"Waste to energy" -- the ability to turn household waste into energy to power cars, homes and businesses -- isn't a new idea; it's been around for decades. But there's more interest than ever in this alternative energy source. And now, a growing number of new technologies may enable us to turn even more everyday household waste into energy. How much more?
A new study conducted by the Earth Engineering Center of Columbia University and sponsored by the American Chemistry Council found that if, somehow, all of the municipal waste currently landfilled in this country were diverted to new waste-to-energy power plants, they would produce enough electricity to power more than 16 million households annually.
In the northern states, where the winter months bring high heating bills additional energy could be recovered by means of district heating systems. For example, in Denmark the energy recovery plants are very efficient because they generate steam that drives the turbines to produce the electricity. This steam is subsequently leveraged to heat a whole neighborhood or series of buildings. District heating systems provide over 30 percent of the residential heating needs in Denmark.
A key part of this equation is plastics. Plastics have an energy value that's higher than coal. Of course, we should recycle plastics whenever we can -- that's the best way to conserve energy. But even when plastics aren't recycled, we can still recover them for their energy value. While many people don't know that plastics can be converted into energy with current technology, advanced conversion technologies are taking off in Europe, Japan and Canada. These alternative technologies transform non-recycled used plastics into crude oil and other fuels.
If the United States were to source-separate non-recycled used plastics and convert them into fuel oil, we would create enough energy to power six million cars per year. Or, if those same non-recycled plastics were routed to dedicated power plants, they would generate enough electricity to power 5.2 million homes each year.
Taken together, the study's findings show that the nation's garbage is an abundant source of energy that's available right now. And the longer we wait to embrace this energy solution, the more valuable energy we risk losing to landfills at taxpayers' expense.
Another benefit of increasing the energy recovered from household waste is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, diverting 25 percent of the mixed biomass and non-recycled plastics from landfills to new waste-to-energy facilities would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 35 to 70 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, depending on the degree of landfill capture in present landfills.
Some states already recover energy from household wastes, and others should consider what they have to gain by following suit. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Maine, Virginia, and Minnesota are already deploying an aggressive combination of recycling and energy recovery programs to convert wastes into raw materials and energy resources.
Connecticut is leading the country. Approximately 65 percent of the state's used plastics were either recycled to create new products or recovered to create energy in 2008. That translates into a lot of alternative energy going right into Connecticut's homes and businesses and it is good for everyone -- government, business, residents, and the environment.
This year, Maryland adopted legislation that makes waste-to-energy a "Tier 1 renewable energy resource" under the state's renewable portfolio standard. In addition to enabling reliable and sustainable options for waste management, the new legislation will help generate clean, renewable electricity for Maryland's citizens.
Overseas, countries like Austria, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and others are already recycling and recovering energy from more than 90 percent of their municipal solid wastes. The United States needs to diversify its energy sources if we want to create a more sustainable and more competitive future. Energy recovery from waste should be part and parcel of the national energy strategy.
-- Professor Nickolas J. Themelis is the Director of the Earth Engineering Center at Columbia University
Brian Keane: For Clean Energy, Politics Is Bad Business
Waste to Energy - Generating electricity from garbage and pollution
Welcome to WTERT :: Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology ...
Waste to Energy (WTE) & Biomass in California
Peat - Waste To Energy Plants - Hazardous Waste Treatment Plants ...
We must be rigorous in environmental controls of waste to energy programs, but the tech is good.
Bio char in particular.
