”

1. E
   August 29th, 2007 at 9:05 pm

   Tires can be burned anywhere. Why do it on the shore of Lake Erie? I read the EPA publication about tire burning and I see the point. As for the “hundreds” of new jobs; I think the number is something like 60. Lake Erie is the region’s greatest and most irreplaceable asset. Realize that keeping Lake Erie accessible and clean is the key to the success of the region.

2. Dennis
   August 30th, 2007 at 9:40 am

   I was pleased to see the YourErie.com poll that showed many people in Erie favor the idea of the proposed plant.

3. PSU Lillis
   August 30th, 2007 at 11:42 am

   Let’s say they build the plant. If there are no negative side effects then that would be great!

   However, I have a feeling that some of the east side neighborhoods would end up smelling horrible! If the plant was already up and running before we realized this I bet that nothing would ever be done to fix this problem.

   We can come up with a better idea than burning discarded tires right next to Lake Erie for the old IP site.

4. Peter Panepento
   August 30th, 2007 at 11:59 am

   Thanks to everyone who has commented on this so far.

   Let’s clear up one thing, though, for the purpose of this discussion.

   From what I’ve heard and read about this project, the plan isn’t to burn tires. It’s to use a process that coverts the chemicals in the tires to energy. There won’t be burning rubber wafting an odor over Erie’s east side.

   It should also be noted that this project would take place on a parcel that is already being used for industrial purposes. It’s not taking a piece of unspoiled land and turning it into a factory.

   That said, I think the project needs to be examined and debated before it moves forward. And I hope we can have an intelligent discussion about its merits.

5. Chuck
   August 30th, 2007 at 9:42 pm

   The studies that have been done on the tire to energy process show’s that the process is clean and safe. It would create jobs and I am not sure if these people who oppose the plant know this, but Erie could really use good paying jobs. I heard some of the plans that others think should happen with the property. Oh a walking park, baseball field for the kids.. So far all I have heard is things that would raise taxes. Do these people want property taxes raised? I do not need mine raised, because I can not find a good paying job!

6. Jack Tirak
   August 30th, 2007 at 11:31 pm

   Peter,

   I hope that Greg Rubino or one of his people take you up on your offer to explain the exact process on your blog. Like most things, the fear of what people believe is generating the hysteria.

   I don’t think anyone wants our neighbors on the East side to have to endure constant smells and smoke.

   In this day and age of hypersenitivities, I don’t think even Rubino would propose a project that had that kind of outcome.

   A clear debate and strict regulations are in order if this project should go forward to protect all the interested parties.

7. Jack Watts
   August 31st, 2007 at 8:50 am

   From someone who was raised on the lower Eastside east of the Hammermill I can certainly remember the issues with air pollution. However, I also remember that many of the people living there were employees of Hammermill and enjoyed the benefits of what comes with good jobs. This is an industrial site and EMG and this tire to energy plant will be good industrial neighbors. The enviromental regulations in place now will not allow the return to the “good old days” when the air and Lake Erie were under attack by industrial pollution. Let’s make sure we keep our guard up to protect the enviroment but let’ also not let the enviromentalist radicals with their retoric drive another industry away from Erie.

8. Dennis Stratton
   September 1st, 2007 at 3:19 pm

   I have been researching this for months. There will be thousands of pounds of small particulate matter coming out of the 250 foot smokestack every day that they can’t capture. In a study of Heartland Energy a plant to use 375 tons of tires a day, as compared to our 800 tons a day, they estimated that there would be over 400 tons a year with 90% landing within on kilometer of the plant. This particulate will contain Dioxin, PCB’s, PAH, Lead, Zinc, and Mercury and lots of other toxic substances. Mercury will also be in the waste water that won’t be removed by the water treatment plant.
   I estimate that a third of the plant emissions will end up in Lake Erie.
   If you strike a match to light it that is a chemical reaction to Burn it. If you look up gasification the second step in the process is combustion, which is Burning.
   ERE is just trying to use other terms to make it sound better. Like calling themselves Erie Renewable Energy. Burning tires is not Renewable.
   Go to http://www.stopburningtires.com to learn more.
   Dennis Stratton

