New Garbage Incinerator for BI

[Commentary]

Commentary wrote:

© 2009 Georgia Institute of Technology
Gasification
Affiliated Faculty & Researchers
William S. Bulpitt
Ronald W. Rousseau
Rather than burning coal or biomass directly, gasification breaks down resources such as coal or wood into basic chemical components. Researchers at Georgia Tech are exploring the implications for future energy production using gasification because of its potential to burn hotter and cleaner than conventional resources, providing more efficient and environmentally friendly forms of energy production.

EXPLORING and RESEARCHING

[Commentary]

http://www.energy.gatech.edu/research/profile...

[Commentary]

Blue Island (zip 60406), IL Health Index
Air quality in Blue Island (zip 60406), IL is 1 on a scale to 100 (higher is better). This is based on ozone alert days and number of pollutants in the air, as reported by the EPA.

Water quality in Blue Island (zip 60406), IL is 31 on a scale to 100 (higher is better). The EPA has a complex method of measuring watershed quality using 15 indicators.

Superfund index is 10 on a scale to 100 (higher is better). This is based upon the number and impact of EPA Superfund pollution sites in the county, including spending on the cleanup efforts.

[Commentary]

With EPA scores like these:

Blue Island (zip 60406), IL Health Index
Air quality in Blue Island (zip 60406), IL is 1 on a scale to 100 (higher is better). This is based on ozone alert days and number of pollutants in the air, as reported by the EPA.

Water quality in Blue Island (zip 60406), IL is 31 on a scale to 100 (higher is better). The EPA has a complex method of measuring watershed quality using 15 indicators.

Superfund index is 10 on a scale to 100 (higher is better). This is based upon the number and impact of EPA Superfund pollution sites in the county, including spending on the cleanup efforts.

what ARE they thinking at city hall?

[Blue Island]

Peloquin said the start-up cost for the plant would be about $450 million and would be funded by a bond issue.

Unfortunately; bonds are extremely difficult for cities to get in this economic down turn and that is good for Blue Island most particularly due to to Peloquin's amount that increased by $50 million in only a few weeks.

Now; is a good time to think twice about paying your water bill; which will slow down the cash flow and really holding city hall's feet to the fire.

[CASA]

Blue Island what makes you think that will work? All that is going too happen is that your water get's turned off. If you have children or the elderly, that creates a hardship on them. They have no fault here. Want to think outside of the box this time? Nest week is the City Council meeting. How about showing up and telling the MAYOR WHAT YOU THINK.

[Commentary]

The EPA air quality site for Blue Island is located at Eisenhower High School.

Read the reverse side of your water bill there is a 10% charge for late payment.

[Commentary]

CASA wrote:

Blue Island what makes you think that will work? All that is going too happen is that your water get's turned off. If you have children or the elderly, that creates a hardship on them. They have no fault here. Want to think outside of the box this time? Nest week is the City Council meeting. How about showing up and telling the MAYOR WHAT YOU THINK.

The EPA air quality site for Blue Island IS located at
Eisenhower High School.

READ the REVERSE side of your WATER BILL there IS a 10% charge for a late payment. Water is NOT turned OFF for late payments of a month or two.

Residents CAN TURN OFF the CASH FLOW by turning off payments and reducing water consumption!

[Carol]

From: Can We Turn Garbage Into Energy? The pros and cons of plasma incineration. By Brendan I. Koerner, Slate Magazine Updated Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2008, at 8:05 AM ET So, why doesn't every hamlet in America do away with its landfills and build one of these wondrous plants? The plasma gasification industry claims it's mostly a matter of economics: Burying garbage has long been a lot cheaper than zapping it, even if you factor in the money to be made selling electricity. Landfills charge municipalities an average of $35 per ton of trash; according to a recent study in Hamilton, Ont., dropping off a ton of garbage at a plasma gasification plant would run $172 per ton.
Given how little we know about plasma gasification's environmental impact at this point, caution is advised. While the process certainly holds promise, beware of any company that touts it as a zero-emissions miracle that will quickly pay for itself. And no matter how many millions any town pours into plasma, it's not going to change the fact that we should focus first on reducing waste, rather than figuring out ways to perpetuate the more reckless aspects of our consumption.

