California Recycling Program is on The Rocks – WIH Resource Group

For years California has courted a reputation as an eco-friendly, green-minded leader, but the state now finds its most basic program of recycling beverage bottles and cans mired in debt and litigation.

Dozens of supermarket recycling sites have shut down recently as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators spar over how to close a massive gap in the program’s budget.   California’s 23-year-old recycling program, managed by the Department of Conservation through fees charged to beverage buyers, has been hurt this year by recession, rising redemption rates and raids of its coffers to help ease the state’s budget woes.

Schwarzenegger and the Democratic-controlled Legislature concede that the program, which collected more than 16 billion beverage containers last year, is in fiscal distress – but each has rejected the other’s solution.  “This is an important program for California and we are currently looking at ways to improve funding in this down economy,” said Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola.

Mark Murray of Californians Against Waste, a nonprofit advocacy group, said consumers are going to find it increasingly difficult to recycle their beverage containers.  “The net result is likely to be a drop in the recycling rate,” he said.  Shoppers remain entitled to their nickel or dime deposits for returning glass, plastic or aluminum beverage containers, but many consumers could be forced to drive farther, wait longer or comply with shorter center operating hours.

The number of supermarket parking-lot recyclers has grown gradually in recent years to about 2,100. But two of the largest operators, Tomra Pacific and NexCycle, announced the shutdown of about 90 centers recently, laying off more than 100 workers.  Tomra, which projects losses of $9 million this year, has joined with two other firms to sue the state, seeking to “stop the dismantling” of the program. Exacerbating problems, the scrap value of aluminum cans has plummeted in the past year, and the market for other containers has struggled.

“If consumers can no longer find convenient outlets for recycling used bottles and cans, they are more likely to go back to their old ways of discarding them in landfills – or worse, on streets, beaches and other property,” the lawsuit said.  “This will essentially end the Recycling Program as we have known it,” the suit said.

By law, supermarkets not served by parking-lot recyclers are supposed to either pay the state $100 a day – only one store is doing so – or redeem the containers themselves, but many do not.  In a telephone check of 15 such supermarkets Friday, only six accept empty cans and bottles. 

Many supermarkets are not prepared to pick up the slack from closures of parking-lot recyclers because of the time it would take to count bags of containers and the health and safety implications of doing so where food is sold, said Dave Heylen of the California Grocers Association.

“It’s something that would be quite a hardship,” he said.

Department of Conservation officials declined to discuss Tomra’s lawsuit or allegations of harm. But state officials clearly are not trying to kill the program because both Schwarzenegger and the Democratic-controlled Legislature have tried to intervene, thus far unsuccessfully.

In May, state finance officials projected a $162 million deficit for the program by July 2010, which sparked across-the-board cuts that affected subsidies paid to collection centers but not to consumers who redeem beverages.

Schwarzenegger’s relief proposal focused on targeted cuts and on compressing subsidiary efforts, such as for public education and recycling incentives, into a new program of competitive grants.

The Legislature rejected Schwarzenegger’s plan during budget talks and crafted its own proposal, Senate Bill 402, which would have relied on expansion rather than contraction to bolster the program.

In vetoing SB 402, Schwarzenegger said that consumers would have been hurt by provisions to double the fee on 20-ounce sodas, from 5 to 10 cents, and to expand the kinds of beverages and types of containers accepted.

“I recognize that without this bill there is an immediate hardship,” his veto message said, but “the lasting effects of this bill are far worse.”

As a stopgap, Schwarzenegger said he would order emergency regulations to require beverage distributors to submit payments to the state every two months, not three, which is expected to generate a one-time infusion of about $100 million.

California’s recycling program partly has been a victim of its own success, because each redeemed container takes a nickel or dime from funds for subsidies, outreach or operational funds.

Redemption rates have risen from 67 percent in 2007 to 74 percent in 2008, and to 85 percent for the first six months of 2009.

Meanwhile, beverage sales from January to June were 325 million containers less – about 3 percent – than for the same time span in 2008.

Bottom line? Projected revenue has dropped by about $74 million the past year, from $1.15 billion to a projected $1.086 billion.

But Chuck Riegle of Tomra said the most painful blow was self-inflicted by the state: Politicians have raided recycling coffers, through loans, to help balance the state budget.

Tomra’s suit seeks to force repayment of about $415 million that otherwise would have been used for recycling.

Four times this decade, the state has borrowed beverage funds, most recently during the current fiscal year when more than $99 million was diverted to the state’s general fund.

The deadline for paying back $286 million borrowed in 2002 and 2003 initially was June 2009, but it was extended three years ago to 2013. Only $30 million has been repaid, records show.

In borrowing fee revenue, the state requires that no harm be done to the affected program, yet more than half of this year’s projected $162 million deficit consisted of the $99 million loan to bolster the state’s general fund.

Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said the multiple raids on recycling funds, the lack of timely repayment and the harm caused to collection centers raise questions about whether fees were spent illegally.

“It changes what otherwise might be characterized as a legitimate fee into a tax of questionable legality,” Coupal said.

State finance spokesman H.D. Palmer disagreed, saying that the program was projected to have an $81 million balance when legislation was signed in February to borrow for the next fiscal year. Changing market conditions made the deficit evident months later, in a May budget revision, Palmer said.

“This is just one example of the dramatic fluctuations we’ve seen in the state’s fiscal picture as a result of the recession,” he said.

Schwarzenegger’s veto message for SB 402 said he supports repaying past loans and banning any future loans from recycling coffers to the state’s general fund.

Sources: Fresno Bee and WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

 Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Solid Waste Landfills are Producing Pipeline Quality Natural Gas – WIH Resource Group

With improved processing technologies and attractive natural gas prices, more landfills are producing pipeline-quality gas.

After several years of inactivity, the number of high-Btu landfill gas energy projects is increasing. Since 2006, 11 construction startups and three expansions of high-Btu projects have taken place, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP).

Today’s high-Btu projects employ the latest advancements in technology to remove carbon dioxide and other impurities from landfill gas, resulting in a gas that is more than 95 percent methane and has a heating value equivalent to natural gas. Recent improvements in technology and higher returns on the finished gas have made high-Btu projects a viable option for more landfills — including facilities with lower gas flows.

Ordinary landfill gas consists of roughly 50 percent methane — which is the primary component of natural gas — 50 percent carbon dioxide, a small amount of nonmethane organic compounds (NMOCs) and other trace impurities. Removing the carbon dioxide and other impurities from landfill gas doubles its heating value, making it comparable to natural gas, which has a heating value of 1,025 Btu per cubic feet (ft3) to 1,095 Btu/ft3.

High-Btu landfill gas is most often injected directly into natural gas pipelines. Once in the pipeline, the gas blends with the natural gas and is distributed to a gas utility’s customers.

The Trends

Up until 2006, the growth of high-Btu projects was flat, averaging around one startup or expansion per year, as illustrated in Figure 1 on p. 46. In 2007, however, the number of startups and expansions began to grow steadily. In fact, 18 of the 25 high-Btu projects operating as of August 2009 were started or expanded during the last three years. LMOP expects a total of 10 projects to begin operation in 2009, including five that have come on line already. (Those five are Oak Grove Landfill in Winder, Ga.; Live Oak Landfill in Conley, Ga.; Carter Valley Landfill in Church Hill, Tenn.; Greenwood Farms Landfill in Tyler, Texas; and Turnkey Recycling & Environmental Enterprises in Rochester, N.H.)

In 2007, the Rumpke SLF Landfill in Cincinnati completed a $15 million expansion of its high-Btu processing plant, which began operating at the site in 1986. The expansion increased the processing of landfill gas from 9 million cubic feet per day (mmft3/day) to 15 mmft3/day. According to Rick O’Mahony, vice president of operations of Pittsburgh-based Montauk Energy, which is the developer and owner/operator of the plant, the plant was expanded to take advantage of increasing volumes of landfill gas. “We could either flare the gas at some marginal cost or expand the plant to provide increased gas processing with the associated sales of high-Btu gas to the gas utility,” says O’Mahony, who has helped develop six high-Btu landfill gas projects.

The three key factors that have contributed to the recent growth of high-Btu landfill gas projects are low wholesale electricity prices, high natural gas wholesale prices and improvements in gas separation technologies.

Wholesale prices for electricity and natural gas significantly affect which type of project will be profitable. Over the last several years, national wholesale electricity prices have been relatively steady, as illustrated in Figure 2 on p. 46. Meanwhile, natural gas prices have increased significantly since 2001 (see Figure 3 on p. 46). When natural gas prices rose from 2005 through 2008 — approaching $9 per million Btus — many landfills were able to pursue high-Btu projects.

Improvements in technology also have helped spur the growth of high-Btu landfill gas projects by making these projects feasible at landfills that provide less than 3,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of landfill gas. For example, manufacturers have reduced the cost to build gas-processing equipment and have reduced pressure requirements, which have decreased operating costs.

David Mauney, an experienced landfill gas project developer and consultant with The Hunter Group, explains how high-Btu projects are not just for larger landfills any more. “Initially, high-Btu projects required at least 3,000 scfm. But with improvements in the technology today, you can go as low as 1,500 to 2,000 scfm.” LMOP has recorded at least 10 high-Btu projects at landfills that provided less than 3,000 scfm of landfill gas to the project.

Meeting the Specifications

Landfill gas must be thoroughly cleaned and upgraded before it can be sold to a natural gas utility. To meet the typical specifications for pipeline-quality landfill gas (see chart on p. 48), several steps are required.

