Letter to Council: A Burning Issue
Ron Bolin: Dec. 3: 2013
Mayor Ruttan and Councillors:
I would like to thank you for the discussion put forward last night in the matter of the Duke Point Incinerator. While I may not agree with all the sentiments expressed, I did appreciate the relatively low number of personal slams and most of all I appreciated hearing on the issue in some cogent detail from each and every member of Council. We need more discussions of that sort. It is too bad that an eTown Hall meeting has not yet been called on this issue.
I must also, however, register my disappointment that the matter did not come to a vote last night. Defeating the motion would not have killed your ability to bring it back at a later, perhaps more appropriate, time. As passed, tabling the matter removes it from routine decision until some unknown time –estimated to be March or April next year- a long time for the matter to fester and for the proponents to be kept on the hook.
As your prompt adjournment last night curtailed question period, I would like to put the questions which I was unable to ask last night to you now:
- In my interpretation a secondary suite is one for which rent is paid in an arm’s length transaction which thus creates a formal tenancy which is outside that of the owner. The City’s definition seems to be such as to supersede an owner’s quiet enjoyment of his own premises whether or not such an additional tenancy has been created. Could I have a clear description of what constitutes a secondary suite in the city’s definition?
- I am unclear about the relation of the City and the RDN in the matter of the RDN vote to reject an incinerator in the RDN. I am informed that all seven Nanaimo Councillors voted for that rejection. How, following that vote, can Nanaimo take independent action which effectively overturns the RDN and all of its other constituents on this matter?
- There was some discussion last night about process and Councillor Anderson’s use of it in bringing forward the incinerator question. As I understand it, the ability to make a motion is open to Councillors without let. I have seen motions made and approved inside a meeting of Council with NO previous information to any agenda however late. If this is the case, there was no breach of process. The process available was used. If that process is not to be used, shouldn’t Council place a statement forbidding such actions into the procedure bylaw?
- Are there no questions which, by their nature, can be excluded from a determination of their dollar values, i.e. “what’s in it for us?”. Are there no moral questions? If there are such questions, how can we tell when we see one?
Looking forward to your responses and thanking you for your consideration,
Ron Bolin
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
That some councillors rejected the incinerator whilst serving ( unelected) on the RDN requires further thought !!
My instinct says that some councillors did not wish the incinerator within the RDN because they wanted it at Duke Point!
The reason for Duke Point becomes more obvious daily.
Seaspan owners of the right of way to the Welcox property that they sold to the City of Nanaimo for a bargain price!! is asking (rumor) $18 million for that privilage.
Having sucked the City in to the bargain price of $3.5 million for the property they now dangle the carrot of Incinerator for access as they will be a huge beneficiery of garbage to Nanaimo.
The lure of a multiplex on the Welco land & the possibility of a new hockey team is just too much for these people to bear!
As for last nights Council meeting ; it was pure farce.
Bestwick & Kip grovelled & mubbled in ad nausium.
Only Anderson & Greeves spoke their true feelings.
McKay’s comments were disingenuos & that is being polite.
If anyone wanted to know why voter participation is only in the 26% range ; they only needed to attend last nights Council meeting.
All of the Nanaimo Councillors that sit(unelected) on the RDN board of directors voted against the incinerator being built within the RDN.
I can only conclude that after Councilor Andersons motion that Nanaimo wishes the incinerator to be built within Nanaimo city limits.
This stinks of duplicity.
If they reject an incinerator in the RDN what is the status of the Harmac incinerator?
Jim: Sorry you didn’t make the introduction and tour at the Land Fill Yesterday. The question is not necessarily about incinerators per se, but about the barging of garbage across the Straits to bring it to Nanaimo. And it is not about any possible mistakes we have made in the past. It is about making another one in the future…. And I would say that it is also extremely bad form, if in the end we are going to reject Metro Vancouver’s garbage, to not spare them additional time and money spent in a courtship. What further new information do you suggest needs to come forward before a decision can be made?
Ron,
A decision has been made. Council will sit on the fence while the public is left to duke it out over an issue that will split the community; environmentalists on one side and contractors on the other. This is the blameless political path no matter the final result.
Comparing Harmacs power generator to the garbage incinerator is totally wrong.
Burning hog fuel wood products is not at all comparable to burning plastics.
To burn garbage they also have to burn waste that could be recycled to keep the process going.
What makes you think hog fuel is all that is being burned at Harmac?
I think you are right Trailblazer, hog fuel is nothing like burning plastic the particulate coming from hog fuel is considerably of greater concern.
Ron, I thought indeed the issue was banning incinerators in the RDN and have heard very little about banning the barging of anything across the Straits. As for information needed before making a decision? What are the emissions that would come from the EFW plant being proposed? Could this facility accommodate our future disposal needs at a favourable cost? What are the real environmental impacts from this particular plant? What is the economic impact to the city and region? I don’t mind saying I have more than a few issues with folk who are willing to make decision based on what is being shouted from the opponents at this point.
