Monday, September 3, 2012

Forres Gazette | News | Letters | Clean Energy plant raises questions

Link: http://www.forres-gazette.co.uk/News/Letters/Clean-Energy-plant-raises-questions-22082012.htm

I attended the consultation event regarding Clean Power Properties Ltd with an open mind and a keen interest as I live within very close proximity to the proposed site.

One residnet expresses his concerns about proposals for a Clean Energy Plant in Forres
On reading your headline in the August 8 edition of the ‘Gazette’ I am amazed that it reads: “We’ve come clean on green energy plan!”
I am sorry to say that this company did very little to ensure that they did just that, indeed they fell well short of clear answers. They fumbled and lied and could not give a decent answer to any of my own questions; this directly from their representative that was quoted in your paper.
Lets strip it down a bit.
On noticing that there was obvious positive spin everywhere, my neighbour asked what the risks were; “None” was the answer. Pressed by me that there surely are dangers and that every company has to have risk assessments to identify and mitigate them the answer was that yes they did have them but there’s “nothing to worry about”. How ridiculous is that? Aside from normal risk assessments, surely there must also be forthcoming an environmental impact assessment.
I also heard flooding concerns mentioned. They noted that work would not go ahead until the River Findhorn Flood Alleviation works were completed. This does not really account for a tidal flood does it? With farm waste being a main source of the waste being processed there, I dread to think how a flood would affect the surrounding homes.
I challenged their claim that “there will be no noise impact beyond the site boundary” they said that “because this is a closed-air environment, the noise is contained”. I further noted that this is, in their words “a 24-hour operation with the plant working 24 hours a day”. The fact that noise travels, especially at night, it is impossible for them to lay claim that noise would be contained to within the site boundary.
Their response was that through consultation with Moray Council they would agree on delivery times etc. I further noted that this was not my point; my point is that I can hear everything going up my street at night and that they cannot guarantee a drone of machinery would not affect me. They simply could not answer further.
I noted that they claimed that they would not be taking waste from outwith Moray, apart from approaching Highland Council, and that each run of the machinery needs 20 tonnes of waste. I asked if they had waste figures from Moray and the wider area. They said they had, but did not know what they were nor indeed that they had them with them.
I came clean on my point that I felt Moray did not produce enough waste to sustain 20 tonnes at a time and they would indeed need to take from out with to sustain the process. Again, no answer was forthcoming. On further investigation after the event, Moray and Highland Council certainly do not produce enough waste to meet a continued 20 tonne processes.
I asked what actually came out of the two towers? The answer was “mainly steam and about 000. Nothing of the bad stuff and we’re strictly regulated by the Environment Agency”. How vague is that? What exactly is “the bad stuff?
As anyone would be, I was keen to understand the following claims made by them in the press and on their own website www.cleanpowerproperties.com: “A typical Clean Power Properties energy recovery centre produces renewable energy for around 10,000 local homes, supplied through the local energy network.
“Clean Power renewable energy plants provide green energy (heat and power) to adjoining occupiers, enabling sustainable development that meets government and corporate objectives and responsibilities.
“Tenants and residential occupiers can benefit from stable energy costs and, additional value is generated by being within a sustainable working and living environment.”
I asked how this works, how we see a reduction in our electricity costs and how we benefit from heat to our homes. The answer to this laid bare my accusation that there were lies told. They said that electricity produced goes straight into the national grid. I asked how that benefits me as they claim by reduced costs and they admitted that it does not.
Through further discussion, it transpired that the claim to providing heating to local homes and businesses was also a lie and that for this to happen would need agreement and allot of infrastructure changes and local authority agreement for this to happen. I pointed out that this was not a reality and they agreed. They also agreed when I stated that this was false claims being made by them.
So, I am sorry, but they have left more questions than answers and their entire approach to this has been amateurish. In fact, they insulted our collective intelligence. I agree with others who ask why such a facility needs to be built so close to our town, especially when the benefits they claim we will reap are clearly false.
The only people who benefit out of this are the company and probably Network Rail.
Nathan Matthews, Tytler Street, Forres.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Clean Energy plant raises questions

