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 /> Bowerman states that you have the cost of disposal at $50 / ton which I gather is what <br /> we are paying now, but what would we be looking for when shipping it out and <br /> shouldn ' t that be mentioned . I don' t know how much it will change . <br /> Wilson states that it won' t be able to change too much but it will go up $3 or $5 per <br /> ton, but not orders of magnitude . <br /> Bowerman asks how much control over that do we have with the gas prices . <br /> Wilson replies not much . <br /> Vickers asks what is the term of cost of transportation per ton mile that you all are <br /> using . <br /> Wilson states that it would depend on what you are comparing it to . If ten years <br /> down the road you pay $ 70 to $90 a ton it might look better . We are not going to have <br /> a MSW landfill, so there ' s not that option to compare it to . Disposal space is still <br /> relatively cheap down here so it becomes mainly the cost of transportation . Unless <br /> you' re more concerned with the carbon footprint. Looking at the carbon footprint at <br /> the macro level it may look better than hauling in a 200 mile round trip . <br /> Gershman states that there is more to compare it to than just transfer and disposal . <br /> Given where economics are with these you want to minimize what you transfer and <br /> dispose . I think you have more than you can squeeze out on the recycling side . Work <br /> on that instead of thinking about a waste energy plant. If you do it right it will help <br /> keep your cost down to transfer and dispose . <br /> Wilson states that the best thing that could happen is that Raleigh, Durham, or <br /> Greensboro decides to build a plant and we piggyback on their per ton cost. <br /> Gershman states that even then you' d have to get to it. If the University were <br /> interested in your fuel you could look at that because you are taking advantage of an <br /> existing boiler . At your tonnage this is an expensive alternative . People will say ' we <br /> can recycle more, we don' t need to have this much garbage shipped out. ' That' s my <br /> guess of the public' s reaction . <br /> In Santa Monica California the City established a 70 % goal on MSW and C &D and <br /> they' ve closed the market. You must haul to a C &D recovery plant. They' re going to <br /> implement food waste diversion from the commercial stream so the remainder <br /> becomes more " MRFable " . The value of recyclables is a lot higher now, you have to <br /> be able to get into the collection side big time, closing the markets, go to mandatory . A <br /> lot of people don' t wan t to do that. <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.