Christmas Surprise

There is an interesting item being brought back on next weeks City Council agenda. It's a letter of intent with Siemens to “design and implement a land fill gas project.”

I'm a bit concerned this is an attempt to resurrect a project that was tabled indefinitely in 2007. In 2006, Siemens brought a proposal to build a waste to energy gasification plant at our landfill. There are similar projects all over the world. Some seem to be successful, some have been dangerous failures. By 2007, a number of questions were raised about the safety, true operational costs, etc. and the item was “ tabled indefinitely.” Now, the last meeting of the year on a date that was changed when everyone is busy with Christmas and travel plans and the end of the year, etc. this is put on the agenda with almost no real public discussion for several years.

It could be this is not the gasification project proposed in 2006. It might just be a way to capture the natural methane the landfill produces and then do something useful with it. That could be a good thing, but shouldn't a project such as that be put out for competitive bid? When was the RFQ put on the street? How many bids were received? Did we go to Siemens about this or did they come to us. Would be nice to know if good background information is in the agenda packet, but that didn't make it to the city website yet so who knows.

This issue needs public input and discussion. Sneaking it in the last agenda of the year is not the way to do it.

Stormwater Surprise(s)

I recently got my first water bill with the stormwater fee included. That was a surprise in itself, I was at a few of the public hearings held prior to passing the ordinances, and I recall hearing the fee would be assessed on property owners. As it was finally passed, that is true for commercial properties, but on the residential side, the fee goes to whomever has the water meter at the property.

Take my case as one example: the property I rent (since '92) includes a detached garage/storage building I do not rent, owner uses it exclusively. The building I do NOT rent moves me from Tier Two to Tier Three based on footage of roof area.

The first thing I discover, when I called the "customer service number" on the utility bill, I was told all stormwater questions had to go to another number. I call it, and get a recorded menu and first try, I end up back with the water clerk who couldn't answer my questions to begin with. I navigate the robo-menu, get a recorded invitation to leave a message. I finally end up talking to the City Engineer, Clinton Bailey, who it turns out is the first line and only line of response to stormwater questions. Minor point I suppose, but if we are going to include the fee on the water bill, shouldn't customers be able to get answers to at least basic questions from someone at the phone number printed on the bill? If nothing else, is having Mr. Bailey as first-and-only first response a good use of the City Engineer's time? I have come to respect the man as a competent employee, but surely he has better things to do.

Here I need to digress into the enabling ordinances. These coincidentally appeared online about the time I'm getting the bill, but they are now up online. Sec. 8.1900 sets the fee itself and the different residential/commercial Tiers system of setting fees. Of more interest to the rate-payer is Sec. 11.800 which has to do with collections and billing.

Under 11.807 "Appeals" I find that all appeals will go through [cut a lot of verbiage] Clinton Bailey, and as he pointed out, burden of proof is on the rate-payer. If I appeal, and do not like his ruling, I find under 11.807(d) "any landowner..may appeal to City Council". I had to point out the landowner language to Bailey, but it's there. In short,I am priviledged to pay the bill, but have no right of appeal to Council as I rent.

In fairness, this sounds like a leftover from when City intended to bill owners. If unintentional it needs amending; if intentional it is outrageous and probably unconstitutional.

If I were to convince my landlord to appeal (why should she, it would increase her bill) the result would be the total revenue to City would go from $4/month to $5, as my bill would drop $1, but the lowest Tier is $2, her share. I will not do any such absurd thing, I'll pay the $4/month, but it is an unintended result of the ordinance.

That brings to mind billing for duplex/triplex rentals. If the renters have separate meters, how is the impervious surface divvied up? Do $4 properties end up paying $6?

One thing I recall well from the public meetings was one session where staff actually showed us overhead images of properties. It wasn't GoggleEarth, but something similar with more up to date images. These were to be used as the stormwater assessment is based on "impervious surface". Especially for residential properties roof footage is the major component. A two story house with 3,500 sqft would likely fall in the 1-2,000 Tier for stormwater purposes. Unless the city is relying completely on Tax Appraisal District records, which do not state one/two/three story. Which the City apparantly does now. What happened to the overhead views? Again, burden of proof on the rate-payer.

