Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Page Eight <br /> <br />To be most cost effective the recovery of energy must have readily available <br />a large process energy user (user of energy in manufocuring processes rather <br />than simply use of energy for space heating which is seasonal). <br /> <br />Refuse derived fuel (RDF') involves the processing of mixed municipal solid <br />waste to produce a uniform particle size, reduce the ash content, and <br />increase the BTU value of the waste. RDF' may be processed to the point of <br />coarse, fluff, or dust sized particles. Coarse RDF is prepared by shredding of <br />raw refuse. The shredded product will contain large quantities of grit, glass, <br />metal and chlorinated plastics which may cause problems in handling or <br />combustion. The coarse RDF has the same thermal value as raw solid waste. <br />A fluff RDF can be prepared from a coarse RDF' by air classifying or <br />screening of the coarse RDF to remove most of the grit, metals, glass and <br />other such debris. A fluff RE)F' will have a higher BTU value and lower ash <br />Content and present fewer problems in handling and burning. <br /> <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />POSSIBLE COUNTY ACTIONS <br /> <br />In reviewing the abatement alterncztives there are several soft/non-technical <br />options which pose realistic opportunities for Anoka County and several <br />processing options which may be realistic ancl which should be reviewed in <br />greater detail. The County could now realistically implement and accomplish <br /> <br /> meaningful waste atxztement through programs of: County office paper <br />I reduction, reuse, recycling; yard waste composting; <br /> and <br /> technical <br /> assistance to municipalities for implementation of office paper reduction, <br /> <br /> reuse and recycling, and curbside pickup programs. Implementation of these <br />I three abatement alternatives would be compatible with any existing or future <br /> waste abatement programs and would in fact enhance.the end result of any <br /> <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br /> <br />waste processing program. The only known barriers to implementation of <br />these abatement strategies are those of establishing public policy, <br />motivational forces to accomplish a 100% participatior~ and providing of <br />sufficient time and support to accomplish implementation. <br /> <br />In the area of waste processing three abatement strategies may merit more <br />detailed investigation and feasibility analysis by the County. These would <br />include mechanical separation, incineration (combustion unit), and <br />incineration with energy recovery (waste to energy combustion unit). The <br />review of these types of facilities should be related to ranges of capacity <br />needed to deal with Anoka County generated waste (350 - 500 tons per day) <br />and facilities sized to deal with the total volume of waste being disposed of, <br />or likely to be disposed of, within the County (I,000 to !,600 tons per day). <br />Assessment of the compatibility of these abatement alternatives with <br />facilities that may be provided in other counties is quite difficult to ascertain <br />at this time. In general, however~ the proposal is flexible enough so that <br />little if any incompatibility would occur. It is believ~cl that the most likely <br />non-Anoka facilit7 that may have some impact on Anoka County would be a <br /> <br /> <br />