+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Puna Politics (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan (/showthread.php?tid=12298)
Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan - opihikao - 07-31-2013
FYI:
Council tries to slow Big Island waste-to-energy plan
Posted: Jul 31, 2013 7:19 AM HST Updated: Jul 31, 2013 7:19 AM HST
HILO, Hawaii (AP) - The Hawaii County Council is trying to put the brakes on an aggressive plan to have a waste-to-energy plant built by 2016.
The council, meeting as the Environmental Management Committee, last week approved a resolution "strongly urging" Mayor Billy Kenoi to consider all alternatives.
Kenoi wants a plant "on the ground" before he leaves office in late 2016. He tells the Hawaii Tribune-Herald that it is an aggressive timeline, but he's confident it can be met.
The county hasn't yet advertised for bids for the project, with the Environmental Management Commission scheduled to get an update Wednesday.
The resolution passed last week urged Kenoi to not limit the county to waste-to-energy options, but also to consider alternatives with an emphasis on composting and mulching.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22979739/council-tries-to-slow-waste-to-energy-plan?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HawaiiNewsNow-News+%28Hawaii+News+Now+-+News%29
RE: Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan - kalakoa - 07-31-2013
I wonder how much if this is purely political posturing, as in "keep Kenoi from having a win".
Using recycled material as feedstock for light manufacturing would probably be more useful. GIven that the taxes/minimum wage/etc make it unprofitable, I'm somewhat confused as to how/why shipping trash off-island (or burning it in a WTE plant) can actually be "worth it" for the investors.
RE: Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan - steve1 - 07-31-2013
I guess I see it differently. Last time wasn't it Harry Kim who wanted to burn trash? If I recall correctly it was VERY UNPOPULAR WITH THE RESIDENTS OF HAWAI"I particularly people who were concerned about breathing toxic waste. The science is in and breathing burned waste is bad for your health.
Given how fast this proposal was suggested I would suggest looking at Billy's campaign contributors to find why he wants to push this thing through. He spent a lot of money in the last election and most of that money was not donated by people who live here. It is probably not as simple to find as a huge check from waste management inc, but if someone digs a little deeper they will probably find individual donors from somewhere else or some shell of a coalition that is looking for a return on their (campaign contribution)investment.
RE: Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan - dragon2k - 08-01-2013
Bottom line is this thing is an incinerator. Secondly, we do not produce enough waste to keep this thing running full time so they want to run green waste in it! This is a sick joke from Kenoi. I hope the anti-geothermal people get wind of this and decide to get involved!
RE: Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan - Rob Tucker - 08-01-2013
When Harry Kim proposed this it was going to cost the taxpayers something like $125 million. Dominic Yagong has a proposal where it would cost the taxpayers nothing. The WTE people would pay the county. Somehow I suspect Kenoi will be back with the $125 million price tag or more. Watch your wallets.
RE: Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan - pahoated - 08-01-2013
Bottom line is this doesn't necessarily mean incinerator.
Incinerate means to burn, that means to combust with oxygen.
A plasma WTE converter does not burn anything.
http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Process-Flowchart-Commercial-Jan2013-900px.jpg
A main airtight chamber separates solids from liquids and gases, the liquids and gases are converted to plasma and allowed to condense as syngas and recycled products. The syngas produces enough electricity to power the gasification process and provide much more to the grid.
The short sighted immediately overreact to the investment cost. They are totally ignorant of the fact the WTE plant pays for itself very quickly, at which point, there is a substantial income to the county until the landfill is empty of fuel stock. Whether that is 10 years or 20 or 30, once the plant has been paid off and has generated income, then the profits aren't maximized but it doesn't mean the plant comes to a complete halt and dies. Some of the anti-"reasonings" being used by council members and the usual anti-science group in Puna are just ignorant and absurd.
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"
RE: Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan - kalakoa - 08-01-2013
What I want to know is: once the WTE plant "pays for itself very quickly", will the taxpayers be any better off for their investment?
I'm thinking beyond the landfill issue, specifically: any power generation will be sold to HELCO. If priced by ACC, the budget windfall should result in lower taxes. If priced by "operating cost", the lower costs should result in a HELCO rate cut. (I doubt either of these is likely.)
Who will pay the $125M to build it? Remember that Kenoi's $56M "construction bond" is costing about $4M/year in debt service...
RE: Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan - Opihikaobob - 08-01-2013
Gasification, Pyrolysis & Plasma
Incineration
What are waste gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma treatment/disposal technologies?
Gasification, pyrolysis and plasma technologies heat waste materials to high temperatures, creating gas, solid and
liquid residues. The gases are then combusted, releasing hazardous pollutants. These technologies are considered
“incineration” by the European Union, and are being considered in the U.S. for medical, municipal and hazardous
wastes, which could reverse decades of progress in pollution prevention, waste prevention, and recycling. Other
forms of municipal solid waste incineration (mass burn and refuse-derived-fuel) are no longer being built in the U.S.
