Browse
Search
SWAB minutes 080708
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Solid Waste Advisory Group
>
Minutes
>
2008
>
SWAB minutes 080708
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2019 4:29:57 PM
Creation date
1/14/2019 4:10:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/7/2008
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 /> August 7, 2008 <br /> Approved September 4, 2008 <br /> recyclables you might pull out of the waste stream . The plant can last ' forever' . There <br /> is no reason it can' t be here a 100 years from now . <br /> Tipton states that if a cogeneration facility was looking for another non-coal piece of <br /> fuel source and the County wanted to make that fuel source, I know there is a cost to <br /> make it and to retrofit [the power plant] . Are you saying don' t go there ? <br /> Gershman clarifies that this is UNC' s congeneration plant we' re discussing . If you <br /> want to bring a fuel you have a cost to make the fuel of maybe $ 60 to $ 90 per ton then <br /> what is the value of the fuel against good quality coal (1 % of less sulfur coal) ? That <br /> needs a lot of careful analysis to do . We' re not doing that analysis here . <br /> Wilson notes that this was discussed in the early nineties when they were retrofitting <br /> their boilers and they weren' t interested then . <br /> Tipton states that the times are changing and they are considering alternatives fuels <br /> again. <br /> Gershman says one would need an economic incentive, for example on the fuel in <br /> BTU equivalent, and to pay for the retrofits . Further, question is can you combine the <br /> garbage ash with the coal ash and continue to send it to its current destination . <br /> You can manage the garbage at the coal plant on a relatively small footprint. It would <br /> be a challenge . Garbage is a low sulfur fuel . These plants are clean on the air <br /> emissions side . They' re all meeting the current air quality standards except for NOx <br /> where they are close to the permit limits . In fly ash they are over metal limits . <br /> Vickers asks if the facilities that are having trouble with NOx are in non-attainment <br /> areas . <br /> Gershman states that that' s where the pressure is . They want an across the board <br /> reduction in NOx and you cant really do it. He details a technical discussion of the issue <br /> and indicates that one must inject ammonia into the system to do that . Then discusses <br /> modular systems, there are tzvo manufacturers and an engineering firm that designs and <br /> licenses these plants . They have only one plant at 125 tons per day and that is a starved. <br /> air facility . He goes into detail on these plants . <br /> Gershman then discusses thermal gasification - Pyrolysis . You heat the matter <br /> without air and the matter gasifies and you get incomplete combustion, then you <br /> incinerate the gas in a boiler . <br /> Pollock asks could you make gas, clean it up, and sell it into the pipeline and avoid a <br /> lot of the capital cost. <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.