So, the first issue is waste to energy (WTE), one possible way to turn municipal solid waste (MSW) to energy through some type of conversion technology.
We have heard many perspectives on WTE--from, "it's dirty, dangerous, unneeded, and way too expensive" to "with an aggressive Reduce/Re-use/Recycle campaign, there won't be enough MSW supply to feed the WTE technology, so what, then we import waste from other islands?" to "modern WTE technologies can turn waste into clean energy with only minimum impact on the environment--and that's a lot better than letting landfill gases escape--unflared!--into the atmosphere." And so on.
At the final "All Stakeholders" meeting, the SENTECH Hawaii Team asked the participants to address the WTE issue in the context of the energy sustainability plan that we're drafting. In this sense, waste can be seen as an energy resource--and without wanting to wade into the debate on whether or not waste is renewable, we (the Team) feel compelled to add some objective analysis to the issue so informed decisions can be made when it's time to make them. We do not intend to step on anyone's toes or take a position at this time--we just want to share some facts that we've gathered to date.
Mad props to our Technical Lead, Jill Sims, for doing some great research and analysis--see below--on Kauai's situation, WTE technologies, and potential issues related to WTE.
Please let us know your thoughts. Mahalo.
Doug Hinrichs, SENTECH Hawaii Team Lead
dhinrichs@sentech.org
301-219-7647
_________________________________________________________________
The Situation
The current waste diversion rate for the County of Kauai is approximately 25%, with over 250 tons per day (tpd) being sent to the Kekaha Landfill. Phase II of the Landfill has a capacity until May 2010, at which point a phased expansion would have to take place. The first phase is expected to expand capacity to October of 2013 at a cost of $12 million, the second phase would expand capacity until January 2017 at a cost of $9 million, and the third phase has a conceptual capacity of 5.4 years (until mid-2022) at a cost of $13-30 million.1
Kauai is also faced with volatile and rising energy costs. Utilizing municipal solid waste (MSW) to generate energy is one potential component of a local energy portfolio. The benefits of WTE include reduced landfilling (and potential reductions in landfill pollutants to Kauai's air, land, and water), reductions in Greenhouse Gas emissions, creation of a local energy resource, and potential useful products and by-products (reformation of syngas or biogas, slag, etc.). However, these benefits are balanced by the potential issues listed below.
About Waste to Energy (WTE) Technologies
1. Incineration
The most common WTE technology is incineration with energy recovery. Incineration is a waste treatment technology that involves the combustion of organic materials and/or substances. Incineration and other high temperature waste treatment systems (including gasification and plasma gasification) are described as "thermal treatment". Incineration of waste materials converts the waste into incinerator bottom ash, flue gases, particulates, and heat, which can in turn be used to generate electric power. The flue gases are cleaned of pollutants before they are dispersed in the atmosphere.
Incinerators reduce the volume of the original waste by approximately 70-90 %, depending upon composition and degree of recovery of materials such as metals from the ash for recycling. This means that while incineration does not completely replace landfilling, it reduces the necessary volume for disposal significantly.
WTE facilities can be a complimentary part of a modern MSW management program. Recyclable materials like glass and metal don't burn, so removing them from the waste stream feeding into the furnace makes the combustion process more efficient and reduces the amount of waste to be landfilled. This can be accomplished by integrating a modern Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) onto the front-end of a WTE facility.
2. Gasification
Gasification is a method for extracting energy from many different types of organic materials, relying on chemical processes at elevated temperatures greater than 700 °C. Gasification (and plasma gasification) can process many more types of waste and do not necessarily require pre-sorting. The product of gasification is synthesis gas, or syngas, which consists primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Gasification is potentially more efficient than direct combustion of the original fuel because the syngas product can be combusted at higher temperatures or utilized in fuel cells. The product syngas is normally used to fuel a combustion turbine power plant to generate electricity.
Waste gasification has several advantages over incineration:
* The necessary extensive gas cleaning may be performed on the syngas instead of the much larger volume of flue gas after incineration.
* Electric power may be generated in engines and gas turbines, which are much cheaper and more efficient than the steam cycle used in incineration. Even fuel cells may potentially be used, but these have severe requirements regarding the purity of the gas.