Releasing Toxics: The same toxic byproducts can be released from these
incinerators as from other incinerators, including dioxins and furans, mercury and
other heavy metals, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, sulfur
dioxide, and more, as well as toxic contaminants in the char or ash residues, and
contaminated waste water. Many of these pollutants are carcinogenic and threaten
public health even at very low levels. Recent tests from municipal solid waste
(MSW) in a test pyrolysis facility in southern California found more dioxin, VOCs,
NOx, and particulate emissions than existing mass burn incinerators in the region.
Read case studies of
gasification, pyrolysis and
plasma incineration that
illustrate concerns about
emissions, energy and
expense at
www.no-burn.org and
READ MORE HERE PDF:http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Gasification,%20Pyrolysis,%20and%20Plasma%20Incineration.pdf
ZERO WASTE
Escape the “bury or burn” trap. Please join us in moving towards Zero Waste.
Through implementing zero waste practices both upstream (including reducing consumption, product redesign,
clean industrial production and processes, reducing packaging waste, encouraging refillable containers, and
toxics use reduction) and downstream (including reuse, composting, recycling, and materials recovery), many
countries, cities and businesses are making significant progress towards zero waste.
Proven approaches that work: prevent waste and increase recycling and composting
• Zero Waste creates jobs and is good for the economy. For example, U.S. recycling and reuse
establishments employ 1.1 million people and gross $236 billion in annual revenues. Designing more
recyclable, reusable and repairable products means more jobs for a vital industry.
• Zero Waste saves natural resources by reducing consumption and making new items from recycled
materials. Ruining materials through thermal and combustion processes means more materials need to be
extracted from the earth to replace those resources.
• Zero Waste conserves energy through reducing demand for extraction and processing of raw materials,
which is energy intensive. EPA analysis shows that recycling is more energy efficient than combustion.
For more information about zero waste approaches:
GrassRoots Recycling Network, www.grrn.org Clean Production Action, www.cleanproduction.org
Institute for Local Self-Reliance, www.ilsr.org Eco-Cycle, www.ecocycle.org
RE: Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan - dragon2k - 08-01-2013
We
Pahoated - please corretc me if I am wrong but it seems like this plasma conversion process would create some sort of emission? Or is this truly a closed loop system with zero pollution?
RE: Council Tries to Slow Waste to Energy Plan - pahoated - 08-01-2013
ACC was a last minute requirement imposed by Linda Lingle as she left office. Without getting into the complex minutiae of ACC, it was removed as a requirement by the legislature just before the negotiation of the additional 8MW from PGV. Those 8MW are non-ACC, so they are being delivered at about 10 cents per kw-hr -- to somebody, and that is the big question. All energy source contracts since then have been non-ACC. The alternative energy contracts are negotiated at basically industry rates for the associated type of power. Solar PV doesn't reduce the standard rate much because the non-subsidized rate is about 36 cents per kw-hr. The new geothermal plant will be non-ACC, so they will be sourcing around 10 cents per kw-hr. The Oahu electric rate is 25% less than Hawaii island because of lower rate cost energy sources. Part of the reason for that is HPOWER WTE is an income producer for the county. But HPOWER is an incinerator, although a very clean one.
The plasma WTE is a closed loop but the syngas it produces is used external to the plant to heat steam turbines to turn electric generators. No burning is best but this burning is very clean. This is where the payback happens. The excess syngas is sold as an energy product, the syngas produced electricity gets a feed-in rate about 20 cents per kw-hr, reducing the standard rate as well as providing income to the county, and another baseload power source. The county has to stop being so obsessed with the building cost. Just design it to the rate of the feedstock, determine how much power that generates, then calculate for the year's kilowatt-hours produced, multiply that by the feed-in rate, showing roughly the payback per year. So, for a 60MW plant:
24 hrs/day * 365 days/year = 8760 hours
60,000,000 watts * 8760 hours = 525600000000 watt-hours or 525,600,000 kw-hrs
Then @ 20 cents per kw-hr feed-in rate times 525,600,000 kw-hr equals $105,120,000 income per year to the county. This pays off a large scale WTE plant in a few years.
The amount of feedstock never goes to zero because it is rubbish and rubbish always keeps coming in. It is the rate at which it comes in. It may be the rate is too low for a 60MW plant but it might be steady for a 20MW plant. Recalculating for that still shows the plant being paid off in a few years. From there, the feed-in income is almost all profit to the county because it is using an essentially free feedstock. What the county would do with the money is up to them.
"This island Hawaii on this island Earth"