Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 9:57 AM

Palo Alto eyes waste-to-energy facility
Council supports 'anaerobic digestion' facility, but struggles to find possible site

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Online Staff

Posted by Jg, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2009 at 10:55 am

PUT compost facility where the landfill/recycling center is now.

I know it is supposed to be park. But put it on a city referencum to take a few acres from the park, and a few acres from the wastewater facility. I'd bet it'd pass with flying colors to take a few acres from the park.

IMNSHO,

Jg

Posted by commosense, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2009 at 11:49 am

How much will it cost and how much energy will it produce? I suspect this money could be much better spent to produce more electricity in more efficient ways. Green is good but not all green technology is equally efficient. Please think this one through before approving this for its claimed benefit.

Posted by Ken Powell, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2009 at 1:00 pm

I'm in favor of the anaerobic digestion process (garbage to energy) and I've got no problem keeping the compost where it is in what becomes a park. One could be legitimately concerned there was a garbage transfer facility in a park but I would be proud to take visitors to a park where the citizens had the vision to dedicate some space to clean up their garbage and make some of their energy. My mother said "clean up your mess before you go out and play..." There's some wisdom there. The *last* think I want to do is truck my garbage 50 miles -- even if it's the greatest recycling place on earth.

Though I admit the jury is out as to whether such a closed loop system is an economic win, there are other factors. There's unaccounted value in having a diversified energy supply: it's a good idea to have expertise in a variety of energy sources. And the existing "cheap" energy sources (coal, natural gas, etc.) have unaccounted external costs: CO2 and ground water pollution due to shale fragmentation, to name just a couple.

In the future (when it matters more) the economic calculation looks different because we'll have more information on the true costs. For the moment, diversification (having a variety of energy sources on tap) will give us a head start on what eventually becomes the winner. Palo Alto already has a lead on large hydro and rooftop solar. We need something else to help balance our energy portfolio.

The next thing we can look at is pyrolysis of the old garbage. This is oxygen-free "burning" of the dump in a plasma arc furnace. This can be a net positive energy process that gets rid of the old dump, too. It's not without controversy, either, but keep thinking ahead. These and other ideas all need space. Parks are our reward for *after* we've done our homework.

Posted by Lori GuberaStengel, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2009 at 3:55 pm

See www.thrivingforests.org and click on the Building materials link to Oslo, Norway Airport Web Link to read how the Airport uses its co-generation plant to power and heat its buildings, also providing energy to the local grid.

Additionally, such a co-generation plant, using both biomass and an anaerobic "plasma" digester, could use as fuel the tons of waste in the landfills adjacent to the Bay, providing carbon-neutral local energy security, and concurrently restoring marshland ecosystem function.

Posted by Jerryl, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2009 at 6:03 pm

Agree with Jg.

We would NOT be taking a couple acres from the park (Byxbee) but rather reallocating a few acres from a PLANNED EXPANSION of the current Byxbee park. That's very different and I agree that a huge majority would be willing to vote for that if it ever came on a referendum.

For some reason we always seem to do things the hard way here in Palo Alto and can't just keep composting where composting is already done and keep the airport as it has been for quite some time. We always have to churn.

Posted by Resident, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2009 at 8:09 pm

What will happen to the mountain of post compost dirt that we will generate?

Won't large trucks have to make trips into the baylands to buy (TAKE AWAY) our dirt; creating green house gas?

Posted by Steve Savage, a resident of another community, on Oct 21, 2009 at 11:05 am

As a Stanford alum I would love to see Palo Alto do the right thing as opposed to the pseudo-green thing that San Francisco did. Composting inevitably leads to 2-3% carbon conversion to methane. Thats better than a landfill, but it is so much better to intentionally generate as much methane as possible and burn it as a clean, carbon neutral fuel.

Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

Take ALL city garbage, send it by rail to a Central Valley facility for sorting and treating away from cities. Land is cheaper, labor is cheaper, the summer heat would accelerate the digestion and the compost would be a valuable agriculture commodity.

Posted by Bob Wenzlau, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Bob Wenzlau is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online

As a former member of the Task Force (now that it has been dissolved), I am disappointed that the Council could not accept the recommendations of the Task Force. The Task Force was a contentious group at the start, that was formed by opposite sides around the debate that stymied the Council in December of 2008. We had not only park advocates, but engineers, managers, and experts in finance. I recall when I heard the membership, I hesitated to serve because I was certain that agreement could not be found. Yet through our process, we learned the nuances of the issues, resolved what the true problems were, and generated a unanimous recommendation. We could agree on the future, knowing that the differences lay in the past. That night when we achieved our recommendation was sensational, and we were proud of our achievement.

While I am concerned that the Council made an incorrect decision about critical infrastructure issues associated with the management of organic waste, I am more deeply troubled with Council's treatment of the deliverable from a commission of citizen's invited and then selected to serve. If the citizens were the experts, their effort certainly was not accorded the respect. I did not expect our deliverable to be worshiped, but the Council's immediate deviation from multiple Task Force recommendations and against their own guidance was arrogant. It is not that the composting recommendation were not adopted, but rather witnessing the process at Council as to how they were not adopted. The debate seemed to be incredibly uninformed even though the Task Force produced work product specifically to inform the discussion.