The final step, carbon dioxide removal, is the main component of a high-Btu project. This is because carbon dioxide constitutes approximately half of the raw landfill gas, and its removal requires specialized separation equipment. Removal of NMOCs, hydrocarbons and siloxanes often is achieved concurrently with carbon dioxide removal. To create pipeline quality gas, a combination of technologies may be necessary, depending on the composition of the landfill gas. Here are the four steps to creating pipeline quality gas:

1. Minimize oxygen and nitrogen.To minimize nitrogen and oxygen levels, a landfill may need to upgrade its gas collection system to prevent air intrusion. Landfill gas collection systems operate under a vacuum, and oxygen and nitrogen from the atmosphere can be drawn through the surface of the landfill and into the gas collection system. Air intrusion can be minimized by adjusting well vacuums and repairing leaks in the landfill cover.
2. Remove moisture.To remove moisture, many landfills employ a chiller or desiccant. Compressing and cooling the landfill gas further removes moisture. For high-Btu projects, removing the moisture (measured as water vapor) prevents interference with the subsequent compression and separation processes.
3. Remove hydrogen sulfide.Hydrogen sulfide can be removed using liquid absorption, either with chemical or physical solvents and usually in a continuous process, or through adsorption on a solid reactant product in a batch process.
4. Remove carbon dioxide.Four carbon dioxide removal technologies, described below, have been applied at landfills in the United States: scrubbing, membrane separation, molecular sieve (pressure swing adsorption) and CO2Wash.

Scrubbing uses a solvent that preferentially absorbs carbon dioxide and other gases into the liquid phase (also known as liquid absorption or physical solvent treating). Early high-Btu plants relied primarily on scrubbing technology, including the plants at the Fresh Kills Landfill in New York City and the McCarty Road Landfill in Houston, both of which began operations in the 1980s.

For these projects, large-scale cleanup technology was built on site, modeled after natural gas processing plants. Significant capital was required to build the processing plants and compress the landfill gas to appropriate pressure levels — 600 pounds-force per square inch gauge (psig). Scrubbing technology has therefore been applied historically at high-volume landfills that could generate enough gas (i.e., greater than 6,000 scfm) to ensure long-term returns. Recent technology advancements, however, have lowered the pressure requirements to around 400 psig and made smaller projects (those less than 3,000 scfm) possible.

One of the first applications of a gas treatment system on a smaller scale occurred at the Johnson County Landfill in Shawnee, Kan., in 2001. The landfill installed a modular scrubbing plant on a skid, specifically developed for smaller applications. According to the project developer, South Tex Renewables, the skid-mounted design is less expensive and easier to install and operate than previous technology. Pressure requirements are 400 psig. LMOP’s national database shows that five physical solvent high-Btu landfill gas projects have come on line since 2000 at landfills with gas flow as low as 1,000 scfm.

With membrane separation, different gases pass through porous membranes at different rates based on molecule size, allowing for the separation of compounds. Carbon dioxide passes through the membrane approximately 20 times faster than methane. In the past, a drawback to this technology’s application in the landfill gas industry was that pressure of around 600 psig was required to push the carbon dioxide through the membranes. Recent technology advancements, however, have lowered the pressure requirements to around 200 psig, thereby making smaller project sizes (less than 3,000 scfm) possible.

Membrane separation is relatively easy to operate and maintain. LMOP’s national database shows that nine of the high-Btu projects that started up since 2000 use membrane separation technology to remove carbon dioxide. More than half of those projects use technology that consists of a pre-treatment skid to remove NMOCs and a series of membrane modules to remove carbon dioxide and some oxygen.

Molecular sieve (pressure swing adsorption) uses vapor phase activated carbon for NMOC removal and a molecular sieve for carbon dioxide removal. The molecular sieve media preferentially adsorbs carbon dioxide on the media surface. When the media is loaded with carbon dioxide, the molecular sieve is taken off line, and the media is regenerated through a depressurization and purge cycle. (The process is therefore often referred to as pressure swing adsorption or PSA.) Molecular sieve media that selectively remove nitrogen also are available. PSAs can achieve some incidental oxygen removal. Four projects that started up or expanded in 2007 and 2008 use PSA, including the Rumpke Landfill in Cincinnati.

CO2Wash is a patented process that uses liquid carbon dioxide obtained from landfill gas as a solvent. After moisture removal and compression, landfill gas moves upward through a three-story column. Refrigeration at the top of the column condenses the carbon dioxide into liquid form. A portion of the liquid carbon dioxide washes down the column, cleansing volatile organic contaminants from the gas. The process produces two products: food-grade carbon dioxide (meaning the gas is 99.99 percent carbon dioxide) and medium-Btu gas (70 percent methane) that is virtually free of siloxanes and volatile organic compounds. The medium-Btu gas can be used as fuel, or it can undergo membrane processing to produce high-Btu gas.

Looking Ahead

The price of natural gas will continue to influence the number of new high-Btu projects. For 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts an average annual price of $4.67 per million Btus, and for 2010, $5.87 per million Btus. Beyond 2010, EIA projects a steady increase, nearing $8 per million Btus by 2020.

Two new projects have already come on line in 2009, with six more expected. The upcoming projects employ three different carbon removal technologies: scrubbing, membrane, and molecular sieve. Developers and technology providers will continue to demonstrate and refine the technology, paving the way for even more projects at landfills of all sizes.

What is LMOP?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) promotes landfill gas as a renewable local energy resource. As of June 2009, LMOP has encouraged and facilitated the development of approximately 410 landfill gas (LFG) energy projects since the voluntary program’s inception in 1994. These projects have prevented the release of more than 33.8 million metric tons of carbon equivalent into the atmosphere over the past 14 years. This reduction has the same environmental benefit as preventing the carbon dioxide emissions that would result from the consumption of nearly 197 million barrels of oil.

As of December 2008, more than 790 LMOP Partners have signed voluntary agreements to work with EPA to help promote and advance LFG energy. Today, approximately 480 LFG energy projects are operating nationwide, and about 130 projects are under construction or development. LMOP estimates that roughly 520 additional landfills present attractive opportunities for project development.

Sources: Waste Age Magazine and WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

The Workhorses of Waste – MSW Management Magazine and WIH Resource Group

It’s been said that the cowboys working the range would pamper their mustangs and often neglect their own comfort for the sake of their workhorses. They made sure that the horses got clean water while the cowboys drank brackish water. The horses were given sweet grass to eat while their riders made do with a cold plate of beans. The cowpokes sacrificed their own well being for the sake of their mounts. And they did so with good reason: Their livelihoods (even their lives) depended on the care of their horses.

The waste industry has its own workhorses, the waste collection vehicles, and they come in various “breeds.” Like the cowboys of old, their riders perform a physically demanding, gritty, unappreciated but absolutely necessary job. Hollywood portrayals notwithstanding, cowboys back in the day were not glamorous; they were workingmen like everyone else. Being a cowboy was a tough way to make a living, something modern waste collectors can appreciate. And like the cowboys of the past, today’s waste collectors need the appropriate mounts with the right capabilities in order to do their jobs.

Basic Types of Vehicles
There are three basics types of waste collection vehicles and three specialized types. Each services a different kind of customer: industrial, residential, recycling, or specialized. The three basic types are classified by the location and manner of their loading operation and include front loaders, rear loaders, and side loaders. The two specialized collection vehicles collect either with a vacuum attachment or with a grappler arm. The third specialized type is classified according to the overall function of recycling.

Front loaders (not to be confused with front-end loaders used for earthmoving and stockpile material management) are used to collect waste from dumpsters that collect and temporarily store debris that is typically generated by businesses, retail operations, restaurants, and industry. These trucks combine a forklift with a waste hopper for containment during transport. As the truck approaches a dumpster, it inserts its fork lift arms into metal loops designed for the purpose and located on either side of the dumpster box. Once secured, the forklift arms lift the box up and over the truck cab, turning it upside down as it goes. The top of the dumpster will fall open and allow its contents to spill into the hopper below. Once emptied, the forklift arms return the now empty dumpster back to its position on the ground. Inside the hopper, the waste is compacted by a “packer blade” that pushes the waste back to the rear of the hopper. This increases its density and opens up more free space for the next load. Trucks that are equipped with “pack and go” hydraulics, have superior operational efficiency since the truck can be compacting waste as it moves to its next pickup, removing delays as the truck would wait motionless until the compaction process was completed.

Rear loaders typically accept residential waste from individual trash cans that are emptied manually into the rear of the truck. These trucks are usually serviced by a small crew consisting of the driver and two or more loaders. They are designed to take and compact smaller individual loads of waste, compared with the large bulk loads handled by the front loaders. Partially automated loading systems are available in addition to manual loading. Waste containers larger than the typical waste cans (often referred to as toters) can be lifted and dumped by an auxiliary loading mechanism. Sometimes this loading mechanism consists of a special grove slot in the truck that is sized to receive a standardized waste container. A chain that tightens and wraps itself around the waste container can then lift and tilt it to empty the contents into the back of the truck. No matter how the waste is loaded, it gets compacted within the truck. This is done by means of a hydraulically powered sweep-and-slide blade that shifts out and down to position itself for compaction and then sweeps the waste forward to the front of the tuck. This action effectively compacts the loaded waste and frees up space in the back end for additional loading.

Automated side loaders are collection trucks that pick up intermediate-size mobile garbage bins. Some models have mechanical arms that can reach out 9 feet from the side of the truck to grab adjacent bins. The arm is operated from within the cab by a joystick and is articulated so that it can be operated around obstacles. This allows the entire waste collection effort to be performed by a single worker instead of the typical driver and one to two loaders required by less-advanced collection vehicles.

Recycling trucks are a kind of specialized vehicle used by standard hauling routes. They are designed to manage source-separated waste, collecting and hauling it to a local multistream (“clean”) materials recovery facility (MRF). However, since most waste collection operations nowadays also include a pickup of source-separated recyclable materials, recycling trucks have become an integral part of the standard waste collection vehicle fleet. No compaction is typically performed in these trucks either, but they do come with multiple (usually four) containers, each of which holds a different kind of source-separated waste.

Pneumatic collection trucks are specialized vehicles equipped with flexible pneumatic tubes controlled and positioned by attached cranes or booms. The engines of these trucks can be used to generate a suction force that applies negative pressure to the mouth of the tube. The tube is positioned over an opening (typically a hole to an underground storage unit) and proceeds to suck up the waste into the holding tank on the back of the truck. The tube’s flexibility allows for effective operation even around nearby obstacles.