9. Randy
   September 2nd, 2007 at 8:58 am

   Erie Renewable Erie has insisted this is not an incinerator and not a tire plant. They contend they are going to combust the tires and not burn them. Solids do turn into a gas when they are combusted. If a solid is combusted and the result is heat, ash and emissions it would be difficult to convince the general public burning is not taking place. Fluidized bed is not new technology. Please go on the internet and research this. Mr. McCormick and Mr. Rubino also insist that the plant their wives are going to own “will not bring soot, pollution or smells back to the east side.” No soot? No pollution? What is going to come out of the smokestacks? If it’s all good what are the smokestacks for? Not much has been said about the washing of every tire before the chippng and the combustion process takes place. Does anyone think that having a week (560,000)or two (1,120,000)tires on site that are filthy with standing water and the related problems with discarded tires is good for an urban environment? Think about the jobs after the plant is built. Erie NON Renewable Energy states there will be 60 jobs. That many jobs at a 24/7 facility means at any one time about 15 people on site. I am all for jobs. Taking 60 acres up to create 60 jobs is a very poor use of the land. Does anyone think that there is new technology that allows incinerators to operate with no soot, pollution or smells? If this were true than every community in the USA would be lined up for this plant. This would be the biggest breakthrough in energy creation since the discovery of fire. There would be headlines and news coverage all over the world of what Erie NON Renewable is claiming was true, no soot. Yes 100 years ago when to the east of the site was farm land Hammermill began. We are just a little more informed and have more knowledge than we did 100 years ago. What will be done with the thousands of pounds of toxic ash remaining daily? Beware of companies that try and mislead the public with a name that is not reflective of whom they are. Renewable is wind, solar, plants etc. Taking a product such as tires and combusting them is not renewable. Recycling tires into other usable products meets the definition of renewable. If I take a pig and put lipstick and makeup on it is still a pig. If someone uses 80,000 tires a day (1 every second) and creates heat, ash and emissions they can call it whatever they want but in the end it is still an incinerator. For those that need a job and have their hopes pinned on this plant please go to http://www.stopburingtires.com and contact KEEP. We will help you help write your résumé and or assist in your search for a job that is less likely to impact yours and the community’s health.

10. Randy
    September 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 am

    I am sorry the website is http://www.stopburningtires.com

11. Julio C. Reyes
    September 2nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm

    Peter,

    To my understanding, tires are the result of a basic vulcanization which is a chemical reaction involving high heat and sulfur. As far as I know and to this day nobody has discovered a safe method to reverse this process not even the big tire manufacturing companies.

    I understand that the best they have done is to regrind and remix some of the defective tires to save on the raw materials.

    Middle School Chemistry 101 explains that any chemical reactions might have different results depending on the environmental conditions and the purity of the basic elements participating in the chemical reaction.

    Randy has a very good point about cleaning and/or washing the tires before they go to the burning process. The burning or chemical process of course will have “residuals”. Anybody thinking that there won’t be any residuals in a chemical reaction either never went to school or strongly believes on spontaneous generation. By fooling around now we have a ton of nuclear waste in underground deposits somewhere in Utah and Nevada.

    A few years ago on the border between Mexico and San Isidro, there was a big fire in a place filled with tires. They were not able to put it out. They just waited until the fire died by itself. As a result of that fire people started looking at this problem more seriously. The fire affected San Diego located at least 20-30 miles from the fire site.

    Won’t the storage of that many tires in a single place make OSHA or the local fire department nervous?

    What really makes some of the comments interesting is that most of the people mentioned that only the “East side” might have problems. Did any of them ever hear about acid rain and wind? Pollution is not politically or geographically correct. Have any of these people ever seen how many fish die at the lake every year when the wind blows and the water in the lake moves more than usual, releasing all the pollution at the bottom of the lake?

    My recommendation is to use the old tires in a different way in a truly recyclable manner. There are many, many, many possibilities and they will still be able to make money which at the end is the American way.

    I will present the alternatives as questions just to be safe.

