Waste-to_Energy Myths and Facts Ph.pdf - GAIA

WASTE-TO-ENERGYMYTHS VS FACTS*Waste to Energy is a misleading term fondly used byincineration companies to disguise and promote theirenvironmentally-destructive and resource-wastingtechnologies, and to circumvent statutory restrictions onincineration such as RA8749 or The Clean Air Act of 1999.Incineration is a waste treatment technology that involvesburning commercial, residential and hazardous waste.Incineration converts discarded materials, including paper,plastics, metals and food scraps into bottom ash, fly ash,combustion gases, air pollutants, wastewater, wastewatertreatment sludge and heat.In recent years, the incinerator industry has tried to expandtheir sector by marketing their facilities as “Waste toEnergy” (WTE), using misleading claims of “reducing climatepollution” and being a “clean energy source”.MYTH 1: Waste Incineration is a source ofrenewable energy.FACT: Municipal waste as a source of energy is nonrenewable.Discarded materials such as paper, plastic andglass are derived from finite [and critically dwindling] naturalresources such as forests that are being depleted atunsustainable rates. Burning these materials in order togenerate electricity creates a perverse demand for more“waste” and discourages much-needed efforts to conserveresources, reduce packaging and waste and encouragerecycling and composting. More than 90% of materialscurrently disposed of in incinerators and landfills can bereused, recycled and composted. 1 Providing subsidies orincentives for incineration encourages local governments todestroy these materials, rather than investing inenvironmentally sound and energy conserving practices suchas recycling and composting.MYTH 2: Modern waste-to-energy incineratorshave pollution control devices such as filters andscrubbers that make them safe for communities.FACT: All incinerators pose considerable risks to the healthand environment of frontline communities as well as thatof the general population. Even the most technologically1www.no-burn.orgadvanced incinerators release thousands of pollutants thatcontaminate our air, soil and water. Many of thesepollutants enter the food supply and concentrate up throughthe food chain. Incinerator workers and people living nearincinerators are particularly at high risk of exposure to dioxinand other contaminants. 2According to a study from China, mixed solid wasteincinerators are important sources of dioxins and dioxin-likecompounds. 3Last May, the Setagaya gasification plant in Tokyo, Japansuspended its operation due to the high level of dioxinsdetected during a routine inspection. The concentrationlevel of dioxins in the working area was 5-6 times more thanusual (15g-TEQ/m3 max). A follow-up inspection yieldedsimilar results. 4In newer incinerators, air pollution control devices such asair filters capture and concentrate some of the pollutants;but they don’t eliminate them. The captured pollutants aretransferred to other by-products such as fly ash, bottom ash,boiler ash/ slag, and wastewater treatment sludge that arethen released into the environment. 5 However, evenmodern pollution control devices such as air filters do notprevent the escape of many hazardous emissions such asultra-fine particles. 6 Ultra-fine particles are particlesproduced from burning materials (including PCBs, dioxinsand furans), which are smaller in size than what is currentlyregulated or monitored by the U.S. EPA. These particles canbe lethal, causing cancer, heart attacks, strokes, asthma, andpulmonary disease. It is estimated that airborne particulatescause the deaths of over 2 million people worldwide eachyear -370, 000 of them in Europe. 7 In the U.S. communitiesof color, low-income communities, and Indigenouscommunities are exposed to a disproportionate burden ofsuch toxins. 8Finally, U.S. regulatory agencies have found that incineratorsare prone to various types of malfunctions, system failuresand breakdowns, which routinely lead to serious airpollution control problems and increased emissions that aredangerous to public health. 9MYTH 3: Modern incinerators produce less climatepollution - carbon dioxide (CO 2 ).FACT: Burning waste contributes to climate change.Incinerators emit more carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) per unit ofelectricity (2988 lbs/MWh) than coal-fired power plants.(2249 lbs/MWh). 10 According to the U.S. EPA, “waste toenergy” incinerators and landfills contribute far higher levelsof greenhouse gas emissions and overall energy throughouttheir lifecycles than source reduction, reuse and recycling ofthe same materials. 11 Incineration also drives a climatechanging cycle of new resources pulled out of the earth,

processed in factories, shipped around the world, and thenwasted in incinerators and landfills.In contrast, a 2009 study by the EPA concluded that up to42% of U.S. GHG emissions, which are generated throughthe production of materials, could be significantly reducedthrough recycling and composting. 12MYTH 4: Modern incinerators efficiently produceelectricity.FACT: All incinerators are a massive waste of energy. Dueto the low calorific value of waste, incinerators are only ableto capture small amounts of energy while destroying largeamounts of reusable materials. While older incineratorsgenerate electricity at very low efficiency rates of 19-27%, arecent UK study 13 found that conversion efficiencies of newincineration technologies are even lower. Conversely, zerowaste practices such as recycling and composting serve toconserve three to five times the amount of energy producedby waste incineration. 14 When taken together, the amountof energy wasted in the U.S. by not recycling aluminum andsteel cans, paper, printed materials, glass, and plastic isequal to the annual output of 15 medium-sized powerplants. 