* Chemical processing of the syngas may produce other synthetic fuels instead of electricity.
* Some gasification processes treat ash containing heavy metals at very high temperatures so that it is released in a glassy and chemically stable form.
A major challenge for waste gasification technologies is to reach an acceptable (positive) gross electric efficiency. The high efficiency of converting syngas to electric power is counteracted by significant power consumption in the waste preprocessing, the consumption of large amounts of pure oxygen (which is often used as gasification agent), and gas cleaning.
There are no current commercial installations of gasification or plasma gasification facilities processing MSW in the U.S. This presents a challenge for obtaining data on startup timeframe, emissions, O&M, reliability, etc. Plasco Energy Group has a MSW test facility in Ottawa, Canada called the Plasco Trail Road Demonstration Facility that makes public larger amounts of data and information than is available from other operations. The Partnership for a Zero-Waste Ottawa is a joint project between the City of Ottawa and Plasco Energy Group and, as such, makes progress reports, environmental performance reports, and other information publicly available.2
3. Plasma Arc Gasification
Plasma arc gasification (otherwise known as "PAG", "Plasma gasification" or "Plasma arc") is a waste treatment technology that uses electrical energy and the high temperatures created by an electrical arc gasifier. This arc breaks down waste primarily into elemental gas (syngas) and solid waste (slag), in a device called a plasma converter. The solid waste is a chemically inert, glass-like slag, resulting from a process called "vitrification". The process is intended to be a net generator of electricity, depending upon the composition of input wastes, and to reduce the volumes of waste being sent to landfill sites.
Plasma gasification operates at temperatures of up to approximately 14,000 °C. Certain metals, such as mercury, lead, zinc, and cadmium, may be volatilized, depending on the temperature in the reactor. That is, if the temperature is low, the metal will be melted and become part of the slag at the bottom of the reactor. If the temperature is high, the metal will be vaporized and rise with the gases out the top of the reactor. For example, lead volatilizes at 1737 °C. Below this temperature, the lead becomes part of the slag; above this temperature, it escapes with the gases and must be captured elsewhere in the system.3
4. Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a series of processes in which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. The MSW component for AD is source separated organics (SSOs). AD occurs in two phases: In the first phase a group of microorganisms referred to as “acid formers” breaks down complex materials in an acidic environment. In the second phase, a second group of microorganisms referred to as “methane formers” breaks down the output from the first phase and consume the organic material to form biogas.
Biogas from digesters is 55 to 60 percent methane; the remainder is mostly CO2. The biogas typically is used to generate heat or steam, through combustion in boilers, or it is used to generate electricity. Biogas generation varies by material. There is limited information on the comparative biogas generation of different materials in source separated organics or mixed waste streams. AD designers generally use their own proprietary data.
AD is particularly suited to wet organic material and is commonly used for effluent and sewage treatment. Until very recently, there were no anaerobic digestion facilities operating in the United States that processed MSW or source separated organic waste. In October 2006, Onsite Power Systems Inc., in association with the University of California Davis, launched their biogas energy project with the start-up of an anaerobic digester. This AD facility will initially process residential and restaurant waste from San Francisco, gradually increasing the amount to eight tons/day. Each ton of food waste is expected to generate enough bioenergy to power and heat 10 homes over a 24-hour period.
A newer trend in Europe is to market anaerobic digestion as one component of an integrated Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) system. MBT systems typically have a sorting component similar to a MRF. Traditional AD vendors have begun to partner with larger MSW processors who already have composting technologies or facilities, as well as transfer stations and/or landfills. The advantage of MBT for many communities is that organics do not have to be source separated by residents.4
Potential Issues
1. Process Emissions and Products
As part of the 1990 Clean Air Act mandates, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated new air pollution control standards for municipal waste combustors, including WTE facilities. These standards also require facilities to use the "maximum achievable control technology," and therefore are referred to as the MACT standards. No new facilities can be built unless they can demonstrate that they can meet the strict new standards.
