[greenyes] White Paper # 8 Biological, Chemical and Thermal Technologies

[Gary Liss <gary@no.address>]

Apologies for Cross-Postings

GRC is circulating portions of a White Paper for your review and 
comment  and welcomes your suggestions.  Please reply to this listserve 
with comments.

August 26 ? 27, 2004 ? Global Recycling Council: International Dialog on 
Proper Discard Management in the New Millennium, San Francisco, CA. 
www.crra.com/grc/international/index.html

White Paper # 8

Biological, Chemical and Thermal Technologies


By Gary Liss, Gary Liss Associates, Loomis, CA, www.garyliss.com

Although the diversion rate in California is estimated to be approximately 
47%, over 37 million tons of material is still disposed of in landfills. Of 
the materials landfilled, 79% of the material is organic (biomass and 
plastic carbonaceous material).  Some are advocating that these materials 
that are currently still being landfilled should be processed to produce 
energy.  Technologies that are being proposed include biological, chemical 
and thermal technologies.  Materials that are proposed to be processed with 
these technologies are primarily the organic materials that are now being 
landfilled. These include paper, cardboard, plastic, discarded food, and 
yard trimmings.

Biological processes are used to process higher moisture materials.  Source 
separated organic materials (e.g., yard trimmings and discarded food) 
provide the highest quality and most marketable end-products from such 
processes.  Some biological systems, such as anaerobic digestion, are being 
used primarily as pollution control devices; after all other Zero Waste 
techniques are employed.[i][ii]  Chemical processes are being proposed to 
process difficult to recycle materials, such as plastics.

Thermal processes are being proposed with many different names and 
configurations, including: combustion (or incineration), waste-to-energy, 
pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc, and catalytic cracking.  Whatever they 
are called, they all are designed to heat discarded materials until they 
are either destroyed, or converted into liquids, gases, char and ash.  Most 
of these systems operate at high temperatures (over 750 to 3,000 degrees 
Fahrenheit).  Plasma arc systems operate at 9,000 ? 27,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Pyrolysis systems are designed to heat materials to high temperatures 
without adding oxygen, as in an oven.  Gasification systems often involve 
the addition of air, oxygen, hydrogen, or some combination of these 
reactants.  The composition of the products of these systems can be changed 
by the temperature, the pressure, the speed of the process, and the rate of 
heat transfer.[iii]  Pyrolysis systems produce both gas and liquid 
products, with lower temperatures producing more liquid products and higher 
temperatures producing more gases.  The products from these systems are 
usually burned to produce energy. Some technologies directly convert 
resources to electricity while others create liquid or gaseous fuels.

The European Union Parliament's Directive on Incineration of Waste defines 
pyrolysis and gasification as incineration:
?[I]ncineration plant' means any stationary or mobile technical unit and 
equipment dedicated to the thermal treatment of wastes with or without 
recovery of the combustion heat generated. This includes the incineration 
by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes such as 
pyrolysis, gasification or plasma processes in so far as the substances 
resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated.?[iv]
The USEPA considers gasification to be combustion under EPA?s medical waste 
incinerator rule.[v]

Plasma arc and radio frequency (microwave) heating converts heat from 
electricity to gasify, pyrolyze, or combust the materials, depending on the 
amount of oxygen or hydrogen fed into the reactor. Catalytic cracking 
refers to the addition of catalysts to wastes such as plastics in a 
pyrolysis system to produce liquid fuels (such as gasoline).  However, the 
catalysts may be deactivated by chlorine present in PVC plastics.

Depending on the composition of the waste and operating conditions, 
incineration, pyrolysis and gasification release poisonous substances like 
dioxins and furans, toxic metals are volatilized  (e.g., mercury, cadmium, 
chromium, beryllium, vanadium, zinc, manganese, nickel, selenium and tin), 
and particulate matter, other halogenated organic compounds, carbon 
monoxide, hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, are also released to 
the air.  Toxins such as dioxins and furans are dangerous at extremely 
minute levels.  Since failsafe systems have not been demonstrated to 
control migration of these toxins to the environment, it is better to apply 
the Precautionary Principle to preclude high-temperature technologies, 
create systems that maximize the highest and best use of discarded 
materials, and require safe waste disposal alternatives for any remaining 
materials. Ironically, maximizing energy recovery is technologically 
incompatible with reducing dioxin emissions.  One alarming new trend is the 
increase in projects to use incinerator ash and disperse it throughout the 
environment despite toxic contaminants in the char or ash residues.

The key to determining when energy generation from discards may be 
consistent with Zero Waste lies with whether feedstocks are 
source-separated and at what temperatures the technologies 
operate.  Technologies of the 'Carbohydrate Economy' espoused by the 
Institute for Local Self-Reliance and others are consistent with the goal 
of Zero Waste.  For example, making bio-diesel fuel from source-separated 
organic materials could help meet air pollution control goals for 
transportation.

