neg - waste incineration con

Joshua Ridenour – SHINE, SC of 20Waste Incineration - CON

WASTE INCINERATION – CON

INHERENCY.....................................................................................................................21. Federal Guidelines on MSW are already solving...............................................................................22. Federal government already supporting Waste to Energy.................................................................2

SOLVENCY.......................................................................................................................21. There are many types of incinerators; Aff doesn't know which we'll use...........................................32. 50 more incinerators would not burn a significant amount of our waste..........................................33. Incinerators can only burn 273,000 tons a year (Note: 750 x 365 = 273,750)..................................3

DA #1 – Public Health.......................................................................................................4Link: Aff increases Incinerators..............................................................................................................4Impact: Incinerators increase the likelihood of all types of cancers......................................................4Impact: Incinerators release dangerous dioxins and furans..................................................................4Impact: Incinerators release a wide variety of emissions, causing a wide range of problems..............5Impact: Incinerators release emissions in urban areas; accidents would be dangerous.......................5

EXTENSION..................................................................................................................61. Air emissions aren’t the problem, toxic waste disposal is..................................................................62. Inhalation of emissions are only 2% of the problem..........................................................................6

DA #2 – Voter Disenfranchisement #1 ............................................................................7Link: Public support is vital to success...................................................................................................7Uniqueness: Anti-incineration groups cast doubt upon incineration, and plan does not have public support....................................................................................................................................................7Uniqueness: Public opinion expresses anti-recycling mindset behind incineration..............................8

DA #3 – Voter Disenfranchisement #2.............................................................................9Link: Public support is vital ...................................................................................................................9Uniqueness: Anti-incineration groups cast doubt upon incineration, and plan does not have public support....................................................................................................................................................9Uniqueness: Emission uncertainty fuels public opposition....................................................................9Uniqueness: Public opinion does not support incineration..................................................................10Uniqueness: Incineration has a poor public image..............................................................................10

DA #4 – Increased Government expenditure................................................................12Link: Aff builds 50 incinerators............................................................................................................12Uniqueness: Each incinerator would require constant study...............................................................12Impact: Maintaining fiscal discipline key to recovery of the US economy ..........................................12

DA #5 – Power Loss.........................................................................................................14Link: Aff builds more waste-to-energy plants.......................................................................................14Impact: Unreliable power creates energy losses..................................................................................14

DA #6 – Recycling Hurt..................................................................................................15Link: Waste-to-Energy Incineration takes away from recycling programs..........................................15Link: Incineration programs discourage already slowing recycling...................................................15Link: Incineration discourages recycling programs.............................................................................16Impact: Waste that is incinerated can’t be recycled; we’re using up too much as it is.......................16Impact: Recycling is the better option..................................................................................................17Impact: Recycling avoids greenhouse gas emissions from incineration..............................................17

DA #7 – Important source of energy lost.......................................................................19Link: Landfills provide necessary energy.............................................................................................19Link: LFG fuels city vehicles................................................................................................................19Uniqueness: Landfill-to-gas programs are spreading throughout the country....................................19Impact: Important source of energy lost...............................................................................................20


INHERENCY

1. Federal Guidelines on MSW are already solving

[Note: MSW = Municipal Solid Waste; RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]

Brian Glover(Writer, EESI) and Justin Mattingly(Writer, EESI) “Reconsidering Municipal Solid Waste as a Renewable Energy Stock” July 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE http://www.eesi.org/files/eesi_msw_issuebrief_072109.pdf

Passed in 1976, RCRA (P.L. 94-580) created a role for the federal government in regulating solid waste pollution. The act requires states to implement a solid waste management strategy. The EPA was tasked with developing guidelines that states could follow in designing a strategy. These guidelines include an emphasis on source reduction and recycling of MSW as the preferred options. Ultimately, state regulations are subject to EPA review to ensure that federal requirements will be met. In addition, RCRA included a ban on open dumps for MSW. As a result of this and the economies of scale required to meet stricter landfill requirements, the number of landfills has declined from 8000 in 1988 to 1654 in 2008, while capacity has remained level.43 A number of RCRA measures were strengthened with the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, which closed several loopholes in landfill and hazardous waste treatment standards and strengthened the power of the EPA to enforce them.44

