ItsPossible comment-3115 2009-02-05T04:43:08Z 2009-02-05T04:43:08Z I wonder who is paying "George Jackson" and "JoeGreen" to rip on this company? Seems like the "corruption" may be in their rationalizations rather than USST's idea. A lot of "environmental" organizations have been wrong over the past years, especially in waste disposal! How do you think we got to where we are now?? I no longer trust their judgments or their perspectives, and in my mind they may possibly be one of the biggest supporters of today's landfill and recycling monarchy. I think a project like USST is proposing is just what we, real Sacramentans, (not San Francisco activists) need to help our suffering economy, unstable public health, and to get rid of our title as the nation’s number one polluter as I’ve shamefully seen on planethazard.com - http://planethazard.com/phmapenv.aspx?mode=topten&area=national. In Sacramento, we have been so dependent on the old way of doing things with the companies and ideas that have only provided us with liabilities and deficits; it is time for a change! Yet change can be difficult in an industry where the guys who bury our trash, harm our environment and cover it all up with recycling, are the same guys that pay these so-called "environmental groups" and our local "politicians"! We need real change, and we can only do this by "truly, cleanly" recycling the un-recyclable; I believe what USST is proposing is it, and by doing these kinds of projects and facilities it will only bring our community more opportunities, and bring innovation to this prehistoric industry. In addition, this is something we can count on; we can’t count on hoping that our markets (Asia) will purchase our recycled cans and boxes in order to preserve our planet; look what’s happening now, our months and months worth of recycling is days away from being buried in a Nevada landfill; by the way, do you think we’re going to get a rebate for our recycling fees? Either way, Asia throws half of the stuff we ship to them in our “not so environmentally-friendly” ships in their e-waste infected landfills anyway. Where are the environmental and social groups on this one? The 21st century…and we're still burying waste. Are you serious? That is like throwing your dirty laundry under your bed, one way or another you’re going to find it and I can promise you that it will be much worse than it was when you put it there. All of this recycling, better packaging, and landfills are all just problems under the bed that will get worse unless we do something about them now. It’s interesting…we can send a man to the moon, land on time within a fraction of a second, but we can't keep our own planet clean? Or we just don't want to? Or is money more important? I applaud these guys (USST) for taking the initiative and for bringing this to our city, I hope they are not embarrassed by the actions of our politicians and I hope that our city government will wake up and realize what we are losing. I would really like to have our city lead for once. I’m tired of having our community be the forefront of criminal activity, economical degradation, environmental humiliation, biased journalism, unstable bureaucracy and corrupted interest groups. I think our city needs to revisit USST’s project to help our community and our people get back into the respectable light we once were in. Thank you for your posts David; I think this a great project! ItsPossible 2009-02-05T04:43:08Z David Prinzing comment-2974 2009-02-03T01:46:20Z 2009-02-03T01:46:20Z Hi, George! I think we agree on the Zero Waste goal. I'm all for the highest-and-best use of atoms; that's a basic tenet for our business. As a friend of mine in the Sierra Club says, "waste is a verb!" However, like many in reputable environmental organizations, I don't think we can really achieve zero waste without implementing some environmentally-responsible conversion technology. I believe we've found that technology. The greenaction report you're citing is rife with errors, mostly in logic and relevance. They make the mistake of assuming that all waste-to-energy technologies and facilities are the same, drawing connections between our proposed facility and other completely different facilities. That's why I wrote the first article in this storyline. If you're a chemical engineer, and you look at what I described, you'll reach the same conclusion as the Sacramento Municipal Air Quality Management District (they reviewed our reference design). In the workshop on January 15, they presented their conclusion: "no toxic emissions, but if you build it larger than a certain size, you'll need to get emissions credits