Town Square

Post a New Topic

Report boosts backers of new compost plant

Original post made on Jun 22, 2011

Palo Alto could save millions by building a waste-to-energy plant in the Baylands, according to a new analysis that is likely to further stoke one of the city's hottest debates.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 9:57 AM

Comments (15)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 22, 2011 at 10:21 am

This is an encouraging report, but begs the question as to why putting it on what is supposed to be parkland. Are there not other venues that provide the same benefits?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 22, 2011 at 10:54 am

> Are there not other venues that provide the same benefits?

Sure, close the airport and put it there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Vicky ching
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 22, 2011 at 10:55 am

Will we have a financing plan for the construction when the council votes on it? Should their votes be based on a consultant's estimate without knowing how we are going to pay for it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dennis
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 22, 2011 at 11:15 am

I'll go out on a limb here and bet that the proponents of Compost Plant Project x.n believe in global warming with its tidal rise predictions. So why advocate for a location doomed to be underwater, literally and financially, due to baylands flooding? Maybe Goldman Sachs is in the background along with JP Morgan crafting an FDS - Flood Destruction Swap (Code named: Atlantis Swamp Swap.)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lois Fowkes
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jun 22, 2011 at 3:11 pm

Part of the point of recycling our waste anaerobically is to capture the methane emitted, thus saving on electricity generation for the sewage treatment plant. Producing methane somewhere else than where it's going to be used just adds another cost component to the mix. Doesn't it make sense, logistically and financially, to keep our waste treatment facilities all in one place? The sewage treatment plant is already there, and is a regional facility. If it needs to be protected against baylands flooding in the future, any treatment options can receive a comprehensive approach.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by trish
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 22, 2011 at 3:32 pm

The Council will just be receiving an information update next Monday; so no vote. And since the facility will be adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant, we probably can "assume" any infrastructure improvements to address sea level rise can protect both.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by bill kelly
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 23, 2011 at 8:26 am

I'm really annoyed that many in Palo Alto want a park over a dump, so we can ship out refuse away and not see it. I think the dump stands as a constant reminder to our consumerist instincts; want a reality check? Go take a sump load and see the amount of crap we throw out. Now we as false greeners will close the dump convert it into a park (that will spew methane for years) and send out crap to somewhere else where we can't see it.

WONDERFUL.

At least the power plant would do something productive with all out excess consumerism.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bob Wenzlau
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 24, 2011 at 8:14 am

Bob Wenzlau is a registered user.

Paul,

You asked why this location for organics management?

The center point of any local organic management must be in the environs of our sewage plant at the end of Embarcadero Road. As such, the sanitary landfill (dump) made the most sense after the Council rejected use of lands at and adjacent to the airport.

Being near the sewage plant is key because it results in a more efficient and effective solution. Broadly we gain efficiency in biological treatment by combined treatment of yard, food and sewage sludges, and the necessary skills and infrastructure for biological treatment are intrinsic to the sewage plant and its staff. Also, a key effectiveness benefit sought is closing the sludge incinerator - one of two still operating in California.

This is a paper park only, so there is no taking of developed parks - we are debating over 10 acres of highly disturbed land. A City Council action in the 1960s dedicated the landfill to parkland but was not aware of today's progress toward recycling and composting to eliminate waste disposal all together. The Council then just thought to fill a canyon somewhere else - and we know no one seeks that solution. Today removing 10 acres from park dedication is an appropriate course correction for fiscal reasons (based on the consulting reports) as well as environmental reasons. The Task Force found additional lands that are less disturbed, and available that would make a superior dedication.

Bob


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 24, 2011 at 12:07 pm

The salient, but ignored, sentence from this study is, "The City of Palo Alto, California, is currently seeking to determine the best means for managing food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids."

With tunnel vision, the City of Palo Alto is doing nothing of the sort. It is following a preconceived agends of the "zero waste" zealots. Anaerobic digestion (AD)is inferior, in many respects, to plasma arc solid waste to energy approaches. The very firm that wrote this study has also published studies affirming this fact.

Only one city councilman, Greg Schmidt, has done his research. He is truly open to alternatives that really work.