Grapple trucks are another type of specialized waste collector used primarily in large-scale industrial and recycling activities. These trucks come equipped with a hydraulically operated boom serviced by a clamshell bucket or an orange-peel grapple. The boom reaches out to an adjacent pile of debris or large and heavy waste items and grabs them with the grappling attachment. The oversized waste is then deposited into a dump container on the back of the truck for hauling offsite. Given the size, weight, and irregularity of the waste handled by grapple trucks, they do not typically compact their waste loads during transit.

Operational Characteristics
Standard waste collection vehicles perform two functions: They haul waste to the final disposal site, and they compact each load of waste to increase its density and reduce overall hauling costs. The municipal solid waste deposited at a landfill has a density of 550 to over 650 pounds per cubic yard (approximately 20 to 25 pounds per cubic foot). This is the result of compaction within the truck during collection operations as the truck’s hydraulic blades compress waste that has a typical density of 10 to 15 pounds per cubic foot at the curbside. The in-vehicle compaction effort should approximately double the density and half the volume of the collected waste. However, these values are rough averages only and can vary considerably given the irregular and heterogeneous nature of municipal solid waste.

Holding capacity varies according to make and type of truck. Effective capacity may be reduced by the use of multiple storage hoppers (as in recycling trucks) or due to the nature of the collection apparatus (as with the pneumatic hose) or the physical characteristics of the waste itself (such as large sized, uncompactable debris managed by grapple trucks). Front-end loaders tend to be larger, with body storage capacities of 30 cubic yards to 40 cubic yards. Rear-end loader capacities range from 11 cubic yards to 31 cubic yards, with 25 cubic yards being typical. Side-loader capacities are somewhat smaller still, from 6 cubic yards to 28 cubic yards.

The operational lifetime of a waste collection vehicle is not that much different than for any other similar truck chassis or vehicle performing similar functions (such as dump trucks). The key to prolonging the life of a waste collection vehicle is to perform regular maintenance and repairs as needed. Like similar trucks in a rough-use environment, special care has to be made to the drive trains in general and the transmissions in particular. Aside from the accumulated effects of constant stopping and starting along the collection route, the only real difficult operational environment for a waste collection truck is at the landfill itself. Judging by the extensive resale market for waste collection vehicles, a properly maintained truck can expect an extensive operational lifetime (often for more than a decade or two). But as the saying goes: “It ain’t the years, it’s the mileage.”

Typical capital costs vary with the type of waste collection vehicle being acquired. Standard vehicles managing commingled municipal solid waste can cost from $110,000 to $140,000 per truck for manual rear loaders or $115,000 to $140,000 per truck for mechanically operated front loaders and side loaders. Recycling trucks with the standard four separate waste compartments can run from $120,000 to $140,000 per truck (all costs from Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Kreith and Tchobanoglous, 2002; with costs adjusted to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 6,500).

The operations and maintenance costs can vary considerably, depending on the length of the collection routes, the number of stops made along the route, and the tonnage collected on each route. It isn’t the continuous running of the truck that causes wear and tear; it’s the repetitive stops and starts required by waste collection operations. These are what wear down the brakes, transmission, et cetera. Annual O&M costs are measured in terms of dollars per ton each year. Operating costs also include the labor costs associated with the driver and the loaders (for non-automated collection vehicles). Typical O&M costs for collecting commingled municipal solid waste range from $50 to $70 per ton. Being more labor intensive with the handling requirements for multiple wastestreams, the collection of source-separated recyclable materials can vary from $100 to $140 per ton.

There is an old saying in the waste industry that “You don’t make money picking waste up; you make money by putting it back down again.” Given the labor-intensive requirements of waste collection operations (even with automated loaders) versus the capital-intensive requirements of landfill construction and operations, it is easy to see why this is so. The costs of collecting and hauling wastes can be determined in a relatively straightforward manner (e.g., truck miles or labor hours) and vary mostly with population density. The more densely populated the area being serviced by a waste collection vehicle fleet, the lower the O&M costs due to less wasted transit time spent traveling between stops. Operations at the landfill where the waste is disposed are unique in that they combine relatively high upfront capital costs (associated with permitting and constructing the landfill itself) and relatively low operating costs. Therefore, it is often best to treat the two operations as separate cost centers for the purposes of accounting.

Major Makes and Models
One of the biggest names in heavy-duty trucks, Mack Trucks, has an extensive line of waste collection vehicles. The design of its TerraPro Series is based on the successful MR and LE Series, with an emphasis on operator comfort and ergonomically designed workflow to maximize productivity. The flexible design of the TerraPro Series can accommodate front-loader, side-loader, and rear-loader applications. Equipped with a diesel particulate filter, the TerraPro series runs cleaner than its predecessors. The TerraPro Cabover model is the industry’s leading seller and is augmented by the versatile Low Entry model. Designed for rugged use, the Cabover optimizes maneuverability with a small turning radius. It comes equipped with a 300-horsepower engine delivering more than 1,200 foot-pounds of torque to an eight-speed transmission.

Mack’s Low Entry waste collection vehicle is the result of comprehensive customer research and engineering redesign of traditional waste collection concepts. Its design combines an in-cab control Link with a back-of-cab body link system serving as quick connection, bodybuilder interfaces. This allows for flexibility in body installation, allowing for the use of side-loader or rear-loader systems. Its 300-horsepower engine delivers over 1,200 foot-pounds of torque to a six-speed transmission.

In an industry dedicated to protecting human health and the environment, it’s surprising that more manufacturers don’t “go green.” Well that is exactly what Volvo has done with its new Volvo FE Hybrid waste collection vehicle. Volvo plans to put this newly developed diesel-electric hybrid into full production later this year. Waste collection vehicles constantly stop and start as they make their way around collection routes. In doing so, they become big wasters of fuel as they sit around idling while the waste is being loaded. Volvo’s simple hybrid design includes a 320-horsepower diesel engine with a 120-kW lithium-ion electric battery and motor. The electric motor can power the truck up to speeds of 12 miles per hour and will receive energy recharges every time the truck hits its brakes. Initial estimates indicate that the new trucks will use 20% less fuel with a proportional reduction in emissions.

In step with Volvo is Peterbilt’s (a division of PACCAR Inc.) new hydraulic hybrid Model 320 HLA, equipped with hydraulic launch assist (HLA) technology developed by the Eaton Corp. HLA works by recovering up to 75% of the energy normally lost to waste heat while braking. This system captures braking energy and stores it as pressurized hydraulic fluid in an onboard accumulator, instead of an eclectic battery. The fluid is then used to help propel the truck when the driver gets it back under way. Not only can the compressed fluid drive the vehicle at low speeds, it can also provide an 18% improvement in acceleration efficiencies. Early estimates indicate that the reductions in emissions and fuel consumption by the Model 320 are significant. Furthermore, the use of a hydraulic hybrid system results in a 50% reduction in annual brake realignment maintenance requirements. “The Model 320 HLA is an ideal environmental option for refuse applications,” says Bill Jackson, Peterbilt general manager and PACCAR vice president. “Dramatic improvements in fuel economy, reductions in emissions, and lower maintenance costs spotlight the Peterbilt Model 320 Hydraulic Hybrid as the environmentally responsible, fuel-efficient solution for municipal and residential solid waste transportation fleets. These fleets operate in some of the most demanding of truck applications, often making 800 to 1,200 stops per day on collection routes.”

Peterbilt’s traditional Model 320 is ergonomically designed for driver comfort. A removable three-frame cross-member allows for ease of service. Power trains are available in either front-mounted or transmission-driven configurations. Optional frame liners are available for heavier applications (like hauling concrete and bric-a-brac from construction-and-demolition debris. It offers a full range of axle selections in single, tandem, or tri-drive configurations, plus a full complement of tag and pusher axle option. The Model 320 is available in a variety of configurations with a full range of options for the refuse, construction, and inner-city hauling markets. It comes equipped with a 306- to 470-horsepower engine delivering power to an 8- or 13-speed transmission. The various combinations of options allows for customized applications for specific operations.

International’s Durastar waste collection vehicles are designed and built for simplicity and endurance with minimal downtime. The integrated wiring design of its Diamond Logic electrical system utilizes 40% less wiring than standard waste truck electrical systems. This reduces the need for maintenance and the potential for repair. Well-planned, synchronized service intervals further reduce maintenance costs. Durastar’s MaxxForce DT engine provides up to 9% to 13% improvement in fuel economy. This fuel-injected V6 engine provides the industry’s best combination of horsepower and torque.

Freightliner’s Business Class M2 series of waste collection trucks provides flexible configurations based on four models. These trucks are designed to support a wide variety of bodies and chassis-mounted equipment. This can come with MBE900 engines that can deliver up to 350 horsepower, and with wheelbases that provide a tight 55-degree wheel cut for ease of maneuverability. The MS models can come with either manual or automatic transmissions from Mercedes-Benz, Eaton Fuller, or Allison, along with Freightliner’s Smart Shift option. The multiplex wiring system reduces the number of wires by nearly 50%, and comes with color-coding and ServiceLink diagnostic tools for ease of maintenance and repair. The most versatile of these models is the M2 106V, providing front engine power-train operation housed in front frame extensions. These frame extensions come in increments of 6 inches, 12 inches, or 24 inches.

The Crane Carrier Corp. (CCC) provides both a packaged front loader (PFL) and a packaged side loader (PSL) model waste collection vehicle. Utilizing a Cummins ISC-260 engine delivering 258–800 horsepower to an Allison transmission, the PSL model carries waste storage bodies ranging in size from 25 cubic yards to 37 cubic yards. It is built on the company’s standard low-entry tilt chassis.

