20080317 More information on Waste to Energy and the future of solid waste management in Frederick and Carroll Counties

20080317 More information on Waste to Energy and the future of solid waste management in Frederick and Carroll Counties

More information on Waste to Energy and the future of solid waste management in Frederick and Carroll Counties

March 17, 2008

Related: 20080317 Recent columns on the future of Solid Waste Management in Carroll and Frederick Counties

Recently a colleague who is opposed to a waste-to-energy solution for the future of solid waste management in Frederick and Carroll Counties e-mailed me some additional information that anyone interested in the current debate may very well want to take a moment and review… I have worked with this person on environmental issues for about 20 years and his view has been consistently responsible and thoughtful. See the information he forwarded me below.

Unfortunately some folks who are against building a waste-to energy facility have mistaken the debate to be about whether to build an incinerator or recycle.

To the best of my knowledge - - as a result of a number of in depth conversations with the decision makers, no one disagreed with me that we need to increase the recycling rates.

The key to my view is that I do not like waste-to-energy or landfilling but I am particularly and adamantly opposed to landfilling and need to provide the decision makers with an alternative until recycling takes care of our trouble with trash. Unfortunately, the only other viable option with what is not currently recycled – is waste-to-energy, which is far better option than landfilling.

In my Westminster Eagle column of March 5, 2008 [Westminster Eagle: Trouble with trash is nothing new, but the technology may be] I wrote:

On February 25, 1996 I was quoted in the paper: “… none of the (current) options of waste disposal are palatable…” Twelve years later I still feel the same way.

Every quality of life we enjoy today has an environmental consequence. There is no silver bullet with trash except 100 percent recycling.

[…]

In the late 1990s, most environmentalists, (including me,) were uncomfortable with burning trash. We were concerned that the benefits of waste-to-energy did not outweigh the potential deleterious impact on air quality.

However, cutting edge technological advances and research, especially out of Germany and the European Union, which have the strictest environmental regulations in the world, indicates that an undue air quality consequence is no longer the case.

In recent years, several EU countries including Germany have essentially banned landfilling in lieu of incineration and recycling.

In consideration of the new cutting edge waste-to-energy technologies, the ability to generate and sell electricity; and the idea of mining, mitigating, and removing all our existing landfills - waste-to-energy appears to be the best solution today, or at least the lesser of evils - as long as a revitalized initiative is concurrently adopted to increase our recycling rates.

The one thing we all can agree upon is that we need to continue to increase our recycling rates.

For me there is no question that the answer to the challenges of solid waste management is recycling.

It is only a matter of time until market forces and economics will prove recycling more cost effective that landfilling and waste-to-energy. As that develops we need to be compelling and persuasive and that simply is not going to happen if the proponents of recycling are condescending and unpleasant.

Nevertheless, once again - the challenge remains what do we do until we increase the recycling rates – what do we do with the remaining materials. I remain adamantly opposed to landfilling.

The manner in which I continue to feel is the best way to dispose of any remaining materials is co-composting. However, at this point that methodology is not currently economically feasible.

See below for the statement: ‘the fact remains that dumping garbage in a landfill site is far more environmentally destructive, damaging, and disgusting than an incinerator” in context…

In the first installment of my 2-part series in The Tentacle, I wrote: [The Tentacle: March 5, 2008 Making Trash Go Away – Part One ]

Meanwhile many of us have grave concerns that we can currently recycle our way out of our present predicament. In 1970, when I first began speaking out for recycling, the Central Maryland recycling rate was essentially zero.

Almost four decades later it is only around 30 percent. Doubling the recycling rate in five years, as has been suggested by incinerator foes, may be difficult in light of the fact that it has taken us four decades to get the rate to 30 percent.

Besides, interestingly enough, in Carroll County, on April 21, 1994, when a county “Waste-to-Energy Committee” rejected the idea of building an incinerator, the 23 members “instead recommend(ed) aggressive recycling programs… to extend the life of the” landfills in Carroll County.

