[USCC] Dr Helmut Schnurer - overview for waste management a good read

[Maureen Reilly]

Dr Schnurer has this overview of waste management posted to the web.

It looks at the closure of 500 landfills in Germany, waste reduction legislation, creation of recycling facilities,

pretreatment of MSW, and the picture makes alot of sense.   Compost isn't the only way to manage organic wastes.

Some organic wastes are too toxic, too contaminated with metals, plastics, or resistant pathogens (prions) to compost.

 

This isn't an" either-or" situation.  We need clean compost AND we need renewable energy.

http://www.greenconversionsystems.com/Power%20Point%20Presentations/German%20regulatory%20Perspective%20-%20PPT%20-%20short.ppt#261,6,Steps of Development (2)

 

Maureen Reilly

....................
> 
> >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