    1. Why don’t we grind the tires to makes super concrete?. If you really wan to burn the tires at least use them to make cement in a cement factory not in the lake.
    2. Could we semi process the tires and use them to protect Presque Island from loosing sand every year?
    3. Why don’t grind the tires and use them as a “filler” or buffer for all the oil wells around the world ? You know all this wells are getting empty or filled with water. Hey, someone might even get a patent here?
    4. Why don’t we check the bacterium that lives at the bottom of oceans, eating sulfurs and other dangerous chemicals to help us clean the mess?
    5. Could we semi process the tires and use them for roofs, sidewalks, or plant containers just to name a few.

    At the end the alternative options are endless. The concept to have in mind is that if a source of energy is to be effective, it has to cost less money to produce than the volume of energy it requires for its generation.

    The energy plant burning tires or processing the chemicals to generate energy to me looks like a losing proposition.

12. Davida Dillon
    September 25th, 2007 at 9:01 am

    Any way they try to break down these tires, there will be pollution, just like Randy said in his previous post, and I quote “What is going to come out of the smokestacks? If it’s all good what are the smokestacks for?” I would like to talk about tire fires. It does happen and when it happens it’s terrible. There was a tire fire that started in Maricopa Arizona last thursday (Sept. 20,2007). It happened at the Arizona Rubber Recycling Center. This is the 3rd fire they’ve had out there in 4 years! The two previous fires were in 2003 and 2005. One was accidental, one was set by DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEES and they’re not sure how this one started yet. They started out with between 35 and 40 firefighters, that number increased to 200. The only place located close to the plant is a cattle farm, so there were no evacuations. They did issue a voluntary evacuation if you felt that you needed to leave or were having trouble breathing. How many eastside Erieites will they HAVE to evacuate because of a fire at this proposed plant? I read this online, it was in the Casa Grande Valley Newspapers- according to Maricopa Fire Department Chief Mark Boys- “this fire will burn for a long time. A week or longer. Could be a month.” A MONTH!!! If it burns for a month, or even a week, next to residential homes, what happens then. No one can tell me that won’t hurt anyone. Research it online - Maricopa Arizona tire fire. The pictures are unbelievable. That smoke is so black and thick, and guess what- it’s not in a smokestack, it starts out at GROUND LEVEL. This is not the only plant dealing with tires that has had fires. There was another plant out in California, I believe it is shut down now - correct me if I’ wrong, I read that the fire there lasted two months and smouldered for YEARS! There are plenty of others too, type in tire fire and see what comes up. Erie Renweable Energy can say what they want, they cannot 100% guarantee there will not be a fire at their plant! And the consequences of a tire fire in a residential area should scare the heck out of everyone.

13. Rob
    June 4th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    You know all the people who are against the plant are all against progress. Are you against good paying jobs in this area? Are you against the people having a better way to live ,against “alternative energy”?.

    All of this fearmongering over something that may or may not happen is useless. If you dont like it then LEAVE! No one is saying that you have to stay here, but dont impede progress just because you dont like it.

14. Julio C. Reyes
    June 4th, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    Rob,

    Interestingly enough I am having a chat with Jim in the WATH IF section of this blogs about energy and progress in the little town.

    Please take a look but for the time being let me put and extract from my latest post for your convenience.

    Have fun,
    ———————————————————————————

    Extract:

    In one hand you are all against government creating and subsiding industries and then you are all for the Tire Burning Plant to generate energy locally. You can not have your cake and eat it at the same time. I already expressed many times that the stupid Tire Burning plan is a big mistake. But even with the interest to follow your ideology about trying to generate energy locally. I am willing to say let’s built the tire burning plant with ZERO tax dollars, ZERO government subsidies and ZERO government support and see what happens.

    I am positive that the people planning to build the monster will never do it without the government sponsorship. I bet they will never have enough money to pay for insurance liability (present and future) and without Uncle Sam covering their backs if something goes wrong.

    Building a nuclear plant in that location is the only reasonable thing to do.