Folks who believe that increasing recycling rates in the near future is the answer are dooming our community to another disastrous round of landfilling.

Until we can get the recycling rate to 100 percent, I wholeheartedly agree with what I wrote in the 2^nd installment of my 2-part series in The Tentacle: [The Tentacle: March 6, 2008 Making Trash Go Away – Part 2 ]

In 2006, the waste-to-energy issue blew up in the Toronto Canada mayoral election; which prompted Christopher Hume to write in “The Hamilton Spectator”:

“It’s time for the opponents of incineration … to wake up and smell the garbage… Opponents should travel to Europe to see for themselves how a state-of-the-art incinerator works. One thing they would see immediately is that two-thirds of each plant is devoted to filters, scrubbers and the machinery of emission cleaning.”

Mr. Hume wrote: “And even if the criticisms by … opponents were justified, the fact remains that dumping garbage in a landfill site is far more environmentally destructive, damaging, and disgusting than an incinerator.”

Many of us who follow environmental issues closely could not agree more with Mr. Hume, who said that most of the objections to incineration “are based on information that’s thirty years out of date.”

If you have not had a chance to read my 2-part series in The Tentacle – it can be found here: http://www.thetentacle.com/author.cfm?MyAuthor=41

_____

Meanwhile, my colleague who is opposed to waste-to-energy forwarded me the following material to review:

"When we look at thermally treating a tonne of mixed waste in a modern incineration facility (in this case data is from the most efficient facilities currently operating in Europe), recycling that same waste would result in about 5.4, 1.6 and 2.6 times the energy savings than incinerating with electricity recovery; heat recovery; or combined electricity and heat recovery respectively."

"When we compare energy producing technology used in Ontario, incineration contributes the greatest amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Compared to coal fired technology, mass-burn incineration contributes about 33%, and gassification about 90% more GHG emissions per Kwh of electricity produced."

…

http://www.wrap.org.uk/wrap_corporate/about_wrap/environmental.html

Excerpts from the foreward to the report: "Environmental Benefits of Recycling: An international review of life cycle comparisons for key materials in the UK reycling sector." May 2006 (no old reports here!)

"The results are clear. Across the board, most studies show that recycling offers more environmental benefits and lower environmental impacts than other waste management options."

"Again, the results are clear and positive. The UK's current recycling of those materials saves between 10-15 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year compared to applying the current mix of landfill and incineration with energy recovery to the same materials. This is equivalent to about 10% of the annual CO2 emissions from the transport sector, and equates to taking 3.5 million cars off UK roads."

Incineration of Muncipal Solid Waste:

Understanding the Costs and Financial Risks
http://energy.pembina.org/pub/1448
(overall link to the four individual links posted below)

http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Incineration_FS_Climate.pdf
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Incineration_FS_Pollution.pdf
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Incineration_FS_Energy.pdf
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Incineration_FS_Costs.pdf

From the Energy fact sheet:

"When we look at thermally treating a tonne of mixed waste in a modern incineration facility (in this case data is from the most efficient facilities currently operating in Europe), recycling that same waste would result in about 5.4, 1.6 and 2.6 times the energy savings than incinerating with electricity recovery; heat recovery; or combined electricity and heat recovery respectively."

"When we compare energy producing technology used in Ontario, incineration contributes the greatest amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Compared to coal fired technology, mass-burn incineration contributes about 33%, and gassification about 90% more GHG emissions per Kwh of electricity produced."

