SWAB minutes 080708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes - Regular Meeting Solid Waste Advisory Board August 7, 2008 Approved September 4, 2008 Bowerman asks how does the breakdown compare to the rest of the world . Is it similar? Do they prefer the Mass Burn? Gershman states that there is a RDF dedicated boiler plant being developed in Scotland . Generally we don' t hear about processing . Mass Burn is generally what' s done . Pollock states that when waste energy was being developed the notion explored by the Solid Waste Committee here in Orange County was towards developing a high- BTU fuel where the non-combustibles are removed to make a high quality fuel . Has that gone anywhere ? Gershman states that no one has latched on to that. There was a plant in Bridgeport (CT) that tried make a powder fuel . It didn' t work . It was too expensive . They had some explosions . If there are coal-burning plants, you can make a fuel that can go into that coal-burning plant from garbage . In some furnaces you can put a lot of RDF but you' d have to change how ash is handled . The utilities didn t like the fuel as it had too much glass, so that opening was lost. Sassaman asks how much residual is there in the RDF processing . Gershman states that what goes into a RDF plant is the same as a Mass Burn plant. You will end up with more residue from a RDF plant, but some of the residue isn' t idue has seen the heat. Typically 25 % to 30 % burned . In a Mass Burn plant all the res in is residue . Metals are 3 -4 % that can be recoverd, the rest you have to of what goes get rid of. A good front end processing could get out more recyclables, you' d have less fuel coming out, but more recycling on the front end . In mass burn you don' t have that opportunity . Wilson asks how do you answer the question if there is a waste-to - energy plant why would you waste time and trouble to take out the plastic and paper because that will give the BTUs and increase your electricity generation . There is probably an environmental answer and an economical answer . Gershman states that the environmental answer is you want to recycle for greenhouse gas reduction, and jobs . The economic argument is much stronger this year because markets are so strong . That may change on an island where imported fuel is so expensive . Why would one ship paper to China while importing expensive fuel oil . It is better not to have to make a plastic bottle again. Plastics are a waste product that someone found a use for . It' s better to reuse this --- greenhouse gases, jobs, and economics . 3