While I'm looking into this, one person added a concern on the commercial side. Here we change to billing the owner. Regardless of whether individual businesses in a multi-use property have meters or the whole building is on one water meter, bill goes to the owner. Many owners are now being "stuck" with $100-$500/month fees they cannot pass along to long-term lease holders.

One other beef I have with 11.800: Let's say you have an appeal, filed and in process. In the interim, you pay the rest of the utility bill, but withhold the stormwater fee. This is commonly allowed in property tax cases without foreclosure. Under Sec. 11.808 "Failure to pay promptly shall subject such user to discontinuance of any utility service". Well, it's certainly a hammer, but I would prefer to see such actions move through a Municipal Court action brought by the City against the landowner.

I have to give points to someone for dividing the ordinances. It would be a hard sell to reopen the Tiers structure addressed in Sec 8.1900, don't see that happening. However, there are inequities in the 11.800 language, I suspect unintentional, that can be addressed and amended, and they should be.

I'm not by nature a fan of unfunded mandates, and this is the "poster child" definition for that term. Reality, City has no viable option save to comply. That is covered in Sec 8.1900, I leave quibbles over fairness of the Tiers for the review down the road. The inequities of the billing portion in Sec 11.800 can be re-examined without disturbing the core issue of City's compliance with State and Federal Regulations. It should be.

San Angelo has been surprisingly tolerant of the capital improvements addition to the water bill. People assign responsibility to different sources, but after the Christmas Debacle and a few geysers around town, we are willing to pay for dependable service. A couple of things that helped acceptance was selling people the idea there was a "new sheriff in town", we would manage and maintain the system better, AND the additional billing would have some semblance of fairness to it.

While not free, (there is staff time to consider), tweaking an ordinance by amendment is an inexpensive option compared to losing trust with rate-payers. The Monday Standard-Times article (which dropped off the radar in record time) mentioned there had been about 1,000 calls on the issue. Aside from eating up the City Engineer's time, that's a lot of people with questions, and doesn't count those who shrug in resignation and write the check, mumbling imprecations under their breath. Fairness in billing is essential to trust. Council should look at amending Sec. 11.800.

Another Sunday Ramble

First, let's all be grateful for the recent rains. It did force me to an additional lawn mowing today, but always be ready for serendipity. As I was working the alley behind my house, I actually scared up a Horned Toad! Fully mature, about 3 inches long by half that across, scooted a few feet and paused, giving me a clear look at it. I make a point of not poisoning red ant beds. I have always been fond of horny toads, so I leave their prey alone. I hope the presence of the one I saw today indicates a mate and breeding pair. No, I did not pick it up, let alone try to sex it, (frankly, not real sure how one would do that) but finding the critters in town is becoming rare.

On to less happy news, if you are feeling some discomfort in the nether regions, it could be that you are discovering that your credit card company is raping you with your pants on. Some of the "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions on the receving end of Billions of our money are expressing their undying gratitude for this taxpayer largesse by taking accounts (such as mine) and moving us into what used to be default interest rates. In my case, Chase bought out WAMU; I've never been late, consistently pay well above minimum, but I just got bumped to nearly 30% on balance. The reason: because they can; and Congress has let them know reform is coming...in 2010! In other words; get it while you can. The recent Presidential dressing-down of these economic pirates amounted to...a photo-op. Sound and fury signifying nothing, as a long dead scribbler from Stratford-on-Avon put it.

Take a closer look at your card statements. Not all of them are as opportunistic as Chase. I have been aggressively paying down debt; new job, I've halved my overall debt in 6 months, I should be paid up this time next year, but I am fortunate.

