Barbados Government To Spend $400,000,000 To Burn Garbage

By Agyeman Kofi

One hour of of sunlight hitting the earth can supply energy for one whole day for the entire earth. I was amazed that the government of Barbados as announced by Dr Denis Lowe, would be spending $400 million to set up a waste to energy plant. Who in their right mind could advise a government in a country where we receive sunshine  300 days a year to go the route of burning garbage?

Let me as a citizen of Barbados be bold enough to ask whose interest is the government of Barbados serving?

Who are the technical advisors advising the government of Barbados and what do they stand to gain?

Is it true that the government EPD is in the dark about this project.

What about possible environmental fallout?

At what point will the ash which will be generated from this burning of garbage and ploughed into our soil reach a saturation point?

Accused of promoting fear, what about a possible contamination of our water supply by this ash, did I read dioxin is a by-product?

Do we note that accidents  like oil spills and nuclear reactor accident are not suppose to happen just as the Titanic was not suppose to sink?

I ask again whose interest is being served?

Its further hoped that Barbadians will get off their lazy butts and say to the government this is unacceptable. The strongest message must be sent to our leaders that we hold them accountable for ill advised and stupid decisions. Currently the following are recycled and exported thus bringing foreign currency into Barbados.

Old Car Batteries

All Glass

All Cans

All Plastic

All Non Ferrous Metals

All Electronic Waste such as old stoves, televisions, computers etc.

Paper, Newspaper print and Cardboard

Plastic Bags within the next 90 days.

Old Cars

Tell me where will the garbage hungry Waste to Energy plant gets its material from if 90 % of household waste is recyclable.

Let me share the following:

Nanosolar is a developer of solar power technology. Based in San Jose, CA, Nanosolar has developed and commercialized a low-cost printable solar cellmanufacturing process. The company started selling panels mid-December 2007, and plans to sell them at around $1 per watt. When first announced that was just one fifth the price of the silicon cells, but in 2010 brand name silicon cells sell from around $1.70 reducing Nanosolar’s cost advantage significantly.

The company uses copper indium gallium diselenide—which achieves up to 19.9% efficiency in laboratory samples to build their thin film solar cells. Two advantages over earlier technologies is that a printing process is quick and also makes it easy to deposit a uniform layer of the ink, resulting in a layer with the correct ratio of elements everywhere on the substrate. Also, the ink is printed only where needed, so there is less waste of material. Last, the substrate material on which the ink is printed is much more conductive and less expensive than the stainless steelsubstrates that are often used in thin-film solar panels.

These solar cells successfully blend the needs for efficiency, low cost, and longevity and will be easy to install due to their flexibility and light weight. Estimates by Nanosolar of the cost of these cells fall roughly between 1/10 and 1/5 the industry standard per kilowatt.

The company implies that their solar cells can last more than 25 years by saying they “achieve a durability compatible with our 25-year warranty.”[26] They recently commissioned a study by Black and Veatch that finds their 25-year warranty to be compatible with their module design.

I have taken the courtesy of providing the below contact information to Minisiters of Government to help  make their own enquiries. We can ill afford another Greenland.

Nanosolar accepts new customer inquiries and information requests via email. Due to high inquiry volume, we cannot respond to all information and sales requests.

United States

Headquarters & Factory

Nanosolar, Inc.

5521 Hellyer Avenue

San Jose, CA 95138

Tel:  +1.408.365.5960

Fax: +1.408.365.5965

Email: info@nanosolar.com

51 thoughts on “Barbados Government To Spend $400,000,000 To Burn Garbage


  1. What nonsense!
    Waste to Energy technology is long overdue in Barbados.

    What is wrong with burning garbage instead of burying it at mt. Stinkeroo?
    Or should we spend another100M at Greenland? Stupssss

    This has NOTHING to do with recycling – in fact Waste to Energy goes hand in hand with recycling, and obviously the $400M cost is related to the need to build a related power plant and transmission system as well as to deal with the exhaust particles.

    What is your beef Kofi?
    Had plans to make a killing on selling cheap solar panels…?