OTHERS

PDF of Friends of the Earth

"Greenhouse Gases and Waste Management Options"
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/greenhouse_gases.pdf

PDF FOE "An Anti-Green Myth: Incineration Beats Recycling" http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/myth_incineration_recycling.pdf

Link to abstract of Jeffrey Morris' "Comparative LCAs for Curbside Recycling Versus Either Landfilling or Incineration with Energy Recovery"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m423181w2hh036n4/

…

This from Earthjustice:

"In another critical case, the EPA attempted to avoid classifying thousands of waste burning installations as 'incinerators' so they could operate under less stringent regulations. But our lawyers convinced a Washington D.C. federal district court judge this was illegal, resulting in the strongest air pollution controls being placed on these highly toxic incinerators. Earthjustice also challenged the emissions limits the EPA adopted for brick and clay manufacturers, which are far below the law's requirement. Our victory in this case forced the EPA to impose the strict emissions standards set by the Clean Air Act on these facilities, which are spewing some of the worst pollution imaginable into our air."

…

Covanta was recently highlighed in Kiplinger's personal finance journal as one of: http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2007/10/25green.html

25 Stocks to Invest in a Cleaner World

Not all greentech is speculative. We've identified solid companies that should profit big from addressing climate change and encouraging the use of alternative fuels. And you'll profit, too.

By David Landis and Andrew Tanzer From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, October 2007

You don't have to be a tree hugger to believe that climate change and energy efficiency will be significant investing themes for years to come.

The National Petroleum Council, a U.S. government advisory body, says existing supplies of oil and natural gas may not meet soaring global demand over the next 25 years. A shortfall could be a windfall for companies that can supply cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels.

RELATED LINKS

Five Green Up-And-Comers

Green Investing is the Next Big Thing

Meanwhile, the focus on global warming promises to lead to greater regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions. Already, the European Union has instituted a quota for carbon emissions in response to the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty that went into effect in 2005. The U.S. did not sign the treaty, but a number of states are acting on their own to limit these pollutants. In addition, Congress passed an energy bill in 2005 that offers subsidies for various new energy technologies, and it is considering another bill this year.

Clearly, these trends will produce stock-market winners and losers, but not all of them are obvious. Makers of wind turbines and biofuels will surely benefit. But so will makers of rail cars and auto-emissions controls.

We've sifted through the implications and put together the Kiplinger Green 25, a list of companies we believe will get a big boost from the growing focus on climate change and the move toward alternative fuels. Our picks vary widely in size, and four are based overseas. Some of the stocks may be expensive, and shares of some of the smaller companies may be volatile. But we think all will do well over the long term. In addition, check out our separate profiles of five up-and-comers -- small (with market values of less than $1 billion), more-speculative companies that someday could grow into green giants.

COVANTA

An alternative approach to power generation that is already commercially viable is to get it from garbage, and the leader in waste-to-energy facilities is Covanta. The company operates 32 plants that burn trash and municipal waste to make steam and heat for power generation. Trash haulers pay the Fairfield, N.J., company to take the waste off their hands. This form of renewable energy is especially competitive in places such as New England, where landfill space comes at a premium. Besides, while there may be shortages of oil and natural gas, it's hard to imagine that there will ever be a shortage of a superabundant source of renewable energy such as trash.[Although no new plants have been built in ten years, existing contracts obligate municipalities and counties to supply trash fuel inexpensively].

####

For more posts on Solid Waste Management on Soundtrack click on:

Environmentalism Solid Waste Management Waste to Energy

Environmentalism Solid Waste Management Recycling

Environmentalism Solid Waste Management

20080317 Recent columns on the future of Solid Waste Management in Carroll and Frederick Counties

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

www.kevindayhoff.net

E-mail him at: kdayhoff AT carr.org or kevindayhoff AT gmail.com

His columns and articles appear in The Tentacle - www.thetentacle.com; Westminster Eagle Opinion; www.thewestminstereagle.com, Winchester Report and The Sunday Carroll Eagle – in the Sunday Carroll County section of the Baltimore Sun. Get Westminster Eagle RSS Feed

“When I stop working the rest of the day is posthumous. I'm only really alive when I'm writing.” Tennessee Williams

20080317 More information on Waste to Energy and the future of solid waste management in Frederick and Carroll Counties