If you noticed, the city recently corrected an oversight on the new-style utility bill and went to 21 day billing. In short, if you are on two-week payroll cycle, you will not get a utility bill due before you get another paycheck. Some of the card companies are intentionally going to a 14 day cycle, it catches bill-payers between paychecks and generates additional late fees and another chance to bump those interest rates into usurious range. Or force debtors into payroll/car title short-term loans at up to 350% APR, and guess who owns those store-front companies?

Why one might ask, in a high unemployment economy, would the card companies make it harder for debtors to pay? Well, gee, credit cards are one of the few high profit ends of the financial business. I wouldn't care to be bundling sub-prime mortgages for resale as a living right now, let alone credit/default swaps. If you are able to pay (my circumstance) they are making tons of money on us. If you can't, they get to write off debt in about the only profitable line of trade going, and so sorry we had to wreck your credit score in the process, not that we really give a hoot about you anyway, but thanks for the Billions.

OK, that wasn't really local news, it's not something City Council can deal with, but this affects enough local people I thought it worth mentioning. I note for the record that neither national Party seems to be in nearly so big a sweat to protect US as they both were to fling our tax dollars at the companies that are raping us.

Back to local: we have an election next Saturday. Unless one is registered in SMD Council district 4, the election itself will not be as interesting as some of the process changes. SMD4 has two candidates seeking the seat now held by retiring member Emilio Perez-Martinez. It is not my district, I don't have a horse in this race, as I have said before, either candidate will be a good addition to Council.

I have worked polls since '92. I have seen the new system, and I have to say, Bravo! Instead of the old "Combination form" you the voter had to sign (upside down), the new style is computerized and will print out labels as we process you in. When I say computerized, no I don't mean you will have to vote electronic, you want a paper ballot, it will be available, I just mean the intake procedure. Also, on early voting we now have sites in each precinct, not just Edd Keyes Bldg. AND any voter in whatever precinct can vote at whichever is most convenient for them. We were not required to do this until we hit 120,000 by census, but we are not only ahead of the legal requirement, we are ahead of the rest of the state in the vote-anywhere part.

Right now, on election day, one will have to be at the correct precinct. I can say, we are looking at systems that will allow any registered voter to vote at any site on election day. That is doable now on the tech side, it would require substantial funding and training, but it can be done, if we want it done and are willing to pay for it

Now I get to swine/H1N1/Mexican flu. Unlike the H5N1 bird flu that was going to kill us all 18 months ago, this is a very real human to human virus. CDC is showing that it is still highly communicable, new cases coming in daily, but as new reports come in, the mortality rate is, if anything, lower than the normal spectrum of influenza. Remember, influenza and related infections regularly kill 36,000 Americans annually, a pretty steady number over the last three decades.

There are a lot of things we don't know yet. Why was the mortality higher in Mexico? First generation cases here, the private school in NYC, 28 initial cases, straight out of Cancun, it spead like wildfire in the school, very infectious, but no one even needed hospitalization, let alone critical care. I have advised in the past, be prepared to "turtle-up", or quarantine yourself and live on canned goods/no outside contact for a month or so if needed. San Angelo seems to have gotten away unscathed, hope that continues. On this one, the media has over-reacted moreso than the gov't. Sensible precautions are in order, but "head-for-the-hills-Justine" appears to be a bit premature.

Congratulations to the Standard-Times on the 125th anniversary. Good supplement today. It brought to mind something I have noticed over the years; anytime I have gone to the library records of a paper, any paper, in the process, I always trip over something more interesting than the topic I started looking for. Just for one, see the May 28, 1923 copy of S-T: Obviosly the big story was Santa Rita, the start of West Texas oil. BUT; bottom left, "Nebraska Now Has Eugenics Marriage Measure in Effect"; or column 5 bottom of the page; "Women Declared to be Chief Cause of Half World's Woes": Can one imagine either issue even getting print today? And how many people today would even understand the editorial cartoon top-of-the fold regarding Germany and reparations? That cartoon foretold WWII had anyone been paying attention. Thank you S-T; great history lessons, and a lot of them not the day's headline.