I attended the consultation event regarding Clean Power Properties Ltd with an open mind and a keen interest as I live within very close proximity to the proposed site.
One residnet expresses his concerns about proposals for a Clean Energy Plant in Forres
One residnet expresses his concerns about proposals for a Clean Energy Plant in Forres
On reading your headline in the August 8 edition of the ‘Gazette’ I am amazed that it reads: “We’ve come clean on green energy plan!”
I am sorry to say that this company did very little to ensure that they did just that, indeed they fell well short of clear answers. They fumbled and lied and could not give a decent answer to any of my own questions; this directly from their representative that was quoted in your paper.
Lets strip it down a bit.
On noticing that there was obvious positive spin everywhere, my neighbour asked what the risks were; “None” was the answer. Pressed by me that there surely are dangers and that every company has to have risk assessments to identify and mitigate them the answer was that yes they did have them but there’s “nothing to worry about”. How ridiculous is that? Aside from normal risk assessments, surely there must also be forthcoming an environmental impact assessment.
I also heard flooding concerns mentioned. They noted that work would not go ahead until the River Findhorn Flood Alleviation works were completed. This does not really account for a tidal flood does it? With farm waste being a main source of the waste being processed there, I dread to think how a flood would affect the surrounding homes.
I challenged their claim that “there will be no noise impact beyond the site boundary” they said that “because this is a closed-air environment, the noise is contained”. I further noted that this is, in their words “a 24-hour operation with the plant working 24 hours a day”. The fact that noise travels, especially at night, it is impossible for them to lay claim that noise would be contained to within the site boundary.
Their response was that through consultation with Moray Council they would agree on delivery times etc. I further noted that this was not my point; my point is that I can hear everything going up my street at night and that they cannot guarantee a drone of machinery would not affect me. They simply could not answer further.
I noted that they claimed that they would not be taking waste from outwith Moray, apart from approaching Highland Council, and that each run of the machinery needs 20 tonnes of waste. I asked if they had waste figures from Moray and the wider area. They said they had, but did not know what they were nor indeed that they had them with them.
I came clean on my point that I felt Moray did not produce enough waste to sustain 20 tonnes at a time and they would indeed need to take from out with to sustain the process. Again, no answer was forthcoming. On further investigation after the event, Moray and Highland Council certainly do not produce enough waste to meet a continued 20 tonne processes.
I asked what actually came out of the two towers? The answer was “mainly steam and about 000. Nothing of the bad stuff and we’re strictly regulated by the Environment Agency”. How vague is that? What exactly is “the bad stuff?
As anyone would be, I was keen to understand the following claims made by them in the press and on their own website www.cleanpowerproperties.com: “A typical Clean Power Properties energy recovery centre produces renewable energy for around 10,000 local homes, supplied through the local energy network.
“Clean Power renewable energy plants provide green energy (heat and power) to adjoining occupiers, enabling sustainable development that meets government and corporate objectives and responsibilities.
“Tenants and residential occupiers can benefit from stable energy costs and, additional value is generated by being within a sustainable working and living environment.”
I asked how this works, how we see a reduction in our electricity costs and how we benefit from heat to our homes. The answer to this laid bare my accusation that there were lies told. They said that electricity produced goes straight into the national grid. I asked how that benefits me as they claim by reduced costs and they admitted that it does not.
Through further discussion, it transpired that the claim to providing heating to local homes and businesses was also a lie and that for this to happen would need agreement and allot of infrastructure changes and local authority agreement for this to happen. I pointed out that this was not a reality and they agreed. They also agreed when I stated that this was false claims being made by them.
So, I am sorry, but they have left more questions than answers and their entire approach to this has been amateurish. In fact, they insulted our collective intelligence. I agree with others who ask why such a facility needs to be built so close to our town, especially when the benefits they claim we will reap are clearly false.
The only people who benefit out of this are the company and probably Network Rail.
Nathan Matthews, Tytler Street, Forres.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Solamon Renewable Energy- PRIVACY POLICY


