Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-02-2008 - 7a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2008
>
Agenda - 09-02-2008
>
Agenda - 09-02-2008 - 7a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2013 10:24:08 AM
Creation date
9/11/2008 10:31:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/2/2008
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
7a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20080902
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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
4.3 Comparison of Technologies Chosen in Recent <br />Research/ Procurements <br />In the foregoing studies, reports and procurements, a total of 78 technology vendors <br />were represented, evaluated, screened or selected in some way for consideration as <br />waste processing solutions for the local entities. These 78 vendors offered 14 <br />different technologies. The listing of the 78 vendors is presented in Table A -1 in <br />Appendix A of this paper. Several of those technologies /vendors were mentioned <br />more than once. Table 4 -1 lists the 14 that were cited three or more times in the <br />various documents. <br />The most often cited technology was mass burn, represented by Covanta and <br />Wheelabrator, who have the most commercial experience of any of the vendors <br />listed. Second on the list is gasification firm IWT, which employs the Thermoselect <br />technology in use in Europe and Japan. Other gasification technology providers are <br />also mentioned, along with four anaerobic digestion vendors, one plasma arc firm <br />two pyrolysis providers and a thermal depolymerization firm. While this review is not <br />systematic, it does provide a good summary of the firms and technologies that are <br />most active in the field, and those that localities across the U.S have been most <br />interested in using as they contemplate alternatives to landfilling MSW. <br />Table 4 -1. Technologies /Vendors Mentioned in Recent Procurements <br />Vendor - designated <br />Technology <br />Vendor <br />Total <br />Times <br />Cited <br />Mass Burn <br />Covanta Energy Corporation <br />7 <br />Gasification <br />InterCity Waste Technologies/Thermoselect <br />I <br />6 <br />Mass Burn <br />Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. <br />5 <br />Anaerobic Digestion <br />Valorga S.A.S. (Valorga) /Waste Recovery <br />S stems <br />4 <br />Anaerobic Digestion <br />Waste Recovery Seattle Inc. WRSI <br />4 <br />Anaerobic Digestion <br />Arrow Ecology and Engineering <br />3 <br />Anaerobic Digestion <br />Urbaser <br />3 <br />Gasification <br />Ebara <br />3 <br />Gasification <br />Taylor Recyclinq Facility <br />3 <br />Gasification <br />Whitten Group /Entech Renewable Energy <br />S stem <br />3 <br />Plasma Gasification <br />Global Energy Solutions <br />3 <br />Pyrolysis <br />Pan American Resources <br />3 <br />Pyrolysis <br />International Environmental Solutions <br />3 <br />Thermal De of merization <br />Changing World Technologies <br />3 <br />GBB /C08027 -01 22 August 15, 2008 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.