tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post5319837325148022509..comments2024-03-24T11:01:27.668-04:00Comments on Resource Insights: Talkin' trash: Are we literally throwing away energy?Kurt Cobbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-81859269685464288792014-06-25T15:00:58.789-04:002014-06-25T15:00:58.789-04:00Kurt,
Very well said. For the past 25 years (in ...Kurt, <br /><br />Very well said. For the past 25 years (in the US) we have opposed converting waste into energy and advocated zero waste. <br /><br />Where are we today?<br />In 1990 we landfilled 70 % of what we consider as waste. We have not changed very much with over 65% still going to landfills. We managed effectively to burn less 15% in 1990 -> 2012 about 7%.<br />Yes, we have increased our recycling rate but not the amount what goes to landfill.<br /><br />Alan is hypothesizing regarding materials being recycled. The bottom line is that landfilling is way to cheap. The true cost of landfilling does not include the long term maintenance required nor the loss of materials.<br /><br />It is our whole disposal infrastructure that needs an overhaul.<br /><br />When landfilling our resources (material or energy content) becomes more costly than adequate recycling we will recycle more. I stated 'adequate recycling' as we seem to be doing a lot of single bin recycling, which is not very effective when you are competing with the attributes of virgin materials.<br /><br />I would agree that most items could be recycled but the energy and effort needed does not currently agree with our American way of life and the way we similar to oil and gas treat raw materials, which we tend to consume instead of making best use of them.<br /><br />Alan, please try to realize that it would be better to recover energy and materials from our 'waste' rather than filling up holes in the ground that we have to maintain for thousands of years.<br />That cost is, just as the resource value, not taken into consideration for landfilling.<br /><br />In the perfect world we could recycle everything or even better, not produce 'waste' in the first place. Do we currently life in that world? Is that a reality? No.<br /><br />Please consider that the German Green Party stated that (official statement): <br />1.Waste avoidance and recycling quotas are not the solution, they are just a part of it!<br />2.Even recycled products become waste after use!<br />3.Using best available technology for the incineration of residual waste means less impact to environment and to climate than landfilling!<br />Note:Although many members of the green party started their “career”in action groups against incineration plants, incineration with low emission levels, energy and material recovery is accepted today.<br /><br />Alan, you are correct - recycling should have priority but before attacking a better alternative to landfilling which is what we currently do, please consider that this article focuses on the energy perspective (and CO2 balance). <br />Please see EPA article: http://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/april2010/scinews_energy-from-waste.htm<br /><br />Our problem is that we are geared toward landfilling our resources and the 'other materials and substances' that remain as well costing us and future generations monies that we could use much more efficiently, especially over the period of 1000s of years.<br /><br />Landfilling makes no sense - everyone is in the end a loser, even the landfill companies, their employees and shareholders.Philipp Schmidt-Pathmannhttp://www.zerola.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-73602387663326875772014-06-18T11:37:37.949-04:002014-06-18T11:37:37.949-04:00I would be interested in some citations from Alan ...I would be interested in some citations from Alan concerning the efficiency of waste burners and the assertion that practically all waste is recyclable.<br /><br />Of course, theoretically, everything is recyclable. But there is an energy cost to recycling. So, the question becomes whether the energy cost rises so much beyond a certain point that more energy is expended on recycling than would be captured through incineration. Energy costs including hauling, sorting, sales and hauling again to places that use the recycled material. I think America would be doing very well just to move from 25 percent recycling to match the German level of 70 percent. Certainly, Alan wouldn't oppose such progress, would he?<br /><br />Though no one on this post including the other commenters uses the word "convert", I'm not sure I understand Alan's objection to the term. Matter is routinely combusted to produce heat energy which is then converted into mechanical energy for electric generating turbines which convert that mechanical energy into electricity which is used in homes and factories to power devices that convert the electricity into mechanical energy and heat.<br /><br />There are certainly heat losses every step of the way with each conversion. This is basic physics. I'm not sure what Alan is getting at.<br /><br />Of course, the first law of thermodynamics asserts that energy is conserved, i.e., it never disappears. But the second law teaches us that it does dissipate in the form of heat which eventually becomes too diffuse for humans to convert a portion to create what we call "work" which is actually a very specific technical term in physics.Kurt Cobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-36727111896988233352014-06-18T08:31:20.461-04:002014-06-18T08:31:20.461-04:00Cobb has got this all wrong. Almost everything bu...Cobb has got this all wrong. Almost everything burnable is recyclable, and the recycling of it "saves" far more energy than the burning of it. (The thermal efficiency of a garbage burner is usually around 20 percent, less than half that of a modern coal unit.)<br /><br />And, of course, anyone who states that burners "convert" (choose your term) waste into energy displays an ignorance of basic chemistry and thermodynamics.Alanhttp://greendel.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-17688144944260039942014-06-11T11:27:17.001-04:002014-06-11T11:27:17.001-04:00Federal Regulations governing landfill emissions:
