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
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.
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?
At 04:32 PM 1/24/2008, Eric Lombardi wrote:
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.
From: "Alan Muller" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent 1/24/2008 3:31:02 PM
To: "Eric Lombardi" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org,
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
Subject: Re: [GreenYes] RE: [ZWIA] Re: LA Zero Waste pans
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
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:
- 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
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?
5030 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO. 80301
Vote for Eco-Cycle, Help us win
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!
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [
mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Helen
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:24 AM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
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.
At 08:44 AM 1/24/2008, firstname.lastname@example.org 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
"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,
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
Gary Liss & Associates