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!!


Eric,

You state that "when the full life cycle is considered, recycling is a
far less greenhouse gas and energy intensive approach than biomass
incineration." I'd be very interested in having a look at any
scientifically performed peer-reviewed LCA that considers recycling next
to biomass incineration. Could you direct me to the source of the above
information?

Best Regards,
Stephan




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 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: http://www.ases.org/climatechange/
>
> Sierra Club's press release can be found at:
> 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 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
>
> dave@no.address <mailto:dave@no.address>
>
> www.no-burn.org <http://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]