Clear The Air Energy Blog Rotating Header Image

Waste to Energy

Building more landfills never an option

‘Building more landfills never an option’ shows the total lack of understanding of many HK people about incineration.

30% by weight of what is incinerated remains as ash, that has to be landfilled, ad infinitum. Moreover about 10% of that ash is highly toxic fly ash that has to be encased in cement. HK food waste 3600 m3 per day is ultra wet 90% water content with a calorific value less than 2Mj/kg whereas you need 7 Mj/kg for combustion.

Our daft Govt intends to burn the food waste, meaning accelerant needs to be added making incinerators a waste of energy , not waste 2 energy facility.

Using German test data, burning 1 kg of MSW releases 1kg – 1.2kg of CO2 into the atmosphere, as well as other toxic RSP’s. Interesting that the Environment chief expects to reduce CO2 emissions here on the one hand whilst intending to increase them on the other.

Incineration requires the MSW contacts the flame for at least 2 seconds at 850 deg C – if the waste is wet the burn temperature has to be increased or dioxins can & do form.

We have no source separation of waste legislation, we have no Zero Waste policy, Mass burn mixes batteries & plastics, it is impossible to recycle items tainted by food waste. Our sewer system has such capacity that Stonecutters could handle & treat our daily food slops if industrially garburated in a matter of minutes, a fact supported by CIWEM UK but conveniently ignored by local blinkered ENB officials.

Published on South China Morning Post > Letters to the Editor, August 27, 2015

Building more landfills never an option

Letters to the Editor, PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 26 August, 2015, 5:10pm

The decision to build an incinerator in Hong Kong has presented a challenge to the government.

It has had to put a lot of effort into trying to persuade citizens, especially nearby residents, that they will not be adversely affected by it.

There is no doubt that over the last decade the government has tried hard to solve Hong Kong’s waste problem.

When a waste reduction strategy is decided on, it is important to look at the short-term and long-term consequences of any policies.

With an incinerator the chief concerns are environmental, such as air pollution and concentrated chemical waste byproducts. There are worries not just about people’s health, but the possibly devastating effect on biodiversity.

However, incineration is better than building more landfills, which are not sustainable. The government has found itself in a Catch-22 situation when it comes to the incinerator. It is always difficult to strike the right balance. What is important is that all Hongkongers should cooperate with the government to try and reduce the volumes of waste generated. We have to think about our children, so we cannot be indifferent.

Yoyo Tang Wing-tung, Kwun Tong

Why are we still addicted to burning waste?

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/03/why-are-we-still-addicted-to-burning-waste

A major barrier to reducing the wasteful mindset of business and society is overcapacity and stranded investments in waste-to-energy incineration

MEPs are calling on the European commission to ban the incineration of recyclable and biodegradable waste by 2020 as part of the latest plan for the EU circular economy package.

But as landfill is phased out across Europe, incineration is increasingly being turned to as a way to deal with municipal solid waste (MSW), while also producing energy and heat.

There is a certain circular logic in powering and heating homes with the rubbish they generate, but it comes at a price. For every ton of waste incinerated, about 20% ends up as hazardous ash containing heavy metals and toxic substances that must be dealt with.

“Waste-to-energy is a diversion of materials that come from petroleum sources. Some of the plastics might have a high calorific value, but they’re not renewable,” says Joss Blériot, executive lead, communications and policy at the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. He stresses that waste should be designed out as much as possible.

Recycling waste

Designing out waste involves finding alternatives to composite packaging and materials such as crisp packets that consist of atomic layers of metal which cannot be separated and recycled. But even materials that are recyclable, like plastic bottles, steel and paper, can lose 75% of value after first use. Eventually, this leads to a stream destined for incineration.

There are, however, a growing number of ways to treat MSW incinerator ash to minimise waste.

Eleanor Banwell, a biochemist and 2015 Schmidt-MacArthur circular economy fellow, believes incineration could play a part in the circular economy by collecting resources that would otherwise not be recovered. Her Royal College of Art design graduate project, MetaBlaze, considers how the value locked in ash could be exploited, assuming we can chemically process it.

“It opens the way for a new approach to sustainable design,” she says. “Rather than completely designing out waste, you can begin to reconsider hi-tech materials like composites. Until you close that loop on the utterly useless residual stuff, all you have is a slowing down of a linear economy. What matters is that the resources go back into circulation.”

Some businesses are already collecting precious metals from incineration. In the UK, waste company Veolia manages 500,000 tons of bottom ash every year and recovers metals such as gold and silver, which are sold on to ore manufacturers. Richard Kirkman, technical director at Veolia, says: “It’s not a perfect circular economy, but we’re working on getting more and more value out of the end-of-pipe.”

Rotterdam-based company, Inashco, uses a patented technology developed by the Technical University of Delft to recover and upgrade non-ferrous metals from municipal waste-to-energy ash for sale to global metal markets. Founded in 2008, Inashco is owned by the Fondel Group, a metals mining, production and supply company. Inashco is helping recover part of the aluminium, copper, silver and other metals worth €45m (£32m) lost annually during incineration in the Netherlands.