As a Stanford alum, I used to connect the brilliance of Stanford with anticipating brilliance in Palo Alto's governance. In the 70s in this town, that brilliant Council existed, but it has wained. The decision to "punt" on the recommendations of the Task Force were far from brilliant.

Even the airport issue was preordained to failure. The issues were not considered on technical merit, they were seeming predetermined by political support for the airport, even if the land sought will never be developed in airport lands -- that much was stated by city staff. We were not permitted to develop our approach in front of Council to mitigate bird issues. The Council granted the airport community a veto on the process.

I am interested sorting out how to make Task Forces work in this town. It is less an issue of the Task Force, but more Council's role in accepting and considering a Task Force's findings. If the Council chooses to use a Task Force, then the Council should not dismiss their recommendations.

So how could Council be better prepared to benefit from a Task Force? Perhaps Council should agree when the create a Task Force to accept its findings. Perhaps Council should read the minutes of the Task Force, and communicate to the Task Force if they have ideas or feedback. Council could be more responsive when the Task Force seeks clarification during the process, instead of being non responsive. If the Task Force is a ship through a contentious issue, then they could help steer it, rather than sink it when it returns with a well thought out recommendation.

We still have much work in front of us to find a local solution for our organic waste. I am excited at that we have discovered a financially viable, optimally local technology (i.e. near the WPCP) that can generate an environmentally-friendly fuel, and the highest quality compost to maintain our local soils. I would like to find an accommodation with the airport advocates as well. We had a solution that protected parks, and I still believe accommodated an airport. We can mitigate bird issues -- we are that smart in Palo Alto. It is an amazing but practical vision, that Council hopefully will find and embrace.

Posted by NON-ESSENTIAL SERVICES, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2009 at 12:35 am

I am very surprised that people are advocating organic composting etc etc. This is a NON-ESSENTIAL service - and it is not something this city should be worried about.

So, are advocating that we need to go further than this - how about collect every bay area city's garbage and let us compost it - sounds like a fun bon-fire.

Let us stop this nonsense and focus on real issues that this city is facing.

Posted by steve albertolle, a resident of the Green Acres neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2009 at 12:16 pm

As a member of the Compost Task Force, I would like to echo Bob Wenzlau's comments from beginning to end (although I am a Cal grad). When it comes to greenhouse emissions the buck stops, or should stop, in each community. Pat Burt's proposal to trade a completely inaccessible strip of dirt and mud land next to a runway as "parkland" for existing parkland is ridiculous. The existing landfill is on parkland and that site could provide incredible vistas for watching the sun rise and set and observing the thousands of birds who migrate through the park. Not to mention restoration of native vegetation and the greenhouse gas impact from it. The value of that land as open grassland for current and future generations is priceless. I certainly hope Peter Dreckmeier's comments that trading of that land solves a legal requirement for a vote of the people is incorrect. I also hope the airport folks continue driving their business plan and working with city staff to make accommodations in both ways to develop a solution that fits both. Certainly not enough work has been done in that are for any definitive decisions to be made on how the airport and the composting site can work together. No formal land survey's have been done and no pencils have been sharpened enough to call this off on a gut feeling by the Council.

When I began on the Task Force, I was neutral and interested in getting to a balanced and acheivable answer. As I visited Byxbee Park several times over those 8 months I was struck by the awesome eco-system existing there and what a shame it is to have to walk around a huge, smelly landfill to enjoy it. I can't wait to ride my bike past by a fully functioning, modernized and slightly redesigned but improved airport to stand on top of that man made hill in Byxbee Park to watch the sunset knowing that we saved two priceless assets, an airport and open land, and demonstrated again why Palo Alto is a civic thought leader who solved a difficult problem elegantly by gaining consensus and putting together a reasonable and equitable plan.

Last, for the reader who mentioned plasma technology. We studied it and had a public teach in by one the world's most authoritative people on advanced technologies. There is potentially a bright future there however there are competing bills in the state legislature that need to be sorted out first; and the technology needs to be more widely demonstrated. It just did not fit the time frame we were dealing with.

Sincerely - Steve Albertolle

Posted by Use the dump, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2009 at 3:46 pm

It is apparent that a couple of task force members got rolled by the 'park' fanatics. Sorry, guys, it is a DUMP site! A few acres at the edge, next to the sewer plant is not the end of the world. Try to get a grip.

Posted by Yeah, Use The Dump, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Oct 23, 2009 at 10:31 pm

I agree with "Use The Dump". 6 acres is what is needed for a composting facility. Instead of taking it out of the ~2,000 acres of dedicated parkland adjoining the water treatment plant, the task force decides they can make do with 4 acres of airport land that is pledged to the FAA. And they've got to move Embarcadero road to use it. Their recommendation was infeasible from the start. But you're right, the task force got rolled by people that want parkland at all costs, even if it prevents us from reducing our impact on the environment.

