GreenYes Archives

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


[GreenYes] Re: [ZWIA] Re: [CRRA] Zero Waste plans


Hello Enzo:

What is "the residual?" What is its composition?

In my 27 years as a recycler I've always followed this protocol:
Composition analysis first, then facility design to capture the
resources, then build the facility, then operate it for awhile until
things get stabilized and most of the system adjustments have been
done to optimize recovery and minimize damage and harm to the
resources. If there is still a residual, start the cycle over
again: composition study, facility redesign, buildout, operate. If
some stuff is just plain unrecyclable, ban it. That's what we're
doing around here where I live, in fits and starts.

I think our priority should be to build zero waste resource
development parks everywhere and manage them with resource
development authorities. Take the whole system of discard management
away from Public Works and the solid waste management profession and
give it a new kind of administration more akin to an airport
authority. Base the whole discard management system design on source
separation with a long customer interface for unloading separated
materials at different operators with highly differentiated disposal
service rate rewards for customers who deliver clean resources that
need minimal processing. Charge the wasters the most to unload; as
high as you can make the fees is about right. Play the difference
and educate, educate, educate. Embrace labor-intensity.

You and the others are right: we're a long way from that now. But I
fail to see how our championing the waster's methodologies can do
anything for us either in the long or the short run. We will end up
confusing our friends and encouraging our competitors.

Dan Knapp
Urban Ore, Inc.




On Jan 31, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Enzo Favoino wrote:

