by Jim Berlin // CEO of Logistics Plus Inc.
Like most people, I do not know near enough about the science as to whether the proposed tire disposal plant will be polluting our air or not. I do know that both sides will come up with scientists who will provide the appropriate evidence for both sides of the argument. Then, how is one to really know?
I also know that tires don’t magically disappear from the planet and that SOMETHING has to be done with them, and I’d imagine that SOMEONE has developed the technology to do this without ruining the air we breathe.
And no one on the anti side are going to convince many on the pro side, and visa versa.
So why not work out a deal something like this:
It seems like that would kind of be a “put up or shut up” option for the developers. They’d have to darn well KNOW that this plant won’t pollute our air–otherwise they will spend tens of millions of dollars that will be thrown away if they don’t live up to their word.
Seems like something along these lines would work, and give everyone a chance to actually see how this does — and if it doesn’t work, it gets shut down before it can do any damage to anyone (and the owners lose their shirts).
Make any sense?
JB
I am founder and CEO of Logistics Plus Inc. A driving force behind the rehabilitation of Erie’s historic Union Station, Logistics Plus Inc. has spawned a wave of development in Erie’s center city. I will be blogging primarily about the progress and development in and around Union Station.
Joe Erie
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Sounds like a plan, though I doubt that the developers would ever agree to it and the “specific numbers” would be endlessly difficult to determine in order to satisfy both sides.
The thing is, “the technology to to this without ruining the air we breathe” is available. Just not on the scale that will make Rubino and Co. the kind of cash they’re looking to receive from importing thousands of tons of tires. Closed loop gasification systems exist for the very purpose of eliminating waste tires, but they are much smaller scale.
Dale
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I don’t think it will fly as long as Rubino is part of the deal. I just read an article on the tire plant in a Pittsburgh Post over the weekend that profiled the plant and it’s problems. They also mentioned that the casino was not given it’s permit to build until they agreed to not deal with Rubino any longer. He was dropped like a hot potato. Maybe he can sell the idea to someone who will do it right, with the proper controls in place. That would certainly go a long way toward getting the plant accepted by the community.
Dale
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Sorry, I said Pittsburgh Post, when in reality the article was in the Pittsburgh Tribune. Here is a link to the article I mentioned.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_585818.html
dh
john morris
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Well, the story explains that it there will be lot’s of jobs. It will be the job of everyone in the area to carry a tire to the plant every day.
julio reyes
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Jim,
I had posted numerous times that they should build the TIRE BURNING PLANT if they wanted to WITHOUT using any of my tax dollars and without any State or Federal funding and support. I am positive that any reasonable/decent private investor will never build that monster without public subsidies and governmental support.
It always fascinates me how lazy people are just taking the propaganda and nonsense instead of just reading the small prints in public documents. The IP site has already been designated as a brown field and it seems scheduled to receive public funds for cleaning purposes while at the same time the Tire Burning Plant will be polluting like crazy in the same parcel.
Joe Erie please stop using the silly term “Closed Loop Gasification Purposes” that term is not even used in the permit application so stop spreading the rumors and misinformation. The application to build the Monster in the Lake Erie Shore describes a different method and processes. Please read the application in detail the way I did and find all the nonsense already presented in that document or visit the developers Web site and use the correct terms.
Jim Berlin
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:06 am
Well, I was hoping not to just have people line up on this blog with their already-fixed pro or con positions for this tire plant.
Please reread the “proposal” above.
Could we get the developers to agree that once built, IF IT DOES NOT LIVE UP TO THE LOW EMISSIONS they promise, then they’d have to shut it down.
I’d think that would satisfy everyone:
The developers get to build their plant and prove their technology to the world.
Those against it get to make sure that if is NOT clean, then it closes immediately and the developers would be out all that money.
As I said, it is a “put up or shut up” proposition, no?
Thanks,
JB
john morris
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 am
Would they have to post some kind of bond to cover the cost of taking the plant down and cleaning up the site?
Jim Berlin
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:14 am
Not sure. Makes sense. If they are confident in their science (as I assume they must be) then any bond/promises would not cost them anything.
john morris
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Seriously, Jim. It sounds from a distance like a very reasonable suggestion and one the owners are unlikely to go for.