2. Federal government already supporting Waste to Energy

[Note: EIA = Energy Information Administration]

Brian Glover(Writer, EESI) and Justin Mattingly(Writer, EESI) “Reconsidering Municipal Solid Waste as a Renewable Energy Stock” July 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE http://www.eesi.org/files/eesi_msw_issuebrief_072109.pdf

According to the EIA, waste-to-energy facilities receive less federal support than virtually any major source of electricity, including coal. 46 Currently, electricity generated by new facilities will benefit from a production tax credit of 1 cent per kWh as authorized under section 1101 of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). 47 This credit will last for 10 years from the date the plant is put in service for those facilities built after August 8, 2005 and for five years for those put in service between October 22, 2004 and August 8, 2005. 48 The credit does not apply to facilities built before October 2004. While this incentive is undoubtedly valuable, most other renewables receive 2.1 cents per kWh.

SOLVENCY


1. There are many types of incinerators; Aff doesn't know which we'll use

Dr. Andrew Knox(PhD, Engineering, University of Toronto; Renewables and the Environment, Toronto, Canada Area; Technical and Development Office, Decon Association for Renewable Energy) “An Overview of Incineration and EFW Technology as Applied to the Management of Municipal Solid Waste(MSW)” February 2005 ONTARIO ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf

There are many types of mass burn incinerators, each of which can be made far less harmful today then they could have been made as recently as the late 1980s.

Water-Wall IncinerationControlled Air Modular FurnacesLiquid Injection IncinerationRotary KilnsMultiple Hearth IncineratorsFluidized Bed IncineratorsGasificationPyrolysisPlasma ConvertersAnaerobic Digestion

2. 50 more incinerators would not burn a significant amount of our waste

Richard Andreson(Product Marketing Manager, Chemical Oil and Gas Industry, Gensym Corporation; BS, Chemical Engineering, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; ) “Incinerators” 2002 THE ENVIRONMENT (Accessed via Academic OneFile)

In the United States, 109 large waste-to-energy incinerators burn about 14 percent of our solid waste. Some of these facilities have multiple units. There are 160 units in all that continuously burn from 200 to 750 tons of waste per day. These facilities convert the heat to electricity, enough to power 1.5 million American homes. There are roughly 75 other smaller municipal waste incinerators. Most are in regions where the water table is too high to allow for landfills. Florida, for example, has more of these facilities than any other state. Others are in places like Alaska, where cruise ships dock and by law have to send their waste to incinerators. Many of the smaller facilities operate only sporadically.

3. Incinerators can only burn 273,000 tons a year (Note: 750 x 365 = 273,750)


http://www.oneia.ca/files/EFW%20-%20Knox.pdf



In the United States, 109 large waste-to-energy incinerators burn about 14 percent of our solid waste. Some of these facilities have multiple units. There are 160 units in all that continuously burn from 200 to 750 tons of waste per day. These facilities convert the heat to electricity, enough to power 1.5 million American homes. There are roughly 75 other smaller municipal waste incinerators. Most are in regions where the water table is too high to allow for landfills. Florida, for example, has more of these facilities than any other state. Others are in places like Alaska, where cruise ships dock and by law have to send their waste to incinerators. Many of the smaller facilities operate only sporadically. DA #1 – Public Health

Link: Aff increases Incinerators

Impact: Incinerators increase the likelihood of all types of cancers

Daniela Porta(Department of Epidemiology, Regional Health Service, Lazio Region, Rome, Italy) “Systematic Review of Epidemiological Studies on Health Effects Associated with Management of Solid Waste” December 23, 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: A GLOBAL ACCESS SCIENCE SOURCE (Accessed via Academic OneFile)

Eleven studies have been reviewed on cancer risk in relation with incinerators, usually old plants with high polluting characteristics. The studies are reported below by country.