...Federal Regulations governing landfill emissions:<br />New Source Performance Standards<br /><br />Title V<br /><br />Maximum Achievable Control Technology<br /><br />New Source Review<br /><br />Prevention of Significant DeteriorationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-1640668712628363922014-06-11T11:23:50.372-04:002014-06-11T11:23:50.372-04:00plastic does not degrade in a landfill because the...plastic does not degrade in a landfill because the bugs that eat the organic material do not eat plastic. That is why the landfill liners are made of plastic and last a very long time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-54957468909290007022014-06-11T11:21:37.816-04:002014-06-11T11:21:37.816-04:00landfill carbon sink - the portion of the biogenic...landfill carbon sink - the portion of the biogenic carbon in the waste that does not degrade into methane and CO2 stays in the landfill, hence the landfill is a carbon sink. Think of the landfill as a compost pile that degrades into a carbon based topsoil. See link below<br /><br />http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/r99fina.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-41250626713535300722014-06-11T11:03:02.716-04:002014-06-11T11:03:02.716-04:00Yes, landfill operations to control methane are ex...Yes, landfill operations to control methane are expansive. vertical and horizontal collection wells are installed throughout the trash and the removal/blower system is monitored continuously. Apply too much vacuum and fresh air is drawn into the landfill, resulting in a termination of the degradation process (bugs are anaerobic) and the potential for landfill fires. Too little vacuum and you have releases. the need to efficiently operate these systems is not only to prevent methane releases but also to control odors, which a prime concern of host communities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-19252713170399769312014-06-10T16:09:19.872-04:002014-06-10T16:09:19.872-04:00Regarding plastics being inert in landfills and la...Regarding plastics being inert in landfills and landfills being carbon sinks please provide references.<br /><br />Also, please identify the source of federal regulations prohibit methane release from landfills...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-9991150587483308752014-06-10T16:06:22.756-04:002014-06-10T16:06:22.756-04:00Landfill operations that are capable to recovery o...Landfill operations that are capable to recovery over 50% methane would be very expansive and thus would not make sense. Over the life of the waste no more than 50% of the methane can be recovered (European statistics).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-76703239146013989342014-06-10T13:42:44.266-04:002014-06-10T13:42:44.266-04:0030 year period is estimate. Owners responsible fo...30 year period is estimate. Owners responsible for all costs and have to put up financial assurance in advance.<br /><br />Incinerators burn fossil fuels in form of plastics, and all biogenic carbon. Plastics are inert in landfill, and only a portion of biogenic carbon degrades. Landfills are therefore a carbon sink, whereas incinerators are carbon emitters.<br /><br />Federal rules prohibit methane releases from landfills, although a small amount does escape. The rest is collected and burned<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-61553042347466511582014-06-09T14:22:42.640-04:002014-06-09T14:22:42.640-04:0020 year old technology-gasification of trash, coal...20 year old technology-gasification of trash, coal, railroad ties, etc allows for scrubbing prior to burning in a combined cycle plant with 70%+ efficiency.<br />As clean or cleaner than natural gas plant.<br />Only the will to buck those that have vested interest to not move ahead--too bad we lack knowledge and fortitude.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-7690074673607042402014-06-09T13:46:54.240-04:002014-06-09T13:46:54.240-04:00"Even though landfills produce methane that c..."Even though landfills produce methane that can be gathered and used to power generating plants, a portion of that methane--a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide--still leaks into the atmosphere."<br />Any handle on what portion of methane becomes fugitive? Any regulations on monitoring that in general?Sandy Lawrencenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-41306632455670670302014-06-08T13:31:07.080-04:002014-06-08T13:31:07.080-04:00I would agree that if the waste-to-energy faciliti...I would agree that if the waste-to-energy facilities refuse to use best practices emissions controls, then they are not worthy of consideration.<br /><br />In Germany such plants are obliged to meet strict emissions standard. The fault lies not in the concept of waste-to-energy, but in the lackadaisical attitude American regulators have about air pollution (due to so much corporate influence in government) and an American public that in large part has been convinced by specious arguments from the same corporate interests that somehow wrecking our environment is good for business, when, in fact, it is only good for the managers and owners who can escape the wreckage.Kurt Cobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05330759091950742285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8861605.post-22940107788890685132014-06-08T12:28:30.251-04:002014-06-08T12:28:30.251-04:00In my jurisdiction Covanta wanted an expansion of ...In my jurisdiction Covanta wanted an expansion of their plant. They refused to produce emissions numbers and pushed off the expansion and played a game with the locals for about 8 years before withdrawing the request. <br /><br />If they cannot even provide the most basic information related to the plume that floats over the poorest part of our city and the massive numbers of asthmatic children there they do not deserve such a puff piece from someone as smart as yourself.<br /><br />Yes, the argument is with "modern" technology. The vast majority of plants in operation are not and will not be upgraded from 1970s technology. They continue to request grandfathering of permits and limited extra reduction in airpollution for the local population. This is hardly a solution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com