Oshawa ethanol plant will go ahead despite objections

[mentalfloss]

Oshawa ethanol plant will go ahead despite objections

An Ajax company has been given permission from the Oshawa Port Authority to build and run an ethanol refinery in Oshawa, despite opposition from the municipality and some residents.

FarmTech Energy Corp. was given the go-ahead Thursday to build and run the plant at the Oshawa Harbour on Lake Ontario.

The City of Oshawa said it was surprised and disappointed with the decision.

“The Port Authority made the decision without public consultation, without responding to concerns raised during the environmental assessment process and without the input or [sic] advice of a government of Ontario appointee,” Oshawa mayor John Henry said in a release.

Oshawa’s council adopted a resolution two years ago opposing the development of an ethanol plant at the Oshawa Harbour.

Henry said the plant will be adjacent to the Waterfront Trail and to the Second Marsh, a provincially significant wetland, as well as family-friendly Lakeview Park.

“The location of the ethanol plant does not make sense as the Brock Township Council has publicly stated that they are a willing host,” he said.

FarmTech said on its website the port makes the most sense both environmentally and economically, adding it is the easiest point of access for world markets and would mean less truck traffic.

It also said the facility in Oshawa’s Industrial Portlands would in no way limit future possibilities for the waterfront, nor affect the public’s enjoyment of the waterfront.

The firm said there are more than 1,700 corn growers in the area from Highway 400 to Belleville looking for a market for their corn. It expects the plant would inject $60 million into the local economy each year.

The proposed refinery made headlines last summer when Oshawa received a letter stating that a review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was underway for such a plant at the Oshawa Harbour.

During the environmental assessment, 3,300 residents wrote letters opposing the plant, as well as letters from the David Suzuki Foundation, Council of Canadians and Margaret Atwood, the city said.

Oshawa ethanol plant will go ahead despite objections - CityNews

 

[MapleDog]

Wished they would say what they'll take to make the ethanol,corn wheat or non edible plants?
taking food out of the mouth of people to fill gas tank is moronic.

 

[JLM]

Oshawa ethanol plant will go ahead despite objections

An Ajax company has been given permission from the Oshawa Port Authority to build and run an ethanol refinery in Oshawa, despite opposition from the municipality and some residents.

FarmTech Energy Corp. was given the go-ahead Thursday to build and run the plant at the Oshawa Harbour on Lake Ontario.

The City of Oshawa said it was surprised and disappointed with the decision.

“The Port Authority made the decision without public consultation, without responding to concerns raised during the environmental assessment process and without the input or [sic] advice of a government of Ontario appointee,” Oshawa mayor John Henry said in a release.

Oshawa’s council adopted a resolution two years ago opposing the development of an ethanol plant at the Oshawa Harbour.

Henry said the plant will be adjacent to the Waterfront Trail and to the Second Marsh, a provincially significant wetland, as well as family-friendly Lakeview Park.

“The location of the ethanol plant does not make sense as the Brock Township Council has publicly stated that they are a willing host,” he said.

FarmTech said on its website the port makes the most sense both environmentally and economically, adding it is the easiest point of access for world markets and would mean less truck traffic.

It also said the facility in Oshawa’s Industrial Portlands would in no way limit future possibilities for the waterfront, nor affect the public’s enjoyment of the waterfront.

The firm said there are more than 1,700 corn growers in the area from Highway 400 to Belleville looking for a market for their corn. It expects the plant would inject $60 million into the local economy each year.

The proposed refinery made headlines last summer when Oshawa received a letter stating that a review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was underway for such a plant at the Oshawa Harbour.

During the environmental assessment, 3,300 residents wrote letters opposing the plant, as well as letters from the David Suzuki Foundation, Council of Canadians and Margaret Atwood, the city said.

Oshawa ethanol plant will go ahead despite objections - CityNews

The burning (pun intended) question is, is the number objecting more or less than 50%?

Wished they would say what they'll take to make the ethanol,corn wheat or non edible plants?
taking food out of the mouth of people to fill gas tank is moronic.

Not sure if there is a direct translation there!

 

[petros]

taking food out of the mouth of people to fill gas tank is moronic.

Hooray for green bull****!

 

[mentalfloss]

NDP accuses government of cronyism in ethanol plant approval

The federal government’s newest port authority has approved a controversial ethanol plant slated for Oshawa’s port lands, raising the ire of municipal politicians and accusations of cronyism from the NDP.
The Oshawa Port Authority, created earlier this year, voted in a private meeting on Thursday to approve FarmTech Energy Corporation’s bid to build a $200-million facility that will turn corn into ethanol, an alcohol added to gasoline to reduce carbon monoxide emissions.

Construction of the plant, one of the largest ethanol facilities proposed in Canada, is expected to begin this summer and be completed by 2014. FarmTech expects to generate 50 permanent jobs, 210-million litres of ethanol annually, and economic opportunities for businesses and farmers in the region.