Later on, the article says...

In summary, although several uncertainties limit the overall interpretation of the findings, there is limited evidence that people living in proximity of an incinerator have increased risk of all cancers, stomach, colon, liver, lung cancers based on the studies of Elliott et al. [30]. Specific studies on incinerators in France and in Italy suggest an increased risk for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and soft-tissue sarcoma.

Impact: Incinerators release dangerous dioxins and furans


One of the most contentious points about incineration is the emission and creation of chlorodibenzodioxins and chlorodibenzofurans, or dioxins and furans, during the waste burning process. Dioxins and furans are bioaccumulative, meaning that once they find their way into the food chain they very rarely leave it. They are extremely persistent and




can cause cancer and birth defects. Dioxins and furans come in many forms and, in an attempt to standardize measurements of their effects, a system of toxicity equivalence has been devised. Each variation of dioxin and furan is assigned a toxicity factor which multiplies the mass of the dioxin or furan to give a toxicity equivalent (TEQ) mass. For example, 2 grams of a dioxin with a toxicity equivalence factor of 0.5 would only be 1 g TEQ. (2*0.5 = 1). Similarly 2 grams of a dioxin with a toxicity equivalence of 0.1 would only be .2 g TEQ. (2*0.1=0.2)

Impact: Incinerators release a wide variety of emissions, causing a wide range of problems


Particulate matter from incinerators, microscopic solid particles similar to those from diesel engines and other sources, are linked to aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease and to increased incidence of premature death. Acid gases, including hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides, can cause gastritis, chronic bronchitis, dermatitis, and light sensitivity. Acute inhalation exposure can cause irritation and inflammation of eyes, nose, and throat. Exposure to dioxins and furans--which are typically produced in reactions in the gases in incinerator emissions--causes cancer in animals, and is believed to cause cancer in humans, though the link remains controversial. Dioxin and furan levels are also associated with changes in hormone and enzyme activity. Dioxins and furans can persist for decades, resisting breakdown or chemical reactions, and can bioaccumulate through the food chain.

Impact: Incinerators release emissions in urban areas; accidents would be dangerous

Gale Encyclopedia of Science 2001 “Incineration” THOMSON GALE GROUP (Accessed via Academic OneFile)

Incinerators are often located in or near urban areas. Consequently, there is intense concern about the emissions of chemicals from incinerators, and possible effects on humans and other organisms that result from exposure to potentially toxic substances. Consequently, modern incinerators are equipped with rigorous pollution control technologies to decrease the emissions of potentially toxic chemicals. The use of these systems greatly reduces, but does not eliminate the emissions of chemicals from incinerators. Also, as with any technology, there is always the risk of accidents of various sorts, which in the case of an incinerator could result in a relatively uncontrolled emission of pollutants for some period of time.


EXTENSION

1. Air emissions aren’t the problem, toxic waste disposal is

Alternative Energy(Online Energy Magazine) October 14, 2006 “Pollution from Waste-to-Energy Incinerators” http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/pollution-from-waste-to-energy-incinerators/

The environmental impact of waste-to-energy technology outweighs the benefits when it comes to a proposed garbage incinerator in Greater Vancouver, according to a leading pollution researcher. The new trash incinerator would be 80 per cent larger than the existing garbage burning facility in Burnaby. The proposal by Montenay Inc. is just one of 23 now being considered by the GVRD as weighs what to do with the 500,000 tonnes of waste that now goes to its soon-to-close Cache Creek regional landfill. Dr. Michael Easton argues building a second, much bigger version of the Burnaby incinerator that Montenay already runs is a bad idea.

