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

["Mark Snyder" <snyde043@no.address>]

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."

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/energy.pdf (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
incineration?

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: 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."
>
>  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
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---