Jim: I think I can say without contradiction that,all things being equal, transshipping garbage across the water is both more costly and more polluting than treating it closer to home -and if the emissions would be the same in any location, then why would it possibly make sense to take on the extra cost and the pollution of multi-modal transportation? As for banning, I believe this is an incorrect characterization: the issue here is one of refusing a “gift” (in both the English and German senses of the word) which many don’t wish to receive any more than I would welcome my neighbour parking his trash on my property. I have quite enough of my own to look after. The issue is not about incinerators (though it needs to be noted that we are not looking here at incinerators in the broadest sense, but only at one particular type of incinerator which I do not believe to be at the top of the list on all the qualities one would wish for in an incinerator or WTE. I don’t mind saying that I have more than a few issues with folk who are willing to bet other peoples environment for the as yet wholly unestablished hope of a few dollars.
Ron make up your mind…….if the issue is not banning incineration, but shipping material across the Straits, what is this grave environmental danger of concern? Extra cost of shipping……. does it just teleport itself to Cache Creek? I repeat what is the environmental concern that would cause you to say NO at this point, when in a few years, we might be wanting to build our own, when the Cedar dump is full??
Jim: X+Y>X. Where X = the cost and pollution of incineration, and Y is the cost of trans-shipping the stuff across the Salish Sea. it’s pretty simple. What Cache Creek has to do with it as far as Nanaimo is concerned is beyond me.
You seem to have run out of a logical argument, and now resorting to gibberish.You said earlier: “The question is not necessarily about incinerators per se, but about the barging of garbage across the Straits to bring it to Nanaimo. ” What is your issue with barging waste across the Straits?
Do you have difficulty with the concept that X+Y is greater than X?
I do not think we should encourage this sort of behaviour!
Accepting Vancouver garbage is akin to building more roads to accept more vehicles.
We should reduce our ecological footprint.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-produce-more-garbage-than-anyone-else-1.1394020
@ JIm Taylor, Exactly what is in hog fuel that your scientific mind considers worse than burning plastics?
Whilst we are at this point …
Why does the downtown ( minimum wage ) community dislike Harmac so much.
As the cry went up at the, Council meeting, discussion on the incinerator ” we don’t need no stinking industry” we need tourism!!
We need every damn job we can muster.
However; we should not make ethical or moral sacrifices for work.
This is not Bangladesh.
The point is if we can burn hog fuel in an environmentally acceptable fashion, why does everyone think we can’t use the same technology to convert waste, which is otherwise going to have to go into a landfill, into steam which has all sorts of industrial applications? There is a whole lot of knee jerk opposition to this energy from waste plant which seems to be as much driven by the repulsion to burning someone else’s garbage as any real opposition to the technology.
In the very near future we are going to have to decide between building another dump, as Cedar will soon be full, or turning the same waste into energy. Turning waste into energy really seems to make a whole lot more sense than burying the damn stuff.
Do you have difficulty clearly stating what the real issue is. Burn or bury? What is the hazard with barging across the Straits? I presume you don’t really have an answer, hence the nonsensical equation.
Jim: The equation really just says that burning + barging is going to create more pollution than just burning. Or, if you like, barging plus burning creates more pollution than just burning. Is this really so difficult to comprehend?
How does the barging produce pollution?
Well, let’s count the ways. 1) We load it on trucks. 2) We offload it onto barges which need power to cross the water (leaving out the danger of capsize or wind drift; 3) We unload it off the barges (onto trucks or conveyor belts; 4) we load it into the burner (following various sorts, mixes, etc. Now I grant you that steps 1, 3 and 4 may be the same, but step 2 is an added step. Granted that the shipping costs of the barges may be less than long haul trucking, there is no need for long haul trucking if the incinerator is in the lower mainland.
I would also be interested in your comments on the various incineration technologies. They are not all the same. I believe that the type which Helmut described is that called “plasma” burning which is NOT what has been suggested for Duke Point. Metro’s choice of the plasma approach precludes Duke Point as it is not the technology proposed here.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification
Your examples are nonsense. Not even worthy of a response.
Since Metro has not made any decisions as to site or chosen technology, I am most interested in the source of information you are basing your conclusions upon?
I have yet to see any economic, or environmental impact study that would help come to an informed conclusion. So far, all that is bouncing across the net are a bunch of knee jerk, shoot from the hip responses based on assumption and conjecture.
There seems a whole choir with hands firmly over ears, chanting lah lah lah, don’t need to hear anymore……just say NO.
Ron, I pose the same question to you as i did to Trailblazer: if we can burn hog fuel in an acceptable manner why is everyone so convinced waste can’t also be handled in an acceptable manner?
Jim: You keep trying to avoid answers to questions by posing your own questions, which usually imply that someone said something which opens that question area. Who in the current discussion, for example, held that burning hog fuel is acceptable (I assume that you are talking about hog fuel that has been in the briny). And who is so convinced that waste cannot be handled in an acceptable manner. I thought that this was what all this discussion has been about. The question is about the definition of an “acceptable” manner. What is your definition?
Avoiding answers to questions…… that’s rich, coming from the fellow that uses equations rather than articulating a simple answer.
By burning hog fuel in an acceptable fashion I am referring to the fact that the entire community, including those now opposed to the WTE, raised no objections to the expansion of the facility at Harmac so I presume that the incineration being used at Harmac poses no environmental risks of concern to yourself and others opposed to the WTE at Duke Pt.
Therefore, if the same level of emissions can be established for the WTE as are acceptable at Harmac, there should be no issue.
