Posts: 26
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2008
First of all, great forum last night. I went in knowing little of the candidates, and feel I have a much better understanding where they stand regarding some very crucial positions.
One of the topics in particular that caught my attention was that of the Hilo landfill. It is set to be closed in 3 years, and the county has NO plan in place to deal with the trash after that.
You can read about it here:
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/arti...ocal01.txt
Anyway, it was interesting to hear Angel talk about he supports the waste-to-energy plan, when in fact he was the deciding vote (5-4) in the council's decision to reject the mayor's plan. He stated his reason as, "the proposal from Wheelabrator had no provision to bring down the existing landfill."
Higa supports waste to energy, and voted for the Wheelabrator plan.
Inouye just wants to look at more options.
Kenoi thinks a combination of recycling and looking at more options is what's necessary.
I personally think something needs to be done NOW, rather than spending more time and money figuring out what other options are out there. I really like Higa's stand on the issue, and found Angels somewhat troubling. If he really is for waste-to-energy, isn't it better to do something about the problem than nothing?
If we don't act soon, we'll be barging our trash and that precious plastic bag ban will mean NOTHING.
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
Something is being done.
During the 2 weeks from Sep 6 to 20, a team of people experienced in working with communities across the US, Europe, and Asia to recycle and get on the path to Zero Waste will be on the island.
The first week the team will be on the West side and the second week the East side. Each week they will work for one day with each of these groups of people in the community: organics (greenwaste, dirty paper, food discards, etc); re-use (building materials, clothing, etc); recycling (paper, metal, plastic, etc); special discards (e.g., batteries, diapers, florescent bulbs); and community education (with County officials, school administrators, community groups).
The goal is to kick start a Zero Waste plan and action.
This project is being funded from Bob Jacobson's District discretionary fund.
Recycle Hawaii is the local coordinating group.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Posts: 39
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
quote:
Originally posted by mattastic78
...I personally think something needs to be done NOW, rather than spending more time and money figuring out what other options are out there. I really like Higa's stand on the issue, and found Angels somewhat troubling. If he really is for waste-to-energy, isn't it better to do something about the problem than nothing?
If we don't act soon, we'll be barging our trash and that precious plastic bag ban will mean NOTHING.
I agree with you 100%. No, make that 110%. Having said that, 125 million bucks for a plant is nuts.
As for Palago's position, if he's worried about the present dump I don't understand how doing nothing makes it better.
Posts: 26
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2008
From the Sierra Clubs website:
"Phasing out landfilling and incinerating discarded resources is prerequisite to Zero Waste; hence the committee also coordinates Club work on waste disposal issues."
http://www.sierraclub.org/committees/zerowaste/
So we're going to pay more people to come to the island to tell us what we already know? We need to phase out our landfill and we need to start burning our non-recycleable/re-useable waste.
Don't get me wrong, Zero Waste is a noble goal, and should be an integral part of our waste management solution. But incineration is also an integral part of that same solution.
Futher, what is done with all the Home Depot/Walmart/Target/Grocery store packaging? Do people just stop shopping at these stores (will the council and mayor BAN shopping at Wal-mart)? Are the stores required (in 3 years or less) to provide only recycleable packaging for products?
Like with any problem society faces today, there is simply not just one eacy cookie-cutter solution that will solve it. We need to have a multi-faceted approach to problem-solving. Waste-to-energy should definitely be a part of it, especially given that HELCO just signed a PPA to buy power from a plant that intends to burn wood chips for power. Why not garbage?
http://starbulletin.com/2007/08/07/news/story03.html
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
Rather than just saying "should"...
Try this: have a look at the facts about the percentage of the various materials that we call 'trash' -- major items are plastic, paper, glass, cardboard, food, metals, 'greenwaste', treated wood, untreated wood, cement, textiles, batteries...and more.
Plastic, paper, glass, cardboard, metals are all bringing a premium rice on the global market for recycling. The Zero Waste team will be working with local folks to identify and service those markets.
Food and 'greenwaste', as well as some 'dirty paper' and textiles are compostable at a lot less cost than bury or burn.
Again, the market for compost is quite good. Like many opportunities, it takes some organizing on-the-ground and that is what the Zero Waste team has a proven track record of doing.
Building materials -- treated and untreated wood, glass, vinyl, hollow blocks -- are referred to as "C&D" ...construction and demolition. Again, where the markets get organized, there is a booming re-use business by local entrepreneurs.
The above three groups -- "recyclables", "organics", "C&D" -- constitute over 75% of what now goes into the landfill.
None of the remaining 25% is combustible -- chemicals, heavy metals, and wet mixed materials are especially prevelant in this 25%.
More than half of the recyclables and organics are not combustible -- think: moisture, metal, masonry.
So, once market-driven re-use, recycling, and composting are established, there is not enough fuel to economically operate an incinerator.
