Rock ash and Puerto Rico

[gardito]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly

Somehow, I am getting the feeling that this may well be a tempest in a teapot, and the result of savvy use of press and environmental worries in a nearly defenseless (environmentally speaking, that is, nation. And one hell of a government move to get money (US$80 million = RD$2.5 billion) out of AES?? Or let a juicy contract to someone, a contract bartered by certain government employees for, say, 10% of the deal? US$13 million x 10% = US$1.3 million into someone's pocket?

The idea of Govt. extorting money from gringos???? I thought only the PN did that !

On another note, the suit says that permissions were granted that were later revoked. Sounds like something from another thread on residencias granted during the last administration. What's it going to be: Every four years the next govt will invalidate what the past administration did??

E.

[gardito]

"79. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew that, at the time, the particular shipments of fly ash that were being dumped in Dominican Republic had “failed” the chemical testing required to establish that the fly ash could be used as a building aggregate. At present, fly ash from the AES Puerto Rico coal-fire plant can be used as a building aggregate." DR vs AES lawsuit filed in US District Court, VA.

Now I ask: Why did it "fail" chem testing before and now, "at present", it does not "fail" ? From what I understand, power generation is a pretty straightforward thing. The same process has been used since the beginning of that plant's operation.

E.

[Hillbilly]

I think that they probably did not test it. It can't really "fail" a test since fly ash is one of several exceptions under the Bevill Amendment to the EDP Act.

The lawyers in the US are gonna have a field day. They charge for hours, no matter what. The Dr loses, but ends up paying millions in lawyer's fees.HAHA

Somebody in the DR government will get a fee for moving the DR government to certain law offices, wanna bet? A "local consultant's fee", perhaps?

This is silly.

HB

[gardito]

I wonder if the defending party can counter-sue for libel ....

E.

[hi-tec]

Last thing I read in PR press a few days ago was that the bloody thing, fly ash or whatever, is being utilized in PR as some kind of aggregate, or construction material.

I have the feeling that they are utilizing it now because they started to proccess the stuff so it can be used under usa federal regulations.

Prior to that, seem they could not utilize the stuff and shipped it to you know where...

At present time much more of the stuff has been utilized in PR than the amount shipped to RD.

the tow main newspaper in PR

www.endi.com

www.vocero.com

btw
fly ash and rock ash seem to be two different byproducts depending on the way it was proccessd or burned.

new technology permits that about 70 percent of the toxic material produced by coal power plant can be eliminated,

that being the reason for the surge in new coal power plant in the usa

prio to that no governor wanted those mosnter in their state

[gardito]

Originally Posted by hi-tec

I have the feeling that they are utilizing it now because they started to proccess the stuff so it can be used under usa federal regulations.

The fact is they are utilizing it more because they are becoming more educated in what this thing can be used in. Notwithstanding, some environmentalists are still against its use, although, the communities where the roads are being built are grateful for it.

E.

[Texas Bill]

Whether or not the proper seperation of the "rock ash" (the benign product) and the "fly ash" (the sometimes toxic product" will be effectively kept seperate and disposed of in a safe manner.
With the TWO coal fired generating plants being instaled in the Dominican Republic, this wil be a political and environmental football being tossed about for an indefinite period of time.
The answer is proper "scrubbers" being installed in the smoke stacks of the new plants.
Then you have the profusion of the coal dust being spread during the unloading and transport of the coal from the offloading point to the holding area at the plant. If they "slurry" the coal, then the problem is severly mitigated since the product is in a semi-liquid form and not prone to producing the dust which can cause "black-lung" disease.
It will be interesting to observe the machinations of the government AND the owners/operators ofthe new plants in this matter.
The "rock ash" is mixed with cement in the manufacture of "cinder blocks" which are lighter and stronger than those manufactured solely with sand and cement, so i am told.
I'm not the expert, so take all this with the "grain of salt" with which offered.

Texas Bill

[gardito]

Plant designs for NEW coal fired power plant (should) include emmissions control and particulate controls. Scrubbers are normally used to remove SO2 & NoX. Precipitators and/or baghouses control stack opacity. For coal dust during unloading and transfer, dust collectors on the conveyor belts take care of this.

It is in the proposal stages that these issues are resolved. Govt HAS to DEMAND in the contract that strict adherence to environmental standards for these emmisions be observed. It also has to state penalties for non-compliance. If the DR has an EPA-type of board, these are the persons that need to get involved.

On the rock-ash issue, this aggregate is a mixture of bed ash & fly ash, so no separation of both products is present. Bed ash, Flyash & aggregate rock ash all have different uses.

E.

[Diana11]

oh i see ...

[Conchman]

Hillbilly, thanks for providing a balanced point of view with some facts and interesting comments. When it comes to environmental matters, logic often goes out the window.