Expecting another equation, rather than a straight answer.
Jim; Clearly you are again off your medication.
#1 , Harmac incinerates hog fuel that comes from various suppliers & may or may NOT contain saltwater which is the arguement against such burning.
IF you have information that contradicts this then please pass it on so that we ,the unwashed, can reconsider our opinnions.
To the educated; the big issue with accepting Vancouvers garbage , both literally & figuratively is that Vancouver wishes to offload it’s own responsibilities onto someone else.
If! you wish to talk of nimbyism then look no further than Vancouver who do NOT want such an endevour on their doorstep.
The biggest issue , to myself & others, is reducing garbage , not how to dispose of it.
By supporting the INCINERATOR and admittedly its good paying jobs is nothing more than supporting unfettered consumerism that comes wrapped in plastic that costs more than the end product..
That said; I think that is just the world you support?
Trailblazer…….don’t take meds. Are you saying that hog fuel does not add nasty elements to the airshed??? Is that really what you are saying??? Are you saying that heating our homes with wood does nothing to harm air quality??? Is that really what you are saying???
Nanaimo with it’s cutting edge recycling and composting still puts over 30% of the total garbage collected into the landfill. This notion that not converting waste to energy, is somehow going to eliminate that waste stream is nonsense. The fact is, in 15 years or so, Cedar landfill is going to be FULL……do you really think somehow Nanaimo will have zero waste in that time frame? If that is your thinking, I would ask what kind of meds you are on. :^)
Effiently burnt hog fuel ,just as wood fires, is an efficient & green heat source.
Inefficient burning ,as you stated, is not.
We are unlikely to ever have zero waste but we cana still reduce it by a considerable ammount.
With over packaging of many products where often the package is more expensive that the contents ; yes we have more work to do!
The ,new, hog fuel generator ,at Harmac, is not the same type of generator that they used previously, it is considerably more efficient and of a different design.
My ,and, others, big complaint with the incinerator is that it will not encourage a reduction in our wasteful ways(excuse the pun).
Let’s stop imagining that a garbage incinerator is an energy plant. It is not.
Incineration requires inputs of energy to maintain a combustion process. Hydro is one energy choice, natural gas is another energy choice. Hydro is clean, natural gas combustion is GHG positive.
I imagine that the design of a disposal system using the incineration process will be based on a desired through-put rate per volume and weight (the business model). The design need also meet air quality standards for particulates, and known toxins.
The business model for incineration is based on revenue per ton disposal per hour minus expenses. Scale is important because revenue is proportional to capacity. The more waste the bigger the bottom line.
Water transportation is an advantageous system for moving bulk waste in our area of the Salish Sea. This catchment area includes the east side of Vancouver Island, Victoria, the Sunshine Coast, Metro Vancouver, Richmond, Delta, Surrey, Blain, Bellingham, and metropolitan Seattle. Incineration based on this potential scale constitutes a new base industry for the region offering permanent full employment and tax revenues for the foreseeable future.
For health reasons high environmental performance of a facility is an important consideration when locating facilities near dense populations. Facilities can be designed to screen air emissions to safe standards, sequester CO2, and even to recover materials from the waste stream such as metals, plastics, and glass.
A hydro powered plasma facility is a green technology that can sustain a combustion process while eliminating GHG production from hydro carbon fuel combustion.
At this time it is ultimately up to the public to establish acceptable environmental performance regulations for the handling and processing of the solid waste stream.
As of this time we have too many known ,unknowns!!
In the case of this venture vs the wishes of Nanaimo we have no independent science to make a good case for it nor do we have enough science to discredit it.
A known known ; is that Council is dragging it’s feet so as to avoid making a decision until such a time when they can relinquish responsibility to another City Council!
So far , on this debate, no one is asking why does our Council (seemingly) want the incinerator?
To some of us the answer is obvious in that the access to the Welcox land is the crux of the matter.
Be it hog fuel or landfill ; it matters not.
Nanaimo Council has effectively said yes to the project.
Joe, you are a breath of fresh air. You are the first person I have heard, who appears to know what they are talking about. Unlike the rest of us who are offering up opinions based on assumption and speculation.
Joe, a short afterthought. While I don’t think these facilities exist to produce energy, they do seem to use the heat produced to generate steam, which is used by itself for commercial applications as well as heating, it also runs turbines which generate electricity. Much like the one at Harmac which burns hog fuel, but does produce enough electricity to sell back to hydro. I think it is Sweden which imports waste from other countries and their logic is, they are being paid to take someone else’s waste, which produces their electricity, and if they weren’t they would be buying coal or natural gas for the same end. They seem to have something figured out.
If anyone is interested in enlightening themselves further about the “solid waste industry”, (which includes incineration), and is looking for some light reading over the holidays, it takes only a google search to find out that, apparently, organized crime has been involved in this industry for decades.
Has anyone researched BFI Canada, (City of Nanaimo’s recycling contractor)? Apparently, its predecessor, was founded in the late 1960’s in Houston, Texas.
Perhaps someone has the bucks to purchase the bible on marketing Waste to Energy plants which can be found at:
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/tf5nn2/waste_to_energy
and share it with the rest of us.