Most websites collect some sort of information about their visitors in order to gather statistics about how many visitors they get each month, what are the most and least popular pages on the site, etc. In an effort to answer questions such as these, Solamon Renewable Energy also collects certain basic information about its visitors.
However, please note that Solamon Renewable Energy has no interest in personally identifying its users. The only thing that Solamon Renewable Energy is interested in is the overall statistics of its readership. Cumulative figures that provide a picture of visitor traffic to our site are vital in our efforts to attract advertisers–upon whose support this Blog depends–and to monitor how well our web server is keeping up with our ever-increasing readership.
Each time someone visits this Blog, our web server logs a number of details–if they are available–including the IP address of the visitor’s computer and/or ISP, the domain name and country of origin of that computer, its operating system, and the type of web browser being used.
In addition to the statistics that our own web server collects, the third-party advertising agencies that we work with may also collect certain information.
We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our Blog. These companies may use aggregated information (not including your name, address, email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you.
In the course of serving advertisements to this Blog, our third-party advertiser may place or recognize a unique “cookie” on your browser. If you do not wish to have anyone keep any records of your visit to our Blog, even though it is our policy not to personally identify individual users, then we suggest that you use an anonymous web browsing service. Such services typically hide all information about particular users from web sites, which log visits from the anonymizing service instead of the users’ own computers.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Energy audit shows how LR district can save


Following the results of an energy audit, the Logan-Rogersville School District is taking steps towards saving energy and power.
The audit, which was held only at the Upper-Elementary School, is an effort put forth by the Webster County Cooperative.
Bobbi Ragsdale, the cooperative’s office manager, said essentially the school didn’t have to pay a penny for the audit, which has an estimated cost of $6,000. She said the company that handles the power for the cooperative; Associated Electric has rebates associated with the audit so that their company shares the expense with the local cooperative, while the schools’ fees are waved.
The audits are available to schools and commercial businesses in the area, Ragsdale said.
“The audit shows how reduces the reduction of electric energy being used can help the business or school to be more power efficient,” Ragsdale said.
Even thought the audit results rated the energy efficiency at the building to be fairly good, there were still possible improvements noted. The big money saver for LRUE was the replacement of the school's  boiler, which according to Shawn Randles, the assistant superintendent, needed to be replaced anyway.
Replacing the boiler is the only step the Board of Education has formally taken since the audit. The board voted unanimously during their April meeting to replace the boiler for $35,140.
According to the audit’s summary, the new boiler will pay for itself in a little under seven years and will save the district $5,036 a year.
Even though that is the only action the board has taken at this time, the audit of the school showed other ways to improve the building’s energy management. Randles said the time frame that board and district takes action depends on time and funds.
 “There is enough money for the district to do one school per year, if the board decides to go with the per year plan,” Randles said.
Randles said he thinks the audits, present and future can make a difference to the district.
“One of my jobs is to make sure things are running as efficiently as possible from the operations stand point so we can free up money for the classroom,” Randles said.
The audit included other ways to save energy in the building including installing lighting controls and having a school energy team.
Randles said it is amazing the kind of smart technology that is available for energy saving these days.
“As smart technology the lighting controls not only shut off the lights when a class leaves the room, but if a class leaves the room at 2 p.m. every day, the sensor learns that at 2 p.m. everyday everyone leaves the room,” he said.
Randles said implementing a school energy team is something the faculty and staff will talk about at their beginning of the school year meetings in August. The main job of the members of the energy team will be to make sure energy using sources are off such as a light switch or a computer.
Ragsdale said every year Webster Electric is budgeting $10,000 for the audits and there several schools under the cooperative that are eligible to participate, however Rogersville schools are the first to participate in the audits. 