It does have some substantial problems beyond this. Once the plant has been built it becomes a self sustaining “fact on the ground”. The public will be out the subsidy money, as well as facing the highly self interested workers about to lose their jobs and a site now occupied by a very big white elephant which will have to be dealt with. All of this will tend to make a lot of people just say let it run.
Jim Berlin
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 am
John,
But how else do we ever find out if this works or not? Everyone is going to lock into their beliefs and the true nature of this thing will never be agreed to or seen unless it is tried.
If it works, it is terrific–a clean way to eliminate millions of waste tires without polluting the air, creating jobs, good for the community and the planet. Win/win/win.
If it doesn’t work (and the proof, in this case, will be in the pudding once it is up and running) then it shuts down and the owners are out a ton.
I’d think this would drive them to be VERY SURE that this was going to work.
For those who think it won’t–isn’t this a way to “call their bluff”? I would think so.
JB
john morris
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
I would say that if they can get a AAA bond insurer to back the costs of making good on cleanup, this would be a good plan. This puts one other party at risk that would look at how good/risky this technology is.
One has to realise the big factor that will come into play once this thing , has been built which is political. Once a major project has been completed, it carries it’s own constituency with it. What this means is that, I don’t believe the government’s bluff. Once it’s running, it’s highly unlikely it will be easily shut down. Whoever supported it will be interested in not admiting their mistake and their will be small but vocal base of employees, investors and suppliers which want the plant to run.
Give an example of the government reversing course after a mistake. They are few and far between.
Pittsburgh’s sports stadiums for example were rejected by voters and have never produced a lot of their promised financial impacts but– now they are there, it’s almost impossible to reverse course. When they ask for more money they get it.
Jim Berlin
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
John,
Yeah, I see your point. But hopefully in this case it will be very “measurable”–there is x amount of crap being released or not. And if it comes in high, then there will be an outcry of those who will say, “see, we told you so” that will bring the political pressure to shut it down (above and beyond the agreement in the first place).
At least it’s a way to get to see whether this works or not. I just don’t trust/like people (like me) who know NOTHING about this stuff, acting as if they do.
Smart people will disagree on whether this works or not. This seems like the only way to know for sure.
Txs,
Jake
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Julio…like Jim, I haven’t made up my mind on this plant yet…I’m curiou s about your comment on building the plant without taxpayer dollars…in all the reading i’ve done, I’ve never seen anything about the developers getting fed/state dollars…what’s your source on this comment? Because if they aren’t seeking money…then I guess you’re supporting the plant…right?
Joe Erie
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Julio,
It seems that you just don’t understand. First, I never used the term “Closed Loop Gasification Purposes” as you said I did. I actually used the phrase “closed loop gasification system” in response to Jim’s question of whether someone has come up with a solution to eliminate tires without runing the air we breathe. The technology does exist for smaller-scale operations, but ERE will not be using it at their proposed behemoth on Lake Erie.
Second, the term is not “silly” and in no way, shape, or form did I even remotely suggest that this type of process is the one proposed by ERE. So, the only one spreading misinformation and acting “silly” (actually, like a total jackass) in this case is YOU, when you claim that that my remarks about an entriely separate process relate to ERE’s project. Believe me, I have read the permit application and assuredly understand it much more clearly than you possibly could, given your incomprehension of much simpler treatises (such as posts on this forum).
Before telling someone else what they should or shouldn’t say on this forum, you should make sure you at least understand the post before you spout off with your pompous decrees. That way you don’t come off looking like an idiot. Just trying to help…
julio reyes
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Joe Erie,
Just to have fun and to clarify things a little bit.
This is exactly what you said:
“””“The thing is, “the technology to to this without ruining the air we breathe” is available. Just not on the scale that will make Rubino and Co. the kind of cash they’re looking to receive from importing thousands of tons of tires. Closed loop gasification systems exist for the very purpose of eliminating waste tires, but they are much smaller scale.””””
Now, I am translating in my limited (plain) English and looking like a Jackass.
No, the technology does not exist for that volume and operation that size. Therefore you can not measure things and worse yet.
Then you also said:
“”””Sounds like a plan, though I doubt that the developers would ever agree to it and the “specific numbers” would be endlessly difficult to determine in order to satisfy both sides.””””