As the only ISO 9000–certified domestic refuse body manufacturer in America, Heil provides a full range of refuse collection vehicles (front loaders, rear loaders, side loaders, and recyclers). Its front loaders come with a patented clamp-on arm that reduces maintenance by 70% and comes standard on its Half Pack and Half Pack Sierra front loaders. The Sierra is a lightweight version of the standard Half Pack, with all of the features and performance characteristics of the Half Pack but with 13% less gross body weight. The 40-cubic-yard Half Pack Sierra weighs just 16,700 pounds versus 19,300 pounds for the same size standard Half Pack body. Both bodies offer payloads up to 1,200 pounds per cubic yard, a packer cycle time of 22 to 26 seconds, and arm cycle times of 18 to 20 seconds. Rear loaders are represented by Heil’s Formula series trucks (4000, 4060 SB, and 5000). They come in a variety of sizes from 11 to 32 yards, with an optional narrow body version also available. The SB is a split-body model with a dual tailgate refuse or recycling rear loader. It has separate compartments and independent unloading capability.

A greater diversity is provided in Heil’s side loaders. The original Square Body is the loader designed for Class 7 and Class 8 tucks ranging in size form 18 to 33 cubic yards. The Durapack is a high-compaction version with somewhat higher capacity ranging from 26 to 33 yards. With its exceptionally long-reach arm, Heil’s Rapid Rail is the company’s original model automated side loader. The Starr system is a trailer version of the Rapid Rail with a very small turning radius, and the Co-Collector is a split-body version. For designated routes where full-size collection vehicles cannot go (small alleys and narrow roads), Heil has its Retriever class of small side loaders. For recycling application, Heil provides the Recycle 2000. With its two-commodity compaction recycling body for tandem trucks, it is loaded from side-mounted buckets.

McNeilus, a manufacturer of concrete trucks as well as refuse trucks, provides a complete ensemble of rear, front, and side loaders. The company’s front loaders come in the matched Atlantic and Pacific models. The Atlantic has AR-450 abrasion-resistant sidewalls and an arm capacity of 10,000 pounds. The Pacific is designed to meet tougher weight laws out on the West Coast. The company’s line of automated side loaders greatly increases waste collection operational efficiencies. A more flexible version is the Manual/Automated side loader that also allows for manual rear loading. The McNeilus Standard rear loader has a packing cycle of only 16 seconds, significantly increasing the speed of operations. The Tag Axle version has the rear axle built into the tailgate, creating better weight distribution to all three axles. The Heavy Duty version is suitable for large loads and commercial waste pickups. The XC Extra Compaction is the extreme limit of waste compaction capabilities, allowing for more tonnage per load of waste. The large-scale vehicles are augmented by the cost effective Metro-Pak and the smaller, more agile McNeilus M5.

Autocar LLC builds and supports Class 8 LCF refuse trucks. Running both on diesel and on natural gas, the Autocar E3 Advanced Hydraulic Hybrid Drive has the best overall strength-to-weight ratio in the industry. Equipped with a Cummins 345-horsepower engine that delivers 1,150 foot-pounds of torque, the E3 has a wide range of vehicle and body configurations. The company’s new E3 Hybrid stores energy from braking and provides 50% fuel savings and reduced emissions.

GS Products delivers a family of mobile solid waste and recycling equipment and highly specialized collection equipment, including its MP-8000 Sideloader, 6000 Side Dump, 5000 Top Loader, and 3000 End Dump. Based on proven design concepts and readily available parts, its goal is to produce durable, easy-to-maintain machines.

Sources: MSW Management Magazine and WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Despite Economy, Waste-by-Rail Interest is on the Rise by both the Private Sector and Public Agencies

Most recently, WIH Resource Group has been contacted and retained by a range of public and private sector clients to assist in performing wastebyrail feasibility studies, facility siting studies, waste generator radius market studies and to conduct financial analysis for various clients throughout the nation. 

While waste volumes are down on average between 25% and 35%, a growing interest in railroading waste from large metro areas (Cities) to more remote rail-served, or near rail- served, landfills is on the rise.

The timing of this renewed interest in Wastebyrail is interesting as general freight volumes for the major Class One Railroads are down considerable so the railroads’ interest in potential Wastebyrail programs might be of greater interest now then when other freight is maximizing the railroads’ system capacity.

Of particular interest is that Investor mogul Warren Buffett and his investing company, Berkshire Hathaway, made a bid last week to acquire BNSF Railway for $34 billion.

Berkshire Hathaway already owned about 22 percent of BNSF, the nation’s second largest Class One railroad.

 

The deal, which including Berkshire’s previous investment and the assumption of $10 billion in Burlington Northern debt brings the total value to $44 billion, represents what Mr. Buffett said was a big bet on the United States Railroads.

 

He told CNBC in an interview that railroad operators cannot do well unless American businesses were producing goods and customers were buying them.

This move by Buffett will most likely spur even more interests in railroad transportation.  Railroad transportation compared to Trucking allows for an approximate 3:1 ratio of weight and volume per rail car to that of an individual truck.  By comparison, and on a per ton calculation, rail emits a much smaller percentage of harmful diesel-fuel carcinogens than that of trucking.  In addition, the cost for rail transportation is almost a third to that of trucking costs for the same traffic lane. 

In terms of the future of Wastebyrail, it makes the most economic sense when regional disposal rates exceed $65-$75.00 per ton, such as in the Northeast part of the U.S. and Northwest, and where the nearest regional rail-served landfill is between 250-350 miles one way from the waste generators.  Seattle, Los Angeles, New York and New Jersey are a few examples of where Wastebyrail makes sound economic sense, especially as siting new landfills is increasingly more difficult in large metropolitan areas.

   
WIH Resource Group is a leader in Providing Client Specific Recycling and Waste Management Solutions.  WIH Resource Group provides its clients with recycling and comprehensive business solutions, specializing in, among other services, waste management operational performance assessments, transportation / logistics, alternative fuel use, solid waste planning, waste and recycling market studies and environmental services.
 
WIH Resource Group also has in-depth experience in assessing needs and enhancing recycling programs.  WIH Resource Group and its unique team have extensive program background and experience assisting local government clients assessing and optimizing their recycling programs. 

 

As an example, in the past WIH has completed multi-facility Material Recovery Facility (MRF) performance assessments for King County, Washington and recently completed assisting Apache County Arizona in conducting a recycling feasibility study.

Sources: WIH Resource Group & Berkshire Hathaway

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Manure Power: Dairies Harness Methane to Create Renewable Energy – WIH Resource Group

The 2,600 cows at Vintage Dairy west of Fresno produce up to 140 tons of manure per day. 

 

Four times a day, 5,000 gallons of water flush manure down the rows of the open-stall barns at Vintage Dairy – collecting about 90 percent of the waste. Photo by Jennifer Baldwin

 

David Albers is a third-generation dairy farmer, and environmental lawyer, and founder and CEO of BioEnergy Solutions. Photo by Jennifer Baldwin

 

Albers demonstrates the thickness of the polyurethane liner covering the anaerobic digestion lagoon at Vintage Dairy. His guests are students from Independence High School’s energy academy in Bakersfield. Photo by Jennifer Baldwin

 

 The “scrubbing plant” at Vintage Dairy upgrades the biogas to high-quality methane that matches the purity of natural gas. The black tower on the left is the desulfurization tower and the white tower on the right burns off the carbon dioxide. Photo by Jennifer Baldwin

 

 A red valve marks the spot where Pacific Gas & Electric Company takes title to the biomethane produced at Vintage Dairy. Photo by Jennifer Baldwin

 David Albers knows the power of poop. Cow manure, that is. The third generation dairy farmer from Bakersfield has 2,600 cows producing about 130 tons of manure each day.  But he prefers to count it differently.

 “The way we’ve broken it down is, two cows can power one home each day. So our cows power about 1,300 homes.”

 Just how does he make the leap from poop to power? Albers’ Vintage Dairy, located west of Fresno, is the first in the state of California – and one of the first in the nation – to capture the gas released from the decomposing manure, turn it into high-quality methane, and sell it directly to a power company as natural gas.

 In his case, he injects the gas into a Pacific Gas & Electric Company line that runs through his property. The utility company pays Albers for the gas, then pipes it to an energy plant, where it is burned to produce electricity.

 So not only does Albers make a profit as a dairy farmer, he also brings in income for creating and selling renewable energy. Furthermore, he’s helping to lessen the affects of global warming by reducing his dairy farm’s greenhouse gas emissions.

 It’s a practice he believes in so wholeheartedly, he has launched an entire business devoted to it. As founder and CEO of BioEnergy Solutions, based in Bakersfield, Albers offers to fund and install biogas systems at other dairies and split the gas revenue and emission credits with the farmers. So far, his is the only dairy with the system, which went online in 2008. He reports he has contracts with 39 dairies and letters of intent from 150 more.   His project is certainly gaining attention.

 In September, the California Environmental Protection Agency and other state agencies honored BioEnergy Solutions with a Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award in the “climate change” category.

 Albers’ project “is at the top of our list for uses for methane,” said Dave Warner, director of permit services for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. “It gets fed directly into a pipeline, so it’s a perfect solution.”

 What to do with all that gas

There are about 1.8 million diary cows in California producing methane – one of the main greenhouse gasses that cause global warming, and also one of the main sources of energy in this state. With a little “scrubbing,” all that methane can be purified and used to heat homes, generate electricity and even fuel cars.

 So why aren’t more dairies capturing and selling their methane? It comes down to money.

 “Financing is the big obstacle,” said Allen Dusault, program director for sustainable agriculture with the San Francisco-based nonprofit, Sustainable Conservation. He works with dairies that want to capture their methane and put it to use. But these systems are very expensive, and until recent law mandated power companies to use more renewable energy, dairies had a hard time selling either the natural gas or electricity generated on-site. For most dairies, the cost benefit of installing the methane digesters and scrubbing plants does not outweigh the savings from generating their own power. The systems can cost into the millions. 

Even so, there are about 30 dairies in California that digest manure and generate power on-site, according to Cindy Pollard, spokeswoman with PG&E. Of the dairies that use internal combustion engines to burn the gas and generate power, some have recently shut down, according to Dusault, after new regulations required the dairies to cut down on the nitrogen oxides released from those engines.Nitrogen oxides are one of the main culprits for ground-level air pollution, including summertime smog, said Warner of the air pollution control district. This is why the district prefers other uses for purified methane, called biomethane, such as injecting it into natural gas lines – or compressing it to fuel vehicles.

