Tag: Incineration and Waste-to-Energy (WTE)

Smithfield project that converts hog waste to energy angers, worries rural NC residents

Fayetteville Observer: Smithfield project that converts hog waste to energy angers, worries rural NC residents. The Align RNG project moves forward with the approval of an air permit from NCDEQ, but leaves Sampson and Duplin County residents questioning the harmful impacts and motives.

The N.C. Division of Air Quality granted Smithfield Foods and Dominion Energy one of the permits they need to move forward in completing a controversial project to create natural gas by using hog waste in Sampson and Duplin County.

With the air quality permit, the two companies will build a gas-conditioning facility to trap biogas, or hog feces, and process it to inject the gas into a 30-mile-long pipeline that will run between Turkey and Warsaw. This is the first step in their joint Align RNG project.

Connecticut DEEP rejects proposed overhaul of major WTE facility on cusp of closure

Waste Dive discusses how the Connecticut DEEP rejects proposed overhaul of major WTE facility on cusp of closure.

  • Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) recently rejected plans from the Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority (MIRA) to refurbish an aging refuse-derived fuel (RDF) facility for a capital cost of at least $330 million. Commissioner Katie Dykes called it “a false choice, and a bad deal” in a July 14 letter.
  • MIRA’s board previously identified exporting to out-of-state landfills as the only near-term alternative, but DEEP is calling for new ideas beyond solely converting the site to a transfer station. The letter asked for more attention to efforts in line with the state’s materials management strategy, such as organics diversion, recycling education and unit-based pricing to drive waste reduction.

Why municipal waste-to-energy incineration is not the answer to NZ’s plastic waste crisis

This The Conversation article discusses why municipal waste-to-energy incineration is not the answer to NZ’s plastic waste crisis.

New Zealand is ranked the third-most-wasteful country in the OECD. New Zealanders produce five times the global daily average of waste per person – and they are getting more wasteful, producing 35% more than a decade ago.

These statistics are likely to get worse following China’s 2018 ban on imports of certain recyclable products. China was the world’s top importer of recyclable plastics, but implemented the ban because it could no longer safely manage its domestic and imported waste. Unsurprisingly, in 2015, China was named the top source of marine plastic pollution in the world.

Since the Chinese market closed, 58% of New Zealand’s plastic waste now goes to Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam — all countries with weak regulations and high rankings as global sources of marine plastic pollution.

Waste-to-energy (WtE) incineration has been raised as a solution. While turning plastic waste into energy may sound good, it creates more pollution and delays a necessary transition to a circular economy.

AS THE WORLD’S GARBAGE PILES UP, CONTROVERSY OVER WASTE-TO-ENERGY INCINERATION CONTINUES

This article discusses garbage being burned to create energy. Should countries and cities generate energy by burning trash?

Facing streets choked with trash, the Indian city Bengaluru is considering constructing five plants that will burn garbage to produce energy. And as garbage from around the world piles up in Indonesian ports — more than a year after China severely restricted its imports of waste from other countries — Indonesia’s president has asked cities in his country to build similar facilities, called waste-to-energy plants, in a bid to beat the growing mass of garbage. Countries like Vietnam and the Philippines are looking to Japan, home to nearly 400 such plants, for assistance in developing their own waste-to-energy infrastructure.

Garbage from homes, schools and businesses around the globe amounted to some 2 billion metric tons (2.2 billion tons) in 2016, disproportionately discarded by people in North America, Europe and Central Asia. Some projections say that number will reach 3.4 billion metric tons (3.7 billion tons) in 2050. Meanwhile, global energy demand climbed 2.3% last year, the quickest pace in a decade. In that context, many countries see an alluring solution in technologies that turn trash into fuel.

Report: MSW Incineration Industry on the Decline

This article discusses a GAIA report on why the municipal solid waste (MSW) incineration industry is on the decline.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) incinerators have a long history in the United States as a waste disposal system and an equally long history of resistance among communities where they are sited. The current state of MSW incineration seems to be in decline due to a volatile revenue model, aging and costly operation and maintenance costs, and increasing attention to issues of zero waste, environmental justice and climate change. Seventy-three MSW incinerators remain in operation in the U.S., not including those currently designated for closure. The industry saw at least 31 MSW incinerators close since 2000 due to issues such as insufficient revenue or the inability to afford required upgrades.

Study: WASTE INCINERATION: A DIRTY SECRET IN HOW STATES DEFINE RENEWABLE ENERGY

This link takes you to a new study on waste incineration being disguised as clean energy.

Burning garbage to generate power is neither clean nor renewable. Yet, aging, costly, and polluting solid waste incinerators have been bolstered by a dirty secret — 23 states legally classify incineration as “renewable” in their energy goals and commitments. In a moment of fundamental transformation in the energy sector, three realities of waste incineration demonstrate the need for stronger definitions of renewable energy and lend support to grassroots efforts fighting to close the 76 waste incinerators that continue to operate across the country today.

‘Patented blunderings’, efficiency awareness, and self-sustainability claims in the pyrolysis energy from waste sector.

This study discusses how the energy industry misleads the public. ‘Patented blunderings’, efficiency awareness, and self-sustainability claims in the pyrolysis energy from waste sector.

Abstract: Historically, pyrolysis technologies occupied a niche, producing materials with useful chemical functionality from wood, by the continuous application of heat. In the 21st century pyrolysis is promoted as an “advanced” technology for the extraction of heat from municipal refuse, at the same time as claiming “sustainable” and “efficient” credentials. This paper examines the concept of pyrolysis, and the potential for a phenomenon which demands energy to be considered as something which can be engineered to provide energy. Using literature review and case study methods, along with civil permit applications and experimental results, it shows that a pyrolysis plant for self-sustaining Energy from Waste is thermodynamically unproven, practically implausible, and environmentally unsound. A linkage between widespread commercial failures and a lack of focus on thermodynamic fundamentals is also identified, along with an environment of indifference or ignorance towards energy balances and sustainability when these technologies are presented, assessed and financed. Though proposals to build machines which violate physical laws is not new, in a modern context this phenomenon is found to be stimulated by competitive financial rewards. The situation presents a high risk to investors and has the potential to adversely impact on societal transitions to a more sustainable future.

China’s garbage ban upends US recycling – is it time to reconsider incineration? NO!

This article pushes incineration as the solution to China’s decision not to accept recyclables. It suggests incineration is the answer, a really bad idea. It glosses over the problems caused by incinerators, namely really bad toxic emissions like dioxins, called the most hazardous pollutant ever made, and CO2. It does state that dioxins are created when incinerator temperatures are too low, but claims that the current version of incinerators burn much hotter. What they neglect to mention is that every time the incinerator goes down or is brought back up (for maintenance, lack of burnable product, for disasters (think Lorton), etc.), dioxins are created and released into the atmosphere. And the byproduct of the process is a highly toxic, concentrated ash that still has to be dumped into a landfill. Based on estimates of how small the volume of burned material to the materials actually burned, it is estimated that 10 times the amount of toxins can be dumped into the landfill. One other thing – all the hazardous materials in the material being burned (mercury, cadmium, lead, heavy metals, radioactive isotopes, etc.) are not destroyed when burned. They simply become part of the ash that is buried in a landfill. That landfill becomes a toxic hotspot, just waiting to pollute the future.

See here for more information.