GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]


[GreenYes] Re: [ZWIA] Re: bridge strategy and daily cover


Helen,

Enzo Favoino should have some good cost info on MBT.  Also, Halifax, Nova Scotia has implemented this approach for over 10 years.  They have both a clean green source separated system producing high quality products for markets.  The dirty MRF and digester at the landfill is used to leach out any toxics, sort out remaining recyclables and digest all organics so only inerts get buried in the landfill.  That also incorporates all those costs as part of the "disposal" cost that source separation programs compete against, which is a huge benefit.  I'm sure Halifax has solid numbers that would be helpful.  I have contact info on my other computer if you want them.

In considering use as daily cover, be careful it not be viewed as "diversion" as was done in CA.  That is a very slippery slope and has been a bear to reverse once we went down it in CA.

Gary Liss

At 04:38 PM 1/24/2008, Helen Spiegelman wrote:
Hi again ~

The critical thing is that AD/alt daily cover is premised on making best use of existing landfills (prolonging life, reducing GHG) rather than making new investment in WTE.

Does anyone have cost figures for MBT systems linked to landfills, for a cost comparison with new WTE?

Helen.


At 04:32 PM 1/24/2008, Eric Lombardi wrote:
Hi Alan,

My guess is that the remaining 30% is a lot of junk plastics combined with regular old mixed MSW that didn't get separated... so yes, there will be organics in it that need to be stabilized before they put into the ground.  You can't assume that during the bridge period that ALL the organics will be out, and since it's not OK to just bury or burn them ... whatcha going to do?

One reason I like the daily cover angle is because the landfills will see an economic gain from using the residual materials this way, and at the end of the day (and the end of this discussion), we're going to be playing with them for many years to come.

Eric


-----Original Message-----
From: "Alan Muller" <amuller@no.address>
Sent 1/24/2008 3:31:02 PM
To: "Eric Lombardi" <eric@no.address>, hspie@no.address, ricanthony@no.address, zerowaste_sd@no.address, zwia@no.address, gaia-zero-waste@no.address, GreenYes@no.address, crra_members@no.address
Subject: Re: [GreenYes] RE: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans

Eric:

I agree that a bridge strategy is needed, and it needs to be one that the public can easily understand. 

But I am uncomfortable with the use of digestate or compost as daily cover, because I see keeping organics out of dumps as a key objective.  And does this not presume that a large fraction of the 30% will be organics?

So I'd like some help understanding this part of your thinking.  What data are available?  That is, in places that achieve 70% diversion and aren't burning, what will that 30% fraction actually contain?

Regards,

am

At 01:36 PM 1/24/2008 -0700, Eric Lombardi wrote:
Helen is right, and I just got an email from Scotland that their Â?ZW ScotlandÂ? will include 25% efw.
 
I suggest we come up with a position on how to build the bridge to a ZW Future.  Since 90%+ resource recovery isnÂ?t going to happen immediately, we need to advocate for a positive solution to the remaining mixed waste fraction.   Â?TheyÂ? out there are saying Â?itÂ?s a waste to NOT make energy out of itÂ?Â? and in todayÂ?s world that is a very compelling and logical position.  If we donÂ?t like that, than what is our alternative?
 
Let me share what IÂ?ve been saying to counter the efw proponents Â? (just did it this morning) Â? and I know this isnÂ?t the preferred future we are all working for, but I do present it as a Â?bridgeÂ? strategy:
  1. Source separated community MSW is the cleanest and cheapest way to manage 70% of the communityÂ?s discards, and this has been proven in numerous communities;
  2. The remaining 30% of mixed waste will be gradually phased down to only 10% over about a ten year period (in truth no one has done this yet so we donÂ?t know how long it will take), and while weÂ?re getting there we will process the material at the landfill either through (1) an energy-producing anaerobic digestion system and then using the stabilized digestate as daily cover (this approach is for big cities that can afford it); or (2) a simple windrow composting system that will stabilize the biowaste fraction of the mixed waste, and then again use as daily cover.   After ten years, there will no more than 10% mixed waste, maybe even zero (but I doubt it), and it will continue to be processed and stabilized. 
  3. This approach will triple or more the life of the existing landfill infrastructure in America, and itÂ?s possible that no new landfills or incinerators need be built for the next 100 years, if ever.
 
Since there is a flood of new incinerator and Â?bioreactorÂ? proposals popping up all around us, I suggest that the above argument combined with a moratorium for five years on new incinerators and landfills is a winner.  We need to argue that there is no sense in moving forward with the multi-million dollar facilities to bury and burn our resources until after a serious pursuit of 70% has been implemented.  
 
Feedback?  Where is this argument weak?  My goal is to stop the flow of investments into the new bury/burn facilities, so what else can we do to accomplish that?
 
Eric
 
Eric Lombardi
Executive Director
Eco-Cycle Inc
5030 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO. 80301
303-444-6634
www.ecocycle.org
 
Vote for Eco-Cycle, Help us win $5,000
To celebrate their new store opening in Boulder and continue their tradition of environmental activism, Patagonia will donate $5,000 to the local environmental organization that gets the most votes in their Voice Your Choice contest. Cast your vote online for Eco-Cycle before March 29!
 

 
-----Original Message-----
From: zwia@no.address [ mailto:zwia@no.address] On Behalf Of Helen Spiegelman
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:24 AM
To: ricanthony@no.address; zerowaste_sd@no.address; zwia@no.address; gaia-zero-waste@no.address; GreenYes@no.address; crra_members@no.address
Subject: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans
 
There is a dragon coiled in these paragraphs.

Our metro politicians made a momentous decision this week to cancel a huge landfill project. The political buy-in was achieved through the promise that we can build a suite of 3 - 6 waste-to-energy plants here in the region to manage "what cannot be further recycled or composted..." Our regional staff have even hijacked the "Zero Waste Challenge" issued by our politicians and are saying that WTE is a component of ZW.

Citizens in our region are getting organized to challenge this. We all know that an incinerator ~ or any facility that turns waste to any kind of "fuel" ~ is a tapeworm that will suck more and more resources that are needed to build a healthy economy (or needed to stay right where they are in nature...)

Activities that facilitate the transformation of material to energy is what is driving climate change.

Please assure me and the citizens of LA that your Zero Waste plan doesn't have a waste-to-"fuel" provision.

H.


At 08:44 AM 1/24/2008, ricanthony@no.address wrote:

Whatever cannot be further recycled or composted from the department's 750,000 weekly customers could be
turned into alternative

fuels,
such as biodiesel or electricity to power our grid, said Alex Helou, assistant director for the city's Bureau of Sanitation.

"Instead of just burying it in the ground and creating greenhouse gases, we could use it as a resource to recycle, reuse and convert into a resource that could create clean energy," said Helou.

It's too early to say how much money the city could make from these alternative fuels, but there is definite potential to generate revenue, Pereira said.

Already Long Beach converts garbage into electricity for its residents. And it uses about 100 tons of trash from Los Angeles a day to do it and also charges $42.50 a ton to take our garbage, said Helou.

But by using Los Angeles garbage to create energy for our city, we can also reduce our costs instead of subsidizing Long Beach, Helou said.


Gary Liss & Associates  
916-652-7850    
Fax: 916-652-0485
www.garyliss.com



[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]