Volume for Payback

WGTB logo PNG 112x89 Post 65 in a series. When Green Turns Brown is an examination of a small town’s digester-energy project, in which Whitewater, Wisconsin would import other cities’ waste, claiming that the result would be both profitable and green.

Today’s question begin is Number 298. All the questions in this series may be found in the Question Bin.

After over two years of discussion, including meetings of Whitewater’s common council, and ten selected meetings with particular community groups, and an unknown (as yet) but significant number of private meetings about waste importation, consider this declaration:

“The simple payback on that [a waste-receiving station at $431,000] conservatively is six years.”

Set aside the absurd, but oddly repeated assertion that this payback would come from discarded salad dressing and the contents of grease traps. A simple question:

298. What number of trucks, by size of truck, would be required to produce a supposedly simple payback in six years?

All these years, all these meetings, including the boasting from Whitewater’s city manager that he’s “nerdy” about these things, and yet no direct and clear mention of the volume needed to meet an estimate for payback.

WHEN GREEN TURNS BROWN: Appearing at and re-posted Mondays @ 10 AM here on FREE WHITEWATER.

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
7 years ago

I picked my nickname from being at one of those community meetings. The presentations weren’t much. People were polite but no one left thinking “that’s amazing we need to do that”. They solve a problem by looking at outside partners bujt that’s only part of it. If the fact is that you can’t make money without volume a private source will shove volume to the max from anywhere to make money. This series looks like a good bet since the longer it goes the more accurate early concerns about big amounts will be. We’re screwed but you get to say I told you so.

7 years ago

Watching this from campus it’s striking how support and opposition represent different socio-economic perspectives. Those who want this want to pay the bills, as in “we’ll make money.” Those who oppose it see it as counter-productive, as in “you’ll lose more than you make.”That’s based in a class distinction even if no one want to admit it. Arguing for it is a meat and potatoes approach. Arguing against this involves holistic claims that emphasize costs, risks. That’s a more sophisticated assessment. The first group can say that they are being practical. The second group can respond yes but you are ignoring dirt and are shortsighted.

The Phantom Stranger
7 years ago

Council person-wanna be Kienbaum supports this horrendous project. He therefore loses my support. I do NOT want to live in someone else’s Brownwater, WI. ;-0