Easton, a Vancouver consultant specializing in genetics and ecosystem toxicology, says the problem isn’t the waste-to-energy plant’s air emissions -which are well within regulated limits.

What he doesn’t like is that it’s a high-temperature one-stage process that results in metals slagging together and the resulting ash coming out laden with toxic contaminants.

“Twenty per cent of the material that goes in there comes out as ash, which has to be dumped at a landfill,” he said.

“That stuff is very toxic. It should not be dumped in a municipal landfill – period.”

2. Inhalation of emissions are only 2% of the problem


However, inhalation only accounts for 2% of human exposure to dioxins and furans (POST). Dioxins and furans, once emitted from a source, settle in soil, crops and grazing land to be taken up by plants and animals (POST). They are also washed off of land into bodies of water where they enter the bodies of fish and other aquatic life forms (POST). In these ways dioxins and furans enter the food chain, the source of the other 98% of human exposure to dioxins (POST). It can be seen from this that it is not the inhalation of dioxins and furans that must be limited, but their introduction to the food chain.



http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/garbage-energy/

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/pollution-from-waste-to-energy-incinerators/

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/pollution-from-waste-to-energy-incinerators/


DA #2 – Voter Disenfranchisement #1

(Yes, there are two)

(Note: This DA has points about public opinion vital to success of program, and as such, can be doubled as Solvency)

Link: Public support is vital to success


As important as the scientific and environmental aspects of incineration is the political aspect. Public acceptance for incinerators is particularly relevant, as it would be difficult for elected politicians to allow incinerator operation without public support. Legislation related to incineration and pollutants are also a major factor in the future of EFW incineration. Any of these political factors could ensure the success of EFW incineration or endanger its future.

Uniqueness: Anti-incineration groups cast doubt upon incineration, and plan does not have public support


Irrespective of the validity of the arguments on either side of the incineration debate, the existence and activities of anti-incineration groups create an atmosphere of doubt on the practice of incineration. This doubt causes a wariness in the public regarding incineration and a lack of acceptance which can make for difficulties in the political future of EFW incineration. Politically, public acceptance is the key issue for the incineration of waste and it may be that no amount of scientific data will be sufficient to sway the public to incineration’s side.






Uniqueness: Public opinion expresses anti-recycling mindset behind incineration


In addition to the arguments against incineration on the basis of the pollution it causes, anti-incineration groups and individuals will often make claims concerning the social implications incineration will have in the area of waste management. Most significantly, it is postulated that people will cease to recycle if incineration is sanctioned and practiced. The opponents of incineration are afraid that incineration will be seen as another form of recycling (which it clearly is not), and that many resources that could be recovered will be burned. Another fear is that an incineration industry would be a strong voice sounding against the reduction of waste production.




DA #3 – Voter Disenfranchisement #2

(Note: This DA has points about public opinion vital to success of program, and as such, can be doubled as Solvency)

Link: Public support is vital


As important as the scientific and environmental aspects of incineration is the political aspect. Public acceptance for incinerators is particularly relevant, as it would be difficult for elected politicians to allow incinerator operation without public support. Legislation related to incineration and pollutants are also a major factor in the future of EFW incineration. Any of these political factors could ensure the success of EFW incineration or endanger its future.

Uniqueness: Anti-incineration groups cast doubt upon incineration, and plan does not have public support


Irrespective of the validity of the arguments on either side of the incineration debate, the existence and activities of anti-incineration groups create an atmosphere of doubt on the practice of incineration. This doubt causes a wariness in the public regarding incineration and a lack of acceptance which can make for difficulties in the political future of EFW incineration. Politically, public acceptance is the key issue for the incineration of waste and it may be that no amount of scientific data will be sufficient to sway the public to incineration’s side.

