or aka: Blowing Smoke Up My !@#.

I wrote about my feelings regarding the Erie Tire Plant some time ago, back in the “Before-Time”, and since then, I have been dutifully following the progress of Rubino and gang as they move forward with Erie Renewable Energy TDF plant.

I haven’t heard much about the tire plant as of late except to notice more “KEEP” signs popping up on more and more lawns .

However, even though my gut instinct says this is a bad idea all around, that alone is not enough to denounce the operation as a whole. I wanted to be fair to the democratic process so I thought I would check out what ERE has to say on the matter. I began a web search at 4:43 pm yesterday and as of 8:03 I had yet to find a damn thing on Erie Renewable Energy.

I find this rather odd. If you are going to start up a business in this world, particularly one as contentious as ERE, you would think that the first thing you would do is set up a website. Why? Because it is your most basic communication tool with the public. It’s where you state your case and let it be scrutinized. Second thing you do, if you’re smart, is you hire a public mouth piece. That means PR, people. As yet, I have yet to find either the website or the PR person for ERE.

Hell, even Lake Erie Biofuels, of which there has been much rumored goings-on that ought to be investigated, threw up a website. It provides no useful information whatsoever, but at least they try to make you feel all warm and cozy with their chirpy-happy-crunchy-granola-go-green logo.

So back to my research, I did find a crap load of information debunking tire derived fuel as a safe alternative energy. The local group, KEEP, voicing their dissent on the tire plant has website up and and plainly and clearly states their case. Where is ERE to dispute any of the information presented on the KEEP website?

Google search “TDF”, Erie Tire Plant, or “tire derived fuel” and you will come across the Energy Justice Network. Again, you will find a website devoted to the argument against TDF as an alternative energy source.

I checked out the EPA website and found their pansy-wishy-washy-ambiguously-vague support of the process nauseating. “The ash residues from TDF may contain a lower heavy metals content than some coals”? How about should contain, will be mandated to contain, will be vigorously monitored so that it does contain…? Any combination will suit me just fine, but “may“? Oh, and my favorite part: “The Agency supports the responsible use of tires in portland cement kilns and other industrial facilities, so long as the candidate facilities: (1) have a tire storage and handling plan; (2) have secured a permit for all applicable state and federal environmental programs; and (3) are in compliance with all the requirements of that permit.”

The EPA “supports” “so long as….”? Are they freakin’ kidding me? Did I mistakenly download the Boy Scouts of America website? I’m not taking ERE on the honor system, not under this current administration. I want facts. Hard facts. That means science and not a “trust me”. Hell, the EPA is supposed to be protecting us, what is this crap?

So I tried to give ERE a fair hearing, but after this length of time, without any further information being provided by the most recognizable means, I can only conclude that ERE is hiding something and/or doesn’t really believe the position they hold. So am back where I started:

That this is all just a bad idea.