History is always worth reading; unless of couse, you would prefer to repeat it.

Crystal Ball Time

For the third time, we will try to fire up the old crystal ball. You might enjoy looking at our previous prognostications here and here.

Infrastructure will be in the news frequently in the coming year. There will be continuing work on the water and sewer systems, and the roads might get the first serious traffic studies in decades. The city might even bring the traffic signals up to late 20th century standards. Expect heated discussions about the need for infrastructure improvements and its impact on private property and businesses. The inclusion of the Capital Budget in the city charter makes this an easy prediction.

Public safety will be a hot topic. First, we have both Chief of Police and the Sheriff up for election. All candidates will promise to "do something." It remains to be seen whether these will be new, creative ideas or just more of the same old same old. There will be heated discussions on introducing technologies that intrude on privacy in the name of public safety and security. Hopefully we will be able to have realistic and effective limits, checks, and balances in place. This won't happen if we don't get more private citizen involvement. This will have to come from all stakeholders (ie. citizens) in the city. Youth involvement will be especially critical. All aspects of public safety and the criminal justice system will have tough questions asked. I am cautiously optimistic that we can come up with some good answers, but it will take a lot of work.

One of the most critical youth issues, Education, is likely to show little positive progress. The problems that were there during the last bond election are still there, only worse. Inflation has increased the cost of all potential projects, but realistically money was not what caused the failure of the last bond election. Poor communication and bad information lost the last election. There has been no improvement there. If anything it has gotten worse. With all the fanfare of Dr. Bonds soliciting input and covering her office walls, there has been little real output. Poorly communicated management methods such as "sweeps" will add to the problems the school district has selling any bond package. The comments and discussions on Sweeps have not shown the openness or communications skills needed to sell anything to the voters. The slow pace of progress also makes it likely that the School Board will delay the bond issue till the November ballot. Unless they have a very compelling package and an excellent sales plan, they will not fare very well in the heavy voter turnout of a presidential election. If they don't have a package ready by May, they can probably forget a bond.

ASU will have a very good year. There will be lots of cussin' and discussion about Johnson street and traffic in the area, but in the end there will be the start of a plan to fix a long overlooked problem. With its first endowed chair, and an expanding curriculum, they will be on track for the growth they want. They will have to address space problems and that will be a long term challenge. Repairing bridges to the community will also have to be a top priority.

Business and economic development trends will not change very much. There will be a slow down in retail building, and some of the growth will move away for the southwest part of town. The TIRZ zone and the new Supercenter will both draw retail growth, but it will take a while to get any momentum. There will be new industries coming, but these will put the quality of our workforce to the test. The days of good paying jobs for unskilled labor are gone. If you happen to be looking for a job, be prepared to get training. We will start to see some upward movement of the average income. Expect major changes in grants and handouts to businesses. Expect the focus to shift more to homegrown, local businesses.

Expect changes in the cities approach to parks and recreation facilities. The candy store approach will not disappear, but expect to see changes. More creative involvement by all the groups concerned will be required to get anything positive done. Look for more multi-use facilities.

Energy will also start to have more of an impact on the local economy. The wind farms in the area will have spin off and positive collateral impacts. The cost of fuel will keep oil in the area booming, but will have a negative affect on other growth. The greatest impact will be on those with the lowest paying jobs.

Last prediction is that our election office and election workers will continue to do an outstanding job in the coming year. There will be some problems and issues, but they will be minor.

Queries For Anyone Seeking (Re)election

(Updated and edited after talking to Allie. Webmaster)

Before I cast any vote for for Mayor I would like to ask the candidates to use this forum to address a few issues. So, J.W. and the rest, please jump in...

First, where do you stand on the Siemens gasification deal? What has become of the $400,000 that the city has already invested in this very poorly thought out trash inceneration scheme? Why have we heard nothing more about it after handing Siemens the cash? Why did the city make no public response to the concerns of citizens?