Uniqueness: Emission uncertainty fuels public opposition







Uncertainty about the effects of potentially toxic chemicals emitted from incinerators is the major reason for the intense controversy that accompanies any plans to build these facilities. Even the best pollution-control systems cannot eliminate the emissions of potentially toxic chemicals, and this is the major reason for incinerator-related NIMBY. In fact some opponents of incinerators believe that the technology is unacceptable anywhere, a syndrome that environmental regulators have dubbed by the acronym BANANA, for "build absolutely nothing near anybody or anything." During the incineration process, small particulates are entrained into the flue gases, that is, the stream of waste gases that vents from the combustion chamber. These particulates typically contain large concentrations of metals and organic compounds, which can be toxic in large exposures.

Uniqueness: Public opinion does not support incineration


The greatest problem facing incineration as an energy source is its negative public image. Pollution control, more efficient technologies, and the relative safety of incineration do not bridge the gap between EFW and its acceptance by the public. Unless the majority of a people are convinced that incineration is a safe practice it will be very difficult for their politicians to make significant inroads towards large scale EFW incineration. Thus, for Ontario, an in-depth look at the economic drivers, politics, legislation and other pertinent factors in other progressive jurisdictions is a sound way to start the ball rolling for thermal processing of residual MSW.

Uniqueness: Incineration has a poor public image


Incineration of any substance, (MSW, hospital waste, biomass, etc.) is widely debated. While it seems to be an effective way of dealing with waste, its reputation leaves something to be desired. Some of the poor public perception of incinerators is due to the poor performance of incinerators that operated without pollution control and the hazards






they presented. Current arguments are based on the idea that incinerators are still not safe, but when examined in the light of modern day pollution controls and placed in context, the problems seem negligible.


DA #4 – Increased Government expenditure

Link: Aff builds 50 incinerators

Uniqueness: Each incinerator would require constant study


While dioxins and furans are capable of doing serious damage to human health, animals and plant life, careful study is required for each incinerator, given its abatement equipment, temperature of operation, residence time of waste in the incinerator, and a host of other factors to determine whether dioxins and furans are actually being emitted at a harmful rate. This study must then be placed into an overview of an area’s waste treatment system and used such that the system as a whole minimizes the production of dioxins and furans, as well as other environmental hazards. Failure to treat dioxins and furans with the utmost concern could have disastrous effects, but their existence and nature should not preclude the use of EFW incinerators.

Impact: Maintaining fiscal discipline key to recovery of the US economy

Leon Hadar, Washington Correspondent, “Spending like there is no tomorrow”, BUSINESS TIMES, June 19, 2009, http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/storyprintfriendly/0,4582,338320,00.html?

Officials and lawmakers in Washington explain that the federal government had no other choice but to borrow and spend trillions of dollars to help the American economy avoid a rerun of the 1930s Great Depression, and there are some signs that such efforts are indeed creating the conditions for an economic recovery. But the same officials and lawmakers are worried that expanding federal deficit and the mounting debt are going to have longterm catastrophic impact on the American economy. Yet these concerns don't seem to have any major effect on the spending habits in Washington where the talk is about adding another trillion here - which company needs a government bailout today? - and another trillion there, with the costly plan to reform the healthcare system being the latest example. The federal deficit remains the elephant in Oval Office. As the government is spending its way out of the recession, it could be creating inflationary pressures that end up putting upward pressure on interest rates and killing the economic recovery. And while no one is seriously contemplating a scenario in which the United




States goes bankrupt a la Iceland, a US government inflating its way out of debt endangers its credibility and reduces the confidence of the financial markets in the American economy. The soaring US debt which puts downward pressure on the value of the US dollar has already ignited fears among foreign holders of US government bonds, led by China which is the largest creditor with more than US$700 billion invested in Treasury bonds. Indeed, according to Republican Representative Mark Kirk who returned recently from a trip to China that included talks with government officials and central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan, senior Chinese leaders have privately voiced fear over the soaring US budget deficit and said that they were increasingly looking to diversify from the US dollar. 'We heard across the board - in private - substantial, continuing and rising concern,' the Congressman told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. 'It's clear that China would like to diversify from its dollar investments,' he said.