  2. @Bush Tea: “…and obviously the $400M cost is related to the need to build a related power plant and transmission system as well as to deal with the exhaust particles.

    Please, please, PLEASE tell me no one is proposing to spend $400 million building an alternative power transmission (and, by inference, distribution) system here in Barbados!!!!!!!!!


  3. @David: “You need to elaborate on your consternation at the idea.

    There already exists a T&D (power transmission and distribution) network here in Barbados, paid for by the consumers. Or have you not noticed all the poles and cables around you?

    Building another would be fundamental stupid.

    It would be a *lot* smarter for a competitive Generation facility to interface with the existing BL&P T&D network at the nearest available interconnection point.

    Is that clear enough?


  4. Who said anything about building ‘another’ transmission system?

    Depending on the location of the facility they would obviously need to build transmission facilities to interconnect with BL&P.

    Is it not obvious that the waste to energy plant would be a ‘competitive generating facility’? … using unwanted garbage in place of expensive imported oil…?

    ..go to sleep Chris.


  5. @BT: “Who said anything about building ‘another’ transmission system?

    One of BL&P’s major transmission lines run within 1 km of Mt. Stinkaroo…

    Absolute maximum cost of transmission and interconnection: $10 million.

    So where is the other $390 million going?


  6. I understand Sandy Lane is willing to assist in the stopage of garbage being delivered to Mangrove, reason? they want to develop the land on both side of the road by the old bennetts pltn on h,way 2a. My question is, with the proposed legislation to stop or restrict household burning, how can the government then set up a plant to do burning? where will the smoke go?Will it be set up on the west coast, so that the smoke will go out to sea? How will this effect the platinum coast and the rich fellows? There are many questions that needs to be answered before such a project is carried out, I
    in the mean time, I,ve heard they are making provision to close Mangrove.I’m more concerned for the health of the residents of Arch Hall and Bennetts, they need to be conpensated again for inhaling that smell everyday..


  7. Why does Barbadians have to speculate on these matters each and every time? Where is the Environmental Impact Study? Where is the Project Document? Where are the facts of the project to properly inform public debate?


  8. The problem with waste to energy plants is not when they working it is when something breaks. One only has to remember the other day with the tire fire to see how bad thing can get,Maintenance in government is quite bad so i wouldn’t want to trust them with it. The other problem is the value of recycled waste vs burning them, As no impact study been done it be quite hard to say is the articles being burned wouldn’t have more worth being recycled. I think a study done by B’s recycling would produce some interesting result in that area.


  9. David
    I find government like to spring surprises upon the public, irrespective of which government is in power. I would like when these projects are announced, more information is given to avoid questions like yours and mine and others.


  10. Wait Chris …. Were you not sent to bed?

    “So where is the other $390 million going?”
    …you serious? … or just sleepy?

    Studies
    Land
    roads and infrastructure
    Utilities
    Engineering design
    Architectural work
    Construction costs
    Plant and equipment
    Scrubbers and ash handling
    Power plant to convert heat to electricity
    Transmission interconnection
    …and most critically, political contributions (public & private)

    LOL in fact, $499M sounds somewhat like Mia’s $100 M for the prison – Optimistic!!!


  11. Like BLPite Royalrumble use to trumpet, where is the outrage when taxdollars are being frittered away by politicians. BU is watching this CLICO/BAICO fiasco very carefully as an example. What a mess. Wonder what the late PM would whisper from his grave if given a chance for absolution.


  12. we see how much of a mess it will be on friday. baico liability shortfall double afterall the judical auditors went thru their assests sheets.


  13. @BT: “…you serious? … or just sleepy?

    Serious…

    Please do note: $544 million is what BL&P have invested in their entire Generation, Transmission and Distribution plant. (AKA “Rate base”.)

    So I guess you are correct BT — a lot of the $400 million would not end up going to actual plant….


  14. @DAvid
    “Why does Barbadians have to speculate on these matters each and every time?”

    Because we tolerate it and our “leaders” love it.


