GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Archives] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

[GreenYes] Re: [html][heur] [GreenYes] our solar soulmates don't get it!!

It may be worth noting that the National Sierra Club's 2006 Energy Resources
Policy opposes municipal solid waste incineration:

"The Sierra Club strongly opposes combustion of municipal solid waste. It
has proven impossible for industry to develop a combustion process, even
with a large biomass proportion, that does not produce unacceptable toxic
and hazardous air emissions. Combustion of biomass or wood waste even with a
dedicated acceptable fuel supply is problematic because economic pressures
on plant operators may cause them to accept solid waste when the intended
fuel is in short supply." (p.17)

I'm not sure why there appears to be a disconnect between official Sierra
Club policy and whoever made the decision to endorse this ASES report. I
haven't had time to read the full ASES report, but from what I have read, is
it accurate to say that it _endorses_ MSW incineration or is that section
supposed to represent a description of the existing state of MSW

Mark Snyder
Minneapolis, MN

On 2/16/07, Pete Pasterz <PAPasterz@no.address> wrote:
> Carl Pope, the ED for the Sierra Club, has a blog. He addressed this
> ASES report on 1/31. Here's my response:
> "Carl, now I'm perplexed. Why did SC join with ASES on announcing this
> study, and pronouncing that it is now the official SC Global Warming
> strategy.
> By including Municipal Solid Waste as "biomass, and advocating
> gasification and stoker bed combustors, its recommendations appear to
> contradict existing SC policy on Solid Waste, from 1992 particularly
> accepting NO Incineration of MSW...not even the organic fraction. This ASES
> report does not even acknowledge the SC requirement for existing
> incinerators that 60% of materials are reduced, reused, recycled, and
> composted. This stance on Incineration was reaffirmed as recently as the
> 9/06 2006 Energy Resources Policy.
> Recycling and Composting are well known now to save much more energy than
> what can be recovered by incineration. And, this magic "black box" solution
> removes the incentive to recycle and reduce waste, and makes as much sense
> as thinking that feeding landfills with organics is an efficient way to
> produce methane gas for a fuel.
> How can the Club reconcile these inconsistencies?? What SC Committees
> were consulted to review this report before it was released?
> Pete Pasterz, Member"
> Pete Pasterz
> Cabarrus County, NC
> ------------------------------
> *From:* GreenYes@no.address [mailto: GreenYes@no.address] *On
> Behalf Of *Eric Lombardi
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2007 6:56 PM
> *To:* Greenyes
> *Cc:* dave@no.address
> *Subject:* [html][heur] [GreenYes] our solar soulmates don't get it!!
> *Importance:* Low
> (this just in from GAIA)
> A recent report by the American Solar Energy Society, and recognized by
> the Sierra Club as their official roadmap to confronting global warming,
> presents a biomass strategy that would displace real global warming
> solutions such as recycling and composting by supporting the incineration of
> municipal solid waste?including paper. This could undermine efforts to
> transform the pulp and paper industry, reduce paper consumption, increase
> paper recycling, and protect forests.
> The report can be found at:
> Sierra Club's press release can be found at:
> I have also pasted the text from the report that is of particular concern
> at the bottom of this e-mail.
> The report presents an expanded definition of "biomass" that includes
> gasification incineration of municipal solid waste as a source of renewable
> energy. The data used in the study considers more than half of U.S.
> municipal solid waste as eligible for biomass, including materials that are
> currently recycled or composted such as paper, cardboard, green waste, food
> waste and construction wood waste. Further, the report makes no mention of
> recycling. When the full life cycle is considered, recycling is a far less
> greenhouse gas and energy intensive approach than biomass incineration.
> State and federal climate policy will be pivotal in determining the fate
> of recycling and composting in the U.S. Rather than support the expansion
> of incinerators in U.S. communities, we must work to advance policies that
> support more just and sustainable waste solutions that are better for the
> climate than incineration and landfilling.
> *Promote recycling, not incineration: *
> **
> Ø *Write a letter to the Sierra Club to let them know that you are
> concerned about the impact of biomass incineration on paper recycling. The
> Sierra Club has been an ally on many issues. Please consider including the
> points below: *
> **
> o Biomass should not be defined to include incineration (including
> gasification, pyrolysis, plasma and other incinerator technologies) of
> valuable materials found in municipal solid waste such as paper, cardboard,
> green waste, food waste and construction wood waste because:
> § Classifying incineration as a source of renewable energy and a
> solution to global warming undermines real global warming solutions such as
> recycling and composting
> § Recycling and composting of discarded materials contributes far
> fewer greenhouse gas emissions than incineration
> § Recycling and composting materials conserves 3-5 times more
> energy than incineration generates
> § Incinerators are the most expensive and toxic approach to
> dealing with municipal solid waste
> Of particular concern in the report is the following:
> "Urban Residues (Municipal Solid Waste [MSW])
> Values for biomass in MSW were available for California at the county
> level [21], and we obtained data for the remaining states (with the
> exceptions of Alaska and Montana) from a recent survey of state solid waste
> and recycling officials [25]. We calculated a value for annual per capita
> MSW generation of 1.38 metric tons per person per year from the data
> available for the 16 states. We applied this annual per capita factor to the
> populations of Alaska and Montana to estimate their MSW generation. We
> applied values for moisture content (30% wet basis) and biogenic fraction of
> MSW (56%) to the MSW values to arrive at estimates of biogenic dry matter in
> MSW for each state. This resource includes only the biomass component of MSW
> and not the entire MSW stream. The biomass component consists of paper and
> cardboard, green waste, food waste, and construction wood waste, and
> specifically excludes plastics, tires, and other non-biomass materials. We
> determined biomass in MSW diverted from landfill by subtraction of disposal
> from generation."
> T he report includes the following incineration technologies:
> ? Stoker and fluid bed combustors with steam generation and steam turbines
> ? Gasification with applications to boiler steam generation and steam
> turbines, combined cycle (gas turbine, heat recovery steam generator, and
> steam turbine), or an ICE
> Dave Ciplet
> Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)
> Tel: 510.883.9490 ext. 102
> Fax: 510.883.9493
> dave@no.address
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address
For more options, visit this group at

[GreenYes Archives] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]