[Carol]

SCS EngineersInternational Environmental Engineering Consultants and Contractors Specializing in Solid Waste, Landfill, and Environmental Services.
Findings and Recommendations
• Plasma Arc Appears to Be Viable
Technology For Waste Conversion
• But Technology Still in Testing Mode
• Issues Not Yet Addressed Beyond the
Hype:
– Can It Reliably Process Solid Waste 24/7/365?
– Can Scale Up Issues Be Overcome?
– What Are Its Operating Costs?

Recommendation
– Wait Till More Definitive Data Is Available

[Carol]

Waste Age Magazine “Out of Gas”
Feb 1, 2009 12:00 PM, By Chris Carlson

Sacramento rejects plan for plasma arc gasification facility. In January, the Sacramento, Calif., City Council unanimously rejected a proposal for a $200 million plasma arc gasification facility.

[Carol]

SCS EngineersInternational Environmental Engineering Consultants and Contractors Specializing in Solid Waste, Landfill, and Environmental Services.
Findings and Recommendations
• Plasma Arc Appears to Be Viable
Technology For Waste Conversion
• But Technology Still in Testing Mode
• Issues Not Yet Addressed Beyond the
Hype:
– Can It Reliably Process Solid Waste 24/7/365?
– Can Scale Up Issues Be Overcome?
– What Are Its Operating Costs?

Recommendation
– Wait Till More Definitive Data Is Available

[Carol]

Waste Age Magazine “Out of Gas”
Feb 1, 2009 12:00 PM, By Chris Carlson

Sacramento rejects plan for plasma arc gasification facility. In January, the Sacramento, Calif., City Council unanimously rejected a proposal for a $200 million plasma arc gasification facility.

[Carol]

Burying garbage has long been a lot cheaper than zapping it, even if you factor in the money to be made selling electricity. Landfills charge municipalities an average of $35 per ton of trash; according to a recent study in Hamilton, Ont., dropping off a ton of garbage at a plasma gasification plant would run $172 per ton.

Using those figures it would cost-$137.00 more per ton to Zap it!

What do Florida and Calif. know that Blue Island may not have figured out yet?

Could it be to Zap it Costs More Money?

Or was it the Two hundred million dollars?

[Carol]

FINAL REPORT Prepared by R. W. BECK, INC.
The developer of a Municipal Solid Waste-plasma facility will face two kinds of risks. The first risk is the construction risk which includes the cost of designing, permitting, constructing, and testing the facility. Some of the construction risk can be mitigated through performance guarantees, equipment warranties, and insurance instruments. The second risk is the waste-disposal risk. Who will pay for the disposal of MSW at alternative sites, if the facility doesn’t work? And if the facility cannot be fixed, who will pay for the City’s lost opportunity to establish a workable disposal facility? The allocation of these risks will be a critical factor in the financing of a MSW-plasma facility. Although any plasma facility can be designed to recover energy, not all these facilities actually do so. The economics of power generation are site-specific. Of the two MSW plasma facilities currently operating in Japan, one recovers energy and one does not. When using ASR (automobile shredder residue) as a feedstock, the EcoValley facility produces approximately 7900 Kw gross and consumes 3800 Kw to operate, resulting in a net positive output of 4100 Kw. Because plasma facilities, such as the Yoshii MSW-plasma facility, are relatively small, the cost of installing and operating an energy recovery unit cannot be justified. Why aren’t there more plasma arc facilities disposing of solid waste? A: Plasma facilities consume significant amounts of energy to achieve their high (3000oC) reactor temperatures. This makes them costly to operate. According to proponents, plasma technology makes the most sense in places where landfill costs are very high and environmental regulations are strict, such as Japan, or where the government provides some type of financial support.
Does a plasma facility eliminate the need for a landfill? A: No. Even if the vitrified slag is used for construction or some other beneficial purpose, a plasma facility will produce residue from its scrubber or baghouse. The Volatile metals, such as mercury, lead, zinc, and cadmium, will vaporize in a plasma reactor; will not be melted into the slag, and have to be captured elsewhere in the system. While the amounts of residue may be relatively small, it will still be necessary to landfill some residue.