    About the bio-diesel plant, I am pretty sure and confident that the owners will make the necessary adjustment dictated by the market. This is just normal in any business enterprise.

    ———————————————————————————————-

    Also, as you could see in the other blog section there are other options as well solar, winds, bio-diesel, bio-mass, you name it the sky is the limit. But, BURNING TIRES with my tax dollars is the worst option by far.

    No, I can not leave little town. I have not found anybody yet as crazy as me to buy my properties over there. Besides if we all leave the silly argument about getting tax money from Uncle Sam to build jobs in little town will not have as much weight as it does today don’t you think?

15. Cory Carr
    June 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    KEEP is a joke! Tires to Energy means:

    1. Good jobs in the heart of Erie.
    3. Cheap power.
    2. The removal of tires which would otherwise sit in a landfill FOREVER!
    4. The governments environmental guidelines being adhered to.

    I understand that burning tires sounds like an awful idea, but get over it. Why stop a power plant that our community will benefit, which has to live up to modern standards? Why not go after existing power plants that have been polluting for decades longer than they were expected to even be in operation?

    If you KEEP folks want to put a stop to dangerous gases polluting Erie’s air, remember to walk or bike to all of your meetings and fund raisers.

16. Dee Girard
    June 11th, 2008 at 11:19 am

    It’s good to discuss this and try and come to some reasonable conclusions but we all know that profit drives this and as much as we would like to believe it …our opinions will not change that. I like to ask one simple question when it comes to situations such as this one. Would you be in favor of this plant if they were going to build it next door to your house? Think about it.

17. Jess
    June 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Two points on your comment:
    1- CA Cutze Co, an employer of hundreds of Erie residents, located near the proposed tire plant, stated they will relocate their company if the plant goes in. That is parlaying 300 jobs, for 60 jobs at the tire plant.

    2- Cheap power? ERE proposes to produce a small amount of electricity to self power first, second sell to the grid at a higher amount than current rates.

    Trading 60 jobs for 300? Is that progress?

    PS- Northeast grape growers are opposed, A nice glass of 2010 toxin chardonnay anyone?

    PSS- What about the schools filled with children next to a tire plant time bomb. Imagine the tire catch fire, or if “filters” (which are a joke anyway) fail?

    Cory Carr Wrote:

    Cory Carr
    June 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    KEEP is a joke! Tires to Energy means:

    1. Good jobs in the heart of Erie.
    3. Cheap power.
    2. The removal of tires which would otherwise sit in a landfill FOREVER!
    4. The governments environmental guidelines being adhered to.

    I understand that burning tires sounds like an awful idea, but get over it. Why stop a power plant that our community will benefit, which has to live up to modern standards? Why not go after existing power plants that have been polluting for decades longer than they were expected to even be in operation?

    If you KEEP folks want to put a stop to dangerous gases polluting Erie’s air, remember to walk or bike to all of your meetings and fund raisers.

18. MGR
    June 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    I have never seen people get so revved up as they do over the tires to energy plant. Before I hop on this, let’s get one thing clear, I don’t favor or oppose this plant, but the location isn’t the best choice and I think there is probably a mid-ground that can mitigate the moderate citizen’s concerns.

    I must first note that I don’t believe there is any way for anyone - city council, DEP, KEEP, Rodney Dangerfield from the grave, deities of major religions - to stop it from being built if it meets current regulatory guidelines. I heard some banter about city council enacting some overarching new emissions standard unseen anywhere else in the U.S.A. just to make compliance more difficult, but this would shoot us in the foot vs. any other city in the country for site selectors and still wouldn’t stop the plant from being built. The ‘Green’ movement hasn’t changed the rules of economics so green ideas for the environment that don’t produce ‘green’ for the shareholders will never survive or thrive.

    In the end, a close review of the emissions docs from the company may show that the pollution levels of a new facility like this one may be far lower than a lot of the existing businesses we already have and do not wish to shed. In my view there are far too many pollutants from existing outdated facilities here to exhaust all this effort on the tire plant that cannot be stopped. Again, I am not defending it, just being practical and seeking a practical solution.