Thermal technologies using mixed garbage feedstocks or high temperatures 
destroy resources, are incompatible with Zero Waste systems and are threats 
to human health and the environment. Reusing, recycling or composting the 
same materials burned in an incinerator can save about 3-5 times more 
energy.[vi]  When you burn something you have to replace it starting with 
virgin materials; this is where the energy is used and the major 
contribution to global warming is created. Thus, even if thermal 
technologies could be operated safely, they would not be sensible.  It 
simply does not make sense to spend so much money destroying resources we 
should be sharing with the future. [vii]

For every ton of material destroyed by thermal technologies, about 71 tons 
of manufacturing, mining, agriculture, oil and gas exploration, coal 
combustion, and other discards are produced.[viii]   There are significant 
upstream benefits of avoiding wastes from mining, manufacturing and 
distribution of products, including energy conservation and reduced 
greenhouse gas emissions benefits of waste prevention and 
recycling.  Reduced waste generation to 1990 levels and increased recycling 
to 35% would reduce greenhouse gases by 11.4 million metric tons of carbon 
equivalent (MTCE), equal to taking nearly 7 million cars off the road for 
one year.[ix]   By cutting the amount of materials discarded by just 5%, we 
could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by another 10.2 million MTCE.[x]

As a result, no public subsidies should be provided for any form of thermal 
technologies. In particular, communities should not enter into any 
?put-or-pay? contracts that may be requested to support thermal 
technologies.  These contracts may deter competition, damage reuse, 
recycling and composting businesses, and discourage waste reduction. In 
addition, federal, state and local governments should not include thermal 
technologies in any programs designed to promote and expand renewable 
energy sources.

The terms ?waste,? ?waste resources,? ?waste incineration,? ?pyrolysis,? 
and ?gasification? should be excluded from qualifying as renewable or 
sources of renewable energy, fuel, or power in renewable portfolio 
standards, renewable energy solicitations, renewable energy grant/loan 
programs, green or clean power programs, biomass energy programs, and other 
related programs, regulations, legislation, and policies.  The term 
?municipal solid waste? should be excluded from the definition of "biomass" 
in renewable energy standards, procurement policies, and other related 
programs, regulations, legislation, and policies.

Professionals dedicated to achieving a sustainable economy based on the 
principle of Zero Waste should encourage a combination of community 
responsibility and industrial responsibility towards the way materials pass 
through our society. Where ?waste? is currently produced, the emphasis 
should be placed on better industrial design to eliminate its production, 
wherever humanly possible, rather than finding a technology to make the 
material disappear.  Thermal technologies costs cities and counties more 
and provides fewer jobs than comprehensive reuse, recycling and composting, 
and deters the development of local recycling-based businesses.

Environmental impact reports should compare the impacts of biological, 
chemical and thermal technologies to expanded reuse, recycling and 
composting alternatives, and approaches that eliminate waste.

A huge capital and political investment in biological and chemical 
technologies could distract decision makers in government and industry from 
the primary task of designing packaging and products which can be reused, 
recycled and composted.

Although some biological and chemical technologies may help us to develop 
the Carbohydrate Economy that eliminates our society?s reliance on scarce 
oil and gas supplies, these technologies must be designed first and 
foremost to protect the public?s health and safety and the environment, as 
well as ensuring that we remain focused on truly sustainable practices.

For more information:

·         ?Resources Up In Flames, The Economic Pitfalls of Incineration 
versus a Zero Waste Approach in the Global South,? prepared by the 
Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) for Global Alliance for 
Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), http://www.no-burn.org/RuiF2/RuifPR.html

·         Neil Tangri, GAIA, ?Waste Incineration: A Dying Technology,? 
July, 2003, http://www.no-burn.org/RuiF2/RuifPR.html

·         Greenpeace, ?Incineration and Human Health,? 2001, www.greenpeace.org

·         USEPA, ?Draft Summary of the Dioxin Reassessment,? 1994, 
www.no-burn.org

·         Center for Health, Environment and Justice, ?America?s Choice: 
Children?s Health or Corporate Profit: The American People?s Dioxin 
Report,? www.chej.org

·         Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), ?Pyrolysis and 
Thermal Gasification of Municipal Solid Waste,? 
http://www.bredl.org/solidwaste/gasification_facts.htm

·         Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), ?Waste 
Gasification: Impacts on Public Health,? 
http://www.bredl.org/pdf/wastegasification.pdf

·         Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), ?Incineration 
and Gasification: A Toxic Comparison,? 
http://www.bredl.org/pdf/gasification-massburn.pdf

·         ?Incineration Repackaged? by Stephen Lester (CHEJ), 
http://www.no-burn.org/campaigner/ repackaged.html

·         McNeill, I.C., Memetea, L., Mohammed, M.H., Fernandes, A.R., 
Ambidge, P. 1998. ?Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans in PVC 
pyrolysis. Polymer Degradation and Stability,? 62:145-155.

ENDNOTES

[i] In Halifax, Nova Scotia, all solid waste that has not been reduced, 
reused, recycled or composted before it reaches the landfill is processed 
in an anaerobic digestion process with concrete bunkers.  This approach was 
taken to ensure that all organics that could produce gases in the landfill 
are digested at this stage in a controlled environment, and to ensure that 
all toxics are leached out of the waste before being buried.
[ii] Source: non-published studies performed for the CA Integrated Waste 
Management Board, 2004.  For more info, contact Fernando Berton, 
916-341-6590 or fberton@no.address
[iii] Ibid, Berton.
[iv] http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/2000/en_2000L0076_do_001.pdf
[v] ?Pyrolysis and Gasification Presentation? to NCRA Recycling Update 
2004, by Jorge Emmanuel, PhD, February 4, 2004, San Francisco.
[vi] Personal communication from Dr.  Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, 
St.  Lawrence University, Canton, NY 13617, 315-379-9200, ggvideo@no.address
[vii] Ibid, Connett.
[viii] Brenda Platt and Neil Seldman, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 
?Wasting and Recycling in the United States 2000,? prepared for the 
GrassRoots Recycling Network, page 13, www.grrn.org.
[ix] <http://www.grrn.org/> Ibid, Platt and Seldman, page 25.
[x]<http://www.grrn.org/> Ibid, Platt and Seldman, page 25.





Gary Liss
916-652-7850
Fax: 916-652-0485
www.garyliss.com