Norcross.Talk

By BobG

January 14, 2009 6:32 PM | Link to this

It seems to me that the concern for haulers is convenience; for Gwinnett residents, cost.

If I understand the operation correctly, solid waste is consolidated at the station for transport to a landfill. It is apparently more cost-effective for the hauler to build a station and consolidate than it is to have dozens of trucks drive to the landfill individually.

A transfer station on I-85 in Norcross is more convenient than one in a less populated area of Gwinnett or in another county.

So when Tucker says that the proposed location is “ideal,” he means that it is ideal for the hauler. My guess is that the owner of the transfer station will also provide consolidation service for other sanitation companies as well, including those from outside of the county.

We (the end users) have to decide if we are willing to pay more for sanitation service because the hauler is required to dispose of our garbage in a less convenient and less cost-effective manner.

By Michael H. Smith

January 14, 2009 6:54 PM | Link to this

Okay Woodrow let me get this straight you want me to be a consultant District 2 Commissioner Shirley Lasseter, is that about right?

You probably don’t realize this but the former Maya of Doo-luth and I don’t exactly see eye ball to eye ball on her running a sanctuary city for illegal aliens in Gwinnett County, do you? That in and of itself constitutes a dump in my opinion, so I seriously doubt the former Maya of Doo-luth now District 2 Commissioner Shirley Lasseter would think highly of anything I’ve got to say.

But since I’m not known for accepting prisoners and seldom see victims: That only leaves volunteers to choose from.

You’ll do just fine Woodrow, you poor member of NIMBY. (Not In My Back Yard)

Now what makes you think anyone else, anywhere else, in this State – are parts there beyond - wants your garbage if you don’t want it piled-up sitting next to you, Woodrow? Just think of yourself as the commissioner and we’ll get through this consulting thing together, I promise.

There is a sensible answer to this conundrum and the question was the right one to ask. So, now Woodrow, can you tell me the solution that I have tucked away in my keyboard that neither you nor anyone else will likely accept but is probably the right good Christian thing to do? Just to say, now that we’ve been totally inundated and consumed so overwhelmingly by the faithful flock.

Think Green and I’ll be bock. An old friend name of Author is visiting me, as soon as I can get him settled down I’ll see what answers you have.

By Micahel H. Smith

January 14, 2009 9:05 PM | Link to this

I believe Commissioner Bass is stuck. Need a couple of hints, Woodrow?

But first let me answer your questions.

No we don’t need a trash transfer facility. In fact, that is not the discussion we should even be having.

There are no real pros by going with the trash transfer station idea for several reasons:

First, we do not have an unlimited supply of landfills. We are running out of those; filling them up. Not to mention tipping fees that will only rise in the process.

Two, no one else wants to live next to our garbage anymore than we do.

Three, waste not want not, we are throwing away valuable resources we should be reclaiming and recapturing energy from in our trash.

Four, Good Christians you are the stewards of God’s earth, charged to use it wisely and not abuse it. And for the unbelievers: Abuse nature and nature will abuse you. Landfills are not the most pollution free environmentally friendly means with which we can treat the planet we all inhabit.

Five, we should be constructing inside the county a facility or facilities to reclaim natural resources and for recapturing energy from our own garbage that nobody else should take, because it is our responsibility, we made it.

Six, if we only break even on the total operational costs comparatively to the traditional means of disposing our garbage we will still be ahead of the game. Jobs will be created that will not disappear, the possibilities of new technologies may emerge, ground water will be less at risk of contamination, so will the air. Lower expenditure for energy and truck miles on the roads, cost of newly refined resources should cost less as reuse of recycled materials lower the demand on market supply.

A couple of resource links grabbed on the fly:

Recycling Revolution Jerry Grillo published June 2008

Reclaiming waste is good for the environment – and it can be good for the economy, too. But experts say Georgians are missing opportunities, burying big dollars in our landfills.

http://www.georgiatrend.com/features-environment/0608recycling.shtml

Turning Trash Into Power Biological Engineers Generate Natural Gas with Bacteria

October 1, 2006 — A new kind of waste digester uses two different strains of bacteria in different tanks. This would normally take place in the same environment, but microbiologists have now separated it into two stages that increases natural-gas production. The technology increases efficiency and can turn three tons of food scraps into enough energy to power 25 homes for a day.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/1002-turningtrashinto_power.htm

Convinced Woodrow?

