After Seattle Steam opened its biomass plant near Pike Place Market in 2010, converting part of its operation over from natural gas, the company received glowing coverage from Sustainable Industries Magazine, NPR and other media outlets. Seattle Steam chief executive Stan Gent tells SW that its biomass plant, which supplies heat to some 200 buildings downtown, has reduced the company's carbon emissions by 60 percent.
Activists, however, claim that biomass plants emit more carbon, not less. They also say such facilities pollute the air with small matter known as "particulates." Badgley, part of a group called No Biomass Burn, which has also protested planned facilities in Port Townsend and Shelton, says it's these particulates that can cause grave health hazards like heart attacks and strokes.
The post, and perhaps more specifically the protests, fired up at least one Daily Weekly commenter.
Jesse Sewell writes:
Amazing. So lets look at the options real quick. Nuclear is out right, too dangerous, too expensive? Coal is much dirtier and it is imported from other States, costing the Washington economy hundreds of millions of dollars a year that leaves and never comes back. Biomass is cleaner which is a well documented fact (despite nanoparticulate mumbo jumbo claims from some - cookoo for cocoa puffs), Biomass comes from TREES, supports the timber industry and creates timber industry jobs which encourages the management and investment in TREES, which encourages the planting and sustainable harvesting of TREES.
So lets recap;
Nuclear - Out
Coal - Imported, Dirty, No local Jobs, Lose, lose, lose situation
Biomass - Cleaner, Greener, Local Jobs, More Trees, WIN, WIN, WIN Situation.