Incinerator ash can also be used to create new products, for example, producing aluminium castings for the automotive industry, secondary aggregates in road construction, cementor glass, or as synthetic zeolites for use in catalysts.

Treated in this way, however, the resources within MSW ash are locked into our urban infrastructure. A truly circular economy would see the MSW incinerator ash broken down into constituent parts that could be fully recycled and used again and again in manufacturing.

A dirty solution

This is no small technical challenge, nor would it be without polluting by-products. The composition of incineration ash contains an array of dioxins, chlorides, heavy metals and other hazardous substances and to cycle these completely would require intensive chemical processing at each stage.

“Essentially, incineration output is very messy. It’s far better to extract resources at the front end,” says Warwickshire county councillor and incineration campaigner Keith Kondakor, whose work is currently based around waste prevention strategies.

While mining incineration ash would still be better than conventional mining, which often entails land conflict and the destruction of habitats, incineration doesn’t do much to shift mindsets away from the industrial revolution’s dirty legacy. One fundamental issue preventing a shift in waste management mindset is overcapacity and stranded investments in incineration.

A recent study by the Wuppertal Institute suggests that in six of the 32 European countries analysed, incineration capacities exceed more than 50% of the annual waste generation. “As soon as you have built [an incineration] plant, the sunk costs involved cause dynamics that clearly undermine waste prevention and sorting as prerequisite for high quality recycling,” says Wuppertal Institute researcher Henning Wilts.

Technology not proven, says expert

http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/69840/technology-proven-expert

THE TECHNOLOGY involved in the controversial Cahill waste-to-energy plant is not commercially proven, said Professor Paul Connett yesterday when he appeared as a guest on VOB’s Brass Tacks Sunday programme.

The American, who was invited to Barbados by the Future Centre Trust to speak at its town hall meeting today on gasification plants, told listeners that the processes described by Cahill had yet to be demonstrated.

“As a commercial operation running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, it has not happened yet,” said the opponent of incineration. “They are building one right now in the [United Kingdom] but it is not operating, so you’re taking a huge risk.”

Connett, a former professor of chemistry at St Lawrence University of New York, said there had been many attempts to build gasification plants but many of these facilities had not produced the energy they promised and went bankrupt. (MB)

Biomass & Waste Incineration

Download (PDF, 1.66MB)

Waste-to-Energy Firm Covanta’s Loss Grows in 2015

http://waste360.com/financials/waste-energy-firm-covanta-s-loss-grows-2015

Waste-to-energy firm Covanta Holding Corp. reported an increased net loss for its first quarter, as it was hurt by lower market pricing for metals and energy, as well as other factors.

For the first quarter ended March 31 the Morristown, N.J.-based Covanta lost $37 million, or 28 cents per diluted share, compared with a net loss of $9 million, or 7 cents per diluted share, in the 2014 period.

Revenue fell 4.5 percent to $383 million from $401 million a year earlier, according to a news release. Construction revenue also declined as a factor in the lower results.

“We had a very strong operating quarter, despite record snowfall and overall difficult conditions in our core Northeast markets, especially in New England,” said Stephen Jones, Covanta president and CEO.

Covanta confirmed its 2015 guidance range of $450 million to $490 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA).

Covanta’s results fell short of Wall Street expectations, according to the Associated Press.The average estimate of six analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for a loss of 8 cents per share.

Covanta has been in the red for a while. It lost $5 million in 2014 and $8 million in 2013.

But it continues with strategic plans; most recently with a $45 million recycling center in Indianapolis it plans to open in 2016. It just partnered with RecycleForce to help staff the operation. RecycleForce helps formerly incarcerated individuals gain employment.

GASIFICATION THE WASTE-TO-ENERGY SOLUTION

Download (PDF, 1.58MB)

Information on plasma technology deployed around the world

Alternrg, the owner of Westinghouse Plasma Corp., published its progress in deploying its plasma technology products around the world in an April 2003 newsletter. Even as familiar Asian neighbours, China and Thailand, are taking up plasma technology, Hong Kong policymakers show no signs of intending to progress along with the world.

Click here to read the newsletter. You can also read it in Chinese.

Information on plasma gasification technology applied in waste-to-energy treatment

Plasma gasification technology has been widely recognized as the future of waste treatment and conversion into reusable energy. Its advantages range from energy efficiency, reduced pollutant production, reduced greenhouse gases emission, conversion of waste products into recyclable materials, elimination of landfill necessity and so on.

Plasma Torches in action (PyroGenesis 2006)

You can read more about the technology here in a white paper from the Gasification Technology Council of the US, and its advantages in application presented in a 2012 symposium by Louis Circeo and Luciano Bardari. The Westinghouse Plasma Corporation of Canada also presents its current plasma projects in the UK, China and India.

Energy Matters – Autumn 2013 Issue

Here you can find the latest issue of Energy Matters, published by Scottish property consultants CKD Galbraith. Topics include plasma gasification in waste-to-energy facilities, decommissioning wind farms, biomass energy, and shale gas extraction.