[Announce] Landfill Secret Meeting We Must Attend!

[Andy Arthur]

I have a few questions for the hearjng.

     1. Can I have a copy of your survey results, preferably in
        electronic format? 
     2. How much methane are you capturing today? How does that compare
        to two years ago? 
     3. How pure is that methane? Does it contain contaminants that
        would lessen it's value as a fuel or pose a risk to health? 
     4. What percentage of captured methane is being used for
        electricity generation or to fuel city vehicles? 
     5. Will this system's efficiency improve when the landfill finally
        closes? 
     6. What kind of tax breaks/incentives from the state or federal
        government is there available as relates to use of the methane? 
     7. How much money does the city make off of electricity sales and
        consumption of the methane for city vehicles? 
     8. Would speeding up the condemnation of Fox Run and transfer of
        the land to the Pine Bush help reduce odors and complaints?

Also on the issue of odor and the expansion:

     1. How much additional methane would be collected? 
     2. Would the new cells have a higher efficiency at collecting
        methane? 
     3. Are there plans for additional turbines / liquid gas compression
        equipment to utilize this extra methane? 
     4. How much more money will the city make by utilizing the
        increased methane emissions?

Some long-term questions that we probably can't ask tomorrow, but we
really should have answers on from the Fred LeBrun article:

     1. Why is now Bill Bruce categorizing Coeymans as not the "most
        desirable place" for a landfill as per the Fred LeBrun article?
        While I'm sure Jim Travers and the hell raisers down there,
        along with it being on wetlands and potentially historic place,
        but why now the change of heart? Did something happen that we
        don't know about that would make the city all but give up on
        that plan? 
             1. While I doubt that was a good plan for the
                aforementioned reasons and others, there has to be some
                real reason for such a dramatic swing in policy. Why do
                I think this might have something to do with some kind
                of sweet waste-exporting contract with one of Bill's
                friends? 
             A. Do they have alternative plans for a landfill somewhere
                else (gets glock-9 out)?
                
     2. "At any rate, about the time the city has to update its solid
        waste management plan, a hard decision has to made about what
        happens to Albany's future garbage. Bruce says that decision has
        to be made no later then next year, because a 10-year respite is
        not much, given how difficult it is to permit any sort of new
        landfill anywhere".
             A. Where is the city going to find another 10 years of
                landfill space even with the expansion? I doubt they are
                getting more then 40,000-50,000 tons of waste per acre
                even with shreding, which works out to be around 7.5
                acres per year that they need at 1,000 ton per day with
                5 and 1/2 days a week -- most predictions show that the
                P5 expansion will only add 3 to 5 years (around 18 acres
                when you consider expansion on existing face) on top of
                the closing of P4 in late 2008/early 2009. That equals
                2014 at the latest -- and that's assuming they aren't
                maxing out their existing permit and are taking waste
                only 5 and 1/2 days a week or so. 

3. Bruce hinted that the solution may be in technology rather then
geography. But that's tomorrows headache." 
             A. And this technology would be?