> Dan,
>
> the appended doc was already sent trhough the listserver(s) a few
> days ago. Did you have any chance to read?
> Take some time to consider this - you'll have most of your
> questions fully addressed.
>
> Also, Ric's concerns were already fully addressed in previous
> posts, although I must admit I am being rejected by many
> listservers (e.g. Crra, zerowaste_sd - by the way, what are these
> acronyms for?) so you may have lost bits of the discussion - what
> Ric mentions is not certainly an "MBT template".
>
> Believe it or not, people engaged in this thread are just as
> "earnest recyclers" as you are - no doubt.
>
> They are simply trying to design a strategy for residuals that
> keeps conditions for the growth of recycling. Whilst we launch
> recycling, residuals are still there, and policy makers make plans
> and make decisions to have this sorted out. This is how this whole
> thread was started (basically by Helen). This makes you feel
> uncomfortable? No harm, keep recycling, and let us consider
> conditions for letting you (and us) go on like this.
>
> MBT (= mechanical-biological treatment) has been embraced by ZWers
> here in Europe to address the mandate given by the landfill
> directive to have waste "pretreated" before landfilling. At highest
> recycling rates, we have 70-80% here, still the problem of
> residuals has to be sorted out. If no MBT, then incineration (WtE =
> waste to energy). What should we support as a "bridge strategy"?
> The ongoing thread and the attached document give hints and reasons
> for that.
>
> It's past midnight here (almost 1 AM), and I still have a couple of
> hours at PC ahead of me to work on promotion of sep colection,
> recycling schemes, consistent legislation to "make this happen" -
> and, yes, this includes how to have transitional strategies for
> residual waste with MBT so that we are not locked in the permanent
> need to feed large WtE facilities.
>
> If you go back just 3-4 posts, you'll find an awful lot of reasons to
> i) consider options for residual waste and
> ii) prefer MBT over WtE.
>
> With sympathy
> Bye
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Enzo Favoino
> enzofavoino@no.address
> Working Group on Composting
> and Integrated Waste Management
> Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
> +39-039-2302660
> +39-335-355446 (mobile)
> Skype: favoinomail
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> _________________________________________________________________
> Click to add my contact info to your organizer:
> http://my.infotriever.com/enzofavoino
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dan Knapp
> To: RicAnthony@no.address
> Cc: hspie@no.address ; jeff.morris@no.address ;
> matt@no.address ; eric@no.address ;
> Gerry.Gillespie@no.address ;
> zerowaste_sd@no.address ; zwia@no.address ; gaia-zero-
> waste@no.address ; GreenYes@no.address ;
> crra_members@no.address
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 10:50 PM
> Subject: [ZWIA] Re: [CRRA] Zero Waste plans
>
> Open letter to recycling policy wonks:
>
> Would someone please tell those of us that don't know what MBT is?
> Sounds like a gasoline additive, or something taken from a medicine
> bottle label. You guys are in such a hurry, and you lose people
> like me when you use an alphabet soup of abbreviations in place of
> any attempt to actually communicate your message.
>
> Also, Rick's observations make MBT sound like a real Godawful bad
> thing. Again, why would recyclers want to endorse the waster's
> technologies that result in severely degraded and even dangerous
> products? Why is our industry the only one being asked to abandon
> quality production, and why are so many of our best spokespeople so
> willing to go along. Is it just to get along? The public out
> there wants clean resources, clean recycling, clean composting, and
> they depend on us for accurate information on what's happening in
> our field. Whenever we buy into crud resources we damage all the
> operators earnestly trying to produce good stuff. We also damage
> our own credibility.
>
> Dan Knapp
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2008, at 6:06 PM, RicAnthony@no.address wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 1/29/2008 12:17:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>> hspie@no.address writes:From what you say, the environmental case
>> for MBT rests on 100% stabilization ("no methane").
>>
>> Hi Folks
>> I have been reading this since it started with LA post and have
>> to say that the MBT plant we saw in Germany, that was recommended
>> as the best of its kind, takes the material not source separated
>> and soaks it in water for a few days (the tea bag effect) and then
>> derives energy from the organics in the liquid, organic solid
>> material is digested and then burned in a paper mill. I asked the
>> biologist who gave us the tour whether he thought the result was
>> toxic and he thought yes.
>>
>> I recommend better front end (required) reuse, recycling and
>> composting programs. All compostable organics separated out by law
>> up font. These programs could reduce non marketable material to
>> less than 20%. This might be treated wood, baby diapers and
>> mistakes.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
>>
>> __._,_.___
>> Messages in this topic (1)Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
>> Messages | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar
>> MARKETPLACE
>> Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with
>> an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
>>
>> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
>> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest |
>> Switch format to Traditional
>> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
>> Visit Your Group
>> Yahoo! News
>> Get it all here
>>
>> Breaking news to
>>
>> entertainment news
>>
>> Need traffic?
>> Drive customers
>>
>> With search ads
>>
>> on Yahoo!
>>
>> Best of Y! Groups
>> Check it out
>>
>> and nominate your
>>
>> group to be featured.
>>
>> .
>>
>> __,_._,___
>
>
> >
>
> __________ Informazione NOD32 2840 (20080131) __________
>
> Questo messaggio è stato controllato dal Sistema Antivirus NOD32
> http://www.nod32.it
>
>
> From: "Enzo Favoino" <enzofavoino@no.address>
> Date: January 27, 2008 11:56:24 PM PST
> To: "Enzo Favoino" <enzofavoino@no.address>, "Gary Liss"
> <gary@no.address>, <hspie@no.address>
> Cc: <zerowaste_sd@no.address>, <zwia@no.address>, <gaia-
> zero-waste@no.address>, <GreenYes@no.address>
> Subject: Re: [ZWIA] Re: bridge strategy and daily cover
>
>
> Hello there
>
> find enclosed the paper I promised on integrated strategies for the
> management of biowaste, and teh role of MBT in flexible approaches
> to maximise sep collection and preserve the primacy of composting.
>
> The MBT-bit is in the second half, you find
> some regulatory remarks - please consider carefully why a "ban" on
> biodegradables (factually ending up in an obligation for
> incineration) is not so favourable to recycling, whilst progressive
> diversion is a much more positive approach to drive decisions
> towards sep colelction/composting
> the importance of flexibility,
> the issue of use of "low-grade" outputs (former "mixed waste
> compost") in restricted one-off applications for land reclamation.
> This is just a contextual presentation on the reasons for the
> tremendous growth of MBT as an alternative treatment of residual
> waste in last years - and why it is supported by those who push for
> highest recycling rates
>
> Details (and *ppts) may follow on any such topic
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Enzo Favoino
> enzofavoino@no.address
> Working Group on Composting
> and Integrated Waste Management
> Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
> +39-039-2302660
> +39-335-355446 (mobile)
> Skype: favoinomail
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> _________________________________________________________________
> Click to add my contact info to your organizer:
> http://my.infotriever.com/enzofavoino
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Enzo Favoino
> To: gary@no.address ; hspie@no.address
> Cc: zerowaste_sd@no.address ; zwia@no.address ; gaia-
> zero-waste@no.address ; GreenYes@no.address
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [ZWIA] Re: bridge strategy and daily cover
>
> Hello there
> I may well submit info and views on all the highlighted subjects
> concerning MBT (including use of "low-grade" outputs for one-off
> restrcited applciations in land reclamation)
>
> I may send you a comprehensive paper later today or tomorrow, about
> MBT, its synergies with strategies aimed at maximised recycling,
> regulatory aspects etc.
>
> Hell busy now, about to enter a Conference room - guess what? I'll
> speak about sep. colelction, maximised recycling and MBT for
> residuals
>
> Ciao
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Enzo Favoino
> enzofavoino@no.address
> Working Group on Composting
> and Integrated Waste Management
> Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza
> +39-039-2302660
> +39-335-355446 (mobile)
> Skype: favoinomail
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Liss
> To: hspie@no.address
> Cc: zerowaste_sd@no.address ; zwia@no.address ; gaia-
> zero-waste@no.address ; GreenYes@no.address
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 6:36 AM
> Subject: [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
>>>> “ZW Scotland” 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. “They” out there are
>>>> saying “it’s a waste to NOT make energy out of it”… 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 “bridge” strategy:
>>>> 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;
>>>> 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.
>>>> 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 “bioreactor”
>>>> 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
>
>
> __________ Informazione NOD32 2821 (20080124) __________
>
> Questo messaggio è stato controllato dal Sistema Antivirus NOD32
> http://www.nod32.it
>
>
> <paper FAVOINO - MBT in EU strategies for biowaste.pdf>





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