    As far as Jess’s notes 1 &2, I can see Bruce Kern’s concern for Curtze, and I have heard from a couple people that the economics of this plant may not work well. My guess is that Curtze really doesn’t want to waste the tremendous amount of cost and difficulty to move their operation out of Erie. Yes, they are a larger operation ($100MM+) with a presence in both of our neighboring states, but it is unpleasant and disruptive to say the least to actually execute on this threat. Besides that, I don’t think the owners actually want to sell out Erie over something that the city can’t control, they have legitimate concerns and most rational people reach compromises. If the plant isn’t economically sound, it will fold on its own.

    If I were sitting on city council and had to face this mess, the best option might be to put in some very pointed controls that appear to be blanket. For example, the big concern that is held about ‘tire fires’. Couldn’t council enact and ordinance that significantly restricts the number of tires that can be stored at a site location by any business or individual and enforce it with heavy fines? More than likely this would cause the company to store its tires in a rural area (cheaper cost for large parcels) and feed them to the plant only as fast as they can be processed. It would not reduce our rail freight volume increase (which is beneficial) and the company would still function, but there wouldn’t be an abundance of tires piled up on the site anywhere (in or out), and the risk of ‘tire fires’ would be mitigated.

    If I dug into the docs I could come up with more, but I don’t care to speculate. Does anybody think this makes sense or have emotions overtaken the masses so that no one is thinking straight?

19. julio c reyes
    June 12th, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    MGR,

    Here we go again.

    A Pig is a Pig no matter how you want to call it or dress it. You idea of storing the tires outside and then bring them in for Burning is hilarious. Do you work as tax attorney trying to find loop holes? The additional problem besides making an urban landfill (storing tires) is the pollution. So, what do we do about it as I have mentioned before numerous times the technology is not there yet.

    I want to recommend one more time that a nuclear plant there is the way to go. Far more tax and “freebes” subsidies (billions) and less harm to the environment. Needless to say that the nuclear plant of course will create so much electrical juice that we could light zillions of Christmas tress in the convention center for almost nothing trying to get a Guinness world record.

    Now, continuing with your recommendation and assuming that they will build the Tire Burning Plant. Then our genius and politicians should eat the bullet make all that whole area a toxic waste zone and give incentives to the people (business and residents) to sell the properties and move out. Did you ever heard about Public Domain acquisitions?

    And by the way Erie should start making some savings to pay for the possible Law suits coming from anybody touching the Lake water (From Canada to wherever) in the next two hundreds years. After the Tire Burning Plant is open and pollutes the Lake. For these Lawsuits I believe the technology already exists. Imagine if they could detect metals and substances in Mars how easy will be for somebody to probe that some one got ill because toxins and metals coming out of a particular tire made in China, Mexico, the moon, you name it.

    And even if my Lawsuits idea is silly and crazy with some many attorneys with free time in their hands looking for class action suit I guess it could be possible. It will be fun to watch Erin Brockovich -1. The silly -1 in the movie title is honoring the long standing tradition that in Erie every thing is a few years behind. Technically it should have been 2, II or 11/2, the sequel, wherever, you get my point.

20. MGR
    June 13th, 2008 at 7:07 am

    Julio,

    I know you aren’t an expert on anything as you always say, but ask anyone in the energy biz and you will see that until there is a federal government coup or revolution, there will never be another nuclear power plant built in this country, the red tape could block a tank.

    I noted the ordinance would create a rural landfill, not an urban one.

    Still, you lack any viable solution or compromise in your post. HOW are you going to stop this plant? Pig is a pig, horse is a horse, I don’t care. The best you’ve got is to buy up everything around it and turn it into a toxic dump because some EPA compliant level of air pollution is going to occur at this site?? By that benchmark, we must close up the bayfront and make it a toxic dump because of the Erie Coke plant and Hamot’s medical waste incinerator are there releasing pollutants into the air.

    My point is that this plant isn’t going to be stopped, so if we are smart as a city, we enact ordinances that target the possible problems caused by this specific type of plant without creating wide ranging problems for our overall business climate.