Regarding the perverse administrative history of the ongoing Duke Point Incinerator question, these comments from one who was there is not only instructive but raises significant questions about the relation between the RDN and the City of Nanaimo which may require adjudication. The questions raised deserve no only public comment, but a legal opinion.
See: https://www.facebook.com/SierraClubNanaimo/posts/595247847212956
I went no farther than: “MOVED Director McPherson, SECONDED Director Young, that the Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN) opposes in principle any waste disposal method involving waste from outside the region that has the potential to significantly reduce the lifespan of the Cedar Landfill and/or necessitate the establishment of another landfill within the Regional District of Nanaimo.”
On the basis of what study has it been determined that a WTE at Duke Point which would in fact deal with waste from Metro Vancouver would ‘significantly reduce the lifespan of the Cedar Landfill’?
It could be argued, that if Nanaimo’s City leaders and those on the RDN negotiated a deal with Metro requiring them to deal with our waste at a lesser price than tippage at Cedar dump, it would result in cheaper waste disposal for Nanaimo taxpayers, and in fact extend the life of the Cedar landfill.
So, where is the study that proves Director McPherson assertion?
The answer to your question about reducing the lifespan of the Cedar landfill will not be known until the life of both the landfill and any possible incinerator are concluded, as no assertion about the future is known until the subject of the assertion is in the past. The subject of Mr. McPhersons’ article is to call attention to the process by which this debate is proceeding when, following the unanimous vote at the RDN Board, the matter was concluded by sending the RDN’s rejection of the incinerator proposal to Metro Vancouver.
The question is whether a member of one level of government can unilaterally reject the decision of a “higher” level of government (and solid waste management is tasked to the RDN, not the City of Nanaimo) is of primary concern in his article. Under your suggestion, the City should apparently be able to unilaterally opt out of any higher level government decisions which we don’t like -take spending some $60-70 million on a water treatment plant as an example, or you and I deciding we don’t want to pay taxes to the City of Nanaimo as another.
To legitimize the decision of Nanaimo’s Council to ignore the RDN vote on a motion in which Nanaimo’s seven RDN Board members participated giving unanimous approval, it would be necessary for Nanaimo to either extract themselves from the RDN, effectively opening a new dump site at Duke Point and eschewing the use of the Cedar landfill to which it would no longer have automatic access, or to participate in a successful RDN re-vote on the issue which would see the original motion overturned.
Again, there can be no study which “proves” something that is proposed for the future until that something is in the past. Otherwise there would be no horse races or elections or debates.
You’re talking riddles again. Which is my polite way of saying hogwash. We already know at current rates about how much time the current dump has until it is full.
If we were able to divert our waste from the cedar dump to the WTE and it reduced that volume by 80%, it is obvious it would extend the life of the landfill.
That of course would never be known by the NO crowd, which is demonstrating extreme short sightedness, which in my opinion is driven by a religious belief that we can somehow force society to eliminate waste it we oppose this means of disposal.
As for your assertion that no study can ‘prove’ something……… that is another piece of nonsensical babble ………… a study can certainly take a detailed, rational look at the matter and consider the options of actually reducing the burden to future Nanaimo taxpayers who sooner or later will be considering a WTE facility to deal with our own crap once cedar dump is full.
Looking at the situation of recycling in Nanaimo in the light of the “fuel” which is available for burning in an incinerator raises questions about what we are doing with our waste and the oft heard refrain that a Zero Waste goal is unrealistic and unreachable.
We can start with examining the broadest list of recyclable materials which are collected. This is the list taken in by the Nanaimo Recycling Exchange, the oldest recycling program in Nanaimo which began from the hard work and dedication of community volunteers. This program continues at full bore. To see recycling in action just take some recyclables to 2477 Kenworth Road and you will find yourself at one of the busiest locations of any kind in Nanaimo. The NRE pioneered recycling in Nanaimo and continue to this day in helping to make Nanaimo one of the most effective and efficient recycling centres in BC.
The list of the materials which can be taken to the NRE can be found at:
http://recycling.bc.ca/what-we-take/
The traditional method of disposing of unwanted materials has been the “dump”. Our dump is operated by the Regional District of Nanaimo and its land fill is located in Cedar. It is where the “trash” collected from private residences in Nanaimo is taken to be disposed of. For a number of years now the dump has been transitioning to a land fill in which care is taken for the problems of runoff and seepage and recycling and now to a materials transitioning park from which methane gas is collected and used to generate power and its surface is covered, graded and replanted to create a park like setting.
A secondary RDN program collects “recyclables” from residences and yet another, the green box program” collects “compostables”. These programs taken together have made Nanaimo an exemplary municipality for dealing with our solid waste management.
The list of materials collected under the home pickup service can be found at:
Click to access RecyclingGuide.pdf
(It needs to be noted that that commercial and multi-family residential waste is not included in this program and is subject to private collection and disposal. This duality is a historical artifact and its efficacy is, as far as I am aware, unexamined.)
Having proceeded from the work begun by individuals, to that carried out by municipalities, we now proceed up the administrative ladder to the latest entrants into the waste management game, the provincial government which has now gotten religion as is attested by their realization that waste is a problem which encompasses more than just municipalities.
The recycling programs which have been sponsored provincially can be found at:
http://www.bcstewards.com/
Examine these programs and the materials which can be recycled through them and tell us all:
If we recycled the recyclables, what is left to burn in an incinerator?