Incineration and Gasification: The EPA also established the TCLP test (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) for determining whether the ash from WTE facilities is hazardous. This ash must routinely be tested before it leaves the facility to insure that it is not hazardous. The ash exhibits concrete-like properties causing it to harden once it is placed and compacted in a landfill. This reduces the potential for rainwater to leach contaminants in landfills into the ground. Ash landfill studies conducted over the past decade show that leachate is like salty water with a metals content at about the same level as the standards set for drinking water. In some states, waste ash is used as a substitute for aggregate in road bed materials.
AD: There are three principal products of anaerobic digestion: biogas, digestate and water. Biogas is mostly methane and carbon dioxide, with a small amount hydrogen and trace hydrogen sulfide. As with syngas, it may require treatment or 'scrubbing' to refine it for use as a fuel. Digestate is the solid remnants of the original input material to the digesters that the microbes cannot use. A maturation or composting stage may be employed after digestion, making the digestate more suitable as a soil improver. Further treatment of the wastewater is often required. This treatment will typically be an oxidation stage where air is passed through the water in a sequencing batch reactors or reverse osmosis unit.
2. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
In thermal WTE technologies, nearly all of the carbon content in the waste is emitted as carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere (when including final combustion of the products from gasification and plasma gasification). MSW contains approximately the same mass fraction of carbon as CO2 itself (27%), so treatment of 1 metric ton of MSW produce approximately 1 metric ton of CO2. In the event that the waste was landfilled, 1 metric ton of MSW would produce approximately 62 cubic meters of methane via the anaerobic decomposition of the biodegradable part of the waste. This amount of methane has more than twice the global warming potential than the 1 metric ton of CO2.
The methane in biogas can be burned to produce both heat and electricity. Biogas does not contribute to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations because the gas is not released directly into the atmosphere and the carbon dioxide comes from an organic source with a short carbon cycle.
3. Cost
Incineration: The ISWMP estimates the cost of a proposed WTE facility at $46-52 million, with an operating cost of $8-9 million/year. The facility would process 40,500 tons of MSW in 2013, or approximately 110 tons per day. The anticipated energy produced is 18,200-20,200 MWh. 5
Gasification and Plasma Gasification: The capital and operations cost of gasification WTE can be extremely high. A cost/benefit analysis will have to be performed to compare WTE to source reduction and diversion efforts, and the benefits of WTE will likely have to be significant to balance the cost differential.
There are no current commercial installations of AD, gasification or plasma gasification facilities processing MSW in the U.S., which presents a challenge when verifying capital cost and operational cost estimates provided by companies. Project costs for all WTE technologies will also be site-specific.
4. Verification of Cost and Performance Estimates
Many proposals come from new companies or vendors promoting new technologies. This presents significant issues regarding the reliability and economic viability of technologies or businesses without a proven track record.
5. Size
According to Kauai's draft Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP), in 2005 the Kekaha landfill received 89,156 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW), for an average of 244 tpd. A total of 27,223 tons of MSW were recycled, for a total waste generation of 116,379 tons or 319 tpd. Based on 2005 resident and tourist population of 85,806 persons, the per capita generation rate per day is 7.43 lbs, which is consistent with tourist destinations. The draft ISWMP projects a 2009 total daily de facto population of 91,900 persons with a generation of 134,670 tons, or 369 tpd.5
Many WTE technologies must take advantage of economies of scale to be cost effective, meaning that they need to process 500-1000 tpd or more of MSW. This is significantly more waste than Kauai currently produces. One solution could be to bring MSW from other islands to support a WTE facility.
Many of the AD facilities currently in operation, particularly those with operational experience of greater than five years, have capacities smaller than 20,000 metric tpy, although there is a trend to build larger anaerobic digestion facilities because of economies of scale.
6. Siting
There are significant environmental issues that may be raised by national advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club & the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). Opposition by local residents could be a significant issue when siting a project. Environmental reviews and permitting requirements could be significant. Having a WTE facility approved successfully will require an upfront analysis of inputs/outputs, including emissions, and a comparison of these with more conventional waste management strategies such as landfills.
