Excellent Recycling news from POA

[Madelaine Amee]

The June copy of the POA Bulletin has an article on the future of recycling in TV. I am a "greenie" so for me the news is great. It seems that an excellent solution has been found for us, it is called "Waste to Energy".

TwoPlaneKid has made many posts on recycling and the meetings concerning the ongoing problem, so I send huge thanks to him and the other people who care enough to work on this.

[Paper1]

I’d be interested in tons into the plant and tons to landfill. This process is here to make money by creating electricity so any energy it uses to burn hard to burn waste is lost during the process.

[Topspinmo]

And the great news? How much more is it going to cost?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

And the great news? How much more is it going to cost?

Less than $2/month more than the current rate. So around $18 more per year. For fewer passes of the garbage truck through the neighborhood (so less noise and less heavy machinery on the street), with pickups still twice a week, fewer bags you have to buy because you no longer have to put the recyclables aside (I'm guessing that'll be more than $18/year saved just by not having to bag the recyclables separately).

There's also twice the recycling rate, than the current method, because it's being burned to use as energy. Then there's the benefit of - more energy being created. That in turn could lead to fewer or lower rises in energy costs through typical inflation.

I don't think any of these changes affect me, I'm in Lake County. But I think Sumter will definitely benefit.

[Madelaine Amee]

And the great news? How much more is it going to cost?

Before making an aggressive comment, why didn't t you read the article for yourself and get the facts. :ohdear:

[Neils]

Less pick up frequency. More air pollution. Plus $24 year higher charges to villagers.

[twoplanekid]

Less than $2/month more than the current rate. So around $18 more per year. For fewer passes of the garbage truck through the neighborhood (so less noise and less heavy machinery on the street), with pickups still twice a week, fewer bags you have to buy because you no longer have to put the recyclables aside (I'm guessing that'll be more than $18/year saved just by not having to bag the recyclables separately).

There's also twice the recycling rate, than the current method, because it's being burned to use as energy. Then there's the benefit of - more energy being created. That in turn could lead to fewer or lower rises in energy costs through typical inflation.

I don't think any of these changes affect me, I'm in Lake County. But I think Sumter will definitely benefit.

Our current rate is $19.38. The new rate if approved would be $22.24. The correct increase is thus $2.86. I will have more to say when my comments become public record.

[runkcrun]

Works for me! Most of what we think we are recycling probably goes to a landfill now. There is no market in recycling. Fewer and fewer places for it to go. Seems like a good option.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Less pick up frequency. More air pollution. Plus $24 year higher charges to villagers.

Same pickup frequency: twice a week, as usual. The 4 passes they're referring to is the fact that they have a truck come for the trash, AND a truck come separately for the recycling. That will be replaced by the truck coming ONLY for the trash, and that the recycling will go into that truck at the same time.

Less air pollution. Recycling requires stripping plastics of paper labeling, melting glues, bleaching and then mulching the paper, melting down the plastics, and of course the process of manufacturing it all into other things. Trash to energy involves burning it all and siphoning the energy created in the process to generate electricity. In other words - the trash isn't burned in an outdoor trash heap somewhere, allowing the toxic fumes to rise into the air and become pollution. It's contained, instead, and funneled into generators to use as fuel.

To twoplanekid regarding the costs: you're comparing the current cost, to next year's cost. Next year, if you were to go with just Waste Management alone, you would be charged $20.85 per year. If you went with Waste Management AND Covanta, it'd be $22.05. If you go with JUST Covanta, it'll be $22.24.

And so it'll be under $2/month per household, NEXT YEAR, compared to next year's prices for the alternatives.

[Madelaine Amee]

Same pickup frequency: twice a week, as usual. The 4 passes they're referring to is the fact that they have a truck come for the trash, AND a truck come separately for the recycling. That will be replaced by the truck coming ONLY for the trash, and that the recycling will go into that truck at the same time.

Less air pollution. Recycling requires stripping plastics of paper labeling, melting glues, bleaching and then mulching the paper, melting down the plastics, and of course the process of manufacturing it all into other things. Trash to energy involves burning it all and siphoning the energy created in the process to generate electricity. In other words - the trash isn't burned in an outdoor trash heap somewhere, allowing the toxic fumes to rise into the air and become pollution. It's contained, instead, and funneled into generators to use as fuel.

To twoplanekid regarding the costs: you're comparing the current cost, to next year's cost. Next year, if you were to go with just Waste Management alone, you would be charged $20.85 per year. If you went with Waste Management AND Covanta, it'd be $22.05. If you go with JUST Covanta, it'll be $22.24.

And so it'll be under $2/month per household, NEXT YEAR, compared to next year's prices for the alternatives.

You go girl .... great job. As Helen Reddy sang : We are Women Hear Us Roar in numbers too big to ignore!! and we vote!

[Two Bills]

Less pick up frequency. More air pollution. Plus $24 year higher charges to villagers.

Three out of three wrong.
Good going!:icon_wink:

[graciegirl]

You go girl .... great job. As Helen Reddy sang : We are Women Hear Us Roar in numbers too big to ignore!! and we vote!