DA #5 – Power Loss

Link: Aff builds more waste-to-energy plants

Impact: Unreliable power creates energy losses

Greenaction(Advocacy Group for Health and Environmental Justice ) “Incineration: A Waste of Energy” July 2006 Factsheet http://www.greenaction.org/incinerators/documents/Factsheet_WasteOfEnergy_July2006.pdf

Unreliability causes dramatic energy losses, as demonstrated by the company currently favored by Los Angeles. Thermoselect, a Swiss company that designs gasification incinerators, is marketed in the U.S. by Interstate Waste Technologies. In 2002 alone, Thermoselect’s flagship facility in Karlsruhe, Germany consumed 17 million cubic meters of natural gas to run the incinerator. Despite the company’s promises to generate energy from waste, in that same year the incinerator returned no energy to the grid.1

Two years later, unreliability issues including operational problems and shut downs, the high energy needed to heat the waste, problems generating energy, and the resulting excessive financial losses resulted in the closure and dismantling of the incinerator. Disturbingly, these severe problems at Thermoselect’s main facility are not mentioned in the same Los Angeles County report that concludes this company is the best match for Los Angeles.2

1 Fränkische Landeszeitung, “Natural Gas Use Should Be Halved This Year [Erdgas-Verbrauch soll dieses Jahr halbiert

werden],” 29 Jan. 2003.2

URS, Conversion Technology Evaluation Report for the County of Los Angeles, August 18, 2005.

http://www.greenaction.org/incinerators/documents/Factsheet_WasteOfEnergy_July2006.pdf



DA #6 – Recycling Hurt

Link: Waste-to-Energy Incineration takes away from recycling programs


Incinerators are also opposed by many people because they detract from concerted efforts to reduce the amounts of municipal wastes by more intensive reducing, recycling, and reusing of waste materials. Incinerators require large quantities of organic garbage as fuel, especially if they are waste-to-energy facilities that are contracted to deliver certain quantities of electricity. As a result of the large fuel demands by these facilities, it can be difficult to implement other mechanisms of refuse management. Efforts to reduce the amounts of waste produced, to recycle, or to compost organic debris can suffer if minimal loads of fuels must be delivered to a large incinerator to keep it operating efficiently. These problems are best met by ensuring that incinerators are used within the context of an integrated scheme of solid waste management, which would include vigorous efforts to reduce wastes, reuse, recycle, and compost, with incineration as a balanced component of the larger system.

Link: Incineration programs discourage already slowing recycling

Anna Blackaby(Business Reporter, Birmingham Post) “Rubbish Economy or Green Option?” October 8, 2009 THE FREE LIBRARY http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rubbish+economy+or+green+option%3f+Environmentalists+and+local+councils...-a0209198766

But environmentalists usually opt for plain old rejecting any green claims made by the builders of the plants.

They cite research showing incinerators producing electricity emit 33 per cent more fossil fuel-derived CO2 per unit of energy than a gas-fired power station.

Environmental arguments aside, anti-incineration campaigners are worried about the economic aspect of building incinerators, which are generally created through longterm PFI [Pay for Inclusion] contracts with private waste companies, often extending 25 or 30 years. Friends of the Earth say that many of these types of contracts will require councils to provide a certain tonnage of waste to process every year in order to make building the facility commercially viable for the private partner.

It believes these guarantees threaten to put a ceiling on the recycling of household and business wastes as councils may come under pressure to divert waste away from recycling in order to fulfil their incineration obligations.

