[GreenYes] Re: Questions about incineration vs. coal

["JW Spear, Sr." <JW@no.address>]

Curt:

 

There is no one-size-fits-all in waste management technology.

 

Highest and best use is a public policy decision made on the basis of community wealth, science, and political beliefs. It is usually heavy on the firs and last of the three inputs and a little light on the second.

 

Composting is a valid alternative, however, it is an aerobic process that is mildly exothermic.  There is very little energy to recover and no methane generated.  I do a good bit of energy and carbon accounting work and don't know of any commercial carbon sequestration process currently available.

 

Construction and Demolition wastes are quite a mixed bag of anything found in construction and anything that has been use for construction in the past.  Lead based paint is a problem in demolition wastes and some remodeling wastes as are thermostats. controllers, adhesives, fluorescent bulbs, etc.  You need to know how the incinerator owner/operator will be operating the facility.  Incinerators are focused on BTUs and minimal maintenance. Those materials that scavenge BTUs, i.e., paints and paint pails, metals, etc, are separated prior to incineration as are those materials that exacerbate maintenance such as PVC containing materials an other halogenated plastics.  Down stream HCL or other halogen acids rapidly deteriorate gas handling trains.

 

Look at the project in terms of the available alternatives for your community. If one or more make more sense than refurbishing this old incinerator support one of the alternatives rather than the incinerator. Look at availability in terms of cost and access, i.e., are the alternatives  more or less as affordable  or less affordable than the incinerator and will the time to get them up and running be more or less the same as the incinerator project. 

 

Perhaps you and your friend could find a couple other people to look into and discuss the issue.  Different viewpoints often facilitate decisions that more rounded and stronger than we could have done alone.

 

Good luck.

---

JW.

================== EOM ============

---

From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address] On Behalf Of Toni Stein
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:23 PM
To: mcnam025@no.address; GreenYes
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: Questions about incineration vs. coal

Curt:

 

The incinerator does not sound like a good thing for your community even as only an interim solution. 

Regarding the yard wastes- the highest and best use principle points us to composting yard waste and combining the composting steps with heat recovery, and methane conversion to energy with CO2 sequestration.  

 

Regarding the construction debris- Its not as simple an issue as the yard waste issue because of the composite nature of this waste.  Have you seen or requested any detailed analysis of what your communities "construction debris" is made up of?   There are some significant toxic impacts that your community should consider in carefully looking at the tradeoffs in this type of waste:

• In particular, as you may know construction debris contains PVC materials that are readily found in "construction debris"  (ie. siding, irrigation tubing, drainage pipes, plumbing pipes ) Burning PVC may likely result in dioxin emissions that pose a serious helath threat to the community;
• Construction debris may contain a significant percentage of painted wood mixed in since wood prior to 1985 was painted with leaded paint.   Burning lead painted wood may lead to increased lead emissions into the community air that pose a serious health threat.  
• Construction debris includes thermostats, switches, and other electronics.  Burning these may lead to increased toxic organic chemical and heavy metal emissions into the community air again posing health threat.  Although most plastic housings of electronic devices in construction waste have fairly high BTU value for burning the electronics inside pose a burning risk since mercury emissions and other toxic emissions from burning the brominated flame retardants integrated into these materials for fire safety.  

The CIWMB has some analysis of what constrcution debris is made up of but it is for CA.  I believe there have been some good MN studies you can look at to find out exactly what wastes are under consideration and to go one by one and look at the non-burning alternatives to manageing these wastes most sustaninably.  A big part of the problem is when they are being lumped all together (and mixed when generated).  In CA there has been much developoment of home and commercial "deconstruction" to beable to recycle and reuse as much as possible instead of landfilling or burning these products.  

 

Incinerators have been identified as one of the largest sources of dioxin-much higher then coal.  There are excellent resources on these topics found at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives / Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance (GAIA) website, http://www.no-burn.org/resources/index.html. 

Best,

Antoinette "Toni" Stein, PhD
Berkeley, CA

cell:              650-823-7662
tweil@no.address

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Curt McNamara" <mcnam025@no.address>

To: "GreenYes" <GreenYes@no.address>

Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 9:03 PM

Subject: [GreenYes] Questions about incineration vs. coal

> 
> A colleague has been asked to comment on approval of a 
permit to 
> re-start an incinerator. It is located at a refuse transfer 
station and 
> would be fed with yard waste and construction debris (no 
garbage). The 
> question is whether this is preferable to land-filling 
the construction 
> waste since the energy from the incinerator would 
reduce the load on the 
> local coal plant, reducing its 
emissions.
> 
> Comments are welcome, especially those that would 
allow us to trade-off 
> one kind of emissions from the other. 
Thanks!
> 
> My question was, with regard to the "eco" biomass 
incinerator. We're
> concerned about the proposed permit allowing some 
amount of toxic
> emissions from the plant, which would be a result of 
burning
> construction waste as there is not enough true biomass materials 
to
> provide fuel for its operation. I don't know what a good baseline 
is
> for toxic emissions. The proposed plant would generate up to 
25
> Megawatts.
> 
> I realize that this would likely take a 
load off of the coal fired
> plants in the area, so I'm wondering if, 
compared to coal, this
> biomass/construction waste combination wouldn't 
be possibly better for
> air quality, even if not ideal.
> 
> 
Of course, there are better solutions, such as wind power, but I'd
> like 
to determine whether this isn't a "perfect is the enemy of the
> good" 
type of situations.
> 
> 
> Curt
> 
> 
>