Now they complain the city council lacks the political will to put the facility on the airport. In reality the task force lacked the political will to go against the park people by doing something that is within the control of the citizens of PA, namely a referendum to give up three tenths of one percent of parkland for a compost facility. It's a lot less expensive to move a fence than it is to move a road. And the reason the airport is tied up by the Feds is because they put up 97.5% of the money for airport infrastructure.

I'm a fan of the airport as a self-supporting regional asset, but even if I wasn't it's easy to see that this recommendation would be DOA. Maybe the city staff will have the political fortitude to recommend the obvious.

Posted by Emily Renzel, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2009 at 8:11 am

As a Task Force member, I agree with most of what my colleagues, Bob Wenzlau and Steve Albertolle, have written.

Jerrel and "use the dump" #1 & #2 clearly lack any history of our baylands park. All of our publicly owned baylands, with a few exceptions, were park dedicated in 1965, including the then "dump" which was expected to be filled by 1968. Due to Water Quality regulations and other protective regulations, a hilly plan was devised. Wetlands claimed by the State Lands Commission were filled by the dump and State Lands entered into a lease with the City of Palo Alto, conditioned on the finished filled area becoming a public park. The design of the park being "sculpted" with garbage ended up being an open space with significant vista points - one of which looks north toward the Water Quality Control Plant. In 1987, the City required the WQCP to plant 100' of screen landscaping on adjoining parkland to prepare for the ultimate vista point on Byxbee Hills Park.

To use that landscaped screen area for industrial composting will effectively make it impossible to screen the RWQCO and the industrial composting buildings from the Byxbee Park vista point and they will both be upwind of Byxbee Park so noise and other nuisances will seriously impact the park experience. Significant truck traffic will also impact the park. The suggestion of mitigating these huge impacts on Byxbee Hills park and the loss of park acreage by park dedicating land adjacent to the airport runway is an engineer's way of compensating, not an environmentalist's.

Our Task Force worked hard to study all facets of this issue. We met every two weeks for six months and did a lot of subcommittee and personal work as well. It turned out that the Council apparently just wanted us to be window dressing for their own ideas. They did not even do us the courtesy of voting up or down on our recommendations before they concocted their own solution.

I hope that Jerrel and others will try to get past viewing Byxbee Hills Park as a dump and note that Mountain View managed to create Shoreline Park on their dump and Menlo Park created Bayfront Park on their dump. It's time for us to create Byxbee Hills Park as envisioned.

Posted by Emily Renzel, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Oct 28, 2009 at 9:14 am

As a Task Force member, I agree with most of what my colleagues, Bob Wenzlau and Steve Albertolle, have written.

Jerrel and "use the dump" #1 & #2 clearly lack any history of our baylands park. All of our publicly owned baylands, with a few exceptions, were park dedicated in 1965, including the then "dump" which was expected to be filled by 1968. Due to Water Quality regulations and other protective regulations, a hilly plan was devised. Wetlands claimed by the State Lands Commission were filled by the dump and State Lands entered into a lease with the City of Palo Alto, conditioned on the finished filled area becoming a public park. The design of the park being "sculpted" with garbage ended up being an open space with significant vista points - one of which looks north toward the Water Quality Control Plant. In 1987, the City required the WQCP to plant 100' of screen landscaping on adjoining parkland to prepare for the ultimate vista point on Byxbee Hills Park.

To use that landscaped screen area for industrial composting will effectively make it impossible to screen the RWQCO and the industrial composting buildings from the Byxbee Park vista point and they will both be upwind of Byxbee Park so noise and other nuisances will seriously impact the park experience. Significant truck traffic will also impact the park. The suggestion of mitigating these huge impacts on Byxbee Hills park and the loss of park acreage by park dedicating land adjacent to the airport runway is an engineer's way of compensating, not an environmentalist's.

Our Task Force worked hard to study all facets of this issue. We met every two weeks for six months and did a lot of subcommittee and personal work as well. It turned out that the Council apparently just wanted us to be window dressing for their own ideas. They did not even do us the courtesy of voting up or down on our recommendations before they concocted their own solution.

I hope that Jerrel and others will try to get past viewing Byxbee Hills Park as a dump and note that Mountain View managed to create Shoreline Park on their dump and Menlo Park created Bayfront Park on their dump. It's time for us to create Byxbee Hills Park as envisioned.

Report Objectionable Content

Posted by Ellieg, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 6:54 pm

Thanks to Emily Renzel for setting everyone straight on the complete and accurate history of Byxbee park and the many postponements of reclaiming the park by the city staff and council. It has certainly been long enough that the agreements to return it to its original use as dedicated parkland.

As for Ken Powell's idea that he would gladly take visitors to show off the compost site and would be proud to take visitors to a park where the citizens had the vision to dedicate some space to clean up their garbage and make some of their energy; I wonder if he has ever actually been to see this operation in action? All of the people who went on the commission's field trip to see it in operation were quietly horrified to see just how noisy, dusty, dirty and unpleasant the machinery with all its heavy machinery was. Not at all like the restored parkland with native vegetation that would sequester more carbon by far than the compost operation would save. In addition many more visitors would enjoy the experience of the view and the cleaner air and the native wildlife.

The people who are saying it is a dump are sadly ignorant of the true history and I am very grateful to Emily for setting the record straight.