Or is it simply that we are too ignorant or lazy to recycle effectively and efficiently? And if it is the latter, is there anything we can do about it other than to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in supporting that ignorance or laziness by building an incinerator?
Jim: No riddle here, Simply a recognition that neither good intentions or projections are sufficient to define history. How about that assertion that the Conference Centre would solve Nanaimo’s problems? There were those who were dead certain about this. There are those who still believe that it will prove our salvation. It COULD happen.
A study can certainly give a detailed, rational look at a matter, and consider the options. I still have the studies that were done on the Conference Centre. Would you like to re-examine their detailed, rational look?
Again with the nonsense. Are you suggesting that your opinion on the matter should suffice??
Ron, you are an inquisitive fellow with good investigative skills, Have you ever checked how the tippage fees at our dump and the compost plant compare to other municipalities? I would go beyond BC as well to compare how we are faring. I have a sneaking suspicion that behind the RDN’s hasty decision was a concern for protecting their own cash cows that could be put in peril of a WTE were to open at Duke Point.
Jim: A good question about tipping fees. I haven’t done any research in this area. Perhaps you can take a look and get back with an answer. Your assertion about folks protecting their own cash cows is of course cogent. I believe the same assertion has been made about those promoting an incinerator.
@Jim Taylor.
If we were able to divert our waste from the cedar dump to the WTE and it reduced that volume by 80%, it is obvious it would extend the life of the landfill.
There will be considerably more garbage entering the landfill from Vancouver & possibly other cities; hence the likelyhood that the landfill will fill much more quickly.
@Jim Taylor
I have a sneaking suspicion that behind the RDN’s hasty decision was a concern for protecting their own cash cows that could be put in peril of a WTE were to open at Duke Point.
The City of Nanaimo Councillors have more weighted votes on the RDN & often out vote RDN directors for the benefit of the City.
#Trailblazer Why do you assume the fly ash would go to Cedar? Do you know something that is not general knowledge? How much can be diverted to roadways, concrete manufacture etc???
At least one city councilor has said he is ashamed he voted originally to say NO to the WTE based on the original ‘hoopla’ that was presented at the RDN. The first reaction of most people is NO to the idea of burning Metros garbage, but I know of several, myself included, who no longer feel enough information is available to make an intelligent decision that will have impact for generations. The fact is the cedar dump will be full in very short order, the fact is a WTE plant is something we may very well have to consider. The idea, we are not going to investigate the advantage that could accrue if we cut a deal with Metro, whereby they handle our future waste at a preferential rate, gives me zero confidence in the leadership in this region. $70 million conference centres, $62 million water plants, $16 million offices…. and that is just the city side. There has hardly been a clear example of good fiscal management in Nanaimo in recent years. Oh yeah, and I forgot turning down a natural gas fired electric generation station at Duke Point. Then we wring our hands and wonder where the family supporting jobs will come from ……… just how far down the rabbit hole do you think we have fallen??
Consider this link.
With 30% of the waste left as “fly ash” the landfill will be full in a short time.
http://zerowasteamerica.org/Incinerators.htm
YES we need industry & it’s jobs but at what cost?
When will NEDCO get off it’s arse & look for small ( 100 jobs or so) manufacturing jobs.
We, Nanaimo , already do this quite successfully.
#trailblazer how do you know the fly ash will go to Cedar? How much can be diverted for things such as roadbed, and used in the manufacture of cement?
Jim: Concerning your correct statement that there are one or more Councillors who may regret their original decision at the RDN, I am not sure what you are trying to convey: is it as simple as saying: Heh! I think I made a mistake and therefore I get an automatic do-over? Try that one on your bank or credit card lender. If you want a do-over you have to man-up and go for a do-over -which you may or may not get.
It is a case of making a rash decision, without sufficient evidence based on a knee jerk reaction to the appalling idea of installing a toxin belching, garbage burner at Duke Point. I certainly hope you are not suggesting the populace has to be hung with a poorly made, hasty decision and that there is no room for sober second thought.
Sorry Jim, but if one gets drunk some night and wakes up the next morning with a wife in, and a marriage license by, one’s bed, one still has to get an annulment or a divorce if one wants to get out of it. Being rash or foolish is not an acceptable excuse for the law. If, that is, I have interpreted the situation correctly. I await a decision. Maybe it is the case that Council can just walk away from their decisions just as easily as our Conference Centre partner walked away with our $3 million.
This is just plain silly. Merry Christmas…..
@Jim Taylor
made, hasty decision and that there is no room for sober second thought.
Lets be honest Jim.
Your statement means have second , or third, thoughts until the right! decision is made which is build the incinerator.
If you don’t first succeed then try try again.
I stand by my first post.
The decision has been made to have the incinerator in Nanaimo so as to facilitate access to the Welcox lands; with a bit of tax revenue thrown in..
@Trailblazer….. to be honest. We said NO without KNOWING what exactly we were rejecting. We can still say no, if we don’t like the findings of an environmental and economic study. To say no, without those pieces of information is just plain foolhardy. But is consistent with the Nanaimo NIMBY crowd.
Nanaimo can not decide to have the incinerator at Duke Point, that choice of site is up to Metro and perhaps the Ministry of the environment.