It seems to me this move was more about pleasing some influential factions in Austin than for the good of San Angelo. Why were you not interested in surveying the public before moving ahead with this plan, as you did with the prison scam in the months prior? These two issues are very similar: shady and risky multi million dollar investments in foreign and undesirable industries slated for the same part of town... So why the two totally different responses?

Secondly, some members of the council have claimed the city (and county) has had discussions with Toshiba about building a nuclear power plant in San Angelo. Can you address this as well?

These two possible projects are each more massive in terms of investment and risk than anything our city has ever faced before. It is very much of concern that the public has been totally bypassed in regard to these issues. We need to hear where the city stands.

Here's a recap on the gasification issue:

In the area of economics this project does not add up. The extreme expense and environmental risks involved with this technology have prevented it from becoming established as an energy resource in North America. The revenue that this project is projected to generate is totally theoretical and speculative, and in fact, Siemens has no waste gasification plants in operation in the world. They do not even mention waste gasification technology on their extensive web-sight. The only experience they seem to have ever had in this experimental niche of the energy market was in Germany where their waste gasification plant was closed after an entire neighborhood in the town of Furth had to be evacuated when clouds of gas leaked from the plant, and left some local people with breathing difficulties. The incident prompted the Siemens Company to shelve its waste treatment business altogether, until now it seems.

A hand out provided at the only public meeting regarding this project declared that “Thermal Gasification Is Not Incineration;” however, the EPA's own data show that gasification units produce more dioxins, furans, nitrogen oxides, the same amount of lead, mercury and cadmium. Some of the chemicals such as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, are reduced, but not eliminated. Other countries do classify gasification as incineration.

Supporters of this resurrected technology, such as Michael Williams, Texas Railroad Commissioner who has appeared in the paper touting this technology, and who is a member of the National Coal Council, (an important conflict of interest) has been taking advantage of semantic tricks that have been made possible by the EPA, using terms such as “zero emissions,” and “renewable energy” when referring to gasification. Clean up for these plants always adds hefty operational expenses (which creates a powerful disincentive to invest in adequate safety equipment, backup systems and procedures) and is never fail safe or complete. In addition, whatever toxins they can “remove” from the air, are still produced and must be disposed of or reintroduced into the environment somewhere. Most of the toxins that are diverted from the air will end up in the landfill but should be classified and treated as hazardous waste.

Methane is not toxic... Hydrogen sulfide and cyanide, nitrogen oxide, dioxins, furans, mercury and lead are without doubt produced by gasification and without doubt, top the official list of the most toxic, cancer causing, potentially lethal, substances known to science and man...

This hand out that our city saw as sufficient to inform the public was a 2 page excerpt taken from a 200 page report from and investigation into gasification by Alameda Power and Telecom, the public power agency of the city of Alameda, CA. Much like the scenario here in San Angelo, APT had first discussed siting the garbage plant in a low-income community, without public discussion. Residents and environmental justice groups responded by forming a three-city grassroots coalition that challenged the claims of “no emissions” and advocated for clean, renewable energy. The mayor of San Leandro, where the plant was to be located, spoke strongly against the project. After investing $500,000 to conduct the investigation into 6 different companies, they decided to REJECT a possible garbage “gasification” plant to meet Alameda’s future energy needs. If you would be interested in reading some of the public responses received by APT from the educated public in that area, they can be found at this web address: http://www.alamedapt.com/newsroom/reports/gasification_comments.pdf .

Obviously the proposal to build a gasification plant could not hold up against the scrutiny that occurred in that community, even after the initial $500,000 investment had been made. The full report reveals in that investigation into gasification, that the "Potential for Emissions of Air Toxics" was "less impressive" than all the other data on their score chart- yielding an average index of only 43 out of 100 when reviewing data from 6 different companies making proposals..."DESPITE THE FACT THAT ALL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE WERE CAPABLE OF MEETING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL SITTING AND PERMITING STANDARDS..." The report continued that, “…the team chose an aggressive approach of deducting strongly for any technology that is potentially less than completely thorough in destroying or re-creating these (hazardous) compounds…”

We should ask: who among those supporting this proposal in our community has engaged in any serious inquiry into the risks involved and where are their findings???