21. julio c reyes
    June 13th, 2008 at 8:45 am

    MGR,

    The thing here is that I really do not care if they build the plant or not. I was just saying be aware that like everything in life there will always be consequences. So, stop playing games and be ready to accept them.

    Your silly comment about the Feds. As usual it is just a bunch of hot air. I have never met yet anybody that will reject Public (feds) Money. Except me but as we already know most if the time I have no clue. I am positive that if the Feds come over and tell you take this millions you will take them and then you will be quiet about it livings happily while the money last.

    No, I am not proposing any solution here except the nuclear plant in regards to that I really do not give a damn. My only point was, is and will be did anybody had ever bother to really check and ask. One thing is for sure. Things change all the time.

    In regards to pollution I said water not air. May be I inadvertently wrote in Spanish and you missed it. Water, water, water, is the issue here. To be honest with you I doubt the volume in Hammot will never be as big as the burning of the tires to affect the water in the Lake. In regards to Coke the only thing I know is that is an American soda icon. Sorry but in a serious note I have absolutely no clue what they due. But I doubt they are burning it and affecting the water on the Lake.

    Why is so difficult to understand that the water in Lake is so important. In fact some of the experts and big thinkers predict that water will be far more important than Oil the future.

    So in case you miss it I am talking about water, water, water, or some people call HO2.

22. julio c reyes
    June 13th, 2008 at 8:49 am

    MGR,

    Before you come back with any other arguments when you are ready to talk about H2O (not HO2) then we could discussed it. I purposely wrote the formula for water in my last post to demonstrate how for people like me without technical knowledge could be easy fooled when discussing heavy stuff. But also imagine that yes indeed like in the horror movies our H2O in the Lake becomes HO2 after Burning all the Tires. I hope you get my point.

23. MGR
    June 13th, 2008 at 10:29 am

    Julio,

    I have no interest in arguing with you, my goal is to explore solutions that work in our real world. If you have some, please share.

    We can talk water, land, or air, the EPA has requirements for water pollution as well, either way, this plant will end up in compliance and it will end up getting built. So we can either put some controls in place that mitigate the downside risk WITHOUT affecting our broader business climate or the activists can just KEEP holding protests and bake sales that aren’t going to accomplish anything other than giving the press something to sell newspapers and newscasts.

    Many citizens in the area have legitimate concerns, but they need to realize that it needs to be addressed more in the manner that we use to prepare for hurricanes or tornadoes, not in the manner in which we decide what to buy in the grocery store. There is no mechanism that will stop this plant from being built, so why not enact some subtle pointed controls to help make it a better neighbor to everyone around it?

    Just for your quick education, the Erie Coke Plant is just east of the water treatment facility, it looks like a giant black alien spaceship with all sorts of crazy lights, smoke and black earth all around it. They produce coke for the steel industry (not soda), and I am not going to get into all the specifics because you can look them up. Here is how they relate to water pollution

    “Water pollution comes from the water used to cool coke after it has finished baking. Quenching water becomes contaminated with coke breezes and other compounds. While the volume of contaminated water can be great, quenching water is fairly easy to reuse. Coke breezes and other solids can usually be removed by filtration. The resulting water can be reused in other manufacturing processes or released.” (The Steel Making Process, EPA 1995).

24. julio c reyes
    June 13th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    MGR,

    The only thing I could tell you right now is the two wrongs will not make one right.

    If the Tire Burning Plant as you said is going to be built then you do not need to worry about it. Why bother. Now according to you we will get some repercussion an effect in business and residents, so be it. Again, do not worry about it let’s the things self balance. How many times I have to repeat my self. No, you can not have your cake and eat at the same time.

    The decision is simple like Socrates would have said to be or not to be. If there is a plant then people must understand they will be consequences and a business price to pay that is all. No, it is not the activists that will keep the future Tourism business and money away. It is the smoke, smell, and pollution coming out of the Tire Burning facility that will have a long term effect.

    Thank you very much for the educational tip I Google Coke and looked up. However, I really find ironic that in one hand you complain about the Feds and then you could use it (EPA) at your convenience to support your arguments and ideas. So which way is this time?

