[USCC] need help debunking incin is better than composting!
Stuart Buckner
buckstop at vdot.net
Mon Mar 16 20:07:00 CDT 2009
Brenda,
Attachments are not premitted on the USCC list serve. Please refrain from
using.
Thanks,
Stu
____________________________________
Stuart Buckner, Ph.D. | Executive Director
US Composting Council | 1 Comac Loop, Suite 14B1 | Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
phone: 631-737-4931 | cell: 631-834-1400 | fax: 631-737-4939 |
buckstop at vdot.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brenda Platt" <bplatt at ilsr.org>
To: <compost at mailman.cloudnet.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 4:20 PM
Subject: [USCC] need help debunking incin is better than composting!
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________
> Join us as the US Composting Council's 18th Annual Conference & Trade
> Show, January 24-27, 2010 at the Wyndham Orlando Resort, FL. The Largest
> Conference & Exhibition in North America for the Composting, Wood Waste, &
> Organics Recycling Industry. The Most Comprehensive Program of Training
> Courses, Educational & Technical Presentations, and Facility Tours &
> "Live" Equipment Demonstrations at the Disney/Reedy Creek Composting
> Facility. Conference Highlights & Program, Registration forms, Exhibitor
> Information and Sponsorship Opportunities available at the USCC website
> www.compostingcouncil.org or call the USCC at 631.737.4931
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> Compost maillist - compost at mailman.cloudnet.com
> http://mailman.cloudnet.com/mailman/listinfo/compost
> _______________________________________
> This list is a service provided by the US Composting Council (USCC).
> (c) Copyright 2004 United States Composting Council - All rights reserved
>
> Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the USCC, the Foundation,
> or the Board of Directors.
>
> Non-members of USCC are encouraged to join the Council through its website
> at: http://www.compostingcouncil.org/membership.cfm
>
> Members posting CC copies to the list and other addresses may have their
> posting privileges suspended. For discussion list policies and information
> regarding subscribing, unsubscribing, digest or other options, go to:
> http://mailman.cloudnet.com/mailman/listinfo/compost
>
> For additional help in unsubcribing or to report bugs and problems, send a
> message to the List Manager at compostlistmanager at compostingcouncil.org
>
More information about the Compost
mailing list