City manager Harold Dominguez claimed at the public meeting that he had been to Japan and had witnessed how this alleged “cutting edge” technology is being implemented with great success. But, according to the Zero Waste Program Declaration of the Kamikatsu-cho, Katsuura, Tokushima Prefecture, September 2003, the people of Japan are pressuring the government to move away from these technologies, which have bogged down progression toward what they now understand is necessary –a zero waste management plan with a focus on recycling and consumer and manufacturer responsibility. “The tendency to build and become dependent on facilities such as incinerators is contributing to such major problems as environmental pollution, growing anxiety among residents and an enormous burden on regional government budgets. These expensive waste disposal facilities only encourage increased waste output and do not contribute to waste reduction.”

Some are claiming that burning trash is the solution to reducing the methane building up in the landfill. But as the space opens up, the city plans to charge other towns to bring their trash to the San Angelo landfill! This scenario will never result in the reduction of methane or waste. Once the investment is made there will actually be an incentive to perpetuate the accumulation of garbage and methane to continue to produce the gas.

If we look at the trends in waste management of some of the most progressive areas of the world, such as Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the EU and some states in America like California, Washington and Colorado, we can conclude that this muli million dollar investment will be obsolete in about 20 years – just about the time the city expects to pay off the debt and start making their money. Many in these areas also conclude that gasification is not a Green Technology but an incineration “make-over,” which is just as hazardous, and counter-productive to real solutions.

If San Angelo wants to look towards measures for our future and be ahead of the curve, first and foremost, we all need to change our mentality about trash, start producing less waste, and recycle what we can. This is the most efficient, effective, sustainable, clean, safe, and potentially lucrative, way of dealing with the very serious issue of waste management that our society faces today. If we understand that recycling before the is a fundamental part of any waste management program, but don't think West Texas is intellectually ready to implement big changes in this direction, then we need to educate.

We need our leaders to recognize how far behind a gasification plant could leave us in the decades to come. This project will put us years behind where we already stand on recycling, not to mention the ramifications of the hazardous waste build up in our community. We do not need to create more problems that will cost us again, in many ways, in the long run. We need leaders to promote “developments” with health, safety, quality of life, economic responsibility, and foresight in mind. All the theoretical cash generating projects should be secondary to this principle.

Here is one of the exclusions, passed by EPA in 2002 that that makes it possible for the industry to claim that this gasification is a “Green,” nonpolluting technology:

The EPA is proposing revisions to the RCRA hazardous waste program to allow a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste. This exclusion would be for hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials generated by the petroleum refinery industry when these materials are processed in a gasification system to produce synthesis gas fuel and other non-fuel chemical by-products.

Other loopholes are inherent the air emission standards themselves. In addition, the few records available regarding the testing of emissions on these plants have been done while the facilities were operating with controlled and reduced inputs, and often data collection begins subsequent to the initial start up period when most of the toxins are released.

While it has been said that the residual waste products we will be left with will be “inert” and disposed of in the landfill, this is also a conclusion drawn with the utilization of semantic and logistical tricks. The following is an except taken from a report by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League on the impacts of waste gasification on the environment and public health:

A national controversy about ash toxicity erupted in 1995 when then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner allowed incinerator operators to mix bottom ash and fly ash together prior to toxicity testing. Fly ash raises the pH of the ash, reducing the reliability of the tests. But citizens who gathered samples of ash from incinerators which had passed the EPA’s tests found very high levels of toxic metals. Gasification units produce both bottom ash and fly ash. The toxicity of gasification combustor ash would be no different than incinerator ash because the source, municipal solid waste, is the same.

