Brian Dani — May 20 2008 12:56 PM

I have yet to find a simple scientific verification that CO2 increase is relative to temperature increase. This would be a very simple experiment to conduct. Why has it not been accomplished? If it has one of two resulted 1) The increase in CO2 from 350 PPM to 500PPM indicated an increase 2) The increase in concentration had not resulting increase in temperature. Since this is such a simple experiment to conduct it probably has been done with the resultant being 2). If it were 1) it would be well published and the public would not have any reason to be skeptical. Has this all be a hoax to influence funding for special interests, to hurt the U.S. economy, etc., etc.? I have posed this question to many others without much in the way of a response. This makes it seem even more like a hoax.

Gary Mcclure — May 21 2008 10:20 AM

As a local resident of the proposed site I find it extremely alarming that the local government has acted in such a selfish and childish way treating rudely anyone with an idea that may not coincide with their logic.
While the debate may be open as to Co2 and global warming being real, man-made or just a natural event, that is irrelevant when given the research into how and what is going to take place at this plant. They will use Waste coal which is a good thing to dispose of and I am sure the technology is available to do so safely, yet this is a business and costs come into effect, and a company is concerned with costs not people; yet the local government in their misguided wisdom believes that big government and special interest business will be make the best decisions and not put anyone at danger. This area has suffered from greedy land-owners seeking to cash in on strip-mining only to have the local water supply and air quality devastated and the land scarred for generations. What we are dealing with are closed minded people that see only as far as a cashed check will spend. They have no concept of long term effects on health or environment, nor do they have any idea of the oil-companies that have backed certain ethanol programs which is akin to "Putting the Fox in Charge of the Hen house".
Reason and open dialogue has left these so-called representatives and been replaced with egos and a “numbers on paper policies.”

Fact, There is growing concern about the link to corn based Ethanol and rising food shortages.
Fact, Local farmers are not benefiting from this corn plant
Fact, The promised jobs are not high paying education inspired full time with benefits.
Fact, Ethanol will not remove us from oil independence, especially corn based ethanol produced by coal fired plant.
In the words of a local resident who stood up at the last meeting as he pointed his finger at the Borough Council and said " you remind me of my grandfather who would say I have my mind made up! Don't confuse me with the facts!"
Mr. Greene on behalf of the local concerned citizens thank you for your efforts and inputs and recommendations, though I do not believe any one person holds the answer, I believe as a group with open dialogue and open minds, many goals can be met.
Gary.

Silent Concernd Citizen of Curwensville — May 21 2008 11:25 PM

I present to you, will the Sunnyside Ethanol people make their millions before 1 gallon of ethanol is sold?

What are the other businesses of the Sunnyside businessmen? Will they profit from the construction, financing, insurance, planning, etc. before 1 gallon of ethanol ever leaves the facility?

And, if so, do the Sunnyside Ethanol people care if we move ahead with a plant that can't sell it's ethanol?

An LLC (like Sunnyside) has some personal protection do they not if the plant fails economically?

Could this be a great big tax write off in the making?

Len Baker — May 22 2008 08:13 AM

First of all, the proposed coal gen plant is .3 mi from the school boundary separated by a railroad embankment. (.3 mi is 1584 ft or 528 yds, not 150 yds).

Secondly, I find it funny Pam Sheeder is concerned about this since she does not have children in the school district(it is my understanding they are cyber schooled at home)

Third, Gary McClure is NOT a resident of Curwensville (at least he didn't live in the community when he spoke at a council meeting, I believe he lives in State College from a letter he posted on a website)

Fourth, Citizens for Clean Curwensville waited until the 11th hour to raise issues in regard to the facility and threw all "expert opinion " out the window, unless of course it was anti-ethanol opinion.

Fifth, the plant is producing the Ethanol to be used as an additive replacing MTBE and it is capable of conversion to a cellulosic plant in the future, according to a Penn State Professor.

Do I feel safe ? I sure do and I have children in the district, attending school there along with a couple relatives who teach there and are satisfied with the safety issues of the plant being addressed by Sunnyside.

I believe Pam also fails to mention that the School Board is supporting the project too.

Pam Sheeder — May 22 2008 10:51 AM

Mr. Baker your letter is the perfect example of what our group battles here every day.

When people can't debate the issue with facts and knowledge they resort to personal attacks.

Where my children are schooled has nothing to do with the issues presented in this blog.

Whether or not I have ever mentioned the school board's support of the project has nothing to do with the issues presented in this blog.

This is not about me or any other individual.

This is about big business and politicians polluting a little town because it has the railroad and river system needed to meet their goals.

This is about new renewable fuels standards and if a plant can meet them.

This is about the foolish pride and need for the almighty dollar taking this town into an unhealthy situation.

If you don't believe the waste-coal fired co-generation plant will pollute the community then prove it. Give me some facts.

My facts say that this facility has a "Class V" permit from DEP. This permit is given as per DEP documents to "major polluters".

Proponents of the facility continue to say this plant will not pollute. Something doesn't match up here.

What the community was told and what Citizens for a Clean Curwensville found to be true are different.

