[USCC] need help debunking incin is better than composting!

[Brenda Platt]

Dear compost colleagues,
The Institute for Local Self-Reliance has worked for three decades fighting
waste burners and advocating for waste reduction, reuse, recycling and
composting in their stead.  We just received this document from a Germany
scientist with his arguments showing how incinerators are better than
composting from several perspectives.  We'd like to debunk this pseudo
science.  If you can help or provide information at any level, please
contact me.
Cheers,
Brenda
-- 
Brenda Platt
Institute for Local Self-Reliance
927 15th Street, NW, 4th Fl
Washington, DC  20005
202-898-1610 ext. 230
www.ilsr.org

---------- Forwarded message ----------

>From Dr. Helmut Schnurer – former Head of Waste Management at the German
Federal Ministry for the Environment.  Dr. Schnurer is active advisor on
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management to the EU (By Telephone March 5th
 2009):

Issue: WTE a renewable energy source?

Argument: Over 50% of MSW landfilled is of biogenetic origin which makes it
a renewable resource.  Considering landfill gas (as well as bio gas from
digesting MSW) is already registered renewable energy sources WTE has to be
as well otherwise I-937 contradictory within itself.

Example of energy efficiency and being a clean energy source: WTE compared
with Composting
 WTECompostingConsuming Energy No (1)Yes (2)Producing EnergyYes (3) No
(4)Stringent
Emissions Limits (monitored)Yes (5)No (6) Noise levelLow (7)Medium
(8)Smell None
(9)Nuisance (10)Water discharge to the environmentZero water discharge (11) No
complete water containment (12)Environmental ImpactPositiveDepends on level
of regulation – more negative Contribution to Climate ProtectionsignificantNo:
production of climate damaging gases (CO2, methane, N2O2)


   1. Depending on the type of WTE process utilized - for example the mass
      burn process only requires minimal amounts of start up fuel (biodiesel or
      natural gas) – otherwise self supportive (producing electric
and/or thermal
      power).
      2. The composting process uses energy used to turn the compost, to
      pump in and out water, for aeration, for the watering, heating
in winter (as
      otherwise the biological process does not function correctly)
      3. Depending on the type of WTE process utilized – for example the
      mass burn process (1000 tons/day) produces enough energy to power 30,000
      homes with electricity (more when steam is utilized).
      4. Commonly no energy is produced as requirements in the US and
      individual states do not require energy recovery – could be
(suggestion to
      locate composting facility adjunct WTE facility as state of the
art fluegas
      treatment can handle additional methane rich emissions from
compost.  Other
      emission as laughing gas N2O2 (produced by composting
facilities) can also
      be treated and removed from the environment.  It should be noted that
      composting facilities only produce relatively small quantities
of this gas –
      however compared to CH4 (Methane) which is 21 times as potent as
CO2, N2O2
      is 200 times as potent as CO2 or 10 times more potent than Ch4 and a very
      potent greenhouse gas.  It should be removed.  That is the reason that in
      Europe (particular in Germany) composting facilities larger than 10,000
      tons/y have to be in enclosed facilities with fluegas treatment
(making the
      process even more expensive).
      5. In the US, as in Europe emissions from WTE facilities are very
      closely monitored.  Even though in the 1970s and 80s toxic
emissions where
      considerable, today WTE facilities when compared to landfills or other
      industries only mostly negligible amounts.  The German limits are so
      stringent that even the German Green Party now accepts WTE as a viable
      method to reduce the GHGs from waste and for overall environmental
      protection and economical performance (still focusing on waste
reduction and
      recycling as primary goals).
      6. Emissions from composting facilities are if at all only minimally
      monitored.  However, there are states like the state of California, that
      view composting as a burden on the environment as well.  This
problem could
      be solved by locating composting facilities adjunct to WTE
facilities that
      will remove the toxins from the air.
      7. The only noise level that is of consideration are the trucks
      delivering the waste.  Many facilities in Europe are located within the
      cities within very close proximity to residential living and besides
      delivery trucks the noise level is contained by the enclosed buildings.
      8. Unless the composting facilities are fully enclosed the noise level
      is higher as equipment moves and operates outside including
delivery trucks.
      9. Modern WTE facilities (example mass burn) are enclosed facilities
      and due to the most stringent regulations have no odors to the
outside.  All
      air is channeled through a negative pressure system through the fluegas
      treatment process resulting in zero “smell”.
      10. The smell at composting facilities when not in fully enclosed
      buildings (most composting facilities are open air) can reach detrimental
      levels.  This is either due to anaerobic “nests” of methane and/or other
      odorous gases that develop and are released during the composting process
      (turning) and/or are produced by substances that should not be
composted in
      the first place (animal derived products etc – biogas facilties should
      handle this kind of waste).
      11. Modern WTE facilties (mass burn) are zero water discharge
      facilties by regulation.
      12. There is no strictly enforced regulation that hinders water
      discharge from composting facilties.  In addition open air composting
      facilties have no adequate water collection systems.



Overall many products that are composted in the Pacific Northwest should not
be composted (papers as they contain bleach, animal products, etc).
Compared to heavily controlled, regulated and monitored WTE (mass burn)
facilties, composting facilties run a risk of contamination through certain
types of food wastes, household toxins that find their way into the
composting bin, garden chemicals etc.

Composting facilties also cost society a lot of money – the better operating
the more expensive.  Bottom line composting should be done to a certain
amount and for certain products as the process can produce viable soil for
specific types such as forestry and maybe in vineyards.

WTE facilties turn a mostly biogenic (renewable) resource into reusable end
products and most importantly into renewable energy in a very controlled
environment that is strictly monitored and enforced.

Compared to landfilling which disposes of the biogenic and other resources
with minimal (at best 50% methane recovery), WTE (mass burn) pulls all the
energy content which is mostly biogenic (renewable) out of the waste
delivering valuable energy to businesses and residences.

The German Green Party waste to energy model facility (mass burn) keeps 100%
of waste out of landfills
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Dr. Helmut Schnurer on WTE reneable and a comparison to	composting.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 44032 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.cloudnet.com/pipermail/compost/attachments/20090314/c795906f/Dr.HelmutSchnureronWTEreneableandacomparisontocomposting-0001.doc