One large dairy in Lindsey is doing just that. Hilarides Dairy has converted its fleet to run on natural gas and compresses its biomethane to fuel their trucks. According to an article by Dairy Herd Management, the 9,000-cow dairy is capable of producing an equivalent of 700 to 800 gallons of diesel fuel each day.Could California’s dairies effectively fuel natural gas-powered vehicles? A 25 report, researched by Ken Krich of Sustainable Conservation, posed this fact:“Manure from about half the cows in California could provide enough biomethane to power all the natural gas vehicles currently operating in the state,” according to the report, Biomethane From Dairy Waste.Other industries that also produce a lot of methane, such as swine farms, landfills, waste water treatment sites and food processing plants, are also prime for biomethane production. California may want to look to Europe, particularly Sweden and Germany, where biomethane has become an industry standard over the past 10 years, according to Dusault.Warner says some waste water treatment plants in California are already capturing their methane and using it to produce their own electricity. And earlier this month, the world’s largest landfill gas to liquefied natural gas facility opened in Livermore. The gas can fuel up to 300 garbage trucks operated by Waste Management, according to the company’s website.

How it works

A tour of David Albers’ Vintage Dairy shows just how big of an operation it is to capture, clean and sell natural gas-quality methane. The tour starts in one of the long, open-stall barns that houses row after row of cows. Each row has a feeding station along one side and a sandy spot for the cows to lay down on the other. All manure is aimed into the center of the row.

The first step in the process is effective manure collection, Albers explains, and this type of housing – unlike an open feed lot – allows his dairy to collect about 90 percent of the manure.“Four times a day, 5,000 gallons of water is pushed through here,” washing the manure down the row into a canal, Albers says.

The canal transports the sludge to a processing pit, where it is then pumped about 200 yards away to a mechanical separator. Solids are dumped into a composting pile to be turned into fertilizer for the dairy’s feed crops.The liquid remainder flows by gravity into a 5-acre, 38-feet-deep pit covered with a thick liner made of high-density polyurethane. This is the anaerobic digester.

In the absence of oxygen, bacteria break down the sludge and release biogas, which is composed of mostly methane and carbon dioxide, with a little hydrogen sulfide as well.The gas enters a perforated pipe that runs the perimeter of the covered lagoon and is delivered to an on-site “scrubbing plant” that first desulfurizes the gas, and then removes the carbon dioxide.

The carbon dioxide is “flared,” or burned off (the effects of which are not harmful to the air, Warner of the air pollution control district said). What is left is high-quality methane that matches the purity of natural gas.The gas runs to a station 1,500 feet away where a compressor brings it up to the same level as the natural gas flowing through PG&E’s line running through the dairy’s property.

Then, at a red valve, PG&E takes title to the gas.And, what happens to all of that water? Albers points to a crystal clear pond on the other side of PG&E’s right of way.“There’s nothing floating in it. It’s all been broken down in the digester,” Albers says. The water will be used to irrigate the dairy’s crops of alfalfa, wheat and sorghum when the economy lets up and it becomes feasible to grow their own feed again, he says. For now, their crop farming operations are shut down.

Affects of the economy

The economic recession has also slowed Albers’ plans for expansion. Once he’s able to secure the financing, his first step will be to build digesters at four neighboring dairies and pipe their biogas to his plant for processing.Next up will be to build a similar system in Shafter, starting with Tjaarda Dairy and expanding to its neighbors.

That 3,000-cow dairy also has a PG&E natural gas pipeline running through it. By clustering the digesters, Albers can invest in one scrubbing station to be shared by several dairies.Perry Tjaarda has been in the dairy business for 45 years, starting in Corona, then Bakersfield and now, for the past 10 years, in Shafter. He’s experienced ever-tightening regulations and knows he has to do something to get ahead of future greenhouse gas emission rules.

“Over the last few years a lot of focus has been put on dairies and the possible pollutants they produce. Are we polluting or are we not? And if we are, what are we doing about it?” he said.Regardless of the “science behind the rhetoric,” Tjaarda says he sees an economic benefit to capturing and utilizing the methane from his dairy’s manure – especially if Albers’ BioEnergy Solutions is willing to front the cost of the system.“By pumping into PG&E’s gas line, we get paid a little, David gets paid a little, and we get (emission) credits. It’s a win-win. It makes sense,” he said.

All this wouldn’t be possible if a new law hadn’t been passed in 2006 that mandated utility companies in California to get at least 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2010. It also helps that Albers has 10 years under his belt as an environmental lawyer and knows his way around the legal issues and permitting processes for dairies.

Every time a project he represented was up for environmental review, “at least one person would say, ‘Why not build an anaerobic digester?’” he said. “Under California law, I would have to respond with an analysis showing we researched the economic feasibility.”And in every case it would not be economically feasible to build a digester only to produce an excessive amount of power that utilities would be unwilling to pay for.

But when Senate Bill 107 passed in 2006, utilities changed their tunes. And, in November 2008, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order that utilities obtain at least 33 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020.Furthermore, dairies face possible mandatory greenhouse gas emission reductions under Assembly Bill 32.

That bill, called the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” mandated the California Air Resources Board to develop a scoping plan to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.That plan points out that 6 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in California come from agriculture, and they are “largely methane emissions from livestock, both from animals and their waste.”

While the plan currently calls for voluntary reductions among dairies, it also recommends revisiting the issue in 2013 to possibly make the reductions mandatory.If that becomes the case, manure digesters could become the industry standard for large dairies in California and Albers’s BioEnergy Solutions could very well be the state’s leader in the effort.

PG&E spokeswoman Pollard said the utility does have contracts with other companies to buy biomethane. One of those is Microgy, a subsidiary of New York-based Environmental Power Corporation, which has plans to build three scrubbing stations near dairy clusters in Kerman, Riverdale and Hanford. But those projects are not yet online.

Albers’ Vintage Dairy is the only one injecting biomethane from dairy manure into existing pipeline in California today.“I love what we’re doing,” Albers said. “With this kind of thing, we have to pinch ourselves. How cool is it to come up with something that’s good all the way around? We are doing an environmental project on a dairy, we are providing renewable energy to PG&E, the dairyman gets a new revenue stream, and all of us get cleaner air because there are less emissions in the atmosphere.

”David Albers will be one of the featured speakers at the third annual Kern County Energy Summit presented by the Kern Economic Development Corporation. “Kern County’s Emerging Energy Technologies” is from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 12, at Bakersfield Marriott at the Convention Center, 801 Truxtun Ave. Registration is $50. For a registration form, go to www.kedc.com or call 862-5150.

Sources: Bakersfield Express & WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

World’s Largest Landfill Natural Gas Plant Opens in Livermore, California – WIH Resource Group

Cutting the ribbon at the new landfill gas to liquefied natural gas plant at the Waste Management Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility in Livermore took a lot of hands. Holding the big scissors were representatives from Waste Management, The Linde Group, the Gas Technology Institute (GTI), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California Energy Commission, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), all of whom played a role in making the plant a reality. “This is something I’ve dreamed about for eight years, the concept of taking gas from waste in the ground and turning it into clean fuel that we use in our trucks,” said Waste Management senior vice president Duane Woods. He noted that during the two-hour opening event, the landfill gas (LFG)-to-liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant would produce about 700 gallons of ultra-low-carbon LNG for Waste Management’s truck fleet. When the plant reaches its full capacity, it will produce 13,000 gallons a day. The Altamont LFG-to-LNG plant, the largest such facility in the world, is a partnership between Waste Management and Linde, a world-leading gases and engineering company. Four California agencies contributed to the $15.5 million project: CIWMB, CARB, the California Energy Commission, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. GTI managed several of the state grants and licensed elements of the LNG production technology used at the facility. “We love this project and there is really nothing not to love about it,” said CARB chair Mary Nichols, who represented Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the event. “It’s taking material that would otherwise go into the atmosphere and be a contributor to global warming and turning it into a useful product that is cutting emissions.” As organic matter within the Altamont Landfill decomposes, it produces “landfill gas,” a mixture of mostly methane and carbon dioxide, both greenhouse gases. An elaborate network of wells and a vacuum extraction system capture the landfill gases, which are then run through an extensive filtration system and converted into LNG. The energy to power the plant also comes from LFG pumped through solar gas turbines connected to generators, a system that has been in place for 10 years.  When LNG vehicles from Waste Management’s fleet arrive at the Altamont Landfill to drop off trash, they can refuel right at the LFG-to-LNG plant. The LNG will also be used in Waste Management vehicles in 20 California communities. “With this new plant, we can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and drastically reduce the carbon emissions from our natural gas fleet by creating a clean fuel from thousands of tons of garbage that have been disposed of in this facility,” said Woods. He added that the LNG produced at the Altamont Landfill has 85% less carbon intensity than gasoline or diesel and even has lower carbon emissions than electric vehicles, when considering everything it takes to charge such vehicles. “This is exactly the kind of win-win situation we are looking for in trying to transform our whole energy economy away from having to extract, process, and import fuels from other parts of the world,” said Nichols. The Altamont LFG-to-LNG facility meets two of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s environmental directives: the Bioenergy Action Plan, which seeks to advance the use and market development of biomass as a transportation fuel, and Executive Order S-3-05, which aims to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020. “To meet our State’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we need to take advantage of biofuels such as these being created here. They are in very short supply right now. Although there are inventions out there on the horizon, this is really the only full-size producing plant in existence today,” Nichols added. With the commissioning of the Altamont Landfill LFG-to-LNG facility, Waste Management and Linde are already turning their sights to new projects. “There is a lot of landfill gas still being flared, so there is a lot of potential out there,” said Kent Stoddard, a Waste Management vice president. “Biogas is an important domestic source of renewable energy.” The two companies are scouting locations for another LFG-to-LNG plant, which could be another of Waste Management’s 227 landfills nationwide. Once a site is chosen, construction of a plant would take about 12 to 15 months. Steve Eckhardt, who heads alternative energy business development for Linde, said he’s been fielding constant requests from around the world for information about the LFG-to-LNG plant. “It took a lot of time and energy to get here, but we’ve shown it can be done cost-effectively and efficiently,” he said.

