• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

L. O. F'in L. at the scribbly Ben Chin banner!

octo

TRIBE Member
Sleepy Giant said:
The waste fuel isn't going to magically transport itself to the waste burining powerplant. And depending on where the facility is located the gains from this might be modest. You also will be required to truck the recycle and otherwise 'non-burnable' excees from the site. Also aren't the trucks going to Michigan dual purpose? Garbage there and freight back? If that's the case, dedcated garbage trucks would be limited to say a 2 to 3 hour radius (I'm guessing here, I don't know exactly where in Michigan the waste disposal site is) from their origin in order to realize any gains from them.

This is a weak argument and should not be one of the decision points in this discussion.


my point is, i'm in favour of looking at waste to energy as an option. my problem is people who automatically dismiss it without knowing all the facts.

i don't have all the facts, but i'm willing to let experts present their findings and then decide.
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
Putting this thing 300 km's out of the city might result in higher transport losses however it will reduce the number of people effected by smog by orders of magnitude. Putting your air pollution source in the centre of your largest downtown core is bad planning.
Toronto is one of the largest cities in North America without any domestic electricity generating capacity. In contrast, New York City generates 75 per cent of its power from sources within city limits. Other major cities around the world such as London, Stockholm and Amsterdam all have power plants in their borders.

The difference in air pollution levels for Torontonians from this plant will be miniscule in comparison with emissions blowing in from the United States and from vehicles on our roads. Also, this plant is replacing generating capacity that was lost when the Lakeview coal-fired plant closed in April 2005, so we're still better off in terms of local emissions from the electricity sector.

Locating a generating station 300 kilometres outside of the city is not a matter of "higher transport losses." You simply cannot get enough power into Toronto given existing transmission infrastructure. In other words, either you build a generating station in the downtown core, or you bulldoze thousands of houses to make way for new transmission lines that will cut through the city to downtown.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
AdRiaN said:
Toronto is one of the largest cities in North America without any domestic electricity generating capacity. In contrast, New York City generates 75 per cent of its power from sources within city limits. Other major cities around the world such as London, Stockholm and Amsterdam all have power plants in their borders.

Yes and in each of there cases they are high debsity cities within high density regions. Toronto is Unique in that within Canada we have shitloads of space and we don't have to put them right within our city.

The difference in air pollution levels for Torontonians from this plant will be miniscule in comparison with emissions blowing in from the United States and from vehicles on our roads. Also, this plant is replacing generating capacity that was lost when the Lakeview coal-fired plant closed in April 2005, so we're still better off in terms of local emissions from the electricity sector.

Hey i considered that plant closing to be a victory. Re-openning one that is half as bad is still worse than I would want.

Locating a generating station 300 kilometres outside of the city is not a matter of "higher transport losses." You simply cannot get enough power into Toronto given existing transmission infrastructure. In other words, either you build a generating station in the downtown core, or you bulldoze thousands of houses to make way for new transmission lines that will cut through the city to downtown.

I think your bulldoze is a tad over dramatic. We're talking about running new lines on top of the ones that are already there. I have no issue with using the lake shore location as a regulator like we are right now. But I don't think long term we're going to be able to solve the transmission issue, at least not without utilizing the proposed plant more than they are currently suggesting.

If we have a need for new transmission capability lets deal with that first, if we still need the power than lets look at putting it where there is less population. Putting power plants in down town city locations where we already have 2+ million people just doesn't make sense to me.

Now I have a much easier time with waste to energy than natural gas but this is a matter that waste is a stable cost while Natural gas is going up and going up and I think we're making a follish choice by using it over using coal in a modern clean power plant.

Its funny the pollution in general doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the location of it. Putting power plants on high cost land in downtown city centres seems very short sighted to me.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
I think your bulldoze is a tad over dramatic. We're talking about running new lines on top of the ones that are already there. I have no issue with using the lake shore location as a regulator like we are right now. But I don't think long term we're going to be able to solve the transmission issue, at least not without utilizing the proposed plant more than they are currently suggesting.
So basically, you don't believe the assessment of the IESO, who explicitly state that maintaining a reliable supply of electricity to downtown Toronto requires more than conservation and/or transmission expansion.

That's fine. You are entitled to your own opinion, but personally, I'd put a lot more faith in the opinion of professional engineers with decades of experience who do power system planning for a living. No offence. ;)
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
AdRiaN said:
So basically, you don't believe the assessment of the IESO, who explicitly state that maintaining a reliable supply of electricity to downtown Toronto requires more than conservation and/or transmission expansion.

That's fine. You are entitled to your own opinion, but personally, I'd put a lot more faith in the opinion of professional engineers with decades of experience who do power system planning for a living. No offence. ;)


I agree we do need more than just new transmission and conservation(which doesn't amount to shit in reality). We need more power!

But building power plants on water front property in your fastest growing city with your highest smog ratings is backwards. I can't help but feel that we're taking the $5 approach to a $20 problem and we're going to get exactly what we paid for.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top