Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... you know i ALWAYS wondered about the landfills and dumps!
OH and... typical government non-sense when they told you they could recycle everything. LOL. I'm sure they scurried after their meeting with you to create a "recycle everything program". As for Waste to Energy... There needs to be a lot more education... I know there's a couple plants like that in Europe and the U.S.. It's a heavy pollutant, but it could lower the island's energy costs and clear up some landfills. (I need to educate myself on that a bit more.)
Hindsight... love hearing your thoughts. You're definitely a pessimist, but you ensure that hilarity ensues in all your posts.
My apologies for veering from the OP's central topic. However, I feel a sense of duty to respond to any comments or questions regarding WTE.
Joleado, as previously stated, Energy Answers' proposal to build and operate a 3K ton/day WTE facility in Cambalache Arecibo was rotundly defeated due to the fears and machinations of local politicians and uninformed environmentalists. Disinformation was rampant before and after the government submitted their public Request For Proposal (RFP) to our company.
You imply that WTE is a "heavy pollutant." As with most anything, that is a possibility, but highly improbable.
Consider this, the organization I currently work for owns and operates what's known as a "Mass Burn WTE Facility" just a few miles from downtown Los Angeles California. This area has THE MOST STRINGENT air quality regulations in the United States. Our facility has been in operation for 21 years.
Given this premiss it stands to reason that if we can succesfully operate a Mass Burn facility in this area, we can surely operate one where ever needed within the United States and its territories.
In addition, be informed that a Mass Burn Facility "could" pose a greater pollution risk than one which incorporates a "Front End Refuse Processing System." The WTE facility proposed for Arecibo had Front End Processing.
Ehh... there are too many opinions going here. This thread goes nowhere because it does not focus on one subject. The subject allows for people to go where ever they want in their minds. Somebody even mentioned Florida.
Joleado...I'll call you "my brother" for now. Por lo menos hasta que se me pase la juma!!! ja! ja!
BTW...will be on the island as of the 12th of next week. Watch your back!
You say Puerto Rico will remain a sustainable society precisely because of it's dependence on the United States. My claim is that it's UNSUSTAINABLE for the following reasons:
1. almost 3 million inhabitants and growing on an area of 100mi X 35mi. This means that the island has to support 857 persons per SQmi.
2. most of the 3 million inhabitants have a high purchasing power. The higher the purchasing power, the more waste is produced. BTW, by 1999, PR generated 16,000 tons per day of solid waste.
3. with only 3500 SQmi of habitable surface, Puerto Rico has a limited amount of space to spare for additional landfills.
4. don't know the exact number, but last I heard, Puerto Rico was down to 19 active landfills from 30-something over a decade ago.
5. with so few landfills, plus a growing population with purchasing power, and with a government whom TO THIS DAY IS NOT WILLING to consider WASTE-TO-ENERGY as an alternative to landfilling...how long will Puerto Rico be able to sustain population growths coupled with increases in solid waste generation without having adequate disposal sites?
Clandestine landfills (vertederos) are already found all throughout the island. Just take a trip to Vega Baja and you will see one of the island's biggest heaps of trash right on the coast.
Unfortunately, since 1988, government officials have been reluctant to stand behind the only possible remedy to deal with the ever-growing problem of waste management; i.e., WASTE-TO-ENERGY (WTE).
Yes Joleado...as you might imagine, this is my passion and what I do for a living. This is what I've done for 25 years. I am in the business of generating electrical power from the discards of society. Currently work in a facility which generates 62 Megawatts form nothing more than domestic trash.
Not only that, but I was involved with a company named Energy Answers Corporation. We tried our best to build and operate a 3000 ton per day WTE plant in the Cambalache Arecibo area. We were met with vociferous opposition from local politicians who made a name for themselves by opposing our solution to Puerto Rico's garbage dilemma. Their argument (and that of several environmentalists) was that Puerto Rico's garbage issues could be dealt with by simply recycling "everything."
Our proven solutions and propositions were rotundly ignored and dismissed. The voices of the opposers were upheld. End result? Puerto Rico's garbage problems are no longer manageable. The island generates more trash than it is capable of burying. If population and waste generation trends continue to rise we will have another modern day "Rapa Nui" on our hands.
It sounds like a great idea.
The biggest mistake you/your company made was neglecting to bribe the "proper" politicians. You have to figure out who's pulling the strings and pay him off. Then that person will give the nod to the underlings. Once you do that, you're home free.
The biggest mistake you/your company made was neglecting to bribe the "proper" politicians. You have to figure out who's pulling the strings and pay him off. Then that person will give the nod to the underlings. Once you do that, you're home free.
Miss, maybe you're right. However, during my affiliation with this company, I never witnessed anything which insinuated dishonesty. If bribery was ever considered, I was not privy to such information. The company's cultural inclination was to follow high ethical standards.