The idea that we are willing to reject a waste management process, which in a short time we will be considering as an option to the Cedar dump seems like short sightedness of the worst kind.
Merry Christmas……
Equation X+Y>X makes sense to me Ron. What does not make sense is the process it explains.
Entropy is involved in any long distant exchange especially across water and I know from experience the Salish Sea can get pretty unmanageable at times.
The fact is Vancouver ran out of Cache Creek long ago and Nanaimo Council needs the money.
We, on the other hand, do not need the money that badly or this horrible intrusion! QED
Click to access mu-W.pdf
Another way of looking at things!
To me it poses more questions than answers.
It seems that waste needs wate to burn!
Has anyone considered the net job LOSS with incineration?
We have many profitable companies providing jobs & at the same time recycling waste that will with incineration go up in smoke..
One old shirt plus enough Natural Gas to raise the temperature to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit will indeed vaporize an old shirt, and it will definitely produce a lot of wasted heat in the process, and yes that heat can be captured, but it is far better for the environment to recycle that old shirt in the first place than to burn it. This is true for any material found in the solid waste stream. Mining these resources is good environmental practice and the foundation industry of the recycling economy. It is also a cost effective method for reducing GHG emissions.
Hello!
http://www.nanaimodailynews.com/whl-franchise-still-a-possibility-for-nanaimo-1.771617
The idea is not to incinerate recyclable material but the waste that would otherwise go to landfill.Even with Nanaimo’s recycle and compost programs about 33% of our waste is neither recycle or compost. The choice is landfill or convert to heat.
Jim: Can you tell us of what materials that 33% is composed and which of them are not included among the available facilities for recycling? See:
http://www.rdn.bc.ca/cms.asp?wpID=98
Isn’t the primary problem keeping us from recycling a great deal more one of organization and incentives and disincentives?
Ron, there are materials, many types of plastics etc. which can not be recycled. As for how much we really recycle, and how much just gets shipped off to third world dumps, is an issue worthy of serious investigation. Not unlike the compost plant at duke point, I think we will find much of this recycling is so much smoke and mirrors.If you want to get some idea of how much really can’t be recycled go check out how much stuff coming from our yellow pages, ends up in the dump.
Zero waste sounds like a lofty goal, but is totally impractical, the issue right now, and for our kids to deal with is bury or burn. Those are the only two options.
“Does This City Council & Senior Staff
Deserve Taxpayers’ Confidence?”
Jim I have just read your recent City Hall News on your blog.
Whatever is going on at city hall ranges far worse than the city being the recipient of a Vancouver dump.
I recoil at this council’s arrogant distain for everything good governance: far worse than Korpan’s councils and that’s something. To say nothing of their arrant incompetence and lack of due diligence.
Answering the above question NO NO NO.
But they are worse. They comprise a closed cabal of voters, staff families and friends, their own families, friends and cronies and given a majority of disengaged electors can pretty well call the shots.
The cabal knows it and can get away with whatever errant whimsy passes for the moment.
Good work. I have your blog book maked and I’ll be following . . .
Roger: Just a reminder. Tomorrow Councils remuneration will increase by another 8%, bringing it to a total of 26% over the last three years. How big an increase did you see over that time period? They must be good, mustn’t they?
Zero waste may be a loft y goal, but if a man’s reach does not exceed his grasp, then what’s a heaven for?
On a more practical note, can you indicate which plastics, for example, cannot be recycled and indicate why they could not be exchanged for those that can? I don’t believe that we have any clear idea of what we could do to curb waste to cut it to the absolute minimum and until we do, building half billion dollar plants to burn unexamined waste seems to me like a poor idea.
How much waste do you think would be removed from the cycle if we had to pay for its full recovery -and of course raised the fines for dumping to truly punishing levels. Our tolerance for passing our waste problems on to others is shockingly high.
Ron, this is an interesting discusiion (not really) but the hows and whys of plastics is not something we are likely to sort out. The fact is we DO produce waste, truckloads and truckloads everyday in the city of Nanaimo. Our dump is going to be full long before anyone figures out how to eliminate waste. Long before our consumer driven society and wasteful packaging, cities were producing garbage since time began. The choice is bury or burn, and I am now leaning to the burn as a viable alternative.
I read there is an island of plastic junk floating around the North Pacific gyre comparable to the area of British Columbia.
Let Van dump its plastic in that . . .
Has anyone here who are well informed on recycling (I presume Ron would be) done any investigation into the economics of North American recycling of plastic. Vis a vis, how much actually gets recycled and reused here, and how much fills those empty shipping containers headed back to China, where they recycle it, and re-manufacture something and sell it back to us? Who actually is MAKING money on this whole deal, because I am sure it has become another huge business which may or may not be accomplishing what we hoped it would.
Roger, Van is not supposed to be burning recyclable plastics. But there are plastics which can not be recycled. Oil, detergent, bleach etc. I believe all disqualify a plastic from the recycle stream.
The fellow in charge of recycling for the city, at a recent meeting I believe said that about 20% of what goes into the recycle, yellow bags does not qualify, and therefore winds up in the landfill. There are lots of ‘dirty’ products that can’t be recycled.