Sources: The Independent & WIH Resource Group

Should you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com and http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=1150967&trk=anet_ug_hm

Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

 

Where Cargo Ships Go To Die – WIH Resource Group

Not water waves but sand waves – shipwrecks in the once coastal town of Myunak
Image via artificialowl

Deserts are not the places one would associate with shipwrecks. But ghostly remains of once proud schooners, cruise ships or freighters smack in the middle of a desert are not as rare as one might think. Deserts and accompanying dust storms steering unsuspecting ships off course are often the culprits but also advancing deserts and sadly, increasing desertification worldwide. Here’s a look at five places that can boast of some quite bizarre shipwrecks.

Ships seem to turn into whale bones on the Skeleton Coast:

Image: Patrick Giraud

1. Skeleton Coast, Namibia

Namibia’s Skeleton Coast, named for the huge whale skeletons and ghostly shipwrecks found on its shores, is one of the earth’s most inhospitable and least visited places. Travelling sand dunes rule the area and make travelling on land hardly advisable. Even vehicles with four-wheel drive will not go far for fear of getting stuck in the soft sand, their passengers at risk of running out of drinking water before help arrives. Namibian tribes shun the region that they call “the Land God Made in Anger” and Portuguese sailors once referred to as the “Gates of Hell”. Charming!

Even big ships can’t help fall under the Skeleton Coast’s spell:

Image: Patrick Giraud

The Skeleton Coast’s isolation has given rise to the untouched beauty of the area, which has produced a unique flora and fauna. Cold sea breezes are often accompanied by dense fog that has led many a ship astray, left in desert silence and a barren landscape once the fog has cleared. Among the roughly 1,000 ships that didn’t manage to navigate past this inhospitable area and now litter the coastline, slowly succumbing to the sand, are famous ones like the Eduard Bohlen, the Otavi, the Dunedin Star, and the Tong Taw.

Sand as far as the eye can see and what’s left of the Eduard Bohlen, shipwrecked in 1909:

Image: mistress_f

The Skeleton Coast as seen from space:

Image: NASA

2. The Aral Sea

The Aral Sea, located between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, was once the fourth-largest inland salt lake. It has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s when its two crucial water sources, the rivers Amu Darya and Syr Darya were diverted for Soviet irrigation projects.

An abandoned ship in a now dried up part of the Aral Sea near Aral, Kazakhstan:

Image: Staecker

Since then, the Aral Sea has shrunk to 10% of its original size, leaving behind three separate lakes instead of one, of which two are too salty to support fish. Many former coastal towns find themselves now literally stranded in a desert, deprived of their livelihood and affected by ecological changes. Testimony to this are huge shipwrecks that lie around abandoned like stranded metal whales.

Even the camels seem to be wondering what happened to all the water:

Image via artificialowl

Muynak in western Uzbekistan is one of those once bustling fishing towns that today has problems keeping its few thousand remaining inhabitants. The receding Aral Sea has placed Muynak dozens of miles away from the coast, subjecting it to dust storms and more severe weather conditions than before.

Before and after – the Aral Sea in 1989 (left) and in 2009:

Image: NASA

3. The Sahara

In a list of bizarre shipwrecks, we can’t give the Sahara a miss – just the term Saharan shipwrecks sounds rather strange. The world’s largest hot desert covers almost all of northern Africa or about the size of the United States or Europe. It is one of the harshest climates in the world, with north-easterly winds causing severe sandstorms and dust devils that can even be seen from space. No wonder that many a ship, especially in Western Sahara, had to succumb to the elements.

A shipwreck in Western Sahara that looks in quite good shape:

Image: Urban Bryngeld

A picturesque shipwreck near Tarfaya, Morocco:

Image: gezonkenbootje

A massive dust storm transporting sand westward across the Atlantic Ocean:

Image: NASA

4. The Red Sea

The Red Sea is the Indian Ocean’s seawater inlet wedged between Africa and Asia. As the world’s northernmost tropical sea, the Red Sea climate is governed by two distinct monsoon seasons.

Despite being the world’s hottest and saltiest body of seawater, the Red Sea’s efficient water circulation with the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean via the Gulf of Aden reduces the sea’s high salinity and surface temperature. The region’s corals have adapted to these conditions and have in fact – coupled with dust storms – been the end of many a ship’s journey in shallow parts of the sea.

Abu Soma is a Red Sea resort known for its amazing wind- and kite-surfing opportunities. However, as some of the shipwrecks found on its beaches prove, it is not without dangers for ships navigating along these shores.

Abu Soma, Egypt:

Image: Henning Leweke

The Loullia was a Panama freighter, built in Sweden and launched in 1952. On a voyage from Aqaba to Suez, it ran aground at Gordon Reef in the Straits of Tiran in September 1981. The crew got evacuated after four days but the ship’s remains have become a part of the reef ever since.

Stuck on a reef since 1981 – the Loullia:

Image: Alex Polezhaev

A dust storm over the Red Sea as seen from space:

Image: NASA

5. Greece

Greece is not a place that comes to mind when thinking of advancing deserts but fact is that more than 80% of Greece’s landmass is at risk from desertification and almost 10% already is arid. Most in danger are hilly areas where soil erosion adversely affects the fertility, depth and productivity of the earth. Agricultural machines, a growing population, salination and exploitation of already stressed resources are to blame. Currently, most of the Peloponnese, parts of the Ionian Islands, eastern and central Crete, parts of Thessaly, Macedonia, Thrace and mainland Greece are affected.

A shipwreck at Navagio a.k.a. Shipwreck Beach in Zakynthos:

Image: Anna Oates

… and the shipwreck’s scenic location seen from a bird’s eye view:

Image: Anna Oates

Though there is a certain charm – and not to forget the surprise effect – to seeing ships in a desert, this is not a sight that we hope to see more of any time soon.

Source:   Environmental Graffitti & WIH Resource Group

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com & http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wihresourcegroup Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Dealing with Special Wastes at Landfills – WIH Resource Group

The news is all a-buzz these days with talk about the news about the new Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which outlines specific guidelines for the lead content in children’s toys.

According to information from the Center for Environmental Health, the strict regulations have been postponed for another year, which means landfills won’t be overwhelmed with discarded Barbie Dolls and toy trains anytime soon.

(This controversial issue has been discussed by several major news organizations, including the International Herald Tribune andAustin News KXAN-TV  in Austin, Texas.)

However, this brings up an important issue for landfills to consider: What should you do when dangerous/hazardous wastes come to your landfill?

1. Unless your landfill is a hazardous waste facility, you should not accept hazardous waste. Some states allow landfills to accept small amounts of certain hazardous wastes. To find a list of wastes defined as hazardous or to find a hazardous waste program in your state, visit this page on the EPA’s website. 

2. Require prior notice. Because dangerous/hazardous wastes often require special handling, it may slow down the operation. Requiring prior notice allows you to schedule the dangerous wastes into the day’s plans.

3. Make sure the gatehouse attendant is actively watching out for dangerous/hazardous loads. If one comes in, the attendant may need to direct the customer to a hazardous waste facility.

3. Operators should always be on the lookout for hazardous materials in the waste stream, in case the gate attendant didn’t notice the materials. 

4. Consider creating a flyer for your customers that lists hazardous wastes, what’s accepted at your landfill, and information on where to find a hazardous waste facility. You could hand flyers out at the gatehouse or post it on your website.

5. Hold a hazardous waste collection day. Customers can pay a fee to your landfill, drop off hazardous waste, and you can transport them to the appropriate facility. This might minimize people “sneaking” hazardous wastes into a load. Here is a video from the The Bergen County Utilities Authority hazardous waste collection day.

// Tags: center for environmental health, consumer product safety improvement act of 2008, customers, EPA, hazardous, hazardous waste programs, landfills, lead, safety, waste management, wastes

Source:  Blue Ridge Services & WIH Resource Group

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com & http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wihresourcegroup Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China by China Hush & WIH Resource Group

October 14, 2009, the 30^th annual awards ceremony of the W. Eugene Smith Memorial Fund took place at the Asia Society in New York City. Lu Guang from People’s Republic of China won the $30,000 W. Eugene Smith Grant in Humanistic Photography for his documentary project “Pollution in China.”

Lu Guang (卢广), freelancer photographer, started as an amateur photographer in 1980. He was a factory worker, later started his own photo studio and advertising agency. August of 1993 he returned to post-graduate studies at the Central Arts and Design Academy in Beijing (now is the Academy of Arts and Design, Tsinghua University). During graduate school, he studied, traveled all over the country and carved out a career, became the “dark horse” of the photographer circle in Beijing. Skilled at social documentary photography, his insightful, creative and artistic work often focused on “social phenomena and people living at the bottom of society”, attracted the attentions of the national photography circle and the media. Many of his award winning works focused on social issues like, “gold rush in the west”, “drug girl”, “small coal pit”, “HIV village”, “the Grand Canal”, “development of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway” and so on.

