Town Square

Post a New Topic

Contingency cost correction for Anaerobic digestion plant

Original post made by Rowan, Leland Manor/Garland Drive, on Feb 25, 2011

I attended the meeting and what I understood is that only option 1a had a 30% contingency fee while the other options had a 15% contingency fee bulit in. This is important when reviewing the economics of the various options.

Comments (1)

Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 25, 2011 at 3:34 pm

The problem is that anaerobic digestion (AD) is an inefficient model. Considering how much park land must be chewed up to build that big industrial plant, and how expensive it will be, it is a non-starter. Forget about AD. If AD is the only option, then this thing should be defeated.

Plasma arc, on the other hand, offers many potential solutions and cost savings.

Since this election option only seems to be about AD, I will vote against it. Why waste money on an expensive, archaic and inefficent process?

Palo Alto should be about the future, not the past. It is regrettable that we have no leadership that is looking forward.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 4,554 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 1,038 views

This time we're not lying. HONEST! No, really!
By Douglas Moran | 8 comments | 630 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 511 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 439 views