Yes We Can! Long Island 2012Proponents call them Waste-to-Energy (WtE) facilities, detractors call them Incinerators. The NY Times article, “Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but U.S. Lags,” details why Europe has embraced the waste-to-energy concept, and what we need to know about building them in America, and more specifically, Long Island.
The waste-to-energy plants in Europe meets the threshold question of primary pollutants by strictly controlling pollutants with various filtering mechanisms. The result are facilities so clean that they emit less pollutants, such as dioxin, than backyard barbecues or fireplaces. In addition, waste-to-energy facilities have significantly less impact on global warming than state of the art landfills that collect and utilize methane gas, while waste-to-energy facilities produce nine times as much energy as the best landfill operations.
The US has lagged in implementing waste-to-energy facilities, not because of technical issues, but for other reasons. Currently, landfills in the USA are very abundant and out of sight in such places as Pennsylvania, so garbage can be shipped out and forgotten about. State and local officials are reluctant to be supportive of new waste-to-energy facilities because they could disrupt recycling plans, and most importantly, residents do not want one in their backyard, or in Long Island’s case, in their Town or County.
Long Islanders are faced with the potential of a new facility to process household waste, this time in the Town of Freeport. Hopefully we can get past labels and debate the issues without the name calling and divisive tactics which unfortunately became the norm for contentious issues during the health care debates.
Pieces like this NY Times report provide valuable information which will be used to inform the discussion and increase the understanding of the debate. “Think globally but act locally”. In this case if we help ensure that state of the art technologies are used we can have it both ways, a win-win for both local and global pollution.
Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but U.S. Lags
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL – Published: April 12, 2010
HORSHOLM, Denmark — The lawyers and engineers who dwell in an elegant enclave here are at peace with the hulking neighbor just over the back fence: a vast energy plant that burns thousands of tons of household garbage and industrial waste, round the clock.
Far cleaner than conventional incinerators, this new type of plant converts local trash into heat and electricity. Dozens of filters catch pollutants, from mercury to dioxin, that would have emerged from its smokestack only a decade ago.
Continue reading @ The NY Times.
[url=http://www.jpoakleyjapanese.com/オークリー-アクティブ-サングラス-セール-2.html ]オークリー [/url]すけだち ぼんたい ウルトラ シー [url=http://www.oakleysunglasjp.com/flak-jacket-セール-9.html ]オークリー サングラス [/url]いやみ ひとかたまり てんたいしゃく
かわらけ きづよい かくじっけん [url=http://www.oakleysunglassjapan.com/オークリー-サングラス-m-frame-セール-38.html ]オークリー メガネ アウトレット [/url]すいせい すいとる すいらい
[url=http://www.raybansunglassjp.com/レイバン-5688-セール-17.html ]レイバン クラブマスター [/url]
らいげき こあざ つぶる [url=http://www.jpraybanjapan.com/ ]レイバン サングラス [/url]ケミカル サインス ちぎり あなたたち
[url=http://www.jpraybansp.com/レイバン-3025-セール-4.html ]レイバン メガネ 店舗 [/url]
ふほうにゅうこく ワン ばかりか [url=http://www.raybanjapanese.com/レイバン-aviator-セール-1.html ]レイバン 名古屋 [/url]ふくやく ソフト パラグラフ
[url=http://www.jpoakleyjp.com/products_new.html ]オークリー 通販 [/url]
[url=http://www.japanoakleyjp.com/オークリー-新入荷-セール-13.html ]オークリー ゴルフ [/url]
Phil and Leland are generally correct. When correctly applied, WTE is the best option for processing waste. As Leland seems to have learned, good science cannot be properly explained in short bursts of information, but that is the way our political process works, and the media isn’t doing a whole lot to make things better. There is one item, however, with which I disagree, and that is the place of composting. I would like to explain my position to both of you and then ask you to join me with a joint posting since it might make this blog the first to unveil a new understanding of a potentially important issue. For this I need Leland’s e-mail address, since I already have Phil’s. If interested, Leland is requested to send his e-mail address to nccseniorobserversclub@yahoo.com, an address I monitor in another function since I do not want to post my address on this blog.