PS Thanks for the name-calling. That's always a productive way to carry on a debate.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/4033.php
Bio char is even better.
http://www.zerocarbonfarm.com/document%20library/research/June%2028,%20University%20of%20Edinburgh,%20An%20assessment%20of%20the%20benefits%20and%20issues%20associated%20with%20the%20application%20of%20biochar%20to%20soil.pdf
“it is unlikely that dioxins would be produced in pyrolysis due to anoxic conditions, even at 450–
550°C and from feedstock containing chlorine - pyrolytic conditions also at least partially
destroy dioxins present in feedstock.”
http://www.thebioenergysite.com/news/6270/biomass-swedens-primary-energy-source
It is an old idea that hasn't gotten much traction since the 30 years that it was first introduced as way to manage waste. Now it is being touted as "clean" or "renewable" energy, a claim that cannot be substantiated, especially when compared to the alternatives of recycling (of course, creating less waste is the most environmental alternative).
Our planet's resources are dwindling. It is foolish to send them up in smoke instead of recycling and reusing them. Recycling not only precludes the need for mining primary resources and all the destruction associated with that, but it also saves huge amounts of energy and water in the processing of those resources into the products we use. Recycling saves more energy than burning resources creates, and creates far less pollution and environmental destruction. In fact, in the case of organics, recycling them through composting is actually restorative to the planet, and can help sequester carbon, too.
Per ton of trash, recycling creates up to ten times more jobs than incinerators or landfills. Despite heavy subsidies for extracting industries, recycling is a time proven solution to our overflowing waste.
Over and over there are examples of waste to energy facilities not living up to their promises. And, currently, the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is considering bankruptcy because of their expensive burning facility.
Waste to energy deserves no space on a green blog.
Harrisburg is an exception to the rule caused by problems with special technology used and financial mistakes, similar to those made by people who lost their homes. Palm Beach FL and Honolulu HI decided in 2011 to double their WTE capacity..Find out how Lancaster County, PA, York County PA, Bristol, CT, Rochester MA and hundreds of other U.S. communities feel about opting for WTE in the eighties and nineties.
Both of your comments completely ignore what I was saying. WTE may be a way (and a bad one in my opinion, but that's not what we're talking about) to manage waste. But it is by no stretch of the imagination green or environmental or sustainable good for the planet, which IS what I was talking about. It's putting resources up in smoke so that we have to go mine new ones, and mining and primary production of products from raw materials are where the vast majority of environmental impacts and energy use happens- energy use, water use, water and air pollution, ecosystem destruction, etc. Once a burner is built, it needs to be fed to operate efficiently.
http://www.biochar-international.org/technology/production
We need a MISSOURI KILN UP NOTH!!!
In Rome and other cities (in the seventies) this is not happening as the paper industries receive special tax benefits when they use this product (a leftover from the Mussolini Administration). When one can get rid of this paper pulp, most all other recycled matter can be sold at a profit. In Rome even the fruit and vegetable sweepings from the open markets, ends up in food pellets sold to feed cattle.
Like in so many environmental problems, there are simple solutions, but they are not used, because in one way or an other, they interferes with the interest of existing powers that only favor there own solutions, even if they do not solve the problems.
even incinerators no put out less dioxins than you average barbecue 1000 times less than before.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/4033.php
But incineration is wasteful.
Waste Bio char is far better, creating carbon negative fertilizer char, bio oil and bio gas, with an energy gain or at least 3 times.
Waste bio char can be massively carbon negative. http://www.biochar-international.org/images/Flier_3.2_carbon.pdf
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/biochar_paper.pdf
With Pyrolysis you have the advantage of creating methane the renewable fossil fuel! We can use methane for fuel cells for transportation.
You left out a huge part of waste reclaiming: Precious metals, that are otherwise toxic.
Waste streams are 3 to 10 times better '"ore" than the best available natural ores.
Rooftop solar about the cost of nuclear and clean coal, offshore wind the cheapest elasticity, and waste bio fuels can supply all the worlds energy needs, 24/7 forever, clean safe, faster to install and ready to replace nukes and fossils in 7-15 years.
Recycling waste into the green tomorrows is planet saving, unless it still kills ecosystems and biological diversity. We must, above all else, save the Earth, and this begins with saving ecosystems and their biological diversity. Re-cycle, reduce and re-use, now this is intelligent, as long as it doesn't kill Earth.