  15. There is a perception that all big projects in Barbados will involve politicians tiefing.
    However if we take that away, this waste to energy project makes sense.


  16. Are we still a country where sunlight is plentiful? Observers who never heard of Barbados would probably be thinking the island is located somewhere in the Arctic and not Caribbean.

    As the writer ask where will all the ash go and at what point will the soil be saturated with this ash without contamination of our water supply.

    Legislated Recycling can allow the country to earn much needed foreign currency. What about the many persons who find informal employment recycling? No emphasis seems to be placed on the Environmental impact of such a plant in a 166 square mile island. In Japan persons where evacuated over 50 miles, where in Barbados is 50 miles?

    Here is some info I researched after reading the post: What is dioxin? Dioxin is formed by burning chlorine-based chemical compounds with hydrocarbons. The major source of dioxin in the environment comes from waste-burning incinerators of various sorts and also from backyard burn-barrels.

    Dioxins and furans are some of the most toxic chemicals known to science. A draft report released for public comment in September 1994 by the US Environmental Protection Agency clearly describes dioxin as a serious public health threat. The public health impact of dioxin may rival the impact that DDT had on public health in the 1960’s. According to the EPA report, not only does there appear to be no “safe” level of exposure to dioxin, but levels of dioxin and dioxin-like chemicals have been found in the general US population that are “at or near levels associated with adverse health effects.”

    Dioxin is a general term that describes a group of hundreds of chemicals that are highly persistent in the environment. The most toxic compound is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD. The toxicity of other dioxins and chemicals like PCBs that act like dioxin are measured in relation to TCDD. Dioxin is formed as an unintentional by-product of many industrial processes involving chlorine such as waste incineration, chemical and pesticide manufacturing and pulp and paper bleaching. Dioxin was the primary toxic component of Agent Orange, was found at Love Canal in Niagara Falls, NY and was the basis for evacuations at Times Beach, MO and Seveso, Italy.


  17. @ Red Sea, and others please put politics aside. This is a national issue where common sense has to be employed in making the best possible decision as we seek to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Sunshine is free and available 300 days a year in Barbados. That 400 million can be better utilized in the capturing of solar energy at a lower cost with zero environmental impact. The writer asked a very pertinent question whose interest is the government serving. To the writer I say to you all governments worldwide where there is an absence of accountability serve big business first and citizens secondary.


  18. Thank you Regina well stated!
    Hants et toute monde Read and understand the realities of incineration of chemicals. Thank You again Regina.


  19. What levels of dioxins are produced by the incinerators at the QEH and the port, backyard fires across the island or the existing landfill from self-combustion and low temperature smoldering? Maybe diverting waste from these to a modern incinerator would have net benefits and reduce existing levels.

    What levels are produced by burning fossil fuels to produce electricity?
    What are the existing levels from motor vehicles?
    What levels are produced up at Coral Ridge? lol
    What about cane and bush fires? …and by the latter I don’t mean the incendiary remarks often made on BU by Bush Tea lol

    The answers to some of these questions may help put the emission concerns in perspective.


  20. @Micro Mock Engineer………..Not forgetting Chickmont processing plant at Lowlands/Balls which blankets the many heavily populated communities downwind of it,daily with some obnoxious emissions, which make your eyes water and give a nauseous feeling, similar to the effects of tear gas.


  21. What about cane and bush fires?
    ****************************************
    You see the Bushman’s crosses?!!
    Even when MME take the bushman side in a discussion he still find it necessary to pelt some lashes in BT’s behind.

    Actually this draft may be a bit above the heads of some of us on BU so we can probably take it very slowly…..

    The basic problem is that we can’t have our cake and eat it too. If we want to have the conveniences of modern life with its throw-away philosophy we HAVE TO PAY A PRICE….or we can all become bush men and women.

    Talk about legislating recycling as a solution should be carried to BU’s humour section.
    Dioxins ARE a reality every day of our lives AS LONG AS WE ENJOY THE THROW-AWAY LIFESTYLES.

    In fact, a modern, well designed waste to garbage facility will IMPROVE the dioxin situation significantly over what we presently have. Indeed there are some modern incineration plants that are so clean that they are better at recycling than traditional recycling.

