I am a total skeptic of this plant, but good luck to him if it works.

Reading through the stories, I see they are burning methane. And the process produces 10 tons of ash per 100 tons input, destined for cement kilns and the like. Will we get to know what is in that ash, or is it a 'trade secret?'

So obviously there is some permitting process with the state he has to go through.
I trust my state to determine whether his plant can do what it says without adding to pollution problems rather than his word.

Washington, particularly rural parts, e.g. Hanford, has been dumped on in the name of progress. I would rather be safe than the testing ground for new allegedly environmentally safe technologies.

In Washington state, there is no dearth of biomass to energy projects. Must involve combustion of waste products from timber industry and the like. If they can be done cleanly, build away.

Um, you DO know what NGO stands for, right?

From Wikipedia: "A non-governmental organization (NGO) is a legally constituted organization created by natural or legal persons that operates independently from any government and a term usually used by governments to refer to entities that have no government status. In the cases in which NGOs are funded totally or partially by governments, the NGO maintains its non-governmental status by excluding government representatives from membership in the organization."

In general, even if an NGO is funded by the government, that money is decided to be given to the NGO through whatever political process and the NGO is free to use it for their goals however they wish, without oversight of the government.

It is not as cut-and-dried as TFA (I prefer to call it press-release journalism) claims.

From the Tri-City Herald: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/11/21/1260850/pasco-biomass-company-plans-to.html

There are plenty of so-called businessmen out there with grandiose plans of converting biomass to energy without any pollution. Unfortunately, this sounds like one of them.