Most of the WTE facilities in the U.S. became operational between 1980 and 1996. Only three new plants have come on line since 1996 (2 in 1997 and 1 in 2000).6 The primary reason for the slow-down in new WTE plants is the environmental concern involving existing plants. Most of these plants were installed without adequately addressing the environmental issues. The WTE industry is currently in the middle of an $800 million plant upgrade to install adequate air quality control systems that will allow the facilities to meet current EPA standards. Because of their historical emission problems, the WTE combustion plants have received and continue to receive significant resistance from environmental groups and negative reviews in the press. Groups such as GAIA and Greenaction have called alternative WTE technologies (gasification and plasma gasification) "Incinerators in Disguise" due to the combustion of product syngas to produce electrical power.
7. Odor
Modern WTE facilities are built so that a constant negative air pressure is always drawing air from the refuse pit (where incoming waste is dumped) into the furnace where the waste is combusted. At the temperatures encountered in a modern combustion system all smells/odors associated with waste are eliminated. This insures that no odor will be detected around or downwind of the facility.
8. Timeframe
The lifetime of many WTE plants is 25-30 years or more. Such long-term contracts may be inadvisable for communities and waste generators as they may stifle better options that may become available in the shorter term. Many alternative technologies such as gasification and plasma gasification remain under development and significant advances could emerge sooner than 25 years.
References
- County of Kauai Department of Public Works, “Public Informational Meeting: MSW Landfill Issues, www.kauai.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3P1sSc3vtDQ=&tabid=238
- Plasco Energy Group, "A Partnership for a Zero-Waste Ottawa", http://www.zerowasteottawa.com/en/
- R.W. Beck, "City of
- Kelleher, Maria, “Anaerobic Digestion Outlook for MSW Streams”, BioCycle, August 2007, http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001406.html
- County of Kauai Department of Public Works, “Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan”, draft 3/2009, http://www.kauai.gov/
- Recovered Energy, Inc., http://www.recoveredenergy.com/d_wte.html
- HPower, http://www.honoluluhpower.com/
- Oahu City Department of Environmental Services, "City to Brief Council on Plasma Arc Recommendations for Landfill Reduction Press Release", March 30,2004, http://www.honolulu.gov/refs/csd/publiccom/honnews04/plasmaarcrecommendations.htm
Acronyms AD – Anaerobic Digestion
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
ISWMP - Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan
MACT - Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MBT – Mechanical Biological Treatment
MRF - Materials Recovery Facility
MSW - Municipal Solid Waste
PAG - Plasma Arc Gasification
TCLP - Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Tpd - Tons per day
Tpy – Tons per year
WTE - Waste to Energy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe solution is not to create more problems but to decrease the island's population! You can't be simultaneously sustainable and over populated.
ReplyDeleteThe Big Island's take on this same question about Waste to Energy:
ReplyDeleteComments on WTE from the Hawaii County Energy Sustainability Study http://co.hawaii.hi.us/rd/hiesp_full.pdf
"...Despite its apparent appeal in solving the County’s solid waste problem, the Waste
Management Report identified the following problems with WTE:
1. It may not be the most effective use of limited County funds;
2. It effectively eviscerates any recycling or reuse value of the waste streams;
3. It does not conform to the state’s goals for reducing waste generation and disposal
and runs counter to U.S. EPA’s rankings for environmentally sound municipal solid waste.
Limited Solid Waste and Funds
The County is examining the possibility of developing a WTE incineration facility to
burn the waste currently being disposed of at the South Hilo Landfill. The estimated cost
for such a facility is approximately $35 million dollars.180 There are several problems
arising from this. An average of approximately 230 tons per day of waste are disposed
of at the South Hilo Landfill. However, in order to be profitable, economies of scale
dictate that most incinerators currently operating in the U.S. (almost 75 percent) are built with a capacity of 500 tons per day or more and nearly half of US WTE facilities have a
capacity of over 1,000 tons per day. There simply may not be enough waste available to
keep the plant functioning at an economically viable level. Compounding this problem is
that the County would most likely sign a “put-or-pay” contract, whereby it agrees to
supply a certain amount of waste to the incineration facility. If this waste is not
delivered, the County will have to pay a fee. Perverse incentives may be created
encouraging the County to cap its recycling potential at a level so as to ensure that the
WTE plant receives a minimum amount of waste required for them to run the plant
efficiently and as contractually obligated.