    Forget the emotion, Waste to Energy is long overdue for Barbados.

    So MME…. finished that underground bunker yet? you don’t have much time left…


  22. I predict that Mount Stinkeroo will still be operational for the next 10 years. Who is willing to bet me? And with 400 M with Dr. Lowe involved, only 200M will go towards the plant. he worst than mia , owen, clyde and payne put together. if DEM include Lashley (suck for wuk), only 10 M will go towards the plant.


  23. I concur that the idea of burning garbage is more about continued energy slavery on the back of bajans and not about seeking to help the masses save money. Don`t be fooled. Would COW Williams, Cave Shepherd or BS&T with $400 million to spend take this option with such a high set up cost or use PV? Unless they can juck out our eyes! Why is it when you criticize a government its always seen as anti government?


  24. This project will fail and its not $30 million at Greenland but $400 million. Whose will get this project? Is Glyne Bannister involved? Prayer tells me Dr Denis Lowe personal friend Bizzy. When will Bajans put partisan politics aside and speak up?


  25. By Munisha Tumato –

    To bury or to burn. Is that really the question?

    If you’ve attended one of Metro Vancouver’s public consultations on garbage management for our region, you may believe it is.

    I went to the May 19 consultation in Vancouver hoping to walk away with a better idea of the options for dealing with our ever-growing pile of collective refuse. For two hours, Metro Vancouver bureaucrats and politicians, industry reps and lobbyists mass burning garbage in a proposed $400 million incinerator talked.

    It wasn’t until Susan Maxwell spoke that spontaneous applause broke out. Maxwell tore a strip out of the solid waste management plan and Metro Vancouver for “not looking at best practices” for reducing and recycling garbage and for quashing any dissent towards the proposed incinerator.

    Maxwell, who wrote her thesis on the concept of zero-waste, said Metro Vancouver’s plan has been skewed in favour of incineration and ignores the view that energy can be saved and more jobs created through properly implemented recycling programs.

    Environmentally speaking, it all looks good on paper. And yet, the Integrated Solid Waste and Integrated Resource Management Plan has environmentalists and zero-waste proponents fuming.

    The reason for this became apparent at the public consultation. Although reduction and recycling initiatives comprise half of the plan, Metro Vancouver’s presentation at the consultations was focused almost exclusively on the benefits of incineration. And despite Metro Vancouver waste committee chair Greg Moore’s assertion that incineration has the spotlight because it is so controversial, the consultations — which are supposed to be the public’s one and only chance to ask questions and comment on the plan — have the tone of a sales pitch.

    Vancouver advocates reduction

    The first half of the plan discusses strategies for reducing the amount of garbage we produce, and improving our recycling rate to 70 per cent. The third section talks about “waste-to-energy”: burning, digesting or gasifying garbage and producing energy through the process. The fourth part of the plan allows for landfill space to hold whatever remains after reduction, recycling and energy recovery has occurred.

    So what are the Greenies griping about? Shouldn’t they be happy that more than half the plan is dedicated to reducing, recycling and recovering energy — even if recovery would occur through incineration?

    The problem, says Vancouver councillor and Metro board member Andrea Reimer, is if the plan’s reduction and recycling initiatives were properly carried out, there would likely be no need for another incinerator. Building the incinerator before implementing the triple R programs outlined in the plan is a lot like putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Except that this cart costs $400 million dollars (and may or may not be harmful to our health and the health of our airshed.)

    Vancouver is behind a series of 11th hour recommended amendments to the solid waste management plan. The amendments propose drastically reducing the amount of waste we produce as a region, banning all compostable organics and wood from the landfill by 2015, and taking the incinerator option out of the plan entirely.

    Metro Vancouver’s argument for building a new incinerator is based on the assumption the amount of waste we produce regionally will continue to go up as the population increases. It also assumes the amount of garbage each of us produces will inevitably go up — despite the first goal of the draft plan focusing on reducing the amount of waste we produce.

