GreenYes Archives

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


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


This report is unsatisfactory in many
respects. For example (1) it disregards offshore
wind completely, (2) arbitrarily limits the wind
contribution overall to 20%, (3) incorporates
massive "biomass" combustion with no real
consideration of the secondary effects of
removing so much from the agricultural system,
and (4) incorporates incineration without
considering the greater energy losses associated with burning up resources.

The Sierra Club endorsement of this is really a disgrace.

Alan Muller
Green Delaware

At 04:56 PM 2/15/2007 -0700, Eric Lombardi wrote:

>(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 waste­including
>paper. This could undermine efforts to
>transform the pulp and paper industry, reduce
>paper consumption, increase paper recycling, and
>protect forests.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
>The report can be found at:
><http://www.ases.org/climatechange/>http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>
>Sierra Club?s press release can be found at:
><http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2007-01-31a.asp>http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2007-01-31a.asp
>
>
>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
><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
>/>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.?
>
> The 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
>
><mailto:dave@no.address>dave@no.address
>
>www.no-burn.org
>
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---



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