Browse
Search
SWAB minutes 050307
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Solid Waste Advisory Group
>
Minutes
>
2007
>
SWAB minutes 050307
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2019 4:28:29 PM
Creation date
1/14/2019 4:00:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/3/2007
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Minutes - Regular Meeting <br /> Solid Waste Advisory Board <br /> May 3, 2007 <br /> Approved June 7, 2007 <br /> Pollock states that it' s not clear . They may need to re-revisit that. Another problem is <br /> that there would need to be a dedicated gas pipeline because the gas utility won' t <br /> allow landfill gas into their pipeline because they can ' t be sure of its purity . The cost <br /> of a dedicated pipeline is very high . We are below the EPA' s regulatory threshold [for <br /> the landfill] but we' re still trying to deal with the methane . <br /> Bowerman asks if there is some way to lower the cost by getting it partly subsidized <br /> by some engineering class at a school? There must be some opportunity for a <br /> teaching project? <br /> Pollock asks which part do you see the cost being pushed down - the installation or <br /> the engineering? <br /> Bowerman replies that there might be something like free labor . <br /> Pollock states that if a private investor were to come in then they would benefit from <br /> the landfill gas tax credit. The economics look so marginal without a guaranteed use <br /> of the heat they haven' t been able to entice someone in . The particular problem is that <br /> methane is 23 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas . Even flaring the <br /> methane to make it into CO2 would be a better solution, even though it' s a poor <br /> second . <br /> Vickers notes that no collection system is required . <br /> Smith states that it would be a good place for greenhouses there . <br /> Pollock states that the only problem with greenhouses is that they only have a heat <br /> load of four or five months a year . <br /> Norwood asks if there are figures when you talk about having to vent the methane <br /> into the air . Are there figures on how much you can do that? The greenhouse effect <br /> of the methane and the vehicle emissions in the area could make the local atmosphere <br /> dangerous ? <br /> Pollock states that they have not set those emissions limits yet. The big immediate <br /> problem is migration of methane underground to the nearest crawl space . The danger <br /> of explosion is reduced, but the methane does reach the atmosphere sooner causing <br /> more greenhouse gas build up . There will be a whole series of vents with pipes like <br /> on the north side so there would be one vent per acre or 26 stacks or a collection <br /> system if we can collect it. On the north side there are 45 stacks and we monitor <br /> methane monthly and methane production is just peaking now . We capped it in 1995 . <br /> Vickers notes that even after all the analysis there is no economically viable project. <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.