To put this in some perspective, Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. generates electricity
using waste fuels. They own sixteen WTE plants in the northeast United States, Florida,
Washington, and California. With one exception, each of their plants use between 500
and 2,250 tons of solid waste every day, with an electric power capacity of between 14.5
and 60 MW. This volume of waste far exceeds not just that which is landfilled in the
180As reported in the Waste Management Report, Engineers at the Department of
Environmental Management developed cost estimates for various waste management facilities under consideration..."
Additional Hawaii County docs on Wheelabrator:
http://search.blossom.com/query/Xp3/274/type0?key=Wheelabrator+contract
Additional Hawaii County docs on Resolution 551-08 (including history and copy of it):
http://search.blossom.com/query/274/type0?key=Reso.+551-08
Dear MauiBrad,
ReplyDeleteThanks for providing information about Hawaii County's WTE plans. Examining how other locations have considered and dealt with some of the issues presented definitely adds value to the discussion! We would like to hear what people think about how this fits, or doesn't fit, Kauai's situation. And now that the Big Island is not moving forward with the Wheelabrator project, do you know what their future plans are for dealing with MSW?
Mahalo!
Jill Sims
Jill,
ReplyDeleteThe Big Island is going full on reduce, reuse, recycle with a Zero Waste Plan, no WTE. Their energy sustainability plan does not rely on waste.
Brad
New to the blog but not knew to the debate on WTE. As a County Commissioner in Kansas we were faced with closing our landfill and the huge costs associated with a decision. (Right or Wrong) Recycling has to be part of any long term solution. It was interesting to note how far the world has come in technologies other than handling waste. In the mainland the indians buried the waste. What is the most popular solution today? Bury it!
ReplyDeleteAs a County Commission we looked at WTE. I was really hot on it because we were faced with electric rates that at the time I thought were outrageous for our taxpayers. We used the incinerator in Tulsa for our study. Our results showed the incinerator propably would have worked for Tulsa except for one thing. The city contracted their waste pick up to private vendors. Due to supply and demand the private haulers kept raising their tonage price and eventually the cost of producing power at the facility was more expensive than when they started out.
I tell that because as I am reading how we are moving through the decision process for Kauai two things are important. One, do not privatize the collection process. Two, if we do have to bring in waste to generate our needed power we have to understand how to control that cost.
I sense Kauai is more reseptive to having a mandatory recycling ordinance than the conservatives in Kansas. Until we see what we can recycle it will be tough to even guess how much raw waste would be needed to produce our power requirements.
The other discussion I think is necessary is the long term effects of closing a landfill. There may be ecomomic benefit to our existing site. I have read where some businesses can use the gas produced from a landfill to generate power for manufacturing plants. I am way to uninformed on the "how to's" to accomplish this, but am interested in seeing if this is not a way to mitigate a long term exposure Kauai will have once the facility is closted.
this is my first blog experience, but the subject is most important. WTE on Kaua'i, to me, is such a waste of energy, money and resources that I wish we would just get our current solid waste management plan in action now. I feel we could easily divert 70% of our valuable discards and turn them back in to valuable materials to be used again, including compost for our gardens.
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding the projected 8% of our total electrical usage via WTE on island is not worth the waste of valuable resources it would take.The money could be used to totally fund a state of the art Zero Waste operation. not to mention good local jobs and the potential of creating new industries using our remains.
WTE seems like an easy fit for us, but just as the fast food industry is convienent, the hidden health costs are immense.
Pamela Lightfoot Burrell, Kalihiwai
Apollo Kaua'i and Zero Waste Kaua'i
Why Not Burn?
ReplyDeleteJohn Harder, Zero Waste Kauai
Three years ago, as the County was developing the basic elements of the still to be finalized Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan, I joined Apollo Kauai to help shed some light on the question, “Why Not Burn”. Since that time, I’ve continued to question the cost and effectiveness of including Waste to Energy as an option for dealing with our growing volumes of discards.
While there are numerous environmental and siting issues to be considered, my concern is more basic. How can a system that destroys valuable and in many cases irreplaceable resources, and recovers less than 50% of their inherent energy value be considered “sustainable”? The economic value, and the energy invested in the manufacturing of our discards is much too valuable to go up in smoke.