Jim: A quick check is all it takes to get an idea of the problems of recycling plastic. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling
It appears that most of the problem is related to uncoordinated production without standards for identification and, of course, the desire of the public not to have to think about the problem and just push everything into the waste bin willy nilly.
This is not a good reason to mass-burn plastic in a very expensive incinerator. It looks like some legislation on identification standards and the management of recycling could get rid of the majority of this problem. Why don’t we spend our time figuring out how to recycle better rather than on why we need an incinerator which will demand ever increasing volumes of garbage?
Check out this site in Richmond. If we removed all of these plastics from the waste cycle, what would an incinerator burn?
http://www.westcoastplasticrecycling.com/film-plastic-recycling#/Plastic-Recycling/
And a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year to All
Do you ever suspect there is a point that all this focus on recycling becomes totally counter productive? The amount of energy and resources that are used to try to reclaim every last scrap of plastic which never eliminates the need for virgin plastic, may in fact not be impact neutral. Perhaps there is an economic and environmental benefit to converting these plastics to thermal energy rather than sorting, bundling, sorting, shipping and bundling yet again, before being placed in a otherwise empty shipping container headed to China where it will be converted to more goods which we will gleefully buy.
Go see Gary Fransen at the city yard and get him to explain to you just how much of our recycling effort results in truly recycled, and how much still MUST go to landfill.
Much of society has not gotten onto the recycle everything wagon, a simple example of that proof can be found at the bottle depot, where a great many folk supplement their incomes by collecting bottles and cans, which do carry a deposit, that have been gladly discarded by their original purchasers.
Jim, there may be such a point, but I don’t believe that we are anywhere close to it.
You have apparently already talked to Gary Fransen. What did he say about how much of our recycling efforts are truly recycled? And more importantly what did he have to say about why that is so?
You make the statement that much of society has not gotten onto the recycle everything wagon and then you go on to give an example that works. Doesn’t this ring a bell??
Ron, last first………there are far more people throwing away those drink containers, than the few souls who collect them to help pay the rent.
Yes, I have spoken with Gary at length. I actually believe it was at one of the ‘budget’ sessions that he commented on the fact that 20% of the stuff in the yellow bags is not recycle material. Contamination etc. etc. all play into that.
I believe we are already at that point for some recycled products, and there is a whole lot of upset coming, when the Chinese close the door.
I am not convinced that if you factored all of the costs of our current recycling programs, the end product is far more expensive than simply producing new. When a company is willing to pay the city of Nanaimo $1 million a year for the privilege of collecting our paper products, which we used to have to pay to get rid of, then something about this whole program is beginning to smell a little fishy. It could be that a lot of those ‘recycle’ fees we pay at the point of purchase these days, has very little to do with actual recycling, and in fact, is just another clever means of taxation.
The WTE project?
Let’s get the language right. It’s not a project, its’ a sale pitch. WTE more aptly stands for Waste the Environment which is what burning garbage does. Landfills don’t spontaneously combust so that we can reap the economic benefits of heat! This is a proposal that has the potential to create the largest single point combustion of natural gas on the entire island, the largest single point emission of green house gases on the island, and the largest plume of toxic air borne emissions in the Province. It is not an opportunity for a prosperous and healthy future.
Incineration is a simplistic way of dealing with a complex problem that we are in denial over.
The problem is unfettered growth to which society bows it’s head to.
We now live in an era that does not even consider other alternatives.
Joe: “Landfills don’t spontaneously combust so that we can reap the economic benefits of heat!” What are they doing with all that methane the landfill is producing? What do you think would happen if that pile of crap were just left covered on it’s own for awhile?
Piling all this crap in one huge, rotting pile without knowing how we are contaminating watercourses etc. is also a very simplistic solution. I am not convinced it is environmentally superior to energy from waste.
Has anyone here been arguing that the solution to our garbage problem is landfilling? Nor, I think, do most who are examining this problem believe that either landfilling or incineration are the solution needed. The problem is much more nuanced and needs to start at the source, ie us as consumers and those who supply us. A credible solution needs to start here first.
Good question, Ron
In the big picture, urban engineered systems bring material to the city and remove waste from the city. It’s an actual physical requirement to process the solid waste produced by the city. In the old days of organic everything we were zero waste lifestylers. Today we have a lot of inorganic baggage to manage. The mainland mayors have hatched zero-waste policies and yet they continue with attempts to export contaminated solid waste somewhere else. Why? Because, processing this waste is costly. Are citizens willing to pay for zero waste solutions? Probably. I guess yes in order to protect public health but I am also guessing yes only if solutions are benign with-in the biosphere. Organic everything is still the principle.
Solid waste infrastructure is recognized as a public utility needing increasingly restrictive regulation in terms of air emissions and water impacts. This is because industry produces increasing volumes of toxic materials which end up in the waste stream. Such restrictive regulation will drive technological development, and ultimately create a new economic sector with employment and product for export. We should stop thinking about exporting garbage and start thinking about exporting process engineered machinery and solutions expertise that truly reduces the waste stream to zero.
http://midislandnews.com/
Has an in depth article on incineration.
It seems to reinforce the view that it is a quick & dirty solution where only those that transport or incinerate benefit.