If you do not believe me, then do the research. I have, and if that is needed, can post lots here -- but not sure Rob wants that ...?
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Posts: 26
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2008
quote:
Originally posted by james weatherford
So, once market-driven re-use, recycling, and composting are established, there is not enough fuel to economically operate an incinerator.
If you do not believe me, then do the research. I have, and if that is needed, can post lots here -- but not sure Rob wants that ...?
Right, I guess this post was more of a way to compare the candidates than to argue about what ways to best handle our solid waste crisis.
We now know my educated educated position, we now know your educated position, and we now know the candidates' (hopefully) eductated positions (which was my intent).
But can we at least agree that to think we can be zero waste by the time the landfill is capped is a mighty lofty assumption. There needs to be an interim solution (other than trucking or barging).
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
Trucking.
Barging.
Burning.
Burying.
When the Hilo landfill closes, we will not be able to bury in Hilo.
The date of that closure will be determined by how much is going in.
The sooner we put less in, the longer the Hilo landfill stays open.
Within less than 2 years we can reduce by 50% what is going into the Hilo landfill and the Kona landfill and that will make both remain open longer.
Burning is not an 'interim' measure.
Burning does not preclude trucking and burying -- about 25% by weight of what now goes into the landfill cannot be burned and must be buried. About 30% by weight of what would be burned would be ash that must be buried (about 15% of what now goes into the Hilo landfill would have been trucked and buried in Kona under the Wheelabrator proposal).
So, about 40% of what now goes into the Hilo landfill, if not re-used, recycled, or composted would need to be buried -- and that means also trucking if the Hilo landfill is closed.
Barging. Costs are prohibitive and not changing soon.
The closest thing we have to an 'interim' measure is getting serious about reducing, re-using, recycling. This simply has not been done prior to the upcoming Zero Waste project. More, faster, and lower cost gains can be made this way than any other.
Zero Waste is a goal -- not a magic number.
...look at ecocycle.org, zerowaste.co.nz, zerowaste.org
Most importantly, this is about a positive attitude.
Zero Waste. Can Do!
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
Posts: 26
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2008
I do hope we can achieve zero waste.
You say we can reduce our waste by 50% in 2 years through the zero waste effort.
Assuming we produce 300 tons a day, that leaves 150 tons a day in 2 years.
According to your numbers, 75% (or 113 tons/day)of that can be burned.
That would generate 34 tons of reusable ash per day. (about 3 concrete trucks full)
So, a combined effort of zero waste and incineration reduces our total waste from 300 tons/day to 38 tons/day, with an additional 3 concrete trucks full of reusable ash per day.
~90% reduction in 2 years with a combined method approach... sounds good to me [  ]
Posts: 39
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2008
Well, here's a thought or two I'll probably get hammered on, but what the heck.
The first is an observation that, at least the Hilo side of this island, needs more mulch like the ocean needs more water.
The second is that when "Green Waste" decomposes it releases mostly Carbon Monoxide (CO), a really serious Green House Gas, whereas if it is burned in a controlled manner it will emit mostly Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Yes, CO2 is also a Green House Gas, but it's about 1/12 as damaging as CO.
If we burn Green Waste and make electricity with it we displace oil that we would otherwise burn to make the same electricity.
So, assuming we need to make electricity, these are the options:
Don't burn Green Waste and we get one unit of CO released into the environment from the Green Waste decomposing and one unit of CO2 released from the combustion of oil used to make the electricity.
Do burn Green Waste and we get one unit of CO2 released from burning Green Waste and no CO or CO2 from burning oil to make the same amount of electricity. AND, the CO2 we do emit from the controlled combustion of Green Waste is a small fraction as damaging as the CO tat is released by mulching it instead.
The bottom line is this, as long as we are burning any oil it is a no-brainer that we should displace as much of that oil as possible by burning Green Waste in its place.
Of course burning Green Waste to make electricity doesn't fit the popular definition of "recycling" so sadly, some folks get apoplectic at the suggestion of burning Green Waste instead of mulching it.
Posts: 1,779
Threads: 73
Joined: Aug 2006
quote:
Originally posted by mattastic78
I do hope we can achieve zero waste.
You say we can reduce our waste by 50% in 2 years through the zero waste effort.
Assuming we produce 300 tons a day, that leaves 150 tons a day in 2 years.
According to your numbers, 75% (or 113 tons/day)of that can be burned.
That would generate 34 tons of reusable ash per day. (about 3 concrete trucks full)
So, a combined effort of zero waste and incineration reduces our total waste from 300 tons/day to 38 tons/day, with an additional 3 concrete trucks full of reusable ash per day.
~90% reduction in 2 years with a combined method approach... sounds good to me []
No.
It takes at least 3 to 5 years to permit and build an incinerator.
Have you figured on that?
Also, you ignore that the market value of recycled plastic and paper is higher than for burning it.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park
|