15MYTH 5: Incinerators provide jobs forcommunities.saved over $55 million in just one year if it had never builtthe incinerator. In 2010, the city of Harrisburg, PA isconsidering filing for bankruptcy due to its outstandingincinerator debt of $300 million. Harrisburg’s annualincinerator debt payments are currently $68 million, largerthan the city's entire operating budget. 21For a fraction of these costs, investments in recycling, reuseand remanufacturing would create significantly morebusiness and employment opportunities. 22MYTH 7: Incinerators are compatible withrecycling.FACT: Incinerators burn many valuable resources that canbe recycled and composted, and incinerators compete forthe same materials as recycling programs. Because of theextremely high costs of constructing and operating anincinerator, spending taxpayer money for an incineratormeans that there are significantly less funds to invest inmore affordable solutions. More than two thirds of thematerials we use are still burned or buried, 23 despite the factthat we can cost-effectively recycle the vast majority of whatwe waste.For more information, please contact [02] 436 4733or email info@no-burn.org*adapted from Incineration: Myths vs Facts primer by Ananda Lee Tan, 2010FACT: Incinerators burn local jobs. Incinerators requirehuge capital investment, but they offer relatively few jobswhen compared to recycling. In fact, recycling sustains morethan 10 times more jobs per tonnage of waste thanincineration and landfilling. 16 With a national recycling rateof less than 33%, the U.S. recycling industries currentlyprovide 1.1 million jobs. 17 If the national recycling rate wereto double, over a million new, green jobs could be created. 18MYTH 6: Incinerators are an affordable option.FACT: Incinerators are the most expensive method togenerate energy and to handle waste, while also creatingsignificant economic burdens for host cities. According tothe U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Outlook2010 report, the capital cost of new waste incineratorfacilities is $8,232 per kilowatt hour. That is more thantwice the cost of coal-fired power and 60 percent more thannuclear energy. Waste incinerator operations andmaintenance costs are ten times greater than coal and fourtimes greater than nuclear. 19Billions of taxpayer dollars are spent subsidizing theconstruction and operations of incinerators. Detroittaxpayers are saddled with over $1.2 billion dollars in debtfrom constructing and upgrading the world’s largest wasteincinerator. 20 As a result, residents have had to pay hightrash disposal fees of over $150 per ton. The city could have2www.no-burn.org1 Platt, Brenda et al, Stop Trashing the Climate, ILSR, Eco-Cycle & GAIA, 2008.2 Waste Incineration and Public Health (2000), Committee on Health Effects of WasteIncineration, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on LifeSciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press, pp. 6-7.3 Mao-Sung Wang et al, Determination of levels of persistent organic pollutants(PCDD/Fs, PBDD/Fs, PBDEs, PCBs, and PBBs) in atmosphere near a municipal solidwaste incinerator, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, 2010.4 http://www.union.tokyo23-seisou.lg.jp/topics/20110613setagaya.pdf5 Römbke, J., et al. Ecotoxicological characterisation of 12 incineration ashes using 6laboratory tests. Waste Management, 2009.6 Howard, C.Vyvyan, Statement of Evidence, Particulate Emissions and Health,Proposed Ringaskiddy Waste-to-Energy Facility, June 2009.7 Ibid.8 Mohai, Paul, “Reassessing Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in EnvironmentalJustice Research," 2006, Demography, 43 (2), 383-399.9 Massachusetts Department of Environment citations for violations by CovantaHaverhill Incinerator:http://www.cjcw.org/notice/Covanta_Massachusetts_environmental_violations.pdf10 U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html11 U.S. EPA, “Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases, A Life-CycleAssessment of Emissions and Sinks 3rd edition,” 2006.12 U.S. EPA, Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materialsand Land Management Practices, 2009.13 Fichtner Consulting Engineers Limited, The Viability of Advanced Thermal Treatmentin the UK, 2004, p.4.14 Morris, Jeffrey, Comparative LCAs for Curbside Recycling Versus Either Landfilling orIncineration with Energy Recovery, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,July 2005. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m423181w2hh036n4/15 U.S. Senate. Bill S. 3654 [109th]: Recycling Investment Saves Energy. IntroducedJuly 13, 2006.16 Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, DC, 1997. www.ilsr.org/recycling17 U.S. EPA, U.S. Recycling Economic Information Study, July 2001.18 Seldman, Neil, Recycling First -Directing Federal Stimulus Money to Real GreenProjects, E Magazine, 2008. http://www.emagazine.com/view/?460119 U.S. Energy Information Administration (Department of Energy), Updated CapitalCost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants, November 2010.http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/pdf/updatedplantcosts.pdf20 Guyette, Curt, Fired Up: Detroit Incinerator’s Long Simmering Opposition, DetroitMetro Times, April 2008. http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=1274821 Associated Press, Incinerator Project Burns Up PA Capitol’s Cash, April 2010.http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9F11AS80.htm22 Seldman, Neil, Recycling First -Directing Federal Stimulus Money to Real GreenProjects, E Magazine, 2008.23 U.S. EPA, 2006 MSW Characterization Data Tables, “Table 29, Generation, MaterialsRecovery, Composting, Combustion, and Discards Of Municipal Solid Waste, 1960 To2006,” Franklin Associates, A Division of ERG. www.epa.gov/garbage/msw99.htm