» Home

  » Topic: Landfill

  » Updates: Landfill

  » Talk About It:

  » Forum: Landfill Expansion

  » Poll: For or against?

  » About Me

  » Contact Me

  » 

  » 

  » 


Simi NIMBY* (*Not In My Back Yard)...
You are here ~~> Home ~~> Turning Trash Into Energy


  Turning Trash Into Energy: "Knee-jerk" reaction to the concept 


One of the statements made in this process that I've uncovered is that we could turn 'trash into energy'.  Any average citizen's 'knee-jerk' reaction to this statement would be that this is a great concept!  Trash (that nobody wants) turned into energy - fantastic, right?

And one of the selling points posed on this expansion issue is that if allowed to expand, liquefiers could be installed that would allow Waste Management to turn the methane gas they are currently burning off and convert it into energy for homes.  Currently there is a small mechanism in place at the Simi Landfill that allows 1/3 of the 120 trucks to utilize this resource. *  I don't quite understand the full process but the EPA has produced this graphic that might give the average citizen a "micro-version" of the process :

So when you look at the image, landfills seem to be a good source of energy.  However, the point to pay attention to that organic waste (as it decomposes) is producing the methane gas

And landfills are not composed entirely of organic or carbon-based material.

I think the one thread in this whole issue that bothers me the most is that depending on who you talk to, the numbers, values and validating documentation change.  I have (now) had the tendency to take each figure, statement or document and look at it with a skeptical eye to insure it's not 'smoke and mirrors'.

Just the statement of "2,250 people = 1,300 tons of trash = the energy needs of 1 home" doesn't sell the idea of an expanded landfill for me.  Just staying real here, 2,250 people couldn't fit into one home!

But using that statement and doing the math (2,250 people generating 2.5 pounds per day of trash times 364 days of the year equals 2,047,500 pounds or 1,023.75 tons), it seems that the first part of their statement is relatively correct according to the EPA's previous reports from 2006.

According the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 40,187 homes in Simi (79% owned, the remaining rentals or vacant - and if vacant, there are no energy needs) and 124,653 people.   So using this 'annual energy potential' calculation, without the conversion process and the expansion, the energy needs for 55 homes is being lost --- or 0.14% (yes, that's LESS than 1%).   There have been NO statements by anyone so far (or that I could find), saying that expansion and the liquid gas conversion would be handed over or utilized by Simi Valley homeowners... just that the potential exists and we're "losing energy that could be used for residents' homes".  It is my feeling that just saying "we are losing energy" in a time of 'going green', recycling and being faced with over $4 per gallon for gas tends to get people's attention or knee-jerk reactions.

Doubling the TPD (tons per day) permit would in effect (using these statements and calculation), allow the potential for the energy needs of a quarter of one percent of the homes in Simi (0.28%).  And I'm pretty sure the energy needs wouldn't be free, but they'd be sold by Waste Management somehow for companies seldom do things out of the goodness of their heart but because they're in business and held accountable by stockholders and owners, spurring the need to make money and profits.

BUT, I ask you as an everyday citizen... if you were getting less than half a percent of interest at any bank where they'd asked you to save your money, wouldn't you find a better rate at another bank? You deposit $100 into a savings account and at the end of the year, they return a dime and four pennies as interest... would you feel you'd gotten a good deal?  Or would you be happy with less than half a percent return on your investment in some business, would you invest?

Again, this idea of "providing energy from trash" or that we're losing it currently, does not justify in my mind, the need to double the landfill and/or approve the application.


Keeping it real (always),
Linda

Stay tuned for further updates HERE












©Copyright 2008 - Linda Nelson - All Rights Reserved
Steve's free web templates