Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Minutes - Regular Meeting <br /> Solid Waste Advisory Board <br /> March 5, 2009 <br /> Approved April 2, 2009 <br /> Energy Answers who has helped educate us and provided us with some documents . <br /> Greg Peverall and Chip Dodd of Waste Management have also helped educate us . <br /> A summary of what Energy Answers has told us . The first question that we know we <br /> have after we met with the board was about UNC' s co- generation plant. In talking <br /> With Energy Answers about that they looked at the specs of the plan and they believe <br /> it is not acost- effective option to convert that plant to WtE . Their comments were <br /> based on this : It [using waste exclusively] would generate about 1/4 of the power that <br /> the facility currently generates now . The second thing they were concerned with was <br /> bringing a waste stream into the residential neighborhood would create <br /> insurmountable obstacles that we don' t think you could get past. They said if you <br /> wanted to consider an option for that plant it would be to look into technologies <br /> were emerging to turn biosolids into coal-like substances and use that as an energy <br /> source . They thought the community would be more receptive to having biosolids come in on rail cars than trash coming in on rail cars . Energy Answers has provided <br /> documents on what they call an integrated resource recovery facility . It is essentiald y <br /> an eco -industrial park WtE facility surrounded by recycling so the residual ash would <br /> go into concrete companies or building materials companies . It wouldn t have to ship <br /> the residual ash all over the country . The transfer station site in Greensboro was <br /> perfect because it had all the recyclers right there . They said these parks generally <br /> take about 20 acres, not 100 or 150 . They are designing 1000 tons per day facilitiesolo <br /> using processed refuse fuel technology, it is a proprietary version of RDF techn gy <br /> and it includes waste treatment, energy recovery and materials recovery which is the <br /> recycling of the residual ash . They are claiming this technology is cleaner than Mass <br /> Burn technology and produces less residual ash for recovery . They are working <br /> toward a goal of zero disposal . They also have experience with rail cars used for <br /> tipping and could help the county sort through options using our unique rail <br /> network . Gershman pointed out that rail is used for long distance transport of waste <br /> or ash but apparently there are unique opportunities to use our unique raid network in <br /> our community . <br /> To clarify the EPA, Energy Answers and others recommend siting this type of facility <br /> on a true highway like I40 or I.85 with water and sewer, road infrastructure on the 0 <br /> power grid and near rail . Good siting helps to keep the costs within the $100 to $20 <br /> million price range . WtE complements and possibly enhances recycling goals and all <br /> nities that have WtE have better recycling performance <br /> the statistics say that commu <br /> than communities that don' t. In addition to the RDF technology that Energy Answers <br /> uses, there is the Mass Burn technology and there is also a rash of unproven <br /> to market. Technologies from the steel industry are now being <br /> technologies coming <br /> applied to the waste to energy . <br /> North Carolina does not classify WtE as a renewable resource . It does classify poultry <br /> incineration plants that are highly polluting as a renewable resource . We believe that <br /> 9 <br />