Newsvine - SOLAMON ENERGY SCAM SAFETY NEWS-Apollo Acre


Solamon Energy Canada Launches Informative New Website


(Toronto – Posted March 9, 2010) – “Happy days ahead,” exclaimed Chris Black, president of Solamon Energy Corp., as the company published and proudly unveiled a new website to its senior team and to the world today.  “We intended the site to simply communicate our offering and the progress of each project for our customers [...]

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Patents


A system for monitoring, processing and storing operating parameters of a boiler room. A sonar gauge for measuring the level of liquid fuel in a storage tank, thermocouples to measure temperatures at varous points in the boiler room, and means to monitor the operating status of boiler room equipment are provided. Means to convert to digital data, store and analyze the digital data, and transmit the digital data to a remote location are provided.
InventorJeffrey Solomon
Primary Examiner: S. A. Melnick
Current U.S. Classification702/54122/448.1237/8.00A
International Classification: G06F 1574

View patent at USPTO
Search USPTO Assignment Database

Citations

Cited PatentFiling dateIssue dateOriginal AssigneeTitle
US3873817May 4, 1972Mar 2, 1975LPT(I)SIH
US4275382Jul 18, 1979Jun 23, 1981Apparatus for monitoring and controlling vessels containing liquid
US4373662Oct 17, 1980Feb 15, 1983Honeywell Inc.Integrated control system using a microprocessor
US4403296Dec 18, 1980Sep 6, 1983Electromedics, Inc.Measuring and determination device for calculating an output determination based on a mathematical relationship between multiple different input responsive transducers
US4433646Sep 16, 1982Feb 28, 1984The Babcock & Wilcox CompanyBoiler water trip system
US4486625Sep 29, 1982Dec 4, 1984Clear Meadow Research Co.Computerized measurement response system
US4487065Mar 7, 1983Dec 11, 1984Cypher SystemsStorage tank level monitoring apparatus and method therefor
US4577270Oct 5, 1984Mar 18, 1986Hitachi, Ltd.
Hitachi Engineering Co., Ltd.
Plant control method
US4598668Jan 9, 1985Jul 8, 1986Energy Systems and Service Corp.Apparatus for efficiently controlling the operation of parallel boiler units
US4601201Mar 7, 1985Jul 22, 1986Tokyo Tatsuno Co., Ltd.Liquid level and quantity measuring apparatus
US4602344Oct 25, 1984Jul 22, 1986Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.Method and system for measurement of liquid level in a tank
US4700569Nov 2, 1984Oct 20, 1987Endress u. Hauser GmbH u. Co.Method and arrangement for signal transmission in ultrasonic echo sounding systems
US4716536Apr 16, 1985Dec 29, 1987The Foxboro CompanyMeasurement calibration
US4782698Dec 29, 1986Nov 8, 1988General Motors CorporationMethod and apparatus for measuring oil level
US4788648May 27, 1986Nov 29, 1988Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.Method and system for measurement of a liquid level in a tank
US4864972Jun 8, 1987Sep 12, 1989Boiler optimization for multiple boiler heating plants
US4922861Jan 25, 1989May 8, 1990Toto Ltd.Multiple-purpose instantaneous gas water heater
US4966127Jan 19, 1988Oct 30, 1990Method and apparatus for saving energy in direct fired boilers