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/PFI

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rubbish+economy+or+green+option%3F+Environmentalists+and+local+councils...-a0209198766

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rubbish+economy+or+green+option%3F+Environmentalists+and+local+councils...-a0209198766


And with the amount of waste generated by households dropping, the green group claims the taxpayer may have to make up the shortfall with councils "locked" into paying for fixed tonnages of waste to be burnt even though they can't provide this amount of rubbish. Green campaigners also believe a focus on recycling rather than incineration would result in more jobs, as employment would be created in areas like collection and processing. Chris Crean, of West Midlands Friends of the Earth, said: "It is important that the region plans for the future treatment of the resources that lie in our so-called waste stream. As new technologies emerge which can reprocess resources far more efficiently than burners we must not lock ourselves into long-term contracts to burn them in very inefficient incinerators which will not only waste those resources but also council tax payers' money."

Link: Incineration discourages recycling programs


R estrictive policies in typical incinerator contracts cause more energy to be wasted by requiring certain amounts of garbage. Cities that can’t provide enough garbage to the incinerator are then obliged contractually to pay high fees to the company. This is called a “put or pay” contract and is very common with all kinds of incinerators, including gasification and pyrolysis. Many U.S. cities have faced bankruptcy because they couldn’t provide enough garbage to be incinerated.3

These contracts are direct disincentives for zero waste, including recycling and composting. Because the contracts require continued wasting levels, cities have a disincentive to improving recycling and composting collections and waste prevention strategies. The impact is that instead of recycling and the resulting energy and greenhouse gas savings, more raw materials need to be extracted to replace the wasted materials. Incineration drives a downward spiral of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

Impact: Waste that is incinerated can’t be recycled; we’re using up too much as it is

Erica Gies(Environmental Reporter) “Waste-to-Energy Plants a Waste of Energy, Recycling Advocates Say” July 4, 2008 THE NEW YORK TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-rbogwaste.html

3 GAIA, “Waste Incineration: A Dying Technology,” 2003, p. 28-29.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-rbogwaste.html




"To most people it sounds great," said Linda Christopher, executive director of the GrassRoots Recycling Network, a U.S. environmental advocacy group. "It's something that you don't want, you put it in the incinerator, you get energy."

Still, say Christopher and other activists, these materials are not so bountiful that society can afford to burn them.

"We are depleting our environment at a much faster rate than that at which resources can be replaced," said Dave Ciplet, U.S. coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, an international group that lobbies against waste incineration.

Trash has more economic value and a lighter impact on climate change when reused, recycled or composted than when incinerated or placed in a landfill. Burning valuable materials that could be recycled "wastes the life cycle energy of products to produce a small amount of energy," Ciplet said.

The EPA largely agrees with this assessment and advocates a ranking of waste management practices. Reducing the need for new materials should be the top priority, followed by reuse, recycling, waste-to-energy incineration, and placement in a landfill, it says.

Impact: Recycling is the better option

Erica Gies(Environmental Reporter) “Waste-to-Energy Plants a Waste of Energy, Recycling Advocates Say” July 4, 2008 THE NEW YORK TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-rbogwaste.html

Ciplet, however, said that the company's calculations were incomplete. Accurate carbon accounting should weigh the entire life-cycle potential of the materials burned. "Waste-to-energy plants are actually much better characterized as a waste of energy," he said. "By recycling materials, you conserve three to five times more energy than is generated by incinerating them."

A newly published report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance - of which Ciplet was one of the authors - argued that landfills, incinerators and extractive industries should receive no government subsidies. Indeed, it said, the U.S. government should follow the example of some European countries and consider taxing them to finance recycling programs.

"This is really a question about how you use public money," Ciplet said. "Do you invest it into a dinosaur technology that's going to be around for 30 years, that's going to demand to be fed a constant supply of resources in a greenhouse-gas-intensive way? Or do you put that money into creating infrastructure to reuse resources in the community?"

Impact: Recycling avoids greenhouse gas emissions from incineration




http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht-rbogwaste.html


Recycling and resource conservation conserve more energy that incineration can create. Current national recycling levels, compared to landfilling/combustion disposal, conserve an equivalent of approximately 11.9 billion gallons of gasoline, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking one-fifth (40 million) of all U.S. cars off the roads every year.4 Recycling should be encouraged to grow, not face increased competition with more wasteful technologies.