    Maybe the question we should be asking then is what kind of waste management plan claims waste reduction as its first goal, and then assumes that there will actually be an increase in the amount of waste generated?

    Ever more wasteful Canadians

    In Canada, we produce more garbage per person than any other country in the world. On average, one Canadian produces 1.1 tonnes of waste each year. That’s 50 per cent more waste than we produced 30 years ago.

    In Metro Vancouver, residents produce 1.5 tonnes of landfill-bound garbage each year: well above the Canadian average. To restate this cringe-worthy perspective, Metro Vancouverites are producing more garbage than the average Canadian, and the average Canadian produces more garbage than just about anyone else in the world.

    In short, the problem is that we create ridiculously unsustainable amounts of garbage. Incinerators are economically more viable than landfills. But the fact that they produce energy does not account for the need to create enough garbage to economically sustain running an incinerator once it’s there. The biggest problem with an expensive incinerator is it may actually prove to be a disincentive to implementing aggressive recycling and reduction programs.

    Mairi Welman, director of communications at the Recycling Council of B.C. put it like this: “Incinerators and landfills both have their issues. But landfills are scalable. Incinerators are not. If you have a landfill and you get to 80 or 85 per cent waste diversion with recycling, you can close half your landfill and not use it. You can’t shut half your incinerator down.”

    Vancouver’s fight

    Reimer is frustrated. She says the Vancouver councillors have been trying to put their amendments in front of Metro Vancouver’s board for the past seven months. At each attempt, she says, they were told by Metro chair Lois Jackson that they weren’t allowed to put motions on the floor at that particular meeting.

    They were finally able to at the last meeting before the public consultation process began — just in time to allow citizens to consider the proposed amendments and their implications. “In our opinion, it’s not reasonable to build a plan on the assumption that we can do nothing about waste reduction,” says Reimer.

    The goal of a 70 per cent recycling rate (an increase of about 15 per cent from the current rate) is an equally under-ambitious goal, says Reimer. It’s based on what one country — Austria — has achieved. But we are not a country, says Reimer, and cities have achieved far higher diversion rates than what Metro Vancouver’s plan aims for.

    Close enough to home, Nanaimo’s diversion rate is at 70 per cent already — and that’s without a system of organics collection and composting in place. Vancouver began rolling out its organics collection program this year, and this is expected to reduce the amount of garbage going to landfill by up to one-third.

    Not to mention the provincial government’s slow but steady roll out of extended producer responsibility. EPR programs put the legal and financial burden of dealing with discarded products and packaging on producers and consumers, and takes it off of taxpayers, who currently foot the bill for landfills and incinerators alike. The best example of a successful EPR program is the plastic drinking bottle take-back program.

    Reimer pulls no punches in stating her opinion on the current focus of our solid waste management debate.

    “There are a thousand good reasons to get waste generation down. It’s insane on a planet where we’re having raging debates about social justice, and economic viability, where our economies are collapsing and we have huge environmental issues that we have this problem of having stuff that’s totally useless to us and we can’t figure out what to do with it. It’s such an incredibly stupid debate to be having.”


  26. @Agyeman Kofi…

    I thank you for bringing this forward.

    While it embarrasses those in control of where I used to live…

    …it might help avoid embarrassment in the country I currently call home.


  27. Governments tend to treat people like idiots until they protest.

    The GOB should show why they favour this $400million incineration plant.

    Recycling is great but the time will come when noone will buy your recycled waste.

    Landfills are no longer practical on a small densely populated Island and the Island’s water supply must never be put at risk.


  28. The EPA promotes a waste reduction hierarchy that encourages reducing waste at its source, then recycling. Recycling is preferable to waste-to-energy and landfilling for materials. According to the EPA, “The decision to build a waste-to-energy facility depends on many factors, including geography and population density, the willingness of citizens to accept the technology, the willingness of investors to support it, and on state and local officials who determine how solid waste is handled in a particular area of the country.”

    While environmental activists and the waste management industry disagree about whether the U.S. should burn or bury its trash, all agree that recycling is still the No. 1 disposal option.

