Whole Energy had been looking for a used building (as of six months ago) to put up as the shell of the Calera Creek biodiesel plant. We are waiting for an update on the status of that search. Riptide salutes the idea of reuse/recycling and hopes that this is the beginning of something positive on this long-awaited, contentious project. Check out item number 7: GIMME SHELTER
Post a comment
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Yes, Jeff, of course I am saying methanol isn't hazardous to transport, store, or use! In fact, I drink a glass of it every morning.
Jeff, you were at the same meeting I was at PSD. The emergency response folks there were clear that the risks posed by the biodiesel facility to Vallemar School were less than in other situations, e.g., the risks posed by the gas station next door (and, as I added, the above-ground storage tank of fuel right next door in the PG&E facility).
Posted by: Rich Campbell | February 27, 2009 at 11:21 AM
"To clarify the discussion between Mr. Leone and Mr. Simons, and underscore Mr. Underhill's point: Several speakers at a Pacifica School District hearing last year regarding its emergency response plan used the opportunity to attempt to scare folks into thinking the biodiesel facility and/or trucks that service the facility, would blow up and release a toxic cloud that would waft over Vallemar School (nothwithstanding that city, county, and state emergency responders all have concluded otherwise). "
hunh? So you're saying methanol isn't hazardous to transport, store, or use?
http://www.methanol.org/pdf/MethanolMSDS.pdf
The methanol site disagrees. I'd like to see a citation for your claim that emergency responders have concluded this as well.
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | February 25, 2009 at 01:41 PM
To clarify the discussion between Mr. Leone and Mr. Simons, and underscore Mr. Underhill's point: Several speakers at a Pacifica School District hearing last year regarding its emergency response plan used the opportunity to attempt to scare folks into thinking the biodiesel facility and/or trucks that service the facility, would blow up and release a toxic cloud that would waft over Vallemar School (nothwithstanding that city, county, and state emergency responders all have concluded otherwise).
Not to digress, but in a more rational world, we would have these same folks asking the school board to address ways to prevent Vallemar schoolchildren from buying the candy and "power drinks" (e.g., Red Bull) at the liquor store and gas station as they make their way to and from Vallemar School. Childhood obesity is a real health hazard, not the biodiesel facility, which will be a great addition to the city.
Posted by: Rich Campbell | February 25, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Whole Energy was looking for alternatives to a new building and posted the want ad on the metalbuilding.com classifieds back in August of last year. We received few responses, none suitable. We are no longer able to consider a used building for a variety of reasons, among them that the applicable building code changed this year.
Posted by: Whole Energy | February 24, 2009 at 05:15 PM
Flammability and even explosiveness were a couple of the bogus concerns paraded about during the course of this long biodiesel discussion. There are plenty of legitimate concerns that, when addressed by Whole Energy and the various regulatory agencies, will be dealt with in an appropriate manner. I don't expect any real solutions to come from those who continually bring up inflammatory (pun intended) and other bogus concerns for purposes of undermining the project, or demonstrating that their guys would have been better choices for City Council, or to punish us all for not supporting Peebles' plans for the quarry. Truly constructive criticism helps. The other kind just doesn't.
Posted by: Dan Underhill | February 21, 2009 at 06:05 PM
Whole Energy did not post this, and yes, the ad is old. BFD.
Posted by: nancy hall | February 21, 2009 at 04:36 PM
Nick,
I can't recall the issue of flammability being raised in regards to the finished biodiesel product. The issue has always been in regards to methanol fumes.
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | February 21, 2009 at 04:20 PM
Plans for the biodiesel plant have gone through extensive scrutiny, and that's a good thing. During the process, there seems to have been a tacit double standard used by some critics who have frequently raised the issue of flammability. Is biodiesel more flammable than gasoline? There are several gas stations sprinkled throughout Pacifica, many of them in mixed-use areas. Huge tanker trucks unload thousands of gallons of gasoline after riding on Hwy 1 and through city streets. One can smell the fumes even when motorists fill their tanks. Why is there such a fuss about a combustible fluid that is less dangerous than gasoline and produces less pollution?
Sounds like a double standard to me.
Nick Leone
Posted by: Nick Leone | February 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Used building, used oil, old technology. Perfect!!
Posted by: Lance | February 21, 2009 at 07:51 AM
ahh, the ad for the metal building is 6 months old. That must be one tough building to take apart.....
Posted by: stechbart | February 20, 2009 at 06:18 PM