By BW

January 14, 2009 9:55 PM | Link to this

I know for a fact there is one commissioner that is almost an expert on transfer stations. When the transfer station was proposed for JBC, Commissioner Bert and I had a long discussion on the pros and cons. I give a lot of credit to Bert, not only did he study report after report, but he visited a transfer station. The conclusion, it wouldn’t work for the area on JCB, they give off a foul order, trash surrounds the transfer station and there must be rodents having a field day.

BobG I rather spend a few more bucks to keep one out of the county and I’d rather spend a few bucks more following the example MHS offered.

By BW

January 15, 2009 1:05 PM | Link to this

Here is a great example of trash to energy, in Albany, N.Y. the state built a trash burning plant to provide all the heat and air conditioning for the huge state complex known as the South Mall. This was back in 1985, it lasted ten years until it couldn’t meet state pollution standards. The cost of retro fitting the plant back then turned out to be too high and it was converted to natural gas.

The city even made out, the plant had to burn garbage that was free of plastics and metal, where better to separate it than the city landfill. They charged the state for the use of the landfill and the state still saved a lot of money.

By now the plant could be back to burning trash due to the cost of natural gas?

By Micahel H. Smith

January 15, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately, this blog did not permit / complete the links to the articles published in Georgia Trend & Science Daily, both of which offer pollution free alternatives. If these alternatives are used in conjunction, these two viable alternatives could reclaim or recycle all the different things that are found in trash, residential and commercial.

In the Science daily article anaerobic digesters are used to convert trash into natural gas or methane, which are cleaner burning fuels than coal or gasoline. What is significant about capturing and burning methane that should be weighed against simply dumping trash into a landfill, where methane will be produced and will likely escape back into the atmosphere, is that methane is something like 21 times more detrimental than carbon dioxide emissions.

No matter which side of global warming one may choose to believe, capturing methane and using it is a win-win solution that adds up to “dollars and sense” (sic).

A tid-bit of FYI for anyone unaware: At the advanced water reclamation center in Buford, where sewerage is cleaned-up and the water is returned to Lake Lanier, anaerobic digesters which are used in the treatment process also capture methane gas, which is then used to provide partial power to the facility. This lowers our operational costs and saves taxpayer money - A very nice way to breathe easier.

By BW

January 15, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this

I found the article of which you speak by going to sciencedaily.com. and searched from there.

By Michael H. Smith

January 15, 2009 9:02 PM | Link to this

Type Georgia Trend Recycling Revolution Jerry Grillo published June 2008 into a google search and it will bring up the other article by using the sub-link.

One of the impressive facts brought out in this article is that making glass products from recycled glass which is non-degrading, is significantly less expensive than having to use the raw materials. Of course the amounts of money recycled materials can fetch in the market is not exactly anything to sneeze at - the idea of a break even operation as a government function probably is not too much of a reach.

By DS

January 16, 2009 8:10 AM | Link to this

Just research ans see who is behind Lancaster and the answer will jump out at you why this is needed. I find it very interesting that eveyone has reccomended denial of this except the BOC members.

I think we need to look at the energy producing facilties around the country and build sometyning like these. The only way I see this working is for the “right” people to own the land to build one on.

This issue is all about the two haulers that won the GCB Services Contract to help them out from having to drive so far to dump.

Doesn’t Kennerly own some land on GA20 just down the road from the stadium? Lets build it there and see what the BOC has to say about it. I mean the stadium deal already stinks so the two smells should offset each otehr.

By Michael H. Smith

January 16, 2009 10:09 AM | Link to this

Zero Waste

Some folks are thinking of doing the unthinkable, Woodrow.

And all we can come up with is how to waste money a minor league ball team and create lawsuits over garbage. Oh, and taxes on rainwater.

Brilliant.

http://www.solidwastemag.com