    The amount of residual ash varies depending on the waste being used. It usually represents between 15 and 20 percent of the original load of waste, which sounds great. Less landfills the size of Mount Everest, right?

    Right, but there’s a catch. Disposing of ash can be problematic, and the issue of residual fly ash is huge with environmental activists.

    Ash can contain high concentrations of various metals once present in the original waste. For example, printer inks and textile dyes can release iron and cadmium into the residual ash.

    Sorting trash before incineration significantly reduces this problem. The major culprits of metal residue are batteries and paints. Removing these materials before loading the boilers reduces metal concentration in the ash.


  29. Burning one ton of waste in a waste-to-energy unit saves between 0.5 and one ton of greenhouse gas emissions compared to landfilling the same amount of waste.

    The strict standards of the Clean Air Act significantly reduce the environmental impact of waste-to-energy facilities by controlling the emissions of hazardous organics including dioxins and furans, hazardous metals and acid gases.

    A variety of processes are put in place to ensure the clean operation of a WTE plant, including “dry scrubbers,” which use the old gardener’s trick of spraying lime to neutralize acids and electrostatic precipitators, a fancy term for electrically charged plates that capture small particles and fly ash in the same way your TV screen attracts dust.

    Federal standards are also imposed on landfills, which must be designed “to protect the environment from contaminants which may be present in the solid waste stream,” says a spokesperson for the EPA.

    To comply with these standards, landfills must be methodically constructed to avoid groundwater and environmental contamination. Although both WTE plants and landfills are subject to stringent EPA standards, neither are free of potential environmental and public health problems.

    “Emissions of hazardous air pollutants from waste-to-energy combustors and fossil fuel boilers can be controlled to trace levels,” explains the EPA. “However, environmentalists express concerns about these residual emissions.”

    Activists point out that residual emission from both landfills and WTE facilities pose a potential threat to public health and may still contain gases harmful to the environment.

    “Landfills generate methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas,” says Wilson. “When you throw waste into an incinerator, no matter how clean it claims to be, greenhouse gases are still produced and so are other potentially harmful emissions.”

    The concerns of environmental are warranted. Both landfills and WTE facilities do emit greenhouse gases.


  30. However, we cannot deal with vehicles exhaust emissions how will we police WTE plants. Oh how come we cannot get money for a new hospital but can get $400 million for a WTE plant. Who are the persons taking bribes from investors in Barbados?


  31. I am a Barbadian living in Canada and I help design waste to energy facilities. I do not know all of the details regarding the Barbados government’s plans, but $400M seems ridiculous.

    We design WTE facilties in Canada where we extract landfill gas from landfills and combust it in reciprocating engines which generate electricity and do this at a fraction of the cost. Landfill gas is typically a 50/50 mix of methane and carbon dioxide with methane being 21 times worse of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. When we combust landfill gas, it destroys methane and you get the added bonus of generating electricity. All emissions meet US and Canadian standards.

    Not sure why this is not an option.


  32. @DJ: “We design WTE facilties in Canada where we extract landfill gas from landfills and combust it in reciprocating engines which generate electricity and do this at a fraction of the cost. Landfill gas is typically a 50/50 mix of methane and carbon dioxide with methane being 21 times worse of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

    OK. Let us talk about this.

    Do you burn any of the carbon dioxide?

    Of the methane burnt, what is your conversion rate?

    How do you extract these gases from the landfill? Must they be “capped” first?

    Serious questions.

    Please answer.


  33. Let me just make a correctION first…we design gas to energy (GTE) facilities, not waste to energy (WTE).

    Basically all of the landfill gas is fed to the engine and the carbon dioxide just passes through and is not involved in the process. When methane is combusted it is also converted to carbon dioxide. So the primary emission is carbon dioxide.

    Typical destruction efficiencies of methane for these engines are around 97%.

    Landfill gas is extracted by installing wells (vertical perforated pipe) into the landfill which would be connected to piping which would be connected to a blower which exerts vacuum on the wellfield. The level of capping of the landfill will affect the collection efficiency of the system.