Sooner or later, the Waste-to-Energy topic will again be on the front pages of El Nuevo Dia. When it reappears, take note of the opposers and nay-sayers. These are the people who are at fault for causing Puerto Rico to drown in a sea of garbage. They oppose the best solution and propose nothing realistically worth considering.
My apologies for veering from the OP's central topic. However, I feel a sense of duty to respond to any comments or questions regarding WTE.
Joleado, as previously stated, Energy Answers' proposal to build and operate a 3K ton/day WTE facility in Cambalache Arecibo was rotundly defeated due to the fears and machinations of local politicians and uninformed environmentalists. Disinformation was rampant before and after the government submitted their public Request For Proposal (RFP) to our company.
You imply that WTE is a "heavy pollutant." As with most anything, that is a possibility, but highly improbable.
Consider this, the organization I currently work for owns and operates what's known as a "Mass Burn WTE Facility" just a few miles from downtown Los Angeles California. This area has THE MOST STRINGENT air quality regulations in the United States. Our facility has been in operation for 21 years.
Given this premiss it stands to reason that if we can succesfully operate a Mass Burn facility in this area, we can surely operate one where ever needed within the United States and its territories.
In addition, be informed that a Mass Burn Facility "could" pose a greater pollution risk than one which incorporates a "Front End Refuse Processing System." The WTE facility proposed for Arecibo had Front End Processing.
Yes you can! We know that. But what I do not know is how many processing lines and boilers are planned? I do not see one process line plus one boiler handling 2100 tpd.Shred and burn is a mass burner, They work but not nearly as good as a true rdf plant. Too many things can go south right quick. If you are proposing 4 process lines, 4 boilers and two turbines, That would work,Suppose it was possible to operate one line and one boiler. What happens when a bearing goes bad on something as simple as a snub roller?. the plant goes down. Build it but build it big, Suppose the proposed plant was a {true resource recovery plant}.It would cost double the amount if not more.. When I keep hearing front end processing , What is that ?, Shred and burn?.No good! I would have to give you a opinion, All non combustibles should be removed prior to burning, This is what resource recovery really means. But not for 500 million dollars. Of course you can mass burn. But that is really not the way to go. I would recommend 4 processing lines, 4 boilers, two turbines. Run three lines 24 hours a day and keep one ready for stand by.Use eddy current before you burn, remove grit and glass before you burn , remove all non ferrous and ferrous before you burn.Its costly but well worth the money.And its nothing new,And the word incinerator would not be thrown around so loosely.It would be called a Power Plant.Because that is what it truly is.I personally do not like mass burners, not because they are bad. I always said resource recovery is a better choice.Why? more consistent btu value, less wear on boiler tubes,Way less breakdowns on the boiler side. And recovering most everything prior to burning is more appealing to our island.And you have flexibility of using three boilers and three process lines ,not needing to worry about diverting to landfill should a break down occur.Usually in the boilers.Well mostly in the boilers.Or suppose a axle gets past the tipping floor and rips up a shredder?I also would phase out the existing co gen as well as existing oil burners on the island and switch to rdf technology.And like you said front end process is cleaner.But not shred and burn! As far as california? You did not mention that plant that was shut down soon after completion in 1993,San diego.
Yes you can! We know that. But what I do not know is how many processing lines and boilers are planned? I do not see one process line plus one boiler handling 2100 tpd.Shred and burn is a mass burner, They work but not nearly as good as a true rdf plant. Too many things can go south right quick. If you are proposing 4 process lines, 4 boilers and two turbines, That would work,Suppose it was possible to operate one line and one boiler. What happens when a bearing goes bad on something as simple as a snub roller?. the plant goes down. Build it but build it big, Suppose the proposed plant was a {true resource recovery plant}.It would cost double the amount if not more.. When I keep hearing front end processing , What is that ?, Shred and burn?.No good! I would have to give you a opinion, All non combustibles should be removed prior to burning, This is what resource recovery really means. But not for 500 million dollars. Of course you can mass burn. But that is really not the way to go. I would recommend 4 processing lines, 4 boilers, two turbines. Run three lines 24 hours a day and keep one ready for stand by.Use eddy current before you burn, remove grit and glass before you burn , remove all non ferrous and ferrous before you burn.Its costly but well worth the money.And its nothing new,And the word incinerator would not be thrown around so loosely.It would be called a Power Plant.Because that is what it truly is.I personally do not like mass burners, not because they are bad. I always said resource recovery is a better choice.Why? more consistent btu value, less wear on boiler tubes,Way less breakdowns on the boiler side. And recovering most everything prior to burning is more appealing to our island.And you have flexibility of using three boilers and three process lines ,not needing to worry about diverting to landfill should a break down occur.Usually in the boilers.Well mostly in the boilers.Or suppose a axle gets past the tipping floor and rips up a shredder?I also would phase out the existing co gen as well as existing oil burners on the island and switch to rdf technology.And like you said front end process is cleaner.But not shred and burn! As far as california? You did not mention that plant that was shut down soon after completion in 1993,San diego.