Was this part of the woman's movement?

[New Englander]

Where would the burning take place?

[twoplanekid]

Same pickup frequency: twice a week, as usual. The 4 passes they're referring to is the fact that they have a truck come for the trash, AND a truck come separately for the recycling. That will be replaced by the truck coming ONLY for the trash, and that the recycling will go into that truck at the same time.

Less air pollution. Recycling requires stripping plastics of paper labeling, melting glues, bleaching and then mulching the paper, melting down the plastics, and of course the process of manufacturing it all into other things. Trash to energy involves burning it all and siphoning the energy created in the process to generate electricity. In other words - the trash isn't burned in an outdoor trash heap somewhere, allowing the toxic fumes to rise into the air and become pollution. It's contained, instead, and funneled into generators to use as fuel.

To twoplanekid regarding the costs: you're comparing the current cost, to next year's cost. Next year, if you were to go with just Waste Management alone, you would be charged $20.85 per year. If you went with Waste Management AND Covanta, it'd be $22.05. If you go with JUST Covanta, it'll be $22.24.

And so it'll be under $2/month per household, NEXT YEAR, compared to next year's prices for the alternatives.

The question asked at the second NSCUDD workshop in August was "I am willing to pay slightly more (less the $2 per month) to maintain the current waste and recycling program" So, the starting figure of $19.38 should be used and not compare one rate increase with another as you suggest.

[coffeebean]

Where would the burning take place?

According to the article in the paper, the closest facility to The Villages is in Opahumpka. All the homes south of 44 have been having the Energy from Waste program. If you have not been impacted by any odor or burning of your eyes, seems you are good to go once all of The Villages will be using this facility.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The question asked at the second NSCUDD workshop in August was "I am willing to pay slightly more (less the $2 per month) to maintain the current waste and recycling program" So, the starting figure of $19.38 should be used and not compare one rate increase with another as you suggest.

You will be paying more than the current rate, no matter which plan is implemented. The current rate will cease to exist. It will become obsolete, moot, irrelevant.

The programs being implemented are FUTURE programs. Not programs occurring right now, or yesterday, with the current rate.

You will be paying more than you are now, no matter which plan you get. The "how much more" will be insignificant when compared to each other. The difference between the "slightly more" for the current plan, will be less than $2 per YEAR, compared to the "slightly more" for the new plan, as soon as the plan is implemented.

[twoplanekid]

You will be paying more than the current rate, no matter which plan is implemented. The current rate will cease to exist. It will become obsolete, moot, irrelevant.

The programs being implemented are FUTURE programs. OK Not programs occurring right now, or yesterday, with the current rate.

You will be paying more than you are now, no matter which plan you get.YES The "how much more" will be insignificant when compared to each other. YES AND NO The difference between the "slightly more" for the current plan, will be less than $2 per YEAR, compared to the "slightly more" for the new plan, as soon as the plan is implemented.

As I was at the meeting in person, my perception was that the question was trying to determine how much of a cost increase from the current rate ($19.38) was acceptable as no other rates were mentioned at that time.

[Bogie Shooter]

Where would the burning take place?

You can read the article on the POA web site.

[Jayhawk]

Less pick up frequency. More air pollution. Plus $24 year higher charges to villagers.

Wrong on all counts. Use some of that Economic Stimulus payment to pay the extra. That way it won't even seem like it's your money.

[Jayhawk]

I’d be interested in tons into the plant and tons to landfill. This process is here to make money by creating electricity so any energy it uses to burn hard to burn waste is lost during the process.

A money-losing process is a bad business plan. Since this is the business of the company being contracted, I doubt you have the facts.

But don't let the absence of facts impact your opinion.

[Jayhawk]

Works for me! Most of what we think we are recycling probably goes to a landfill now. There is no market in recycling. Fewer and fewer places for it to go. Seems like a good option.

You had to go and make a post that was sensible and reasonable, didn't you?

:coolsmiley::coolsmiley::coolsmiley:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

As I was at the meeting in person, my perception was that the question was trying to determine how much of a cost increase from the current rate ($19.38) was acceptable as no other rates were mentioned at that time.

The current rate is $19.38.
The new rate for the existing plan would be $20.85.

So that would increase $1.45 per month, or $17.40/year. That's if you keep the same plan. Whether it's acceptable or not, that's what you'd be stuck with if you kept it the same way. You would also have your current cost of buying different plastic bags that you are required to use for recycling. You'd also have trucks up and down your street twice on one day - once for trash, once for recycling, every week, plus the second trash-only day per week, increasing wear and tear on the road and increased duration of noise pollution.

The new rate for the Covanta only plan will be $22.24/month.

That is an increase of $2.86/month, or $34.32/year. The difference between the existing plan and the new plan will be $1.45 extra for the new plan, or an additional $17.40 per year over the existing plan.

Now if you have trouble thinking that $17.40 is an acceptable difference for a year of fewer garbage trucks on your street, fewer plastic bags you have to buy, less wear and tear on your roads, and a cleaner planet, then I'd say you need to find new nits to pick.