    The figure may help http://www.qedenv.com/files/landfill_anatomy_poster_ENGLISH.pdf


  34. @DJ… Yeah. I thought so.

    Trust the French to lie to you..

    I think Robin Williams said it best: “Fcsk everyone who speaks English. Fsck you!!! Oh!!! Here come the Germans!!! Help England! Help America. Help Canada. Help!!!


  35. I don’t know the details of what the $400M includes, but I believe a WTE facility has a significantly higher capital cost than a GTE facility. That price probably also includes operation and maintenance cost of the facility for a number of years.

    WTE facilities have the advantage of extending the life of landfills by reducing the mass/volume of waste being landfilled, but apparently are significantly higher cost to build/operate, and I suspect generate more pollutants the GTE.


  36. Hello Barbados,

    Please contact us if interested…. we have a biosource plant with the ability to extract metals from the fly ash or coal ash produced from coal generation plants. we have produced a number of zero emission plants since 2003 and we are flying under the radar currently. we are a usa company…with international investors and principals. This system has Two World Wide Patents, and a Patent Pending on another process. If you are interested, email me.
    OH…. We will Fund this Project, BARBADOS WILL NOT HAVE TO.

    or call:
    1-480-290-9601

    Scott wesley – principal
    and executive vp of sales and marketing.
    MP (MY Planet) BioMass

    Creates:
    Electricity
    Methanol
    Oxygen 99.9%
    Jobs! Lots of them!!!
    Tax Revenues for Municipalities, Local and Federal

    Eliminates:
    Co2
    Coal Ash and Fly Ash
    Garbage
    Petroleum Waste
    Sludge
    Lawn or Wood Debris
    Tires
    More

    Also:
    Extracts Metals from waste like
    Fly Ash
    Tires
    Garbage
    Sludge
    Garbage

    Lowers or Eliminates:
    Garbage Content
    Fly Ash Collection
    Co2 Emissions


  37. Hey would you mind stating which blog platform you’re using? I’m looking to start my own
    blog in the near future but I’m having a tough time making a decision between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your layout seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique.

    P.S My apologies for being off-topic but I had to ask!


  38. @ Scott Wesley

    Dear Mr Wesley,

    Your offer to provide what on the surface seems to be an environmentally sound garbage disposal solution for Barbados WILL NOT WORK

    The reason is quite simple

    You did not mention to 10% cut that I as Minister of the Environment am getting of the $400M plant that i have already agreed to

    The problem with you foreigners is that you come around here and put forward solutions that even though they are better for us Small Island Developing States do not carry the “FATTED CALF” component.

    I find your letter to my ministry distasteful and will put my colleague Erine at the Immigration Department on the alert for you, just in case you want to come visit me with this silly idea.

    Respectfully,

    Dennis Lowe

    PS, in case you are prepared to up the ante to 20% you can be assured that I will be prepared to give serious consideration to your proposal


  39. With Immediate Effect Mr DJ you are to be banned from BU!!

    Imagine this comment and heresy!!

    “I do not know all of the details regarding the Barbados government’s plans, but $400M seems ridiculous.”

    It is a good thing that I, Dennis Lowe does not know who you are and that you are hiding under a nome de plume

    You know who i am? For that word ridiculous alone I could have you locked up!!

    The J in your name must be for Johnny as in “Johnny come lately”

    You jest get heah and telling me, one of the “Fatted Calf” brigade dat my $40M cut is ridiculous!

    Man you gine get a surprise later today as soon as i get in my office. I senning a letter to de Canadian Embassy and getting them Mounter Police to investigate your taxes,

    My man Jones tell me dat he feel dat de Mounted Police should even give you a good mounting too.

    Looka wunna gine a little too far wid did ting yuh hear!!

    As soon as de Registrar get through wid sorting out de Bajan Black Belly sheep patent i gine det ingrunt Adriel Brafwaite to pursue patents pun all tings Bajna and Bulbados and whaplax dis web site gine belong tuh we government and all uh dis sedition ovah wid

    De gumption uh wunna fellows doah

Leave a comment, join the discussion.