 1. “At the junction of Ningxia province and Inner Mongolia province, I saw a tall chimney puffing out golden smoke covering the blue sky, large tracts of the grassland have become industrial waste dumps; unbearable foul smell made people want to cough; Surging industrial sewage flowed into the Yellow River…”

 - Lu Guang

 

 2. Chemical waste from Jiangsu Taixing Chemical Industrial District (江苏泰兴化工园区) dumped on top of the Yangtze River bank. May 15, 2009

 

 3. Fan Jai Zhuang in Anyang City, Henan province, (河南安阳市范家庄) there is only one wall separating this village from the steelmaking furnaces. The villagers live in this heavily polluted environment where the village is under the iron rain every day. March 24, 2008

 

 4. Industrial sewage of Zhejiang Xiaoshan Industrial District (浙江萧山化工园区) eventually flowed into Qiantang River. April 24, 2009

 

 5. Henan Anyang iron and steel plant’s (河南安阳钢铁厂) sewage flowed into Anyang River. March 25, 2008

 

 6. Guiyu, Guangdong province, (广东省贵屿镇) rivers and reservoirs have been contaminated, the villager is washing in a seriously polluted pond. November 25, 2005

 

 7. Shizuishan Industrial district in Ningxia province (宁夏石嘴山湖滨工业园区), the tall chimneys spitted out smoke and dust. Residents took preventive measure for the falling dust from the sky when going outside. April 22, 2006

 

  8. In the Yellow Sea coastline, countless sewage pipes buried in the beach and even extending into the deep sea. April 28, 2008

 

 9. In Ma’anshan, Anhui province (安徽马鞍山), along the Yangtze River there are many small-scaled Iron selection factories and plastic processing plants. Large amounts of sewage discharged into the Yangtze River June 18, 2009

 

 10. In Inner Mongolia there were 2 “black dragons” from the Lasengmiao Power Plant (内蒙古拉僧庙发电厂) covering the nearby villages. July 26, 2005

 

 11. Jiangsu province Changshu City Fluorine Chemical industry land sewage treatment plant (江苏省常熟市氟化学工业园污水处理厂) was responsible for collection and processing of the industrial sewage. However they did not, the sewage pipe was extended 1500 meters under the Yangtze River and releasing the sewage there. 2009 June 11

 

 12. Soil by Yangtze River, was polluted by Anhui Province Ma’anshan Chemical Industrial District (安徽省马鞍山化工园区). June 26, 2009

 

 13. Large amount of the industrial wastewater flowed to Yellow River from Inner Mongolia Lasengmiao Industrial District (内蒙古拉僧庙工业园区) every day. July 26, 2005

 

 14. A Large amount of the chemical wastewater discharged into Yangtze River from Zhenjiang Titanium mill (镇江市钛粉厂) every day. Less than 1,000 meters away downstream is where the water department of Danyang City gets its water from. June 10, 2009

 

 15. In Haimen city, Jiangsu province Chemical Industrial District sewage treatment Plant (江苏省海门市化工园区污水处理厂) discharged wastewater into Yangtze River. June 5, 2009

 

 16. Hebei Province Shexian Tianjin Iron and steel plant (河北省涉县天津钢铁厂) is a heavily polluting company. Company scale is still growing, seriously affecting the lives of local residents. March 18, 2008

 

 17. Longmen town in Hanchen city, Shaanxi Province (陕西省韩城市龙门镇) has large-scaled industrial development. Environment is very seriously polluted there. April 8, 2008

 

  18. There are over 100 chemical plants in Jiangsu province coastal industry district. (江苏滨海头罾沿海化工园区) Some of them discharge wastewater into the ocean; some heavily contaminated sewage is stored in 5 “Sewage Temporary Pools”. During the 2 high tides in every month, the sewage then gets discharged into the ocean with the tides. June 20, 2008

 

 19. Jiangxi Province Hu Ko County Chemical Industry district (江西省胡口县化工园区) is by the Yangtze River. Chemical factory landfill the Yangtze River bank to expand the scale of the factory without authorization.

 

 20. Anhui Province Cihu Chemical Industry District (安徽省慈湖化工园区) built a underground pipe to discharge wastewater into the Yangtze River. The wastewater sometimes is black, gray, dark red, or yellow, wastewater from different chemical factories has different colors. June 18, 2009

 

 21. Shanxi Province is the most polluted areas of China. It is also the province with the highest rate of birth defects. This loving farmer couple adopted 17 disabled children. April 15, 2009

 “In Some areas of China people’s lives were threatened because of the environmental pollution. Residents suffering from all kinds of obscured diseases, the cancer villages, increase of deformed babies, these were the results of sacrificing environment and blindly seeking economical gain.”

 - Lu Guang

 

 22. Elder shepherd by the Yellow River cannot stand the smell. April 23, 2006

 

 23. 15-year-old boy from Tianshui, Gansu Province (甘肃天水), dropped out of the school after 2^nd grade, followed his parents to Heilonggui (黑龙贵) Industrial District. He earns 16 yuan a day. April 8, 2005

 

 24. Inner Mongolia province Heilonggui (黑龙贵) Industrial District, the couple who worked at the Plaster Kiln and just got home. March 22, 2007

 

 25. Villagers from Kang village in Linfen City, Shanxi Province (山西省临汾市下康村) due to long-term consumption of the polluted water contaminated by industrial waste, there were 50 people who have cancer and cerebral thrombosis. 64-year-old Wang Baosheng got ill since 2003, he has fester all over his body so he cannot go to bed and lying face down on the edge of the bed each day. July 10, 2005

  

 26. Breathing in large amount of dust into the lungs, people gets sick after working there for 1-2 years. Most of these migrant workers come from area of poverty. April 10, 2005

 

 27. Zhangqiao village by the Hong River in Wugang City, Henan Province (河南省舞钢市洪河边的张桥村), a 45-year-old woman Sun Xiaojun (孙晓军) could not move her feet and hands since 4 years ago. The numerous hospital treatments were not effective. April 7, 2009

 

 28. Zhaozhuang village by the Hong River in Wugang City, Henan province (河南省舞钢市洪河边的赵庄村), 66-year-old Zhao Bingkun suffering from esophageal cancer since 2004, after the second surgery, treatment cost already have reached over 200,000 yuan. His condition is in late stage, he is having fever everyday, waiting for death. April 7, 2009

 

 29. Zhaozhuang village by the Hong River in Wugang City, Henan province (洪河边的河南省西平县张于庄村), Gao Wanshun’s (高万顺) wife died of cancer. Now he lives in poverty. April 3, 2009

 

 30. Linfen City in Shanxi province (山西临汾市) is seriously polluted area. Farmers after working in the cotton fields for 2 hours are filled with coal ashes. September 24 2007

 

 31. Salt factory worker in Lianyungang, Jiangsu province (江苏连云港) said angrily, “when the wind blowing towards our side, the foul smell from the chemical factories is unbearable. There is even more poison gas at night.” July 19, 2008

 

 32. People form Fanjiazhuang (范家庄) are ready to submit a complain filled with their fingerprints, to seek compensation for pollution damages. March 19, 2008

 

 33. In Shanxi Province there are a lot of charitable nursing homes, to help disabled infants abandoned by their parents. April 14, 2009

 

 34. Liujiawan village by the Hong River in Wugang City, Henan province (河南省舞钢市洪河边的刘家湾村), 13 year old Yang Xiao in November 2008 was ill with obscure disease.  She was saved by the donation of the villagers. When the grandmother saw the old village chief came to visit his granddaughter, she kneeled on the ground holding granddaughter’s hand. April 19, 2009

 

 35. The oldest is 9, not going to school. The youngest is less than 2 years old. They lived in severely polluted area. They hands and faces were always dirty. April 10, 2005

 

 36. Mazhuang village by the Hong River in Wugang City, Henan province, (河南省舞钢市洪河边的马庄村) 58-year-old Ma Haipeng (马海朋) was suffering from stomach cancer since 2006 and could not work in the field. He must take medicine every day, otherwise it is too painful. April 6, 2009

 

 37. Every year, a lot of deficiency babies in Shanxi Province were abandoned. Kong Zhenlan (孔贞兰) in Qi town (祁县) who was making a living by recycling trash adopted 25 abandoned children. April 14, 2009

 

 38. Xuanwei (宣威) in Yunnan province is a cancer village. Every year there are more than 20 people die of cancer. 11-year-old student Xu Li (徐丽) is suffering from bone cancer. May 8, 2007

 

 39. In Shexian Village, Hebei Province, (河北省涉县固新村) the existing cancer patients are more than 50 people and more than 20 cancer patients die each year. March 18, 2008

 

 40.  Zhangyuzhuan village by the Hong River in Xiping county, Henan province, (河南省西平县洪河边的张于庄村) 22-year-old Zhu Xiaoyan (朱小燕) had a tumor in her stomach in 2007. She died after number of hospital treatments on July 2008. 4-year-old girl with her grandfather came to mother’s tomb. April 2009 2

  

Source:  Fengniao, China Hush & WIH Resource Group

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com & http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wihresourcegroup Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource

Smarter Trash: How Incentive Programs Can Motivate Participation in Recycling – WIH Resource Group

Want to increase recycling and decrease the amount of trash reaching our landfills?  Innovative companies are incentivizing recycling through the use of RFID (radio frequency identification) technology to track and reward – individual recycling efforts.

Introduction
Modern life has become much more complicated….and trashy! Every empty coffee cup, box of cereal, tissue, cracked CD case, etc. adds-up. In fact, every American man, woman and child produces – on average – in excess of four and a half pounds of trash (formally referred to as Municipal Solid Waste [MSW]). This represents an over 75% increase over the per capita amount generated in 1960 and a 50% increase over that found in 1980. While the per capita rate has somewhat stabilized over the past two decades, the problem is that with an ever-increasing population, the cumulative volume of MSW is rapidly expanding. According to the most recent data available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Americans produce a staggering 254 billion tons of trash each year! This represents an approximate 300% increase over the past 50 years!

 

And, to complicate matters even further, due to a wide range of economic, political and environmental factors, the number of landfills for all this “stuff” to be reposited into has markedly declined. In fact, today there is less than a quarter of the total number of landfills than were available in the U.S. just two decades ago! The shortage of landfill space is contributing to an escalation in “tipping fees” – the fees landfills charge to receive a ton of MSW. While tipping fees range between $10 to $30 per ton in most parts of the country, there are already severe shortages of landfill space in pockets of the country. In fact, six states – Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Rhode Island – have less than five years of landfill capacity remaining. In these states, and throughout the Northeast part of the United States, tipping fees have crept much higher, ranging today between $45 and $85 per ton.

