Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br /> Comprehensive Review of <br /> S olid W aste Collection and Disposal Options <br /> <br /> <br />v2.1 154 10/22/12 <br />12.0 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLO GIES – TOWN OF <br />CHAPEL HILL BENCHMAR K <br />The objective of this task was to review the Town and regional solid waste systems and known <br />waste-to-energy (WTE) and waste conversion (WC) technologies to establish a long-term <br />strategy and benchmark system requirements necessary to engage identified feasible <br />technologies. This section of the report identifies key system and technology metrics by which <br />the Town may best position itself to take full advantage of WTE and WC technologies as they <br />may emerge. <br />During the course of our study, SCS relied on recent information and data collected by Orange <br />County, North Carolina in its solid waste master plan19, an alternative energy analysis conducted <br />by the University of North Carolina20, and a recent summary report of waste conversion <br />technologies by the Applied Research Foundation of the Solid Waste Association of North <br />America21. In addition, SCS has been monitoring the progress of WTE and WC technologies <br />over the past few years through a series of presentations, trade journal articles, and books22. <br />Thus, much of the initial discussion in this section is briefly focused on background, history, and <br />the current status of these technologies. This is then followed by a benchmarking of the Town <br />against the current status of these technologies and recent developments. <br />12.1 REASONS TO SELECT A WTE OR WC TECHNOLOGY <br />One of the first questions the Town must answer is what technology will be chosen to convert its <br />solid waste into energy. This includes consideration of factors (which will be discussed later) <br />such as: available energy and materials markets; the size of the Town’s waste flow; site <br />availability and location; capital and operating costs; ownership and financing considerations; <br />and the level of risk to be assumed by the Town or the facility operator. <br />In evaluating whether or not one technology better suits its needs than another, the Town may <br />often discover conflicting goals and values within both the community and within the target <br />WTE/WC project. For example: <br /> A particular technology may produce the greatest amount of energy for the Town’s <br />waste, albeit at high projected capital and operating costs. <br /> Engaging in WTE or WC technology may impact historical success in other recycling <br />or waste diversion practices (i.e., directing organics from a composting operation to a <br />digester technology). <br /> <br />19 GBB, Alternative Waste Processing Technologies Assessment, August, 2008. <br />20 Affiliated Engineers, Alternative Energy Analysis, July 2010. <br />21 Applied Research Foundation, Solid Waste Association of North America, Waste Conversion Technologies, <br />December 2011. <br />22 Marc J. Rogoff and Francois Screve, Waste-to-Energy Technologies and Project Implementation, Elsevier, June <br />2011; Marc J. Rogoff, Bruce Clark and Amanda Moore, “Solid Waste Déjà vu: Waste-to-Energy Plant Technologies <br />Break New Ground”, APWA Reporter, March 2009.