Re: [greenyes] Waste-to-Energy

["Art Krenzel" <phoenix98604@no.address>]

BRAVO Richard!   I could not have summarized it better.

Well said!

Art Krenzel, P.E.
PHOENIX TECHNOLOGIES
10505 NE 285TH Street
Battle Ground, WA 98604
360-666-1883 voice
phoenix98604@no.address


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard@no.address>
To: "Eric Lombardi" <eric@no.address>; <greenyes@no.address>;
<Sharon_Gates@no.address>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [greenyes] Waste-to-Energy


> Eric, Sharon, et.al.
> As a strong supporter of per-treatment for over 20 years, I like to make
the
> comparison to the Clean Water Act that doesn't allow our communities to
> discharge untreated sewage into our water ways -- So I support a 'Clean
Land
> Act' that doesn't allow the disposal of untreated wastes onto our land.
>
> Once all of the organics have been 'pre-treated' [read 'composted'], then
> there is no need to dispose of them, and landfilling of wastes that cause
> leachate and methane is virtually eliminated.
>
> Generally, the resolution to the argument has been based on short-term
> costs - in most areas we can stick the garbage into the ground (today) at
a
> lower cost than diverting it - just the same way as manufacturers do not
> have to internalize the costs of disposal of their products.
>
> California adopted a requirement that communities had to divert 50% of
their
> generated wastes at whatever it cost to achieve that mandate - not just
> divert to the tons that cost less than landfilling.
>
> So if we eliminate the discussion as to what the cheapest alternative may
> be, and focus back on the value of resources, and protecting our land and
> water, it is a clear descision - do not discharge to land items that may
> create leachate and foul our groundwater, do not discharge materials that
> will decompose and generate methane.  Reprocess these materials!
>
> Richard Gertman
> Environmental Planning Consultants
> 1885 The Alameda, Suite 120
> San Jose, CA 95126-1732
> 408-249-0691
> richard@no.address
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Lombardi" <eric@no.address>
> To: <greenyes@no.address>; <Sharon_Gates@no.address>
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 12:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [greenyes] Waste-to-Energy
>
>
> > Hi Sharon,
> >
> > Let me suggest that you refine your question.  In Europe, the trend is
> > toward phasing out any landfilling that doesn't first "pretreat" the
waste
> > through various systems they are calling MBT (mechanical, biological
> > treatment).  The MBT approach is intended to occur AFTER a good
> > source-separation program has gotten the majority of the recyclables and
> > organics out of the stream.  The goal then is to (1) recover any
> recyclable
> > materials still in there, and (2) to "process" the organic fraction,
> mostly
> > through anaerobic digestion, to dramatically reduce the landfilling
> gassing
> > problem.   While this approach of "pre-treatment" before landfilling is
> > pretty new, I like what I see and would venture to bet it's the
beginning
> of
> > a trend.  Thus, if you were to compare Landfilling With Pretreatment to
> WTE,
> > then I would clearly support the landfill option.  In fact, I am
currently
> > writing a paper called "Closing The Dumps, Creating New Jobs" where I
lay
> > out plans for how our Global South friends can start the challenge of
> > closing their open, unlined urban dumps, yet still create and protect
> local
> > jobs through a Maximum Diversion/Small Landfill approach.  The two keys
> are
> > (1) source-separation of the wet waste from the dry, and (2) a
> pre-treatment
> > phase for all the discard stream residuals that weren't separated
properly
> > before they are landfilled.
> >
> > If others have views on landfill pretreatment, I'd love to hear em.
> >
> > Eric Lombardi
> > Eco-Cycle
> > Boulder, CO
> > www.ecocycle.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Sharon_Gates@no.address>
> > To: <greenyes@no.address>
> > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 11:39 AM
> > Subject: RE: [greenyes] Waste-to-Energy
> >
> >
> > > Dear GreenYes-
> > > I hesitate to raise this issue, but here goes.  The City I serve sends
> its
> > > refuse to a waste-to-energy plant.  I'm conflicted about the relative
> > > environmental impacts of landfilling vs. WTE.  It is my understanding
> that
> > > our WTE plant meets Air Quality Management District standards.
> Obviously,
> > > the AQMD does not regulate everything, and you only know about the
> > > emissions that you test for.  WTE has more immediate impacts from what
> is
> > > coming out of the stacks, as compared to the more long-term (and
> > > uncertain) groundwater and other impacts from landfilling.  But is it
> > > possible to truly label one of these as the lesser of two evils?  Is
one
> > > really lesser?
> > >
> > > I am personally fully committed to zero waste.  However, the City that
I
> > > serve continues to generate "waste" and this is an issue I have to
deal
> > > with on a daily basis.
> > >
> > > When you respond to this post, please do so gently.  I am not
> responsible
> > > for my City's policies, for WTE in general, or for much else in this
> > > world.  Please do not offer suggestions as to how to get rid of our
WTE
> > > plant.  I'm really looking narrowly at the lesser-of-two-evils
question.
> > >
> > > Sharon Gates
> > > Recycling Specialist
> > > City of Long Beach, California
> > > 562/570-4694
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address
> > For additional commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: greenyes-unsubscribe@no.address
> For additional commands, e-mail: greenyes-help@no.address
>