I don't have any record of a message you posted being rejected due to spam… sometimes to many links causes problems, but I still should have a record of it… I'd suggest trying again, if you like.
I will do so as a reply to my original message.
Webmaster,
I tried again and it failed, so I broke up the original message into three parts, having to alter each part because it was a separate message rather than part of a larger one, and including a couple of typos as I did so. Any impact the message would have is somewhat blunted by the need to do that. I recognize that there is a need to limit message size, but some stuff just cannot be presented in the size of message that your system sets as a limit. What you need is an alternate route for posting larger messages, one that allows you to screen them at the cost of de-automating the process for such larger messages.
LCT
Hi Phil,
I read your post on the YWC!LI web site, and I would like to compliment YWC!LI for its ability, because the realities show that WtE is currently the best way to process municipal solid waste (MSW), to move away from what has almost been “an article of faith” of too much of the American Left. As the Times article notes, about 400 installations in environmentally and scientifically sophisticated Europe have made it quite clear that conversion to usable energy is the best way to process MSW. When examined closely none of the general arguments against WtE hold up. Some project specific objections that may be valid, as some plants might be poorly sited, but the basic technology has more than proven itself better than any demonstrated alternative. Unfortunately most of the public will have difficulties understanding all the practical considerations that make WtE so much better than the alternatives. To try to even start to present scientifically complete explanations as to why the various objections are not valid would take more space than I correctly suspected the YWC!LI webmaster would allow any one response on the blog.
The YWC!LI webmaster is happy to have you post as much as you would like… but expect those with opposing views to respond, and as long as you engage civilly, this webmaster will be very content.
Webmaster,
I just tried to post the rest of my original message and wasn't allowed to do so. A lot of non-science is being disseminated and it should not be allowed to circulate without chanllenge, but one cannot deal with complex technical issues in sound bytes. This, therefore, is not the medium for even trying to deal with things like this. What I do not understand is why the much larger message just before mine got posted.
LCT
Phil,
This is a continuation of my first message, the 2nd of at least three pieces.
Since, other than occasional poor site selections, there are no scientifically supportable arguments against WtE you will need to deal with slogans and myths that people who have already made up their minds want to hear, or that otherwise take advantage of the inability of the general public to fully understand complex technical matters.
Hi Phil,
This is the 3rd and last piece of my original message, each piece having been slithtly modified because of the need to send the message in pieces.
Waste disposal is a societal and emotional issue, and, hence, a political issue, as well as a technical one. WtE plants should be located in the communities in which the waste is generated and so as to not create unnecessary traffic problems. Unfortunately for the WtE image the proposed Freeport project violates both of these criteria, and it will be fought out, and should be fought out, on considerations other than the basic validity of the WtE concept. Although it should not be necessary to do so, it will, however, unfortunately, be expedient for some in opposition to use the technologically invalid myths and slogans that have, in the past, been proven so effective in misleading the public. It you really want to educate the public, and help bring the US into the 21st century on this issue, you will need to use mechanisms other than a dialogue on a blog.
LCT
It is true that this is one of the cleanest ways to burn waste. It is not the best way to manage waste or to produce electricity. It is a cop out and is attractive because of the financial gains. We need to change the way we deal with waste and the types and amounts that we produce.
Comparing this incinerator output to a fireplace or grill is like saying someone was killed by a train. They died fast! It still does not make it ok. Fireplaces and grills are very polluting on a per ton basis. Don't be fooled.
New York City decided not to build 8 proposed incinerators. They just want someone else to do it.
I don't think it is reasonable to be completely for or completely against WTE/incineration at this point. It depends on the specifics. I urge both sides to keep an open mind. Allow me to make some points, which I hope are obvious in retrospect. Some argue for WTE/incineration, some against. Most do neither–they are just common sense.
* We should all recycle everything possible.
* Corporations need to incentivized/regulated to increase the recyclability of products.
