Future of Detroit Incinerator

In September, Kevyn Orr asked for bids for firms to collect the city's trash. I believe that an agreement was reached to sign
contracts with two firms in January. My assumption was that the firms were not obligated to take the trash to the incinerator on
Russell Street. Quite likely, land fill would have been a less expensive system of getting rid of the trash. I wonder if this meant that environmentalists had won their battle to eventually shut the incinerator.
This week's Crains reports that the firm currently operating the incinerator will build a 1.6 mile steam loop to supply the Hamtramck Assembly plant with steam. Does this mean that the incinerator has a bright future? I did not think that the incinerator could be sold for much to pay off the city's debts. Maybe it does have value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renf

In September, Kevyn Orr asked for bids for firms to collect the city's trash. I believe that an agreement was reached to sign
contracts with two firms in January. My assumption was that the firms were not obligated to take the trash to the incinerator on
Russell Street. Quite likely, land fill would have been a less expensive system of getting rid of the trash. I wonder if this meant that environmentalists had won their battle to eventually shut the incinerator.
This week's Crains reports that the firm currently operating the incinerator will build a 1.6 mile steam loop to supply the Hamtramck Assembly plant with steam. Does this mean that the incinerator has a bright future? I did not think that the incinerator could be sold for much to pay off the city's debts. Maybe it does have value.

---

In other news, environmentally progressive cities around the world are building new trash incinerators.

Detroit was ahead of its time on this one.

The environmental lobby is behind the times. This can be done cleanly and make European environmentalists happy. Why are our environmentalists so conservative instead of progressive?

[[I believe Detroit Thermal who runs the downtown steam district also operates the boiler at the Poletown. They can probably close down that boiler and save those operating costs.)

One man's trash is another's treasure.

With garbage you have two leading options: bury it or burn it. Both have negative and positive attributes. Ultimately what should be in place is a citywide recycling program, but enforcing it is a major issue as folks will just look for somewhere to dump it if fined, causing vermin problems.

Shut down the incinerator, start dumping trash into I-375 for fill, kill 2 birds with one stone, I say.

I believe that Denmark obtains about 44 percent of its energy from incinerating trash. I don't know if that means there are no environmental problems with doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renf

This week's Crains reports that the firm currently operating the incinerator will build a 1.6 mile steam loop to supply the Hamtramck Assembly plant with steam. Does this mean that the incinerator has a bright future? I did not think that the incinerator could be sold for much to pay off the city's debts. Maybe it does have value.

---

It is my understanding that the poletown power plant, located in Hamtramck, was precisely placed there because of Detroit's ban on burning coal, a ban Hamtramck lacks. It was also my understanding that the poletown plant provided steam power to parts nearby, including the New Center.

So if this 1.6 mile loop was to incorporate the poletown plant, one could assume that burning coal and trash in the same vicinity is no longer ideal, that we could settle with just burning trash.

Sounds to me like it stays.

Get rid of it. It is the lazy way to deal with trash. Progressive cities don't have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjlj

Get rid of it. It is the lazy way to deal with trash. Progressive cities don't have them.

---

Ahmmm, please do some more research. Trash burning is becoming quite the thing. Only retrograde fools are burying their trash as we do [[except Detroit).

Or please provide backups.

Here's an example of cities that ARE burning their trash as an environmentally responsible act: http://www.theguardian.com/environme...y-waste-energy

I'd like to see some more nuance in this debate.

You can "burn trash" out back in a big pile. Throw some diesel on it, let it go. That's different from cleanly incinerating everything at high temperatures, with a careful eye on emissions and a strict policy on what can get burnt.

I think being skeptical of our incinerator is pretty justified: a notably opaque company makes summer nights smell like fresh diaper pancakes for miles around while selling some steam and saying the whole gig is "green."

Does anyone know how what we have compares to the best-practices of incinerators around the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gvidas

I'd like to see some more nuance in this debate.

You can "burn trash" out back in a big pile. Throw some diesel on it, let it go. That's different from cleanly incinerating everything at high temperatures, with a careful eye on emissions and a strict policy on what can get burnt.

I think being skeptical of our incinerator is pretty justified: a notably opaque company makes summer nights smell like fresh diaper pancakes for miles around while selling some steam and saying the whole gig is "green."

Does anyone know how what we have compares to the best-practices of incinerators around the world?

---

Healthy skepticism is healthy. Distrust of everything is paranoia.

That wasn't very nuanced. Sorry. And my comment last night wasn't nuanced either. Sometimes one is weak and not thoughtful.

Our incinerator is old, and may very well not be as 'green' as the new models.

The 'diaper pancacke' smell probably isn't the incinerator discharge. The purpose for smokestacks is to ensure that the discharge is carried up and away from the local area. I am not an expert here, but the delicious smell over there is probably the garbage coming in -- not smoke going out. Or maybe its the rendering plant nearby [[is that still around) or the other trash and scrap transfer stations in the area. I'd like to know more. And I will do my best to nuanced today. Happy Thanksgiving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

The 'diaper pancacke' smell probably isn't the incinerator discharge. The purpose for smokestacks is to ensure that the discharge is carried up and away from the local area. I am not an expert here, but the delicious smell over there is probably the garbage coming in -- not smoke going out. Or maybe its the rendering plant nearby [[is that still around) or the other trash and scrap transfer stations in the area. I'd like to know more. And I will do my best to nuanced today. Happy Thanksgiving.

---

I dunno. That smell is rather obvious, whether in the middle of summer or winter, as one approaches the incinerator from the Ford Fwy. The occasional Brussel Sprout stink is just as offensive.

I also read somewhere that they burn the Recycling if there is not enough trash to maintain a certain temperature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamtragedy

I dunno. That smell is rather obvious, whether in the middle of summer or winter, as one approaches the incinerator from the Ford Fwy. The occasional Brussel Sprout stink is just as offensive.

---

OMG I never really noticed it until I started working in Clinton Twp and took I-94 regularly. The stench is nauseating. And I see there's a church not far from it, and houses. How on earth do they stand it?

I started taking Southfield to 696 to 94 when they were doing all the construction and I didn't miss that smell at all.

As one of the Emergency Manager's corrections to the DWSD
"underspending", ground has been broken for a biosolids processing
facility [[NEFCO) for the wastewater treatment plant. [[On land that
was formerly a leaf recycling facility called "Systematic Recycling" that
at that time was owned by James Rosendall).
This facility should help to lessen the need for the incineration of these
biosolids.
As noted, there are positives and negatives to incineration. Negatives
include nitrogen oxides emissions and particulate emissions that contribute
to respiratory ailments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjlj

Get rid of it. It is the lazy way to deal with trash. Progressive cities don't have them.

---

Progressive cities all over the world incinerate under controlled conditions. In Europe, for example, nobody argues that landfills should be used instead of incineration. They worry more about whether incineration disincentivizes recycling.

Landfilling is actually the practice that is perverse: collecting garbage in a big container underground where refuse never really decays or goes away - and when it does, it leaks into our groundwater. It also generates methane, which is the most noxious of all greenhouse gases. Genius!

Spend some time around a landfill [[or even on Staten Island) if you want some perspective on the smell that you think is coming from the incinerator here. Same smell.

HB

So what you're saying is that the smell isn't the incinerator, but the garbage. The smell is unavoidable. But if you choose landfill you can instead pay a trucking company a lot of money and spoil some good farmland too!