The subject is the Tire Burning Plant therefore we have to find a way to measure the monster pollution in an operation that does not exist to find the “specific number”.
The Tire Burning Plant will be running according to their application a “circulating fluidized bed (”CFB”) technology to convert Tire-Derived Fuel (”TDF”) into a combustible”
Of course you were referring to a totally different method to measure something that does not exist at that volume and you insist that your are not confusing the issue. Again in my small brain you are confusing the issue: a pig, is a pig, is a pig and if you start using other terms to call a pig a pig then you are confusing the issue and spreading misinformation. The next thing that will happen is people will start believing that the monster is going to be using a “Closed Loop Gasification system”.
The first thing to do is to be sure everybody refers and call the things with the same name in that way everybody will understand the same thing.
A silly example of semantics and terminology in this fiasco is “TPD” in the application the developers calls it TPD = “Tons of tires per day” and the DEP reviewing the application calls it TPD = tires per day.
The same TPD term apparently means two totally different things.
Now, going back to the original question to find out if we could measure things while running the monster the answer is NO, we can not measure things in something that does not exist and worse yet if somebody is counting in a numerical system and the other is counting in the English system of course we will get different results. Or somebody is measuring Closed Loop Gasification and the other is measuring a CFB technology we will be getting different results.
Also, what might be acceptable and safe for one party might not be acceptable for the other.
How do you measure the effect of pollutants that will penetrate the skin and will get almost to the genetic material of living things? over several years before you see the results. You just can not do it, so why bother to even try?
Jim Berlin
September 4th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Julio,
As I said, I know nothing about this, but I am sure there are smart scientists who will agree with you (against the plant) and smart scientists who will argue that the plant is safe.
I would think that that if the developers say, “here is what this plant will emit” and that level of emissions is deemed safe (there has to be SOME level that people can agree is safe, I would think) then skeptics and watchdogs will hold their feet to the fire to prove that they actually did what they said they were going to do. If not, they lose their shirts and their plant.
I would think that NO industry would EVER be allowed here if such strict rules were applied all the time. Unfortunately, seems to me there has to be SOME level of tradeoff between industry and commerce (and the jobs that creates) and emissions from ANY industrial process.
Don’t think we can/want to go back to a hunter/gatherer society : )
Txs,
JB
julio reyes
September 4th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Jim,
I do not think I made myself clear. I will try one more time. But first let me say that I am in favor of using technology, machines and science to make money and to make life easier for everybody. In fact, I develop software for a living and most of my clients are in the manufacturing industry therefore it is in my best interest to promote that industry.
I will also repeat my recommendation about building a nuclear plant in that location.
Now, I will try to answer your question about “safe” emissions.
Nobody really knows at present time what “safe” levels are. All anti pollution measures are based on “spreading” on the air the risk factor. We see examples of that in the yearly car inspections, the car passes the test one day and then the rest of the year is “free” until you have to make the next inspection and then forced to make any mandatory repairs.
From my point of view looking like an idiot according to Joe Erie
the major risk is not even in the air but in Lake’s water. Sooner or later unless a Hurricane takes all that pollution and acid rain out of the area all that pollutants will end up in the Lake.
Going back to the point in order to measure emissions correctly the Monster Plant must capture all the pollutants and dispose them accordingly. Not just let them escape. The equipment to measure pollutants at that volume with all the environmental conditions 24 hours a day will require the mother of all meters. Then another study (measurement) will be required to find out the long term effect of all that pollutants in every living creature around the area (including of course humans).
To finish in a positive note the main problem with the monster (besides) the poorly written application filed with the DEP is VOLUME. Silly examples:
A little bit of arsenic in a fruit like peach will never kill you but if you take a spoon full you will be long gone.
A hamburger once in a while will not kill you either but a 100% Mc Donald’s diet will take you to the hospital and then the cemetery.
A glass of red wine everyday might improve your health for the years to come but three to five bottles a day will ruin your liver and kidneys.
As you could figure out by now I could provide more examples trying to proof my point but I guess all of them will be repetitive in nature.
By the way, I said before using the ashes from the burned Tires to make cosmetics (make up and shades) will make the girls look like the joker in Batman.
I hope my recommendation about building a nuclear plant on that site demonstrates that I am not an environmentalist freak either.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to write my nonsense.