The proposed plant for Cambalache is a true Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) type plant with frontend processing to remove all non-combustible and recyclable materials. The plant is to be the "nucleus" of an industrial park which will include sub-industries who will handle ferreous & non-ferreous recyclable materials, tires, etc. The flyash is to be solidified into lightweight cinder blocks which meet (or exceed) ANSI construction standards. Bottom ash is to be used as an asphalt roadbase aggregate.
In addition, while I am not completely certain of this now, there were plans to "ressucitate" an abandoned nearby paper mill to which power & steam were to be supplied to. The paper mill was to be a 24/7 operation requiring 400 permanent fulltime employees.
All sub-industries are to be powered by the WTE facility.
I am not all clear as to how many boilers and turbines the project will include.
The proposed plant for Cambalache is a true Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) type plant with frontend processing to remove all non-combustible and recyclable materials. The plant is to be the "nucleus" of an industrial park which will include sub-industries who will handle ferreous & non-ferreous recyclable materials, tires, etc. The flyash is to be solidified into lightweight cinder blocks which meet (or exceed) ANSI construction standards. Bottom ash is to be used as an asphalt roadbase aggregate.
In addition, while I am not completely certain of this now, there were plans to "ressucitate" an abandoned nearby paper mill to which power & steam were to be supplied to. The paper mill was to be a 24/7 operation requiring 400 permanent fulltime employees.
All sub-industries are to be powered by the WTE facility.
I am not all clear as to how many boilers and turbines the project will include.
Well without that information , Its futile to make a good call. But I know that company who is going to build it knows exactly how to run this other style of waste to energy. But you say the front end will be used for recyclables? how tell me your processing theory.It is my understanding that the plant will use shear shredders {na! wrong answer} go hammer mills with 4 inch grates. Then remove ferrous , then it gets burned, It is also my understanding that the recovery will be a back end operation , In other words recover said materials from the bottom ash. These plants are clean . I will say that. I still think its backwards. Just a personal opinion.
Do you agree that the plant would be a better style plant as referenced above? As far as empoyees Without further details I could not say. But Ive been to mass burn plants that use 60-70 employees. How do you arrive at 160?
Well without that information , Its futile to make a good call. But I know that company who is going to build it knows exactly how to run this other style of waste to energy. But you say the front end will be used for recyclables? how tell me your processing theory.It is my understanding that the plant will use shear shredders {na! wrong answer} go hammer mills with 4 inch grates. Then remove ferrous , then it gets burned, It is also my understanding that the recovery will be a back end operation , In other words recover said materials from the bottom ash. These plants are clean . I will say that. I still think its backwards. Just a personal opinion.
Do you agree that the plant would be a better style plant as referenced above? As far as empoyees Without further details I could not say. But Ive been to mass burn plants that use 60-70 employees. How do you arrive at 160?
Front end processing allows for the removal of recyclables (tires, ferrous metals, etc.) prior to incineration. My understanding is that some of the recycling will be manually accomplished. Whatever ferrous metals happen to slip by will be picked up by magnets on the back end.
Not sure what you're refering to with regards to "160" employees. My previous comment makes no mention of power plant employees. I did mention 400 possible fulltime jobs at the paper mill.
Front end processing allows for the removal of recyclables (tires, ferrous metals, etc.) prior to incineration. My understanding is that some of the recycling will be manually accomplished. Whatever ferrous metals happen to slip by will be picked up by magnets on the back end.
Not sure what you're refering to with regards to "160" employees. My previous comment makes no mention of power plant employees. I did mention 400 possible fulltime jobs at the paper mill.
Thats what is said.
Picked up by magnets at the back end?. Why wouldnt a magnetic head roll fix that problem? After the magnet but before the burning. So whatever the magnet misses ,This will get, just put a chute and hopper.just eliminated that problem,. How is this plant to remove copper?. By hand pickers?. That dont work. Been there and done that! But If thats the word, But again without seeing any prints I really dont know. I understand this plant would use a fabric baghouse for scrubbing. Thats a leap forward in technology. Many of us do not realize the potential with this plant. But the location bothers me, Next to the battery recycling debacle?
Thats what is said.
Picked up by magnets at the back end?. Why wouldnt a magnetic head roll fix that problem? After the magnet but before the burning. So whatever the magnet misses ,This will get, just put a chute and hopper.just eliminated that problem,. How is this plant to remove copper?. By hand pickers?. That dont work. Been there and done that! But If thats the word, But again without seeing any prints I really dont know. I understand this plant would use a fabric baghouse for scrubbing. Thats a leap forward in technology. Many of us do not realize the potential with this plant. But the location bothers me, Next to the battery recycling debacle?
I do not have the answers to all the possible scenarios related to front/back end processing. Again, I am not employed by the future owner/operator. I am merely affiliated with them.
For detailed answers to your questions, please click on the following link, then click on "Contact Us" at that above right corner.
Regarless of what type of processing is involved, the bottom line is that finally, a viable solution to PR's waste management troubles is in the workings, and that is something we can all cheer about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
possibly