So you feel safe. Prove it. Tell me why.

Debate the issue not the person.

Our research continues as does Citizens for a Clean Curwensville's goal of educating others on all sides of the ethanol issue.

len baker — May 22 2008 11:26 AM

Ms Sheeder, I do not debate facts that are skewed.

You may want to re read your statements from past articles in the paper and on the internet, you have opened a lot of doors which gives the public the chance to respond to.

I read Mr Greens blogs an have given him due respect. I respect his opinion and have not attacked him or you for that matter.

Your presentation of the "facts" come from a group of anti ethanol proponants and when you discuss a class V permit, I do not think you understand what that actually refers to.

A class V permit is issued to an entity if there are any allowable numbers exceeding the level below that of level V.

This classification also holds the entity to a more stringent set of regs than say a service station (petroleum) or Laundry mat (phosphates).

I also pointed out the distance from the school is farther than what was listed and I think that is just a "fact"

What, Ms Sheeder is your solution?
NIMBY?

I have to imagine that you do not have a problem with electricity from a coal fired plant, or do you run your home on solar power
(including your computer)?

You can duck my questions and claim I am mounting a personal attack against you, but aren't you doing the same to Curwensville Boro Council?

Gary Mcclure — May 22 2008 01:38 PM

The Problem is just as Mr. Baker has presented it so bluntly. Facts are assumed as opposed to discussed openly. I am a resident of the community and have been for several years but I do not work in the area.
As for attacks I can testify as to the childish behavior displayed at the meetings by certain borough members and I can attest to the lack of openness towards public concern and unwillingness as well as rudeness towards any view that conflicted with someone in favor of the plant. This is not how a democratic system is supposed to work. I for one am not opposed to a plant. I would welcome opportunity in my back yard if done properly. My concern is that it will not be done so. While conversion to a cellulosic plant in the future is talked about, as with most business's a company does what is good for a company, not the people. Please tell me what is wrong with reminding local elected officials that it might not hurt to get something in writing or to ask a question in regards why we cannot incorporate local farms to sustain such a claimed industry? Or why local residents can not mandate air control devices that allow them peace of mind?
As for your issue on coal fired electric plants, I for one am in favor of searching for other means and I personally do all I can to limit my dependence and usage on them including researching solar power and wind power options as well as being open to other ideas including holding Shawville Power company responsible for polluting the Susquehanna and also contributing to the many ailments that effect the surrounding residents. Unfortunately because certain government agencies are in the pockets of such conglomerates data is compromised and hidden and just plain ignored.
I personally do not feel food should be used to fuel non-efficient vehicles’ nor should it be used as an additive when other more reliable alternatives are out there which we could explore yet until some people can be open minded enough to put aside their personal agendas and work together for the good of the whole then this is what we end up with. And as for the "11th Hour" I regret speaking up so late in the game, but had I any idea the incompetence of area government and lack of common sense I most certainly would have re-arranged my schedule to explore and investigate both sides of the Sunnyside issue and rally local citizens to voice in on their thoughts and ideas putting my personal responsibilities aside to do my duty as a citizen for "our" community.
for further comments ideas or correspondence please feel free to contact me at garyscottr6@yahoo.com.

Suzette Zelenak, RN, BSN — May 22 2008 08:11 PM

Are Mr. Bake and Mr. Dani actually serious? Have either of them read any information at all about the dangers involved with an Ethanol Plant, let alone the danger and pollution of a waste-coal plant? The mercury, arsenic, lead, dioxins and numerous other pollutants that will land on your children while they play outside? There is a wealth of information available from the American Lung Association, the Pediatrics Association and the American Medical Association, March of Dimes and others.
Even if you completely take the CO2 out of the picture, why on earth would ANYONE deem a school area a "good location" for any type of ethanol or coal plant? It is beyond comprehension that your children, the actual future of this city, are not better considered than to have this horror right outside their school.
What a fine example this city's leaders give to their youth in promoting this outrageous business! I would expect that anyone that is able to leave this city will definitely move out if this plant is built.

Ian Wilker — May 23 2008 08:57 AM

Hey folks, we're glad this post provides a forum for conversation on this important topic, just a reminder to please keep the tone of the conversation respectful of all the participants.

Much appreciated,
Ian @ NRDC

len baker — May 25 2008 09:15 AM

Ms Zelenak, you ask "why would anyone deem a school area a good location"?

My question used to be "Why would any school deem a site directly abutting a Tannery a good site for an elementary,Middle and High School complex?

When Curwensville (which by the way is not a city ), built the school , the stinky and dirty old tannnery was already there.

Later on, the SCHOOL DISTRICT sold ground to Clearfield Cheese Co to construct a cheese plant on the other side of the school.

Do you see the pattern?

Before you make the corporations the bad guys, you have to look at all sides.
Another thing that I question is where your facts come from for a plant that has not been built yet.

From what I read, dioxin has all but been eliminated from industrial entities with the biggest exposure now coming from food, outdoor wood burning, bar b ques and composting.

Once again I will also remind you that the plant is not on top of the school and the power plant is close to half a mile (.35)away separated by a railroad embankment.