Other countries treat bi-products produced from waste gasification as a concentrated hazardous waste, and are recognizing gasification as incineration, an old technology that has already wreaked havoc the world over…

Honest leaders with primary concerns for the health and well being of all should look very critically into EVERY angle of everything they do in the name of the public good. We cannot always rely on the biased “experts” to supply us with the information we need. Especially when looking at extremely costly and risky endeavors that require huge investments of money, time, and intellectual capital.

We have a methane problem at our landfill, just like every other city with a landfill. But responsible solutions do not involve burning trash.

The city of Denton has won an award for their methane solution. They harvest the methane and use the gas to fuel their entire fleet of garbage vehicles. No fuel surcharges on your trash bill in Denton. We do get a fuel surcharge on our trash bill, and the city has admitted that they will be accumulating money in their bank account due to the implementation of this policy. But don’t worry - they say they might throw out the old rebate bone if they get around to it…

Around 15 % of Austin Energy’s 665,000,000 GreenChoice kWh subscriptions come from electricity generated from landfill methane gas. Austin’s other green energy sources come from wind and solar.

In Maryland Heights, Missouri, the ecology club at Pattonville High School convinced the school board to use the landfill gas as an alternative fuel for its boilers. The use of methane in this application has saved the school $37,000 annually in expenditures.

The Goddard Space Flight Center landfill gas project is the culmination of a successful public-private partnership between Prince George's County, Md., Waste Management, Toro Energy, NASA and EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program. The federal space agency is using methane to heat water and buildings at the Goddard Space Flight Center, located in Greenbelt, Maryland.

In Arlington they use landfill gas to power the waste water treatment facility.

A similar project is utilized in Portland, Oregon where Microturbines, costing only $300,000 generate energy for the wastewater treatment plant from methane sewer gas, saving the city $61,000 annually.

San Angelo is flaring methane at the waste water treatment facility as well.

Why doesn’t the city consider harvesting the methane from both the landfill and the water treatment plant and using this clean burning fuel for something more innovative and less hazardous than burning trash to create a dirty, low energy gas?

A landfill gas to energy project costs about $1 million per mega watt, compared to the sketchy prospects of this waste to energy plant, which at best, theoretically translate into a cost of 2.5 – 10 million per megawatt. Some gasification attempts have closed due to their failure to generate sufficient energy. These initial efficiency estimates made by the city for this project will likely be much lower as we factor for the loss of chemical energy associated with materials that have been diverted away during the pre-treatment process, for the energy consumed by the pretreatment process, for the energy required to transport the trash from the landfill, and the for energy wasted in the destruction of recyclable materials lost to the gasification process.

If this technology is so “clean” and “green” then we should be wondering why none of the top 10 “Green” cities in the US has built one of these plants for waste management and supplemental energy? Why did Alameda County throw out the gasification solicitors after a lengthy inquiry and an initial $500,000 investment? Why didn’t Portland or Austin or Saint Paul or Philadelphia get one years ago? An LA ghetto even managed to avert a gasification waste to energy scheme. Are we really supposed to believe that San Angelo, where the concept of recycling is not even fully understood, is ahead of the curve in the implementation of green technology?

If this proposal is everything the proponents say it will be then the burden of proof is upon them. They need to make an attempt to show something substantial before they start building anything. The city has hastily indebted us for $400,000. That was a mistake. But, losing $400,000 is better than losing millions, and our peace of mind, as some other communities have on this technology. In the money department it is usually the corporation that loses the money when these deals go sour. In this case, we have been duped into assuming the financial risk along with the other risks.

It is obvious that this project has a great potential to cause harm in the future, retard our community’s development toward sustainable waste management strategies, and cause another economic disaster for the city. Though it is not always clearly evident, the most crucial battles for freedom and liberty are occurring at the local level across the nation. This is one of those battles.

Candidates?

For more on the issue check out the related links on the Conchoinfo websight.