In August of 2006, Apollo developed a detailed response to the County’s consultant, R.W. Beck, and Solid Waste Advisory Committee, indicating that we had some serious concerns with WTE including: overall energy efficiencies, the impact on Global Warming, and how incineration compared with maximum diversion, what we then called Max 3R, in achieving our goal of island sustainability.
Our brief, but fairly definitive analysis indicated that compared to incineration, maximizing diversion through reduction, reuse, and recycling provides significantly greater benefits in both reducing worldwide dependence on fossil fuels and lessening the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Soon after our presentation to the SWAC, and with the proposal for WTE still a major component of the County’s Plan, a number of us decided to continue with our efforts and founded Zero Waste Kauai. Our initial mission was to convince the County that continuing to pursue the Waste to Energy option was a waste of valuable taxpayer time and money. In addition we took on the task of developing detailed positive alternatives that demonstrated the potential of maximizing reduction, reuse, and recycling.
Over the past 3 years we’ve made numerous public presentations advocating a change to Zero Waste Management. We’ve conducted workshops with the County Council and the Administration, met with community groups, and assisted a number of public events in demonstrating the principles of Zero Waste ... achieving diversion rates as high as 95% at last year’s Coconut Festival.
A decade ago Zero Waste was considered an impossible dream, the fantasy of a few overly dedicated recycling enthusiasts, but over the past 10 years Zero Waste Management has evolved to become a workable guide to sustainable resource management ... a design principle for managing our discards in the 21st Century. We just need to remember that Zero Waste is NOT about getting to zero. It is about being on the path to zero.
Zero Waste efforts, just like recycling efforts before them, will change the face of solid waste management in the future. Instead of managing waste, we will manage resources and strive to eliminate waste, and doing that will require a fundamental change in the way we view the materials and products we consume each day. Zero Waste is a part of a sustainable solution for the Island’s economy. Protecting resources, creating local jobs from the discards we currently throw away, and investing in an environmental infrastructure, not in new landfills or incinerators.
(continued in the next post)...
...(John Harder, Zero Waste Kauai Continued)
ReplyDeleteThe current version of the ISWM Plan Update recommends a number of admirable diversion measures, many of the same type of programs that Zero Waste Kauai has proposed: The construction of a MRF, the implementation of curbside greenwaste and curbside recycling collection, the expansion of existing organics diversion efforts, and improving existing hazardous waste diversion programs. But the R.W. Beck didn’t believe that these efforts could succeed in becoming the major element in Kauai’s waste management strategy, and made the assumption that a maximum diversion rate of 35% is the best we can do. This is with a current diversion rate of 25% and over 50% of the remaining material that is currently going to Kekaha Landfill easily recyclable (16% high grade paper, 14% food / 7% green, 15% compostable paper, 2% HI-5).
Because the Consultant does not feel that diversion rates comparable to incineration are possible through Zero Waste Management, they have proposed that the County contract for the construction of a Waste to Energy facility to deal with the combustible material which can’t be recycled. They estimate the cost of a facility capable of handling up to 200 tons per day at $45 - 50 million. But last year, an actual bid proposal received by the County of Hawaii indicated that the cost would be more in the range of $100 to $120 million. For that amount of money we could do an awful lot of recycling. In the end, this still leaves nearly 100 tons of waste per day that the incinerator can’t handle and which will require landfilling!
Let’s look at the potential for diversion if we commit to the Zero Waste Management approach. Currently Kauai diverts about 80 tons of material per day through recycling and composting, a diversion rate of about 25%. That leaves 75% or roughly 250 tons per day that end up in the landfill. By 2013 the Beck report projects that we will have increased generation to nearly 430 tons per day.