    Trying to present why the Burning of the Tires and Burning of the Charcoal to make Coke will create two different kinds of water pollution in my mind I would like to say that while both are BURNED. Tires are a man made product and Charcoal is nature made. In my mind there will be a huge difference in the resulting toxics and pollution affecting the lake water.

    Again, this is just silly me. At the end I have no technical knowledge. I also know going back to attorneys that the a potential case in court will be a easier win against the Tire Burning pollution compared to the charcoal burning pollution. It is much likely that the courts already have precedent ruling if favor of the Coke industry.

    Going back to the possible effect in business with all things consider It might be in my best interest that the Tire Burning Plant is built because I might give me some leverage to ask other state or town for possible tax deals and subsidies claiming that the Tire Burning Plant had affected my business. Remember, I am a little guy so if other people around like Curtze, Hammot, Erie Insurance, you name it use the same excuse and get a really good deal I will feel very happy for them.

    I am telling you and everybody else a nuclear plant is the way to go. Everybody will be happy and smiling all the way to the bank.

25. MGR
    June 13th, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    Julio,

    I think I have figured out the difference between us, you work in absolutes and my world is grey. As far as the feds or any government goes, some regulation works, some doesn’t. It is too bad that nuclear power is pretty much shelved by government regulation, although we still don’t know what to do with the waste so maybe it’s for the best. I find that with regards to any government standard, agency, etc. anyone who favors it all or favors none of it misses the point. Sometimes you need it, sometimes you don’t, sometimes it is put in place by lobbyists, sometimes it is put in place by activists, sometimes it hurts, sometimes it helps.

    The point I always make is that people shouldn’t rely on the government for much. Sometimes we get good government, sometimes bad, but generally speaking it is completely out of our control, often unreliable, and changes at a rate far too slow to be efficient and effective.

26. julio c reyes
    June 14th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    MGR,

    Wow, this is really getting to deep.

    I hate to disappoint you. I am versatile. I deal in absolutes when it is necessary. But I also deal with grey when it is necessary. If I remember correctly and unless I am mistaken I believe I have recommended to you in another posts that under some circumstances people and politicians should compromise, should work in a bipartisan or multipartisan basis (there is nothing else I know could get any more grey than that) for the benefit of all and you have answered me that the worst decisions from your point of view had been made under that approach.

    The gray economic cloud we need in top of little town:

    The primary reason because I make jokes about the kingpins around the little town is precisely trying to help them to put aside their differences and try to work together for the benefit of all.

    The political arena:

    The fact of the matter is that unfortunately yes, our government (City, Council, State and Feds) somehow had got totally out of control by taking extremely radical positions trying to please (some times wrongly pleasing) either side of the extremes. The fundamental problem is that in nature and humans regardless who might have the winning hand in a given point some how the things eventually balance themselves. In fact this phenomenon is based in physics there is always a reaction to each action the stronger the action the stronger the reaction. The rockets are based in that principle.

    Speed in Government responses:

    The fact of the matter is that in some occasions the government respond and move to fast for example short term energy policies rather than long term as Jim had bitched about it and very slow to remove bureaucratic procedures and past legislation that would have been of some value a million years ago. Some of these procedures especially at the electoral level are totally archaic and of course they remain in place because it that way the politicians increase their odds for reelection, propaganda, demagogy and manipulation.

    I want to go back to the nuclear energy issue to probe to you who deals in absolutes you or me.

    At this time your position in regards to a possible nuclear plant in the little town is absolute by saying that it is pretty much shelved. You do not even consider a little bit of gray (which I see there) like this.

    We need to dismantle a lot of nuclear missiles war heads that rather than going to the land fill could be used to build nuclear plants around the US. It has been 30 years since the Three Island incident in Pittsburgh, people are really piss about oil prices, These days we had a lot submarines running in nuclear reactors so it is just common sense to think that the technology after 30 had to be better and safer.

    I could go on and on and on,

    My point is in this case I see gray and opportunity to review things looking for alternatives and you do not. You said not even a chance. You want to install the Tire Plant and then I only said. Good, by my guess just understand that somehow we need to be willing to pay the price if it is the wrong decision.