Referenced by

Citing PatentFiling dateIssue dateOriginal AssigneeTitle
US5279263Feb 5, 1993Jan 18, 1994Elsag International B.V.Cascaded steam temperature control applied to a universal pressure boiler
US5419285Apr 25, 1994May 30, 1995Henry Vogt Machine Co.Boiler economizer and control system
US5793705Sep 18, 1996Aug 11, 1998International Business Machines CorporationUltrasonic liquid level gauge for tanks subject to movement and vibration
US6059195Jan 23, 1998May 9, 2000Tridelta Industries, Inc.Integrated appliance control system
US6129284Sep 17, 1999Oct 10, 2000Tridelta Industries, Inc.Integrated appliance control system
US6536678Dec 15, 2000Mar 25, 2003Honeywell International Inc.Boiler control system and method
US6647302Dec 15, 2000Nov 11, 2003Honeywell International Inc.Human interface panel for boiler control system
US6745085Dec 15, 2000Jun 1, 2004Honeywell International Inc.Fault-tolerant multi-node stage sequencer and method for energy systems
US6813631Dec 15, 2000Nov 2, 2004Honeywell International Inc.Automatic self configuration of client-supervisory nodes
US7016742Nov 27, 2002Mar 21, 2006BaHelle Memorial InstituteDecision support for operations and maintenance (DSOM) system
US7196891Jul 27, 2004Mar 27, 2007Macronix International Co., Ltd.Control circuit for frequency converter
US7891572Apr 5, 2007Feb 22, 2011C. Cowles & CompanyTemperature and low water monitoring for boiler systems
US8008603Aug 31, 2007Aug 30, 2011Boiler protection apparatus and method
US8009060Sep 26, 2001Aug 30, 2011Lockheed Martin CorporationRemote monitoring of munition assets
US8068727Jan 29, 2008Nov 29, 2011AOS Holding CompanyStorage-type water heater having tank condition monitoring features
US8162232Mar 21, 2008Apr 24, 2012AOS Holding CompanyWater storage device having a powered anode

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Barbados One Step Closer To Green Economy Goal


Steps are in train to transition Barbados into the most environmentally advanced green country in Latin America and the Caribbean, in keeping with Government’s vision.
To this end, Prime Minister, Freundel Stuart, will next week officially launch a Government of Barbados and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)  Partnership for a Resource-Efficient Green Economy  in Barbados, with a key plank being the  undertaking of a  Green Economy Scoping Study (GESS).
The launch, which will see participation by several high-level dignitaries, including UNEP’s Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean, Margarita Astrálaga, will take place next Wednesday, March 9, at  9:30 a.m.  It will be held in the Auditorium of The Faculty of Medical Sciences’ Laboratory and Teaching Complex, University of the West Indies (UWI).
The six-month GESS is the result of sustained discussions between the Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources and Drainage and UNEP, buttressed by a Scoping Mission by the UN agency last July.
According to Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of the Environment, Lionel Weekes, the shift towards a green economy is steadily gaining momentum within the international community as a viable approach in addressing the financial, economic, environmental and social crises facing the world today.
“The green economy calls for an integrated approach that provides new opportunities for economic growth by directing greater investments into sectors that enhance natural capital and generate new sources of employment, while reducing environmental risks. Government’s recognition of the need for promoting a green economic transformation in Barbados was the impetus for the partnership with UNEP to conduct the green economy scoping study,” he explained.
The Permanent Secretary noted that the study would focus on four key economic sectors, namely, tourism, agriculture, housing/building and transport, along with the cross-cutting issues of energy, water and waste.
These sectors were chosen based on their strategic importance to the Barbadian economy and for the ‘potential scope for greening’. The expected outcomes of the study will be a macro-economic assessment of the potential benefits and challenges of investment in each sector, and a set of recommendations to address capacity and policy gaps and needs, through specific reforms, programmes and projects.
In preparation for the study, a multi-sectoral Technical Steering Committee was established to provide technical oversight, and the UWI, by virtue of its competence in macroeconomic policy analysis, resource management and environmental economic analysis, was retained as GESS Technical Partner.
Green Economy within the Barbadian context is defined as:  “…an integrated production, distribution, consumption, and waste assimilation system that, at its core, reflects the vulnerability of our small island ecosystems as the basis for natural resource protection, policy intervention, business and investment choice, human development programming, and for the facilitation of export market development strategies.”
Prime Minister Stuart will deliver the feature address, while Pro-Vice Chancellor & Principal of the UWI, Cave Hill Campus, Sir Hilary Beckles; President of the Barbados Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Andy Armstrong and President the Congress of Trade Unions & Staff Associations, Cedric Murrell, are also expected to address the launch.
by Carol Gaskin (cgaskin@barbados.gov.bb)