“There’s tens and tens of millions of dollars of economic opportunity that this creates,” said Gary Valcour, chair of the port authority. “At the end of the day, the economic advantages to the port, to the port users, to the larger regional community of the project was just too overwhelming for us to turn away.”

But the industrial ethanol plant, first proposed in 2006, has been staunchly opposed by Oshawa City Council, which wants to create more space for residential development along the waterfront in the city east of Toronto. Oshawa is now exploring whether it can challenge the port authority’s approval, said Mayor John Henry.

“You should be able to sit at the harbour at the end of the day with friends and family and enjoy a sunset and watch people come in and out in their boats,” Mr. Henry said. “That’s not going to happen if they build an ethanol refinery.”

Environmental activists have also raised concerns over the site’s proximity to a sensitive wetland.
Mr. Henry questioned why the project was approved so early in the port authority’s mandate and before a provincial representative was appointed to the seven-member board. Although the port’s board includes a municipal representative, the federal government has a say in who fills the other positions.

New Democrat MP Olivia Chow, her party’s transport critic, accused the government – which has been hit by controversies involving other port authorities – of stacking the Oshawa board with Conservative insiders.

Mr. Valcour is the past president of the Conservative riding association in Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s Oshawa-Whitby riding, while Chris Kluczewski, part of the port’s board of directors, was also a member of the riding association.

Mr. Flaherty’s riding association also included Tim O’Connor, a former director of FarmTech and brother of the company’s president, Dan O’Connor.

Both Mr. Valcour and Dan O’Connor rejected allegations that politics and cronyism played a role in the port authority’s decision, saying the accusations are groundless.

“Comments like that are absurd and they’re made by people who know absolutely nothing about the process we’ve been through,” Mr. O’Connor said. “Anybody with any business sense would look at this case and say it makes perfect sense for the port authority to approve and to want a project like ours that is going to utilize the existing port facilities.”

FarmTech’s project proposal has passed a federal environmental assessment. The facility will be located next to an asphalt plant and near a sewage treatment plant. The Greater Toronto Area is the largest market for ethanol in Canada.

NDP accuses government of cronyism in ethanol plant approval - The Globe and Mail

 

[petros]

that will turn corn into ethanol, an alcohol added to gasoline to reduce carbon monoxide emissions.

Reduced how? They have CO2 free fermentation? The cattle that eat the mash will have their assholes sewn shut so they can't fart methane?


Jesus ****ing Christ!

 

[CDNBear]

NIMBY's and the NDP, LMAO!

 

[damngrumpy]

Petros i loved the comment you made. The thing I find different about this
story with an NDP angle is this. While the a critical of the stacking fo the
Port Authority and that part might be true. The profile of the new members
certainly suggests they were doing that. I find the NDP did not put out front
and center their objection to the refinery itself in the same highlighted detail.
Personally I think North America needs more refineries and we need more
in the west. Where to put them is the big question. I am not totally against
this one at all.

 

[eh1eh]

The City of Oshawa said it was surprised and disappointed with the decision.

They're always sad when they can't squash progress. The downtown business association disbanded because city council was so difficult to deal with nothing could get done to improve the area. The downtown as a result is sorely lacking. I live in Oshawa btw.

 

[CDNBear]

The downtown as a result is sorely lacking.

The downtown is a lot more than sorely lacking dude. I fish the Shwa creek. It was a pleasure explaining to Kooter why their were used needles under the bridges.

I live in Oshawa btw.

You're town scares me. Come live near me, it smells better.

 

[Tonington]

Reduced how? They have CO2 free fermentation? The cattle that eat the mash will have their assholes sewn shut so they can't fart methane?


Jesus ****ing Christ!

Maybe you missed it in your education, but CO2 is carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide. Nor is methane carbon monoxide. Burning ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than burning alkanes. Ethanol has a higher oxygen content than regular gasoline. So there's more oxygen in the combustion cycle when ethanol is blended into regular gasoline. More oxygen in the combustion cycle leads to more complete combustion, and hence less carbon monoxide.

You don't have to take my word for it though, should be easy enough to find references from various government testing agencies who regulate vehicle emissions.

 

[skookumchuck]

Maybe you missed it in your education, but CO2 is carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide. Nor is methane carbon monoxide. Burning ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than burning alkanes. Ethanol has a higher oxygen content than regular gasoline. So there's more oxygen in the combustion cycle when ethanol is blended into regular gasoline. More oxygen in the combustion cycle leads to more complete combustion, and hence less carbon monoxide.

You don't have to take my word for it though, should be easy enough to find references from various government testing agencies who regulate vehicle emissions.

Fermentation involving yeast produces CO2. Cattle do fart Methane.

I don't blame peeps for not wanting a refinery or large industrial business next door to their residences. That is where more remote and hopefully non agricultural land should be used.
Or we can embrace the antis agenda and when the collapse comes they can pull our wagons and be hewers of wood etc, we know they won't have weapons other than words, it will be de ja vu all over again:lol:

 

[Tonington]

Fermentation involving yeast produces CO2. Cattle do fart Methane.

