HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1062.011 2006-2008
Tony Gordon Page 1 of 2
P/FG
Murashige, Laura
From: Tony Gordon [alchemy@sover.net]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:09 PM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Cc: alchemy@alohabroadband.com O 3
Subject: council trash testimony email.doc C~1
Z - -
Attachments: header.htm yr•
0
Tony Gordon
94-6920 Kamao'a Road, Ka'u, Hawai I-'
G3.
Written testimony to the Hawaii County Council Committee on Finance, 11 March 2008
re: Comm 1062:
(Res. 551-08)
The concept of waste management has evolved from dumping trash into a hole in the ground to a
complex hierarchy that ranks solutions by desirability. This hierarchy favors waste prevention /
reduction and recycling over energy recovery.
Waste to energy plant is a fancy name for an incinerator. The theory behind the operation is attractive;
turn a waste product that takes money to dispose of and convert it into a cash stream from electricity
sales while disposing of the waste. There are a lot of issues that add complications.
Common incinerators in this country are so-called mass burn units. The fuel is municipal solid waste
(MSW), more commonly called trash, and it is collected, trucked to the incinerator, dumped on the floor
for a quick sort, and loaded into the firebox, rocks and all.
In Europe, where natural resources have long been scarcer and more expensive than in the US, there are
incinerators but they burn a different fuel, because the waste is different. There is much less plastic.
What ends up in the fire is different - the result of carefully picking over the waste at the plant and
removing as much of the hazardous materials (haz-mat), recyclables, undesirable waste items, and yes,
rocks. The result is a fuel that burns at a more uniformly, keeping the boiler at a more consistent
temperature, and allowing the pollution control systems to work properly. When the pollution control
systems don't work perfectly, as happens when firebox temperatures vary too much, pollutants such as
Dioxin (a carcinogen) can be released into the surrounding areas.
The waste to energy plant proposed for this island will need 85,000 tons of fuel (municipal solid waste
MSW) per year, an amount that, by contract, must be supplied by the county. To meet this demand there
are plans to divert waste from the Milolii, Waiohinu, Honokaa and Lapahoehoe transfer stations to the
proposed plant. There are penalties for failing to supply the guaranteed amount, probably about $105 per
ton. There are costs for over supply, reported as $63.19 per ton.The appetite of waste to energy plants
for fuel is constant - they demand to be fed waste material by imposing financial penalties- an absolute
Comm. No. 10 % 0 It
Ref. To: ham Efic
3/10/2008 Ref. Dote --MAR
Tony Gordon Page 2 of 2
disincentive for reduction, reuse, and recycling. Energy recovery is a final step that removes the
resource, MSW, from any possibility of reuse or recycling.
Technology is changing at a phenomenal pace. Can the County afford to lock itself into 20 years of
stasis? Changes in the technology may make our green waste a prime feedstock for production of
ethanol. Which has a greater value, electricity or fuel? Energy efficiency and alternative sources can
reduce or stabilize electrical demand, but liquid fuel will be hard to replace as the fuel of transport for
most of our population for the foreseeable future.
This is but one example. We should not foreclose the future.
Otherissues-
Capital Cost-
The project is reportedly to cost $125.5 million. This is the current contract price before the final
adjustments are made. But, those are not the County's real costs, because they ignore debt service.At a
reported cost of $8.6 million per year on a 25 year bond, the County will pay $215,000,000 once the
interest costs of the bond are included.
Operating Cost-
Operating costs are reported as $7.1 million to Wheelabrator as its operating fee (covering salaries,
administration, G&A, overhead and profit), $850,000 for trucking ash, $1.8 million for supplies and
pass-through expenses.
It is reported (WHT 6 March 08) that Mr. Takaba estimated about $6.9 million in "avoided cost
revenues" from the use of electricity generated by the plant in its operations would offset some of the
operating costs. What percentage of the power produced will be needed to operate the plant? Avoided
cost is not revenue. There would be no expense if there was no plant to operate, and only if the
electricity was not used at the plant would there be income. If the reference is to income from sales of
power that can be applied to costs and reduce the net expense, it is an offset, otherwise it is not.
Ash-
Trucking, but not disposal, of ash is budgeted at $850,000. It may or may not be able to be used as daily
cover at Puuanahulu- that would be at the discretion of the federal EPA and the State Health
Department. Ash is normally treated as hazardous waste due to heavy metal, dioxin and furan
concentrations and is disposed of in lined landfills with leachate collection and treatment.
Wheelabrator's Concord, New Hampshire facility can handle 210,000 tons of MSW per year (two and a
half times the size of the proposed Hilo plant) and is left with an ash residue amounting to 65,000 tons,
or 1/3 of the weight of the incoming waste and about 15% of the original volume. The costs of ash
handling and disposal are steep. If the ratios hold true, that is 25,000 tons of ash to dispose of at a lined
landfill. If that ash is landfilled on the east side of the island, the costs of treating the leachate must be
added in.
3/10/2008