[Carol]

10 Reasons Why Gasification, Pyrolysis & Plasma Incineration are Not “Green Solutions”
Reason #1: When compared to conventional mass burn incinerators, staged incinerators emit comparable levels of toxic emissions. Reason #2: Emissions limits for incinerators (including mass burn, gasification, pyrolysis and plasma incineration) don’t ensure safety. Also, emissions from incinerators are not measured sufficiently and thus overall emissions levels reported can be misleading. In addition, emission limits are not always adequately enforced. Reason #3: Gasification, pyrolysis and plasma incinerators have a dismal track-record plagued by malfunctions, explosions and shut-downs. Reason #4: Staged incineration is not compatible with recycling; gasification, pyrolysis and plasma incinerators compete for the same financing and materials as recycling programs. Incineration also undermines efforts to minimize the production of toxic and unrecyclable materials. Reason #5: Staged incinerators are often even more expensive and financially risky than mass burn incinerators.
Reason #6: Incinerators inefficiently capture a small amount of energy by destroying diminishing resources. Gasification, pyrolysis and plasma incinerators are even less efficient at generating electricity than mass burn incinerators.
Reason #7: Incinerating discarded materials depletes resources and in many cases permanently damages the natural environment.
Reason #8: Staged incineration technologies contribute to climate change, and investment in these technologies undermines truly climate-friendly solutions.
Reason #9: All types of incinerators require a large amount of capital investment, but they create relatively few jobs when compared to recycling and composting programs.
Reason #10: Wasting valuable natural resources in incinerators and landfills is avoidable and unnecessary. The vast majority of discarded resources can be reused, recycled or composted.



46 Residual materials that are too toxic or complex to recycle can and should be required to be made so that they are recyclable, built to last, and non-toxic. To do so requires a commitment to work for what is known as “Zero Waste”. Zero Waste means establishing a goal and a plan to invest in the infrastructure, workforce, and local strategies needed to eliminate our dependence on incinerators and landfills. Cities around the world, including Buenos Aires (Argentina), Canberra (Australia), Oakland (U.S.), Nova Scotia (Canada), Seattle (U.S.) and others, have already made great progress towards achieving Zero Waste.

[CASA]

I want neither a landfill or anything that is not cost effective to Blue Island. Carol didn't we just eliminate a landfill by building a Golf course on what was once one? Why even mention "garbage landfill"?

[Carol]

Staged incineration is not compatible with recycling; gasification, pyrolysis and plasma incinerators compete for the same financing and materials as recycling programs. Incineration also undermines efforts to minimize the production of toxic and unrecyclable materials.

The goal is to recycle and eliminate waste period.

[Carol]

Is the 7th ward REALLY WILLING AND
PREPARED TO EMBRACE
Plasma Arc Gasification?

[Carol]

Can We Turn Garbage Into Energy? The pros and cons of plasma incineration. By Brendan I. Koerner, Slate Magazine Updated Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2008, at 8:05 AM ET
So, why doesn't every hamlet in America do away with its landfills and build one of these wondrous plants?
The plasma gasification industry claims it's mostly a matter of economics: Burying garbage has long been a lot cheaper than zapping it, even if you factor in the money to be made selling electricity.
Landfills charge municipalities an average of $35 per ton of trash; according to a recent study in Hamilton, Ont., dropping off a ton of garbage at a plasma gasification plant would run $172 per ton.
Given how little we know about plasma gasification's environmental impact at this point, caution is advised. While the process certainly holds promise, beware of any company that touts it as a zero-emissions miracle that will quickly pay for itself. And no matter how many millions any town pours into plasma, it's not going to change the fact that we should focus first on reducing waste, rather than figuring out ways to perpetuate the more reckless aspects of our consumption.

Is the 7th ward REALLY WILLING AND
PREPARED TO EMBRACE
Plasma Arc Gasification?

Most residents of the 7th Ward are unaware of the Plasma Project-