Of the 250 tons that currently require disposal, about 75% is recyclable paper, redeemable containers, other aluminum and glass containers, organics (greenwaste, foodwaste, and non- recyclable paper) and Construction Demolition waste. If we take an aggressive approach to maximizing diversion it is entirely feasible that we can pull out an additional 60% or more of the material now going to the landfill, achieving an overall diversion rate of close to 75% in the time it would take us to get an incinerator on line. And during that time we would have extended the life of the current landfill an additional 2 to 3 years. Thus, with the investment in the proper facilities and the implementation of an aggressive diversion program we have the potential to reach diversion levels comparable to incineration at far less cost. A Zero Waste Management system won’t come cheap, just a lot cheaper than building an incinerator or continuing to landfill. So, what would it cost to implement a Zero Waste system on Kauai?
(continued in next post...)
(...John Harder, Zero Waste Kauai Continued)
ReplyDeleteThe basic elements of a Zero Waste Management System: A 150 ton per day Materials Recovery Facility. A multi-material composting facility, a Construction Demolition recovery facility, a Center For Hard to Recycle Materials, such as electronics, hazardous waste, and non-container plastics, and upgrading the community’s existing salvage operations would cost well under $50 million. Compared to the cost of an incinerator the costs of developing a Zero Waste Management system would be a bargain.
While nearly all of us agree that recycling is a good for the environment, few seem ready to invest in the necessary infrastructure. Decision makers who see no problem in floating bonds and raising tipping fees for landfills, and entering to long term “Put or Pay” contracts for Waste to Energy, show reluctance when asked to fund diversion infrastructure.
But once a Material Recovery Facility and composting facility are in place the cost of operating the system can be significantly lower than incineration, and with the inevitable return of strong Asian markets and the almost certain end of cheap oil, a MRF could even PAY the County to drop off collected recyclables. In addition, an integrated Zero Waste Management system would create many more local jobs than incineration or landfilling ... 7 to 10 times as many by most estimates.
Where would you rather take your trash ... to a MRF where the operator may pay the hauler $25 per ton to drop off clean recyclables or an incinerator where the facility charges upward of $125 per ton? If you’re a business who must pay directly for the cost of disposal the answer is obvious.
Zero Waste management can achieve diversion rates comparable to incineration while managing many of the elements in the waste stream that incineration can’t handle. In addition there are the undeniable environmental benefits in the conservation of natural resources and the reduction of our carbon footprint.
If we examine the basic economics of recycling vs incineration we find that both the energy return for each dollar invested, and the energy return for each dollar spent operating the system is much higher for recycling. In addition, if we consider the overall economic value, the benefits returned in the form of local jobs, increased agricultural production from the use of compost, and the overall impact on long term island sustainability, to me the choice seems clear.
Now, I’d like to hear from you. You tell me ... why should we even consider building a Waste to Energy facility? For input, or to help promote sustainable resource management solutions contact zerowastekauai.org.
Why Not Just Burn Our Waste?
ReplyDeleteThe Rationale Against MSW Incineration
John Harder, Zero Waste Kauai
While the implementation of a Zero Waste strategy has the potential to achieve similar diversion rates as incineration, it will definitely require significant changes in the way both residents and businesses deal with their discards. But incineration isn’t without it’s problems either, and when you consider the pros and cons, really doesn’t appear all that attractive.
Cost: The capital and operations cost of incineration are extremely high and even if the vendor proposes to finance the entire project, the County must guarantee minimum quantities of waste, which means a long term commitment of General Tax revenue, and most likely guaranteeing the delivery of material (commercial refuse) over which it has little control. The cost to construct & equip a modern Materials Recovery Facility is significantly less and the facility can be on line in much less time making immediate impacts in the diversion of waste going to the landfill.
Put or Pay: A WTE facility is an inflexible solution requiring our entire community to make major financial commitments for the next 20 years. As we know, a “Put or Pay” agreement mandates that the County deliver a minimum tonnage of refuse to the incinerator, or pay the difference. Proponents of this solution argue that this is the only way developers can guarantee the project. In the same breath, they argue that diversion will never (or not be likely to) achieve the same results as incineration in terms of percentage reduction. If the County were to develop a “Put or Pay” contract with a recycler, guaranteeing the delivery of a minimum quantity of recyclables I’m sure there would be a number of vendors willing to build and operate a MRF.
Environmental Concerns: There are significant environmental issues that will most certainly be raised by national advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club & the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). These organizations can bring credentialed experts to counter the claims of the Incineration proponents and significantly delay, if not defeat all but the most feasible proposals.
