Big Belly Burps Up Response to The Bench

Big Belly's Vice President Richard Kennelly reads The Bench, and he didn't like our criticism of the expensive, mechanical trash cans that they are foisting on many U.S. cities. In the post "Big Belly Chokes" on May 7, The Bench wrote that it is only a matter of time before they are vandalized on Morse Avenue here in Rogers Park, Chicago. But we also quoted other writers' criticisms of Big Belly. We did not, however, quote anybody from Big Belly, so to be fair we will publish Mr. Kennelly's response here (with an occasional injection of editorial interruption). From: "Richard Kennelly" To: rogersparkbench@yahoo.com Subject: Blog on BigBelly - Rogers Park Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 12:14:41 -0400 Dear T. Mannis, Regarding your post from Wednesday on the BigBelly solar compactors, while I am sure there are very real issues with trash, litter, recycling and other sanitation issues in Rogers Park (as in every neighborhood and every city), and I appreciate your effort to push the city to help make the neighborhood better, there are a couple of factual errors in your article that I’d like to address, and a few points to put solar compaction in perspective. (There did not appear to be a way to comment on your blog…) Editorial Interruption: Uhm, you are commenting on this blog. You - wrote - to - us. Right? And you got the email from the big banner at the top of this blog, right? And now you're reading your comment, right? Okay, on with it, then. 1. Misconceptions about solar compaction: You cite EcoMetro as a source of objection to the BigBelly – but if you read through that posting and the comments (and the original Treehugger posting from 3 years ago it refers to, which also has been long since corrected but remains a frequently cited article despite its factual errors), you’ll see that the concerns and complaints originally raised were answered and the author agreed the solar compactors were a good part of a solution and a work in progress (i.e., the city will be adding recycling containers too). Editorial Interruption: Fine, they think an electronic, mechanical trash compactor is "the answer" to our trash problems. They did not, however, stand down on their objection to the oxygen problem caused by tightly compacted trash in land fills. Continue. a. Landfills: garbage is compacted in trucks, and at the transfer station and finally at the landfill – they drive huge vehicles over the landfills to pack the trash in tight, to maximize space utilization (so they don’t have to make new landfills as often). So whether you have a BigBelly or not makes no difference to the compaction in the landfill – it just saves the fuel and pollution of driving to pick up a lot of air-filled trash at each can location. (Also, EPA regulations require landfills to have plastic liners and to be capped with clay to avoid contaminating groundwater – so they are designed to seal in the trash…) While landfills and solid waste present many environmental problems, and we all need to throw away less stuff (reducing consumption, reusing stuff, composting and recycling), the solar compactors at least help reduce part of the problem (reducing truck fuel consumption and resulting pollution 75% or more) without creating or exacerbating the landfill or incineration issues. b. Recycling: Another erroneous objection to compaction is that it hinders recycling – but cities can recover recycling from the BigBelly as easily as any other can (Palm Springs, CA does this, e.g., at a “Material Recovery Facility”) because the BigBelly does not make a “brick” or tight block, it just squeezes out most of the air. We also offer recycling containers for those who want the public to separate out paper, cans, bottles, etc. (and many of our customers place their own recycling containers next to the BigBelly), but that is also a question of how the material is collected (separate truck trips?) and where it is taken to (material recovery facility? Transfer station?), etc. Of course, a city recycling program costs money, mostly in the collection/transportation and transfer of the material, and it is not easy to do well (partly because people do not separate recycling well on the street – putting trash or wrong materials in the recycling bins, and recycling in the trash – which results in contaminated materials and wasted resources…). Nonetheless many cities are making progress on public-space recycling, which we need to encourage. 2. Broken machine: we will look into this reported problem immediately, but please understand that the BigBelly has a great track record of reliability and low-maintenance: the machines have been in Queens, NYC for 3 years and in hundreds of other locations, and have demonstrated a 99.9% uptime – very high for a product that, as you point out, is out on the street and subject to abuse and neglect. We hope that people will respect them and appreciate the effort to keep the neighborhood cleaner. 3. Too few trash cans – it is indeed important to have the right number of receptacles in the right locations, based on convenience and capacity for the specific area. You and other residents of the area have a great perspective on what is needed, where. There are a couple things to consider: a. There is a balance where BigBelly is better for high-volume locations, and non-compacting receptacles are fine in lower-volume locations where a can is still needed so people won’t be tempted to litter if the nearest can is too far away. b. Cost: the solar compactors are indeed just under $4000 for one unit, and much less for 25 or 50 units, but the majority of trash collection costs is not the can itself, it’s the collection trips with a garbage truck to empty the can – these 10-ton trucks typically cost $75 - $100 per hour to operate, and burn a lot of fuel (typically getting only 2 or 3 m.p.g.). So the BigBelly can pay for itself in 2 years or less, meanwhile preventing overflow, keeping out rats, birds, etc., and demonstrating another way solar power can reduce the need to burn fossil fuel. A $500 street receptacle may be a lower initial investment, but it will require much more money over 2-3 years in collection costs, and create more pollution (from litter and the diesel trucks, etc.). Editorial Interruption: Are you kidding?!? See my next Interruption... So you conclude that the city will soon have to “put up another kind of green,” which is true – litter control and garbage collection are expensive and getting more so every month. The question is how to get the most results out of the money spent on receptacles and collections over time. And solar compactors are a proven way to help make that money go farther, helping make for cleaner, more efficient communities. I hope Rogers Park is among them, and that you and other residents will continue to encourage the city to do what makes the most sense and is responsive to local needs and concerns. Editorial Interruption: Are you kidding?!? Just because compacted litter does not have to be emptied from the cans/containers as often as from standard trash cans, that does not mean that fewer are needed on the streets. Therefore, if we replace the old ones with Big Bellys on a 1:1 ratio, that's going to cost a HUGE amount of money. Additionally, ongoing maintenance of the hi-tech garbage cans will be a perpetual budget drain. You can't spin that reality away, sir. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Richard B. Kennelly Vice President 50 Brook Road Needham, MA 02494 USA t: 888-820-0300 x802 or 781.444.6002 c: 978-500-3992 http://www.bigbellysolar.com/ BigBelly® Solar Bright ideas for waste management Thanks for writing, Mr. Kennelly. When I run for Congress, I want you to be my speechwriter and media manager. You're not a bad spin doctor. Thanks for writing, and best regards to you too.