Hennepin County: Standoff over trash burner's capacity is rubbish

  • Article by: Rochelle Olson , Star Tribune
  • Updated: March 15, 2013 - 11:36 AM

Running it at capacity would keep more trash out of landfills, board says. Minneapolis is balking over pollution concerns.

  • 32
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
movebak2mplsMar. 14, 1310:12 PM

This thing never should have been built in Minneapolis in the first place. There is just too much residential built into that area now. Reduce the amount of trash it burns to 0%. If Hennepin Co. wants one badly enough, it will make sense in another location. I vote Edina.

whatzitMar. 14, 1310:34 PM

Burn baby Burn

overlandMar. 14, 1310:40 PM

So why is everyone ignoring Minnesota's waste hierarchy? It's NOT binary, NOT either landfill or burn. Minneapolis has an abysmal recycling rate. Get with it, Minneapolis, if you got even a tad-bit serious about recycling, you'd easily eliminate the garbage you want to burn. Plus you're paying every month in your bill to operate this thing that doesn't cash flow, why throw more money at it? Might as well just burn money. Bad idea, Hennepin County.

tmauelMar. 14, 1311:14 PM

The Hennepin County incinerator is an environmental catastrophe on so many levels it is hard to know where to start. First it is a fundamentally flawed idea to add yet another source of carbon dioxide to the overloaded atmosphere. However to add the toxic soup of dioxin and over 100 other known carcinogens to the atmosphere in one of the most densely populated areas in the state of Minnesota is the height of irresponsibility. Reducing landfill space by transferring the landfill into the atmosphere and to a super fund ash site is hardly something to brag about. Why a super fund site? That is because common mixed waste incinerator ash is so toxic it had to gain a special designation because if disposed of in a normal landfill it would classified as a super fund site.

rshacklefordMar. 14, 1311:43 PM

(article quote): "At issue is whether to ramp up burning at the hulking Hennepin Energy Recovery Center, settled hard against the western edge of Target Field." ---- Was mentioning the Peoples' Baseball Field necessary? I couldn't tell you where it is exactly because I have never thought of visiting it. Here is a suggestion: How about mentioning some companies and other possibly affected buildings that are not UNOCCUPIED 99% of the time. Then, perhaps I will care.

timandtiaMar. 15, 13 4:28 AM

Well you could pollute the air or fill up a landfill which would produce more pollution. In this case, you have to choose one or the other!

mom2fourMar. 15, 13 7:06 AM

Politics motivates decisions and then politics of a future time and date second guesses the first. It all makes for the wasting of the public's money. The ordinary taxpayer has no say, but does pay the price. The original politicians who made a decision are out of office and are never accountable. What a mess!

joe_mnMar. 15, 13 7:10 AM

why was it built in the first place? all the technical/scientific minds said it was ok. next point. if it it ok to burn at 90% capacity. why on earth does increasing the rate by 10% make even the slightest difference? its not like we are going from 30% to 98%.

clnorthMar. 15, 13 7:16 AM

Just like everything else, Minneapolis wants someone else to take care of their garbage.

keychaMar. 15, 13 7:28 AM

Proof positive why Gary Schiff is not mayoral material. Minneapolis exports its trash to other places and landfills because it can't handle its own. The reality Mr. Schiff won't come to admit is that refusing to allow it to be be burned at HERC doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A NIMBY mayor runs a shrinking city, to be progressive and to create growth requires walking a fine line that Mr. Schiff does not know.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters






question of the day

Poll: Grade the Timberwolves season

Weekly Question