I agree with OUE that burning tires is a bad solution to generate energy. However, I have to take issue with their opinion that the option of using clean-burning natural gas is also a bad idea.
The writer from OUE suggested National Gypsum "embrace innovative, nonfossil fuel energy sources". Notice the lack of specifics. These environmentalists have visions of an ideal world in which everyone bikes to work at the cooperative nonprofit factory humming Kumbaya.
The reality is we need energy to produce food, clothing, and other necessities. If there were "innovative, non-fossil fuel energy sources" that were reliable and relatively cheap, I'm sure National Gypsum and everyone else would be using them. If windmills or a solar panel array could supply their energy needs, I'm sure they would not be going through the expense of building a power plant.
Maybe OUE should build the "innovative, nonfossil fuel, energy source" and sell the power generated. Or is it easier to just rail against progress, and not have to deal with the burden of offering practical alternatives?
The reality is that until other reliable methods of generating energy arrive, drilling natural gas in Pennsylvania (and other parts of the U.S.) is a great alternative to burning tires -- or even coal. I challenge OUE to build their better alternative and not just spout platitudes about green energy. I truly hope, indeed look forward, to being proven wrong. In the meantime, the rest of have to face reality and use proven methods of energy production.