The proposed location for the Utilities Kingston Biogas project. Image via Utilities Kingston documents.
Editor’s note: The following is a submitted open letter from a Kingston resident, questioning the viability of the Regional Biosolids and Biogas facility proposed by Utilities Kingston. The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Kingstonist.
As a local resident, I have grave concerns about the environmental and financial viability of the proposed $71 million Biosolid/Biogas Facility adjacent to Little Cataraqui Creek Conservation Area.
Why is Kingston set on producing methane when it is being phased out around the world? Jurisdictions in North America and beyond (Montreal, Nanaimo, New York, California) are banning natural gas (which is 90 per cent methane) in new construction buildings and Germany’s Special Envoy has announced that Europe will require less natural gas from Canada.
The residual “fertilizer” that will be produced is also being banned globally due to the presence of “forever chemicals” that permanently contaminate farmland.
Will this facility be financially feasible?
Edmonton is considering scrapping its facility after just six years because it is “not financially or operationally viable in the long term”, and Georgian Bluffs/Chatham has issued an RFP to help offset substantial annual losses in operating costs as an alternative to mothballing the facility altogether. With a shrinking market for both natural gas and toxic fertilizer, and changes in legislation, it is unlikely the proposed facility will be financially feasible and may become obsolete by the time it is operational.
Utilities Kingston asks residents to be patient; however, if there is no opportunity for public review of the recommendations prior to City Council’s vote in December, are we being asked to “Be Patient” or to “Be Quiet”?
Wendy McCullough
Share your views! Submit a Letter to the Editor or an Op/Ed article to Kingstonist’s Editor-in-Chief Tori Stafford at [email protected].