Yes, and has not to do with tail pipe emissions of carbon monoxide when alcohol is blended into gasoline. That much should be obvious...carbon monoxide is not carbon dioxide or methane. By the way the methane is predominantly from burps, not farts.

 

[gerryh]

Yes, and has not to do with tail pipe emissions of carbon monoxide when alcohol is blended into gasoline. That much should be obvious...carbon monoxide is not carbon dioxide or methane. By the way the methane is predominantly from burps, not farts.

and he didn't say it did.


Reducing CO2 emissions from the tail pipe all the while increasing CO2 emissions through the refining process doesn't necessarily equate to an over all reduction.

 

[Tonington]

Reducing CO2 emissions from the tail pipe all the while increasing CO2 emissions through the refining process doesn't necessarily equate to an over all reduction.

So I wonder is it was an intentional bait and switch from Petros. Go back to see what he quoted. Carbon monoxide isn't CO2.

So when he says "reduced how", after quoting the article referring to carbon monoxide, then talking about fermentation that produces methane and carbon dioxide, it is completely non-sequitur to what he quoted about reductions of carbon monoxide.

If he wanted to talk about life cycle emissions of gases like carbon dioxide and methane, well that's fine and it's been looked at for ethanol blended gasoline. But it has nothing to do with reductions in carbon monoxide, which is a concern for different reasons than those greenhouse gases.

 

[petros]

Yes, and has not to do with tail pipe emissions of carbon monoxide when alcohol is blended into gasoline. That much should be obvious...carbon monoxide is not carbon dioxide or methane. By the way the methane is predominantly from burps, not farts.

Did I mention CO?

Why do vehicles have catalytic convertors? To make sunshine and lollipops or convert CO into CO2? So why would CO be an issue unless you missed that day in school?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter


BTW CO isn't a GHG. DId you miss that day in school too?

Is methane worse than CO2 as a GHG?

Ethanol is **** for fuel, it evapourites too quickly and it's an emulsifier which means water content of fuel can be higher giving false impressions of cleaner burning in an efficient high compression engine.

Water is the poor man's way of reducing detonation in the engine cyclinders from **** fuel.

If you want to make a real impact on efficiency and clean burning an additive like polyetheramine is the way to go.

You have a lot to learn boy.

 

[Tonington]

Did I mention CO?

No, but the article you quoted did. The article mentioned that ethanol reduces carbon monoxide emissions, and then you asked how. Then you mentioned carbon dioxide and methane. Like I said to Gerry, carbon dioxide and methane are not carbon monoxide, so what is the point of mentioning them when you seem exasperated by a comment about reduced carbon monoxide?

BTW CO isn't a GHG. DId you miss that day in school too?

I never said it was now did I? However, carbon monoxide will react to form ozone which is a greenhouse gas, and it will scavenge free hydroxide in the atmosphere which is one of the mechanisms that draws down methane, but you must have missed the last part of my post where I clearly stated that the concern about carbon monoxide is different:

But it has nothing to do with reductions in carbon monoxide, which is a concern for different reasons than those greenhouse gases.

The larger concern for carbon monoxide is due to it's impact as an air pollutant.

Is methane worse than CO2 as a GHG?

Yes. What does this have to do with reductions in carbon monoxide Pete?

 

[petros]

No, but the article you quoted did. The article mentioned that ethanol reduces carbon monoxide emissions, and then you asked how. Then you mentioned carbon dioxide and methane. Like I said to Gerry, carbon dioxide and methane are not carbon monoxide, so what is the point of mentioning them when you seem exasperated by a comment about reduced carbon monoxide?

I never said it was now did I? However, carbon monoxide will react to form ozone which is a greenhouse gas, and it will scavenge free hydroxide in the atmosphere which is one of the mechanisms that draws down methane, but you must have missed the last part of my post where I clearly stated that the concern about carbon monoxide is different:

The larger concern for carbon monoxide is due to it's impact as an air pollutant.
Yes. What does this have to do with reductions in carbon monoxide Pete?

So lets get this straight. As a CO2 reduction tactic ethanol is a huge failure so it's best to jump on over to claiming it's beneficial because of CO reductions?

Lets build even more!

What is the point of the catalytic convertor Tonn?

How does having to burn 10-30% more fuel to reach the same destination equate to reductions?

If ethanol reduces CO by 6-10% but reduces efficiency by 10-30% where is the reduction? Is it based on comparing liter to liter or overall perfomace and efficiency?

Is this there a seasonal factor to using ethanol?

Is fuel for summer use the same as fuel for winter use in Canada? Which additive is increased in winter so you car will start in -20C?


A word of advice, if a guy offers you magic beans for your cow, walk away.

 

[taxslave]

This is what industrial land should be used for. Industry. No more removing the best areas from industry to build expensive condos or soon you will have the Vancouver syndrome where people living in Vancouver are commuting to outlaying areas to work because most industry has been forced out of the city.

 

[petros]

This is what industrial land should be used for. Industry.

Exactly. So why would they want to build a sunshine and lollipop stand where industry should be?