 

Undoubtedly, the business of “trash” - or Municipal Solid Waste – is an increasingly important one. It is also an exceedingly complex reverse logistics operation, as firms engaged in handling MSW must comply with a panoply of environmental rules and regulations, which adds significantly to their operating costs. Furthermore, there is actually – for lack of a better term – a “trash reverse supply chain” that begins when we place our household waste in a garbage bag, can or dumpster. Our trash is joined with that of other households and apartment dwellers in the local hauling trash trucks we see on our streets. Yet, with local landfills either being closed or fast-reaching their capacities, today it is increasingly common that the trash we throw out at our curbside will be loaded onto larger trucks and offloaded at transfer stations, perhaps several times, before reaching its final resting place at one of the increasingly large “superlandfills.” All of this means that the business of handling, transporting and processing MSW is becoming a more complex and more expensive logistical operation, and all signs point to no an increasingly difficult operating environment for waste management companies. Less trash to handle would significantly help the proposition.

 

While the trash business is an area that many would perceive as a stodgy, low-tech, low-growth business, RFID (radio frequency identification) presents some intriguing possibilities for waste management. In fact, the business model for waste handling can be reinvented with auto-ID technology, revolutionizing the way municipalities and contractors bill for trash collection, and in the process, the manner in which all of us regard “trash.” In the process, RFID holds the potential for dramatically reducing the volume of trash and increasing the amount of material being recycled. In the latter regard, RFID can – for the first time – offer real incentives for individuals to participate in recycling programs from their own homes, helping the environment and their communities – and their pocketbooks as well.

 

Pay As You Throw 

Traditionally in the United States, trash collection has been a service performed by municipal governments – for a flat fee –for its citizens. Today, cities largely contract out for the service, leading to the rise of several large national firms that dominate the market, including Waste Management, Allied Waste, BFI, and Republic Services, as well as myriad small local firms that compete as well. Due to the necessity for such services and the steady cash flow from the monthly billing in this fixed price business model, trash collection is a financially steady and attractive – if sometimes smelly – market for waste management service providers.

 

However, the single rate model has been criticized not just by environmentalists, but by the Environmental Protection Agency as well. This is because the flat rate system provides no incentive for individuals to reduce the amount of waste they put out for collection. As such, heavy users pay the same as light users, making it not only inequitable, but actually harmful to the environment. This is because the flat rate pricing provides no incentive for individuals to participate in recycling programs, encourage composting, or to choose to use source reduction products and packaging. In response, some communities have went to hybrid models, charging citizens a flat base rate for a single trash container and then charging a variable rate for additional garbage collection, much akin to the airlines charging more for a second, third, fourth, etc. bag.

 

There is growing support for a radically different pricing model in the trash business today, known as “Pay As You Throw” (PAYT). Under the PAYT model, people pay a variable rate, based on the amount of trash they actually put out to be collected by the waste management contractor. Over 6,0000 American cities currently have PAYT systems, and in fact, some have been in place for decades. However, in the past, such systems have been based on homeowners buying stickers for each garbage can or purchasing specially authorized and/or labeled trash bags, “paying” for each container in which they could “throw” their trash away. Such long-standing PAYT systems have not gone without issues, including residents intentionally depositing their trash in other people’s containers (to avoid their own charges) and a limited rise in illegal dumping of trash in remote areas. It has also brought about what one industry expert called the “Seattle stomp” phenomenon, labeled as such because residents in Seattle, Washington and other unit pricing cities commonly compact their trash in order to avoid higher collection fees (reducing their trash output by volume, but not by weight).  

 

Now, RFID technology is being introduced into the waste management industry, making the PAYT model workable. Texas Instruments has been a leading proponent of using auto-ID technology to not just better the business intelligence of waste management contractors (enabling them to monitor their fleets and worker performance, both for optimizing routing and quality assurance, especially when combined with GPS that is already in wide use in the industry). TI has also demonstrated the workability of PAYT in the field. The key is RFID-enabling individual trash containers. Specially-equipped garbage trucks can then weigh each “smart” trash can upon collection, making it possible to ascertain the “net amount” of garbage collected from each customer each time each customer’s trash is gathered. The collection process can remain unchanged from what it is today, as the weighing is done as the can is lifted and emptied into the trash truck by the operator, thereby not slowing down the present system performance. Texas Instruments’ tests have made use of low frequency RFID tags, due to the harsh environment and the omnipresence of both water (in the content of MSW) and metal (in the trash truck and with metal trash cans in many instances). Further, in many urban and even suburban settings, such as apartment buildings, multiple trash cans are in close enough proximity where there would be great potential for misreads and tag collision/confusion.

 

Whether or not RFID-enhanced PAYT would prove to be revenue enhancing, neutral or negative overall for cities and their waste management contractors remains to be seen. The accuracy possible through the use of automatic identification technology does make possible new concepts for individual accountability and tracking. However, the PAYT concept certainly encourages more individual environmental responsibility when it comes to household management of MSW. The one thing that is assured is that it does encourage folks to recycle what can recycled from their own trash, decreasing their net trash output and thus, their weight-based trash charges. With RFID making it more possible to accurately assess weight and volume-based trash charges for each customer, this will yield more recycling incentives than ever. And now, RFID is being brought to bear to directly encourage recycling through tracking and “incentivizing” the process for individuals.

 

 

Growing Recycling

 

According to the most recent data available (for the 2007 calendar year), the EPA found that just over a third of all MSW in the United States is recycled. Paper and paperboard is the largest category of our trash output, comprising almost a third of the total. Yet still today, barely half (54.5%) of our paper products are actually recycled. Likewise, despite intense recycling and education efforts across the beverage industry, less than half of all aluminum cans and under a quarter of all recyclable plastic bottles are actually recycled.

 

Why does participation in recycling efforts lag? Analysts often point to cumbersome recycling requirements imposed by cities and their waste contractors, asking citizens to not just separate their recyclables by product category, but take them to put specific items out for pick-up on specific days (i.e. glass on Mondays, paper on Wednesdays, plastics on Fridays) or to take the items to recycling collection centers, rather than setting the items out with their “normal” trash on their “normal” collection days.     

 

Today, innovative recycling solutions providers are looking to use RFID to make recycling “easier” and to track the recycling patterns of individual households. Some are even finding a way to “incentivize” individuals into recycling behavior by not just reducing their PAYT garbage bills, but actually paying or rebating them directly for the amount of recyclabes they divert from the landfill. There are several firms vying for this market, including RecycleBank (http://www.recyclebank.com/), based in New York City, Routeware (http://www.routeware.com/), based in Beaverton, Oregon, and an Irish firm, Advanced Manufacturing Control Systems (AMCS) (http://www.amcs.ie/).  Austin Ryan, cofounder and business development director for AMCS, recently commented that “Increasing recycling rates requires the deployment of creative new strategies and technologies in the waste management industry.” Each of these firms are marketing solutions whereby the recycling collection process makes use of special RFID-tagged recycling containers (using low-frequency RFID tags), which are collected by trucks equipped with smart scales that read the tags (to associate the collection with a particular customer) and to weigh that customer’s recyclables (based on the weight of the filled container versus the empty container weight). 

 

For example, RecycleBank currently serves a number of cities – (the largest of which is Philadelphia) in the Northeast, covering several hundred thousand homes. RecycleBank’s system works in tandem with existing municipal waste management contractors’ collections, as they do not operate their own collection equipment. They do provide customers with RFID-equipped recycling carts, ranging between 35-96 gallons in size. In these bins, residents pour all recyclable materials. Once collected by RFID-equipped collection trucks, the customer’s account is credited for the weight of the contents in the cart. The recyclable materials – paper, plastics, cardboard, aluminum, etc. – are then separated at processing centers. After being separated by type, the material can then be directed towards reuse.

 

What are the results? Ron Gonen, RecycleBank’s cofounder and CEO, reports that the benefits of incentivizing the recycling behaviors of individuals can make whole cities much greener. In fact, Gonen reports that: “We’ve taken cities with almost no recycling and brought them to 40 percent of their trash being diverted from waste.” For municipalities and waste haulers, this means that rather than having to pay the rising tipping fees for delivering MSW to landfills, they can actually earn money on the volume of waste products that are directed towards recycling. For the customer, RecycleBank provides incentive credits based on their actual recycling volume, offering discounts and credits at hundreds of retail partners, ranging from national brands, such as Home Depot and Starbucks, to local retailers and grocery stores. Kraft Foods is one of the lead sponsors of RecycleBank, offering discounts on its family of products as incentives for consumer recycling. Kraft’s Elisabeth Wenner, the firm’s director of sustainability, says that the value proposition for her company is that by encouraging recycling, Kraft helps reduce the amount of its own and others’ product packaging in landfills. Thus, according to Wenner, “RecycleBank offers an innovative way to make it easy and rewarding for consumers to recycle.” For corporate partners, the RecycleBank incentive program offers a marketing tool to encourage both first use of their products or services and to promote repeat transactions. Thus, they are a way of “doing well by doing good,” promoting both individual and corporate environmental responsibility – and a unique marketing program at the same time.

 

 

Analysis

 

All in all, the Municipal Solid Waste marketspace holds the potential for rapid development over the next few years for RFID solutions providers, as well as those vendors providing the hardware and software necessary to support PAYT and for monitoring recycling. In fact, today’s economic conditions could work to benefit solutions providers in this area by accelerating the growth of both the PATY and recycling incentive programs. This is evidenced by the recent introduction of the most recent incentive-based recycling program in Michigan (see “Michigan Households Get RFID-enabled Rewards for Recycling” at http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/5293/). Thus, the curbside may be one of the most promising areas for RFID technology to be employed, not just for profits, but for a greener world as well through better reverse logistics management of MSW.

Source: MSW Management Magazine, Rewards for Recycling,  Recycle Bank and WIH Resource Group

If you have any questions about this news or general questions about our diversified services, please contact Bob Wallace, Principal & VP of Client Solutions at WIH Resource Group and Waste Savings, Inc. at admin@wihrg.com

Feel free to visit our websites for additional information on our services at: http://www.wihrg.com & http://www.wastesavings.net and our daily blog at http://wihresourcegroup.wordpress.com

WIH Resource Group on Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wihresourcegroup Follow Bob Wallace and WIH Resource Group on Twitter: http://twitter.com/wihresource