I challenge anyone, on this site, to take me on in a debate comparing plasma arc and AD. I especially welcome Bob Wenzlau and Peter Drekmier to put themselves out here. At a minimum, Bob will have to concede that plasma arc is NOT a form of incineration, as he has previously stated.

In the meatime, let's vote "no" on this 9 acre diversion from our future park...it should not be wasted on inferior projects.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jun 24, 2011 at 12:20 pm

Right on Craig. Well said. We have already seen the issues that come with this "zero waste" plan--higher garbage fees and recycling fees for PA residents. This part was not considered in the thinking that went into "zero waste".
This AD facility is Drekmeier's folly and should be rejected by the public in November. Given Drekmeier's history, I am not sure why so many residents are blindly followinghim


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bob Wenzlau
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 24, 2011 at 4:08 pm

Bob Wenzlau is a registered user.

There is a discussion of our campaign's rationale not support plasma arc.

The USEPA is authority relied upon that defined plasma arc as a form of incineration.

A link to our discussion is here.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 24, 2011 at 8:25 pm

Bob,

A misinformed government definition does not make it so. For example, it mentions plasma arc incinerator...which does not exist, period. Incineration involves combustion, while plasma arc involves thermolytic cracking of molecules, without combustion (there is no supplied oxygen). To make it easy to understand, if a used tire is thrown into an incinerator, black smoke comes out the stack; put the same tire into a plasma arc converter, and there is no black smoke...just invisible useful gases.

I believe I asked you once before (or maybe it was some other true believer in zero waste): Who made the presentation to your task force about plasma arc. Be specific, give his name and company or university. You say it happened, so you should be able to provide the name and circumstances.

Then you talk about AD producing less CO2, because plasma arc fully convets all the organic molecules into energy-producing syngas, which is then used to fuel a generator, while reduing the residual (inorganic) material to slag. You claim that AD is superior becasue it is less effiicent (it cannot digest lignin and some other tough wood molecules) and this undigested stuff is spread out into environment. Duh?!! Did it ever occur to you that these lignins are digested by fungi in the environment, releasing their fixed carbon as CO2? Plasma arc makes more electricity per ton of waste than AD, but it does NOT produce more greenhouse gases, as you stated.

Then you talk about difficulty permitting plasma arc, becasue "envionmentalists" will fight it. A real environmentlist would applaud plasma arc, because it is far superior in many environmental categories, compared to AD.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by neighbor
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 24, 2011 at 9:41 pm

Craig -- Can you be civil in discussing pros and cons? If you are so confident that you are "right" and the other side is wrong, why not make your case on its merits?

Why the personal attacks on other residents who disagree with you?
Your tactics will certainly backfire.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 24, 2011 at 10:15 pm

"In summary, plasma arc (and infrared) units without
afterburners were unintentionally included in the revised
definition of incinerator."

Web Link

I add this federal government clarification to show how Bob W. and his crowd are being disingenuous.

I have been around this town too long to just play nice and pretend that wild schemes, perpetrated as "green", should continue to get a pass. Bob W. and Peter D. and their crowd have crossed the line, and I intend to call them on it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Jun 27, 2011 at 1:43 pm

When the anaerobic digestion promoters talk about the wonderful compost that will be produced from the sewage sludge, they might have a difficult time convincing the organic farmers and gardeners about their product:

Web Link

It turns out that there is some real concern out there about sewage sludge...so much so, that the term had to be expunged from our language (it is now called "biosolids").

It doesn't bother me, either way, because I approve of compost, in general, even slightly toxic compost (just don't use up a bunch of our potential park land to make it!), but it seems to bother some potential users of such compost. This concern could realistically have negative consequence on the compost produced from a composting scheme in Palo Alto, using our sewage sludge. Has this concern been addressed by the proponents of this composting industrial plant on our future park lands?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 3,314 views

Early Campaign Notes: City Council
By Douglas Moran | 16 comments | 1,895 views

Life in fast forward
By Jessica T | 3 comments | 1,605 views

Medical
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,522 views

Vikram Chandra's "Geek Sublime" and 10/3 event at Kepler's
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 397 views