There are claims that this will be "good" for the environment, and there will be no pollution and no waste. How can one argue with such good-sounding claims? One can when there is no convincing evidence to back them up. The implication is that pollution will be constantly monitored by IDEM, etc. That's not true. Much of an IDEM inspection consists of a review of the company's emission records. If records show pollution is present, the plant continues operating while the problems are addressed. What does this mean for air, soil, and water quality surrounding the plant? IDEM only regularly monitors general air quality.
I cannot dispute information presented at the public forum citing incineration is the most expensive way to dispose of trash, and the most expensive way to generate electricity. Since not all trash can be burned, is there really a market for the residue? The Pyrolyzer success seems dependent upon many factors all falling in place 100 percent of the time. Like, the plant never needing maintenance or the huge daily flow of trash never falters. Six thousand tons a day is a lot of trash.
What happens if (when?) Pyrolyzer concludes it really can't do this on such an unheard-of scale? Would Logansport be the rare city not to go bankrupt when a trash-to-electricity plant failed? I would like the contract with the consultants and attorneys be made public so people can judge whether citizens are getting the million plus dollars' worth. Isn't that million plus taxpayer money? To me, it's the wise course to answer all the questions to the satisfaction of the questioners. Proponents should admit some answers can't yet be known. I have no doubt that the mayor and the city council have the best intentions but I wonder if they have been given the best information and advice.