for NOx (smog) and particulate matter". If you're willing to delve into the details, I think you'll find that there really are environmentally-responsible and financially-sound waste-to-energy processes available. David Prinzing 2009-02-03T01:46:20Z JoeGreen comment-2981 2009-02-01T04:10:30Z 2009-02-01T04:10:30Z LOL! Beam me up too! USST, is also know for creating the ECTO-PLASM, which can be utilized by highly trained technically skilled individuals to fight against terrorists, ghosts and marshmallow men. JoeGreen 2009-02-01T04:10:30Z JoeGreen comment-2980 2009-02-01T04:01:13Z 2009-02-01T04:01:13Z Nice try! Let me summarize the workshop: USST and Plasma Arc Gasification was completely discredited - economically, environmentally, and financially. As they have been in Red Bluff, Santa Cruz and many other cities around the country. This was so SCANDALOSO!. I sure hope USST looks into something much more feasible and practical like solar energy, Sacramento could really use some REAL green jobs. It's this simple: using a 4,000 degree torch to burn garbage does not equal 'green', 'sustainable', 'renewable', 'clean', 'zero-emissions', or any of the other fraudulent claims made by USST. PLEASE stop trying to greenwash our great City. I hope this is the last we hear of this failed, controversial, George Jetson theory to vaporize trash in a poor neighborhood. Here's some advice. Next time rather than trying to swindle a City with an environmental reputation, try building a small scale demonstration model in one of your fat cat investors backyards. I mean if its really as safe as you say, no one should mind the toxic emissions, right? Get it right and come back in like two decades when it can use it to power the Star Trek Enterprise. Mean Joe Green JoeGreen 2009-02-01T04:01:13Z George Jackson comment-2919 2009-02-01T02:40:52Z 2009-02-01T02:40:52Z David, thanks for sharing your perspective. To put it simply, the so-called "waste-to-energy" proposal was nothing more than an incinerator in disguise, that was both financially risky and unproven. David, I too would like to find the magic bullet to solve our trash problems, but neither burning nor burying will solve this problem. Over the past century, we have seen the countless problems posed by both options to our air and water. That's why I am one of many Sacramentans, joined by a litany of environmental and public health organizations (Californians Against Waste, Search for the Cause, Environmental Council of Sacramento, etc) who opposed the waste-to-energy incinerator and will continue to work in tandem with our elected officials towards the goal of becoming a truly Zero Waste city. In the interim, we must increase our capacity and support for recycling and purchase and support the creation of products that use less waste. For a thorough analysis of the problems with the proposed incinerator, the misinformation behind it, and an unproven track record, please visit: http://www.greenaction.org/incinerators/documents/GreenactionSacramentoPlasmaReport082608.pdf George Jackson 2009-02-01T02:40:52Z Harry Osibin comment-2933 2009-01-31T02:02:41Z 2009-01-31T02:02:41Z There are tangible problems outlined here. I didn't make the meeting; I didn't know about it; I want to know more. My bad. Without going into a lot of tech details, we can agree the waste should not be transported, it should be reduced and producing alternative sources of energy is good, if problematic (to say the least). These issues of conflict-of-interest, misrepresentation and the rest cry for discussion and leadership. Can the Council and the Mayor engage each other and the public? Harry Osibin 2009-01-31T02:02:41Z Greg Brown comment-1420 2008-12-15T17:42:51Z 2008-12-15T17:42:51Z Front page of today's Sacramento Bee has an informative article about this "waste to energy" plan. I hope Lauren Hammond and Ray Kerridge read it. http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1473776.html Lauren Hammond is also reportedly very interested in bringing a teleportation machine to Sacramento, called a "Transporter". Transporters convert a person or object into an energy pattern (a process called dematerialization), then "beam" it to a target, where it is reconverted into matter (rematerialization). Beam me up, Lauren! Greg Brown 2008-12-15T17:42:51Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1222 2008-12-07T04:09:24Z 2008-12-07T04:09:24Z I consider this just a conversation between citizens and stakeholders. We need more media of all kinds about local issues. Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-07T04:09:24Z David Prinzing comment-1199 2008-12-07T01:31:28Z 2008-12-07T01:31:28Z Greg, thanks for the link to the Sacramento Bee article. You can consider my article here to be a "counterpoint". I'm obviously a little biased, because I'm the Chief Engineer for USST, but I'm also the most informed on the technical details of what we're actually proposing. This article was intended to address a lot of misinformation and speculation that has been circulated in the Bee. Terri Hardy, the Bee reporter, has been covering a very technical subject without ever bothering to talk to me. My paragraph above on baseless comparisons is directed specifically at Bradley Angel and GreenAction. The two commercial plants they referenced used a different technology from a different provider, and the technical differences are very important. The comparison is as unfounded as their comparisons to old incinerators. SMUD is similarly uninformed. The energy efficiency question is a myth. It's not magic; it's chemistry. The analytical report from Juniper Consultancy Services referenced above shows that the plasma torches consume only 2% of the chemical energy coming in with the waste. Also, as reported above, the total plant consumes only 20% of the total electricity produced; 80% is available for sale. We're offering to sell the renewable energy to SMUD, but they need to make a competitive offer; they're not the only power producer we could sell to. SMUD doesn't support our proposal because they have their own proposal. They were one of the eleven parties submitting proposals in response to the RFQ, and theirs was not selected because it didn't meet the City's goals outlined above. In this sense, SMUD is one of our competitors. They have a political advantage over us though; they have an employee (Steve Cohn) on the City Council. For his day job, he's an attorney for SMUD. After recusing himself all year because of his obvious conflict of interest, he declined to do so in the last council meeting (November 6th) and came out fighting. Somehow the Bee seems to have missed that detail in their story. And, yes, USST has reimbursed the City for their travel expenses. David Prinzing 2008-12-07T01:31:28Z David Prinzing comment-1220 2008-12-07T01:29:13Z 2008-12-07T01:29:13Z Thanks, Ben. I heartily agree. Can we call this "News Media 2.0"? Political status: with the recent mayoral transition and the holiday season, things are a little quiet right now. City staff are using the time to address questions raised by Council Members in the last City Council meeting. I think we can expect to see it make the agenda again sometime after the holidays. David Prinzing 2008-12-07T01:29:13Z Ben Ilfeld comment-1219 2008-12-07T01:04:35Z 2008-12-07T01:04:35Z I really appreciate that there is some back and forth here. This is exactly the kind of exchange that makes me proud of The Press. Also, what is the political status of the proposal right now? Ben Ilfeld 2008-12-07T01:04:35Z Greg Brown comment-1198 2008-12-06T19:31:38Z 2008-12-06T19:31:38Z I saw an article about this in the Sacramento Bee. http://www.sacbee.com/city/story/1208784.html It gave both sides of this waste to energy facility. Has this company reimbursed the City for the 12 city officials who spent 6 days in Japan? The city's in the red. Here's an exerpt:"The only thing proven about this technology is that it's problem-plagued," said Bradley Angel, of the San Francisco environmental group Greenaction. "The City Council has been given a series of incorrect claims and straight out false claims." The only two commercial plasma arc plants in the United States – in Hawaii and Richland, Wash. – have had problems and neither has processed garbage, Angel said. The proposed Sacramento plant will be financed in part by selling electricity, another untried aspect of the plan. Officials from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District have questioned its energy efficiency and are not supporting the proposal. Sacramento paid upfront for 12 city officials to travel to Japan to let them view the small-scale plant. U.S. Science & Technology will reimburse the city. Receipts are still being compiled, city officials said, so the trip's total cost is unavailable. An initial six-day trip made by City Councilwoman Lauren Hammond and a staffer cost about $14,500, according to city documents The plant in Washington, which processed mixed radioactive and other hazardous waste, experienced breakdowns and went bankrupt within a year. Greg Brown 2008-12-06T19:31:38Z John Downs comment-1216 2008-12-06T18:21:02Z 2008-12-06T18:21:02Z Thanks for the interesting article, it's rare to read technical information in a news publication. John Downs 2008-12-06T18:21:02Z