Rethinking the Energy Farm

In October I wrote an article in which I advocated solar and wind farms as alternative energy projects to a municipal solid waste gasification plant. I was not fully confident in doing so at the time and would now like to revisit this prospect. In the current political climate there is pressure to embrace these big “alternative energy” solutions and there is currently a lot of campaigning related to this issue by the legislative figures.

In light of the lawsuit that is currently under way against FPL Energy and their Horse Hollow wind farm in Taylor County we should consider that these massive energy farms are not the best solution and in fact may leave us with another flawed but entrenched technology as the massive infrastructure required for such operations bogs down our ability and willingness to keep moving toward new and innovative ideas. http://reporter-news.com/abil/nw_local/article/0,1874,ABIL_7959_522335

The energy “farm” concept is based on current energy model and a common flaw is shared --- the energy is derived from a primary source and then mass distributed. While we may benefit from the cleaner energy that is generated from a wind farm, we are still just as vulnerable to “rolling blackouts,” and price gouging as we were before.

Our water distribution is handled in the same way and we have recently witnessed in the south part of town businesses closing down, hospitals and nursing homes without water, and homeowners dipping water out of neighbors swimming pools with trash cans so that they can flush their toilets.

As humans we are instilled with the gift of reason, which should tell us that erecting massive energy farms and monolithic power lines to disperse electricity to far away lands only benefits the corporate “providers.”

Not only that, but it is probable that in the long run the energy farm concept will serve a greedy bureaucracy as land owners begin to sell their heritage to developers and the state as their love for the land is sacrificed to taxation and as industry creeps into our sacred spaces.

Truly it seems that today there is a deliberate and joint effort by political and corporate powers to herd us out of the rural areas and into more manageable and profitable urban configurations. The TransTexas corridor and the National Animal Id Program are other ways we see rural existence in America becoming inconvenienced if not rendered impossible due to taxation, regulation, and imposing infrastructure.

We saw a massive migration out of the rural areas with the coming of the Industrial Age. The family farm population continues to dwindle. But this is where our stability and sanity lies as a society. In energy production and food production and in many other aspects of our lives we need more independence, not more reliance on international corporations and bureaucracy. Yet these influences are growing in massive proportions.

As we are losing our knowledge of relevant and accurate history, we are repeating it. The founding of America truly was a shining moment of hope in a long history of humanity filled with oppression and subversion; but with each deviation from the principles that this country was founded upon, the opportunity to start anew unravels and the patterns that have plagued humanity from the beginning reestablish.

We do not need corporate wind farms subsidized by government. If here in San Angelo we had solar panels mounted on every home, business, and public building in town, we could generate much more energy than any solar or wind farm could muster, and there would be more to spare. Some may argue that it is not economically feasible, but if those who could afford it started the trend, commerce would be generated and the cost of the equipment would go down. I would gladly vote on a bond package that would enable the rest of us to rig our homes with solar energy, trade our electric bills that are as much or more as our monthly mortgage payments for checks from the energy companies as we sell excess energy back to the grid. If land owners wanted to erect windmills that they themselves finance and own, that would beneficial to all as well. This is as feasible as a corporate energy farm if we decide to say that it is --- the only difference is: more energy, more commerce, more jobs, more financial freedom for the citizenry and less of our hard earned money in the pockets multinational corporations and federal, state and municipal coffers.

Don’t believe anyone who says it’s not possible. Sustainable developments are already becoming established in areas that have less energy potential than we have here. New residential developments in the US, Europe, Japan and elsewhere have homes equipped with solar and wind power, innovative plumbing designs that harvest rain water, recycle grey water and send solids into methane digesters for the creation of heat and additional energy. No municipal waste problem, no energy problem, no massive aging infrastructure to deal with down the road that will cost millions of dollars to fix, less pollution, and an enhanced sense of community.

Let’s make San Angelo into a true model community wherein ingenuity flourishes and the people truly fare well. This all begins in thinking for ourselves, thinking outside the box, and abandoning the idea that improvement only happens with bureaucratic oversight and that government exists to orchestrate and define our future for us…