Waste Management World March/April 2005 Comment
02-MAR-2005
Jeremy O¿Brien
argues that waste-to-energy would be advantageous for waste management in the
US on both environmental and economic grounds
Rodney Dangerfield, the Grammy award-winning US comedian who passed away in
October 2004, used to complain during his stand-up routines that he `got
no respect¿. Like Rodney, waste-to-energy (WTE) gets no respect from some US
environmental activists despite its many benefits. The impact of this has been
far-reaching: no new WTE facilities have been constructed in the US over the
last 10 years.
In Europe and Asia, however, respect for WTE has risen substantially over the
last 10 years. The is in part due to WTE¿s minimal environmental and public
health impacts, and its significant natural resource conservation and other
benefits, as documented recently in numerous studies. As a result, 164 new WTE
facilities have been built outside the US since 1995. In Europe, the WTE alternative
is poised to play a major role in implementing the 1999 EU Landfill Directive,
which requires the treatment of wastes before disposal in landfills.
BENEFITS OF WTE
Consider the following benefits of WTE:
WTE systems can provide an urban community with a clean, renewable energy
resource
WTE systems combust non-hazardous municipal solid wastes (MSW) to generate electricity
and/or steam, and sterilize and reduce the waste volume which would otherwise
require landfill disposal.
According to the Integrated Waste Services Association, the 89 WTE plants in
the US together process about 86,000 tonnes per day of waste, or 32 million
tonnes per year. They generate about 2500 MW of electricity and provide for
the waste disposal needs of more than 36 million people. In contrast, WTE facilities
in Europe process over 51 million tonnes per year. The percentage of waste combusted
in the US (17%) is considerably lower than that of several countries: for example,
Denmark processes over 80% of its MSW at WTE plants, while Japan processes over
60%.
WTE is considered a renewable energy alternative by the US Department of Energy.
In addition, the US Environmental Protection Agency has found that WTE plants
produce electricity `with less environmental impact than almost any other source
of electricity¿. The basis for this is that WTE systems rely on an energy source
¿ including non-recycled and non-hazardous solid waste ¿ that can displace the
use of fossil fuels. For instance, a tonne of non-recycled waste has a heating
value roughly equal to 0.5 tonnes of coal, and can produce as much electricity
as 0.25 tonnes of coal. Combusting waste in WTE plants can therefore eliminate
the environmental impacts associated with the mining, transport and combustion
of coal and other conventional, non-renewable fossil fuels.
WTE systems enable local governments to retain direct control over waste
disposal
WTE systems reduce the volume of non-recycled waste ¿ which would otherwise
require disposal ¿ by 90%. As a result, they enable urban communities without
local landfill capacity to keep direct control over their waste disposal systems
and to exercise responsibility for the wastes that they generate.
Under the 1994 US Supreme Court `Carbone¿ ruling, local governments no longer
have the right to exercise regulatory control over the amount of wastes generated
in their communities. In addition, these wastes must now be processed in more
expensive waste management systems, such as those based on WTE. As a result
¿ and also due to economies of scale ¿ large, regional landfills located in
remote, sparsely populated areas are being increasingly used. This alternative
requires local government managers and officials to relinquish direct control
over the disposal options utilized by their communities. It also requires the
communities near these landfills to bear the environmental impacts associated
with urban waste disposal.
Local government managers and elected officials are concerned for several reasons.
First, these landfills may not have a long enough lifetime to serve the long-term
disposal needs of communities. Moreover, because these landfills are generally
owned and operated by private companies, local governments could become captive
customers in a market in which the disposal provider can arbitrarily increase
prices. Since the disposal of MSW is an essential service to public health and
community which is normally provided for or arranged by local or state governments,
some government officials and managers are uneasy about relying solely on remote,
privately controlled regional landfills.
However, the WTE option enables a local government to retain direct control
over the waste management system used by the community. Many local government
officials and solid waste managers consider this advantage ¿ along with the
environmental and natural resource benefits associated with WTE ¿ to be worth
any extra expense.
WTE enables urban communities to treat waste and minimize the impacts of
landfill disposal
WTE facilities ¿ like wastewater treatment plants ¿ enable urban communities
to provide for the local treatment of their non-recycled solid wastes. As a
result, only a relatively small amount of inert, sterilized, non-hazardous ash
needs to be managed or disposed of outside the urban community. Furthermore,
the ash generated by WTE can be ¿ and often is ¿ recycled.
By implementing WTE facilities, urban communities can prevent the public health
and environmental risks associated with waste disposal in remote landfills.
These risks include vehicle accidents during waste transport, as well as the
environmental impacts of hauling wastes across long distances and disposing
of them. Communities near these landfills did not produce these wastes, and
therefore should not be subject to the impacts of their disposal.
WTE can be designed to encourage waste minimization
WTE systems can be designed with lower throughput capacities to encourage waste
minimization. For certain types of wastes unsuitable for treatment by WTE ¿
such as products containing mercury ¿ waste minimization or recycling are essential
management strategies that can complement WTE. In general, WTE tends to encourage
greater use of waste minimization and recycling, in part due to the `avoided
costs¿ (which tend to be higher than with landfill).
Environmentalists and WTE
Some environmentalists have not supported WTE because of concerns over air emissions
(especially heavy metals and dioxins) and ash toxicity, as well as the perceived
competing and conflicting objectives between WTE and recycling. However, developments
in the WTE industry over the last 10 years have effectively addressed these concerns:
- Mercury emissions have been reduced by more than 95%. WTE facilities now
account for only 2% of all anthropogenic mercury emissions in the US.
- Dioxin emissions have been reduced by more than 99%. WTE facilities now
account for less than 0.5% of all dioxin emissions in the US.
- The reductions in mercury and dioxins are due to a combination of factors,
including retrofitting of scrubbers on existing plants, increased recycling
and reduced mercury levels in mercury-containing products. Emissions can potentially
be reduced even further in terms of recycling and reduction of heavy metals
in consumer products.
- With comprehensive, mature waste minimization and recycling programmes at
communities, WTE facilities now only process the non-recyclable portions of
the waste stream that would otherwise be disposed of in landfills.
- According to many years¿ testing of the WTE ash from every US facility,
the ash is non-hazardous and can be safely reused or disposed of at landfills.
This ash ¿ unlike non-recycled waste ¿ is both inert and sterile.
Despite these considerable advancements and the environmental and natural resource
conservation benefits of waste-to-energy, some activists in the environmental
community continue to either ignore or disparage WTE, and continue to misrepresent
it to the general public.
Since 1995, over 1.4 billion tonnes of municipal solid waste have been disposed
in US landfills alone. If only 50% of this waste had been processed through
waste-to-energy facilities, the environmental, public health and natural resource
impacts of mining, processing, transport and combustion of over 170 million
tonnes of coal could have been avoided.
It¿s time to give some respect
As with materials recycling, recovering energy from waste through WTE systems
is more expensive than disposal through landfills. Therefore, in order for a
community to commit to paying the higher costs of WTE, it is imperative to fully
understand and appreciate its environmental and natural resource benefits. It
is also important to recognize and laud the benefits of an urban community retaining
local control over its solid waste management system and assuming responsibility
for the waste it generates.
Some activists in the environmental community may be doing a disservice to
the general public and the environment by not recognizing and supporting WTE¿s
benefits for the environment, natural resource conservation, public health,
and local control of waste management. It¿s high time for WTE to `get some respect¿
in the US.
Jeremy O¿Brien is the Director of Applied
Research at the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA).
Fax: +1 301 589 7068
e-mail: jobrien@swana.org
Add RSS Feed