    Now, going back to my opening statement. In my life I always try to be versatile while at the same time I always try to use common sense 101. I also live my life by knowing that regardless of my decisions I am always willing to pay the consequences if I make the wrong choice. I strongly believe in the theory of evolution and by design I know that everything in the universe is always changing. So, yes I do see gray sometimes I know that it all depends on a set of given circumstances.

27. MGR
    June 14th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

    Julio,

    What would you do without me.

28. Julio C. Reyes
    June 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Peter,

    I guess one of the good side effects now that we are talking about pollution it seems that the Department of Environmental Protection might be reviewing things around Erie in a little more detail.

    http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080623/NEWS02/362911939

    Apparently the problem had been happening since February 2007 but I guess is much better late than never. We should be ecstatic a year for Erie “time zone” is the blink of an eye.

    It is really good for the little town. It appears that someone might be finally watching.

29. Keeper
    August 1st, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    Wow! The new price for the tire plant is $350,000,000. Who would have ever thought it would take over 1/3 of a billion dollars to burn tires that aren’t there? How much will that cheap electricity cost now? Any bets on a 1/2 billion by years end? Oh for the good old days just one year ago when the deal was a mere $85,000,000. That was announced in March 2007.

30. Keeper
    August 11th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    “After reading the environmental report, looking at existing cancer rates in Erie, and looking at where it would reside, I can’t in good conscience say that I think it’s a good idea.” Peter Panepento

    Thank you Peter for your comments.

31. Diane Schneider
    February 27th, 2009 at 10:31 am

    I am looking forward to the day when we can have a PARTY instead of a meeting to celebrate our victory at stopping the construction of this purposed “burning tires for energy” plant ! The thought of this party gives me hope & inspiration……..cheers & thanks to all who have & are doing so very much to prevent this plant!!

32. Paula Hannah
    March 25th, 2009 at 10:57 am

    The zoning board gave permission to build the plant…What can we do now?? How can we stop this?? Can we get a court order or something??

33. Dale Hannah
    March 25th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    Are we related? The wish-washy u-turn by the zoning board was a huge victory for ERE, but it ain’t over till the fat lady sings. There are several more layers of appeal yet, I think, and still time for Rubino to get caught in another fast one. (Remember Jeff Johnston?)

34. Pat
    March 26th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    The current wsee poll is running 64% for the plant. It seems the labor unions have been busy. Perhaps KEEP members should start to weigh in at http://www.wsee.tv

35. Lori
    May 8th, 2009 at 10:21 am

    I think the best thing we can do now is help fund the lawyer for KEEP who will be fighting this in court. A fundraiser is scheduled for June 25 from 6-9, or you can visit their website and donate directly: http://www.stopburningtires.com/how_to_help.html

36. christine
    June 17th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    How about this poll? For everyone who thinks this is “saving grace” for erie, the next time you encounter your doctor for whatever reason, ask him/her what they think about the plant. Worried about the swine flu, or other illnesses going around? They come and go. This is FOREVER.
    As for these “jobs” being created, there is no guarantee folks. I observed a contractor and his crew from OHIO working on the Parade st. “facelift” project. So much for keeping the $ in Erie. As for the “storing tires issue”, Think ” West Nile.” As for catching on fire, well, My younger sister lived in an “upscale” neighborhood in Kentucky, and when a tire facility caught fire there it burned for well over a month and spared no one. She said the air quality was unbelievable.
    I don’t understand why people are not getting this.
    A lady who wrote the times stating our weather does not always go from west to east is, of course, correct. So, if you think you are safe [safer] because you are not downwind, think again.
    I have been in the process of looking to move from the inner city to one of the townships, and I’m sorry to say Harborcreek [ my first choice] is out of the running if the plant moves forward. South seems most likely at this point.
    Yes, we have plenty of parks, and need a business there, but not this one.
    If the people involved were stand-up guys, they would have come up with plan B.
    This whole deal smells like the hammermill of yesteryear.

    Love canal anyone?