Recycling reduces energy use by avoiding the energy-intensive processes of extracting and processing raw materials to replace materials wasted in incinerators and landfills. By reducing energy use, recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions that would have been generated. Incinerators also emit greenhouse gases, especially from plastics.5

4 US EPA, “Waste Management and Energy Savings: Benefits by the Numbers,” September 2005. epa.gov/mswclimate

5 US EPA, “Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases,” 2002, P. 93.


DA #7 – Important source of energy lost

Link: Landfills provide necessary energy

Euclid Infotech Pvt. Ltd. “United States : Landfills Turn Trash into Power and Greenhouse Gas Reductions Projects recognized for innovative use of landfill gas” January 14, 2010 THE FREE LIBRARY http://www.thefreelibrary.com/United+States+%3a+Landfills+Turn+Trash+into+Power+and+Greenhouse+Gas...-a0216833299

EPAs LMOP[Landfill Methane Outreach Program] has assisted with more than 450 LFG energy projects over the past 15 years. The United States currently has about 509 operational LFG energy projects. The LFG electricity generation projects have a capacity of 1,563 megawatts (MW) and provide the energy equivalent of powering more than 920,000 homes annually.

The direct-use projects provide an additional 304 million standard cubic feet of LFG per day and provide the energy equivalent of heating more than 715,000 homes annually. Direct-use LFG energy projects do not produce electricity, but instead use LFG as an alternative to replace another fuel such as natural gas or coal.

Link: LFG fuels city vehicles

Jason Dearen(Associated Press Writer) and Terence Chea(Associated Press Writer) “United States: Landfill Energy Projects Increasing” January 6, 2010 THE FREE LIBRARY http://www.thefreelibrary.com/United+States+%3a+Landfill+Energy+Projects+Increasing.-a0216458851

Hundreds of trash trucks across California are rumbling down city streets using clean fuel made from a dirty source: garbage.

The fuel is derived from rotting refuse that San Francisco and Oakland residents and businesses have been discarding in the Altamont landfill since 1980. Since November, the methane gas created from decaying detritus at the 240-acre landfill has been sucked into tubes and sent into an innovative facility that purifies and transforms it into liquefied natural gas. Almost 500 Waste Management Inc. garbage and recycling trucks run on this new source of environmentally friendly fuel instead of dirty diesel.

Uniqueness: Landfill-to-gas programs are spreading throughout the country

Jason Dearen(Associated Press Writer) and Terence Chea(Associated Press Writer) “United States: Landfill Energy Projects Increasing” January 6, 2010 THE FREE

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/United+States+%3A+Landfill+Energy+Projects+Increasing.-a0216458851


http://www.thefreelibrary.com/United+States+%3A+Landfills+Turn+Trash+into+Power+and+Greenhouse+Gas...-a0216833299

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/United+States+%3A+Landfills+Turn+Trash+into+Power+and+Greenhouse+Gas...-a0216833299


LIBRARY http://www.thefreelibrary.com/United+States+%3a+Landfill+Energy+Projects+Increasing.-a0216458851

"We've built the largest landfill-to-LNG plant in the world; this plant produces 13,000 gallons a day of LNG LNG (liquefied natural gas): see under natural gas. ," said Jessica Jones, a landfill manager for Houston-based Waste Management. "It will take 30,000 tons a year of CO2 from the environment."

Altamont is one of two California landfills making LNG; the other is a smaller facility about 40 miles south of Los Angeles. Other natural gas facilities are being planned by Waste Management at some of the 270 active landfills nationwide, and the number could grow quickly as communities seek to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency counted 517 active landfill energy projects in the nation's approximately 1,800 operational municipal landfills. That was up almost 50 percent from 2000, and 28 percent from 2004.

Impact: Important source of energy lost

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/LNG



neg - waste incineration con

Documents