FOUR jobs in Burnaby; that is not a reason to accept this proposal.
thanks, very good article
Ron:’The problem is much more nuanced and needs to start at the source, ie us as consumers and those who supply us. A credible solution needs to start here first.’ Sounds all good, but just how far over our heads in crap will we be by the time this mystical solution is found? Dealing with the reality of the garbage we are producing, and are going to continue producing will require a decision to bury or burn what doesn’t go through the recycle mills. That is the issue that those whose heads are not in the clouds, will have to decide. and pretty damn soon.
Jim: What can I say? Your tirade is so full of hidden assumptions and assertive condemnations that if defies response.
Hidden assumptions????? Assertive condemnations???? We have garbage, we will continue to have garbage, we can either burn it ourselves, landfill it or ship it someplace else. We don’t have time to engage in some grand realignment of our consumption habits. We can continue to navel-gaze until cedar dump is full, and then realize we still are cranking out the garbage, but won’t have decided on burn or bury…… of course by then, no one here will have to deal with the problem.
Burn or bury? How about grind it up, remove organics, extract metals, add silica, Portland cement, water and start casting concrete products?
Rave on…. When you are prepared to contemplate that we really don’t need to accept all the trash that we and our providers currently subsidize and/or produce, then we can have a rational conversation.
To see coming attractions, read this article on how to prevail in dealing with a municipality. The program has already begun with the invitation and then de-invitation to the first public presentation by the incinerator salesmen to the publicly funded but limited public participation presentation next Wednesday to the DNBIA.
http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-14/issue-2/features/canadas-wte-image-success.html
propaganda for the ignorant me thinks
How can you have a rational conversation, when you want to pretend that somehow we can stop producing waste???? Your starting point is so ludicrous as to be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic. We have been hammering the 3 R’s for ages…… we still have a steady stream of trash heading out to the dump, week after week after week. Somehow, through the power of persuasion, you are going to change all of society??? I’d like what you’ve been smoking??
Jim: When or where did I say that we were going to stop producing waste. If you had been at the sewage plant tour yesterday you would fully realize the folly of such an undertaking. The question is about whether we can substantially reduce the waste that is invading our lives from the outside. And if we can, then maintaining the feedstock for incinerators is not possible. They said that man could never fly, that we would never go to the moon, and you say that waste cannot be reduced. I’m with those that know that change, like shit, happens.
The article on how to change public opinion, could be applied to any organization with an agenda to advance. I presume, the Sierra Club has a very similar playbook to advance their agendas also. There is nothing sinister in the outline just good, solid, tactical advice.
The playbook is one thing. Its implementation another. This sale has been hyped as being for the public. The DNBIA is not the public. This is the tricky part about involving the public. If you are going to do it, you can’t just go for the fruit. You have to go for the whole tree. Of course it you are not going to do it, then private meetings with private groups making private statements is the way to go.
Ron you are spreading mis-information. That meeting is not funded by the public. But don’t let the facts get in the way of an agenda.
The meeting is funded by the proponents. I asked DNBIA if they were putting the event on when I got their email, I wanted to know if I should put it on my blog. Short version, someone at the DNBIA simply screwed up.
You leave me perplexed. The meeting is funded by the proponents, but it is called and controlled by the DNBIA? See my previous response.
The DNBIA had nothing to do with the meeting. Period. I presume they did receive an invite, and someone took it upon themselves to send it out the their mailing list. That should not have happened.
Until the DNBIA issues a statement regarding the illegitimate use of their style and logo, I’m afraid this matter hovers over their heads.
I have suggested this on a couple of Facebook Pages and am posting here, since there seems a real desire to address the amount of waste, rather than consider how we are going to deal with what we have. I think that Ron Bolin, and several others on the facebook pages devoted to the WTE controversy, should form a non profit society for the purpose of finding meaningful ways to reduce the amount of waste our society produces. The society would then be able to raise funds to do research and raise public awareness to bring about meaningful change right here in Nanaimo. Unless of course, this is just the hot topic of the month to occupy blogs and the like.
Jim: Mr. Foden’s first slide showed that the Canadian propensity for waste is the highest and is in fact more than twice as wasteful as a number of the countries shown. Would you like to argue that Canadians are simply unable to control their wasteful urges as are other countries in this world? The problem was demonstrated by the Canadian Energy from Waste Coalition and find it hard to imagine why, in the face of this evidence from the proponents, that you feel the need for someone to prove their point.
Without regulation there will be no change in our wasteful, bad, habits.
I think the general public has spoken loud & clear on incineration (It is NOT waste to energy).
I think the general public (at least the vocal ones) has said loud and clear, they don’t want to know anything about present day energy from waste technology.
Jim: For better or worse, landfills have been around for thousands of years. Incinerators have only been around for a few decades and there is no denying that many of those early examples were less that up to the task, particularly as regards the environmental record. It is perhaps naive to believe that the new kid in town, particularly one that is arriving with a bad, even if now perhaps undeserved, reputation, is going to be treated as an old friend and that that new kid will not have a very deep row to hoe to overcome inherent scepticism. It will be up to the new kid to change hearts and minds, not for the unbelievers to adapt to a new religion.
PS: Jim: Remember the promises of those big money guys who came to town a few years ago and sold us a conference centre??
WTE (wreck the environment) proposals are not acceptable for public health reasons. Exporting waste out of sight is no better than throwing garbage over the backyard fence.