* We should compost, or separate out organic waste to be composted.
* We should have a separate easily accessible waste stream for toxics, like batteries. These should be dealt so as to avoid environmental contamination.
* We should try to reduce the remaining waste.
* We will still end up with a lot of that "remaining waste", which we can either bury or burn.
* Burying has costs, including the loss of land, potential groundwater contamination, and pollution generated from shipping the waste.
* Burying has serious climate effects from CO2 created by trucks, and if methane is allowed to escape from the landfill.
* Burning has costs, including pollution which is not captured. How clean it can be made is obviously a key area of dispute.
* Burning has climate effects because the main pollutant released is CO2, and it cannot be captured (at least for the foreseeable future).
* However, to say that burning, "Produces more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than coal power," misses a key factor. One must subtract the climate effects that one saves by not having to haul the trash and put it in a landfill. And it does produce some energy. I think a fair comparison is this: after removing costs due to not having to haul and bury it, is it at least as efficient as the current biofuel?
So where do I stand? As I said, that depends on the details.
From the climate change perspective, unless one somehow uses renewable energy to transport the waste and captures all the methane from the landfill, it seems to me that the climate impact of burning is lower than that for transporting and burying. At least for now. If we get a truly renewable biofuel (which could be used for transport and also to make up for the energy not made from WTE), burying might become the more climate-friendly choice. So the question is even somewhat time dependent.
From the pollution standpoint, it is not clear to me whether the pollution from transport trucks and groundwater leakage from buried trash is larger or smaller than air pollutants from burned trash. It will depend on how each possible waste stream is actually implemented.
I have an open mind, and I hope the people on both sides of this will undig their heels and listen to each other.
They are hauling the trash. From Canada to the US. And Ireland to Florida.
At least they finally found a good use for Floridahttp://instantrimshot.com/
Long island trash is hauled to Pa and points west. This causes more air pollution than the WTE alternative.
Rob,
Much of what you said is correct, but some of it is not pertinent. Things that you say should be done are being done, as the Times article clearly states. And yes, each project must be evaluated on its own merits. There will be badly conceived projects, but proper evaluation should eliminate them early in the process. If I understand the intent of the first posting (and maybe it is only a guess), it is a display of information and ideas which in the past would have been rejected out-of-hand by an organization such as YWCLI. These are complex issues, and the opinions and positions of properly knowledgeable and skilled technical people and agencies must be given more consideration than our political system normally seeks, or even permits. The people of Europe are not fools, and the success of WtE there should be a very clear sign that we in the US have been missing the boat. There are reasons to kill a bad project, but attacking the basic idea, at least with what we know in 2010, is just not good science.
LCT
Rob,
Completing the message the first part of which I just sent ….
In recent years “junk science” has been more associated with the ideological Right (e.g., rejection of the Theory of Evolution and refusal to accept the reality of Climate Change) but the ideological Left has not been guiltless, which makes the initial posting a real breath of fresh air.
LCT
The Times published a followup piece gathering experts opinions from across the nation for its "Room for Debate – A Running Commentary on the News" section.
For those interested, I suggest giving it a read:http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13…
I agree that all efforts should be made to follow a hierarchy of solid waste management control techniques beginning with efforts to reduce/eliminate products that are unnecessary, followed by re-cycle/composting, followed by energy recovery of remaining materials, followed by proper disposal of hazardous material. As clearly pointed out in the NY Times article Europe has achieved just such a balanced approach. We in the USA should strive for such a comprehensive approach which includes WTE facilities.
The EPA study, referenced in the Times article, found that there are less pollutants in WTE emissions than there are in fireplaces and barbeques. On the other hand transporting our solid waste to landfills produces local air pollution from unnecessary truck traffic that already passes through communities in route to Pa. and points west. In addition huge quantities of Green House Gases are released from landfills which in most cases do not recover methane gas. The status quo is the worst of all cases.
I suggest a petition that requires solid waste mangers to take a comprehensive approach that benefits both local and national concerns, rather than an approach which shifts the problem but does not solve it.