My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/14/1980
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1980
>
Agenda - Council - 10/14/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 2:06:42 PM
Creation date
9/10/2004 12:42:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/14/1980
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
286
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
- 23 - <br /> <br />The market for tires is uncertain. Experiments are continuing <br />to determine the suitability of shredded tires as an <br />alternative fuel. <br /> <br />There are currently few viable markets for waste plastics. <br /> <br />2. POTENTIAL ENERGY MARKETS <br /> <br />In a study conducted by Hennepin County (1979), several markets <br />for refuse-derived energy have been identified. These markets are <br />shown in Table 3. This table shows the size of the market in tons <br />of waste per day, and a preliminary estimate of feasibility. <br />Probably the best potential market for steam in the Twin Cities is <br />the Hoerner-Waldorf plant in the Midway district of St. Paul. <br />Hoerner-Waldorf is a large consumer of steam and ~ould be a good <br />candidate for a water wall cumbustion system. <br /> <br />If all of these promising markets listed were developed, approxi- <br />mately 3,210 TPD of refuse would be burned to generate steam. <br />However, the seasonal changes in refuse generation, variations in <br />operating costs for different facilities, and the need for <br />dependable capacity (a way to dispose of solid wastes when, for <br />any reason, a resource and energy facility is out of service) <br />complicate the alternatives that may be considered. <br /> <br />B. PROGRAM COSTS <br /> <br />1. WASTE REDUCTION <br /> <br />The waste reduction methods described and evaluated in the pre- <br />vious section can be divided into three major categories for <br />purposes of discussing program costs: <br /> <br />- Methods requiring state or federal legislation <br /> <br />Methods requiring establishment of municipal or county <br />policies <br /> <br />- General conservation methods through public education <br /> <br />a. Waste Reduction Methods Requiring State or Federal Legislation <br /> <br />Nearly all of the methods listed in Table 1--including con- <br />tainer deposits, packaging reduction, product charges, bans, <br />extended warranties, and newsprint conservation--would be most <br />effectively enacted at the state or federal level. Costs <br />associated with these reduction techniques would mostly be <br />borne by the affected industries with no significant costs to <br />any government unit for implementation, assuming no major en- <br />forcement or monitoring programs are instituted. However, <br />when considering all costs, including research, development, <br />lobbying and planning, even state and federal governments will <br />incur a certain amount of expenses in terms of staff time. <br />Local and county governments, on the other hand, could support <br />this type of legislation through resolution and incur no <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.