Time Frame: With the potential delays encountered in developing funding mechanisms, dealing with local siting issues, and addressing hostile environmental litigation, projects can easily take a decade from conception, if they are successful at all. Even if everything were to go smoothly, obtaining a Clean Air permit will take at least 2 years, and adding the EIS development time and design, procurement, and construction, a community is looking at a minimum of 4 to 5 years to get a facility on line, and more realistically 6 to 8 years. The investment of a significant amount of time and money in a project that most likely will never happen makes little sense.
Immediate action is needed. It is widely recognized that our current solid waste crisis warrants immediate action and some argue that incineration is the only technique that will offer a quick solution to the problem. Too often, when decision makers become committed to simplistic “one size fits all” solutions, they halt all progress towards developing an integrated approach to Solid Waste Management. Many communities have found that after three or four years of struggle, the incineration project is defeated and the community is no further along in solving it’s solid waste problems and the Solid Waste crisis has become much more critical. On the other hand, a Zero Waste approach offers immediate relief to our garbage problem, and is what we should be pursuing to extend the life of our landfill during this crisis.
(..."Why not just burn our waste?" Continued)
ReplyDeleteThe “No Landfill” Myth: While incinerator proponents often portray their facilities as a simple solution to all the communities waste management problems, an “Alternative” to landfilling, there are a number of major elements in the waste stream that Incinerators can’t handle. Materials such as C&D debris, electronics, exempt Hazardous Waste generated by small businesses, and many other materials will require landfilling or other non-burn solutions.
In addition, all incinerators require a significant amount of down time for maintenance. H-power, in Honolulu shuts down completely each year for one month, and during that period all refuse must be landfilled. In addition, just like any major piece of equipment dealing with large quantities of caustic and abrasive material, WTE facilities often require major overhauls after the first 8 to 10 years of operation. Many facilities face extended down time of as much a 2 to 3 months a year as they begin to age.
Avoiding Curbside: Another argument often used in promoting WTE is that incineration doesn’t require any costly modifications in the existing refuse collection system. The curbside collection of recyclables is a major element in the cost of diversion. But as has been the case in many other communities, and is both one of the recommendations of the Beck Report and has become evident on Oahu, the public may demand curbside recycling anyway. So if the County can’t avoid implementing curbside recycling, why not get the most out of the collection system?
Siting / NIMBY: Nobody wants an incinerator in their community. Siting an incinerator can be difficult if not impossible. Even with a majority of the population in support of a project, the “host” community can delay or defeat even the best planned projects. There is a strong public resistance to incineration, which can either result in significant delays or political backlash. If projects drag on through an election cycle, many proponents may find themselves voted out of office. Few elected officials have the political capital to force through incineration projects.
Lack of Flexibility: Inability to adjust to changes in collection and processing technology, markets for materials, growth of local industry. Loss of Material Input: As recycling technologies and markets improve and the relative costs of diversion and disposal in the incinerator provide additional incentives for diversion. the Commercial sector will logically increase diversion, reducing the volumes, revenue and btu value of the waste. With the County committed to a minimum volume of waste through the standard “Put or Pay” contract the costs of managing the residential portion of the waste stream will increase further. Ultimately the WTE facility will price itself out of the market.
The Lack of Successful Projects: There have been no new WTE facilities built in the US in the last decade. Few communities, understanding the difficulty if not the impossibility of implementing WTE facilities, have even attempted them. Major MSW management companies have not responded to the few RFPs for WTE projects that have been released. Many of the proposals received in Hawaii have come from vendors promoting new technologies. There are significant issues regarding the reliability and economic viability of technologies without a proven track record.
Jobs: Incineration is the most capital intensive waste management solution. When compared to the recycling and composting, Zero Waste employs many more people than WTE will. As the construction market continues to cool off, jobs in Zero Waste become a welcome addition to the community. WTE offers a small fraction of the jobs that a zero waste solution does, and most of the money goes off_island to the developer of the facility.
Time for another blog post...
ReplyDeleteIt is good
ReplyDeletewww.onlineuniversalwork.com