Blog

While we favor a circular economy without landfilling or WTE/Incineration the nature of society (and consuming) does create waste that cannot be avoided or recycled. In that case waste should first be made inert, toxics destroyed, and materials and energy recovered so that landfilling, the worst option for dealing with waste, can be avoided by all means possible. A circular economy is essential for sustainable development and the continued existence of human society. When landfilled, all materials that are contained in the waste and that have previously been produced at great expense (including energy) are withdrawn from the material cycle. A large part of the energy contained in the waste is also buried with it, even with landfill gas extraction. Therefore, advanced thermal treatment based on mass burn technology for energy and material recovery is also an essential part of a circular economy. The material resources of the earth are limited, only energy in the form of solar (and wind) energy will be available in large quantities for thousands of years. If materials extracted from (out of) the earth are not recycled after being used by humans, but landfilled, the economically recoverable raw materials will run out in the foreseeable future. The effort and costs for the extraction of the raw materials will increase excessively because the concentration of the respective substances in the minerals of the earth’s crust continues to decrease. The recovery of raw materials from landfills would yield some economical return, but at much higher costs than if the materials were already recycled when they are discarded in the first place, as part of a circular economy. As described in the Integrated Waste Management System (IWMS) concept, residual waste also does remain in an IWMS, for example due to human in attentiveness or carelessness in waste separation. If this waste is landfilled, then the materials and energy are initially lost for the circular economy (see above). On the other hand, with thermal waste treatment, a large proportion of the energy can be recovered (about 50% renewable), at a much higher rate than with the extraction and utilization of landfill gas. In addition, with appropriate exhaust gas cleaning and advanced treatment of the combustion residues and residues from exhaust gas treatment, a large proportion of the residual waste can also be recycled and thus returned to the material cycle. In short: Mankind can only exist in the long term with a circular economy. Landfilling means the collapse of our economic system in the long term. Only a circular economy is sustainable. Thermal waste treatment with advanced flue gas cleaning and residue processing is part of a circular economy to optimize (maximize) the material recycling of waste. Note: Energy production is not the focus here (therefore we should part from the term WtE, as it undermines the main purpose of thermal waste treatment), because regenerative energy is available in abundance, you just have to use it. Lessons learned from Europe: Landfill: Waste of resources: Large amounts of sometimes valuable raw materials are buried unused.These include long-term hazardous substances (heavy metals, chemicals) that endanger the groundwater and the health of the population through emissions.Landfills create contaminated sites for future generations with high costs and substantial health risks. Only a few large landfill operators are beneficiaries; the population bears the consequences.Landfill gas can only be used to generate energy up to a maximum of 50%. 50% are harmful climate killers. Methane is many times more harmful than CO2.Landfilling is a very expensive method, both in the short and long term.Landfilling creates no innovations and no high-quality jobs. In Europe and other environmentally oriented parts of the world, landfilling has largely been a thing of the past and in some cases has been banned for decades. Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) of waste based on mass burn technology: An indispensable part of an integrated waste management system with separate collection and high-quality recycling of waste as a contribution to sustainable resource conservation.The thermal treatment destroys harmful and toxic substances in the garbage and allows the recycling of metals, building materials.Thermal and electrical energy is used.Thermal treatment is wastewater-free (zero water discharge) and prevents harmful emissions through efficient flue gas cleaning. The waste produced today is also disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner, with no health and financial burdens for future generations.Positive contribution to climate protection.Integrated disposal with thermal treatment of the residual waste did not cause any increase in costs for the garbage of citizens (example Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, etc.), but created innovations, jobs and the export opportunities for technology and know-how. Integrated disposal with thermal treatment of waste that cannot be meaningfully recycled is the state of the art in science and technology in Europe and in many ecologically interested countries around the world.The previously ideologically based resistance to the Advanced Thermal Treatment (ATT) of waste based on mass burn technology has now been overcome in Europe.The science is very clear why ATT Technology is environmentally as well as economically superior to landfilling.  Changing the waste hierarchy in the US and ignoring the many benefits of ATT over landfilling untreated municipal and other wastes is along the lines of claiming that the earth is flat! A shortened version of this statement appeared in Waste Dive Magazine October 24th 2022. Click here to read it.

Extreme weather events have taken center stage over the past few months, worldwide. In the US, severe flooding in Kentucky in July left thousands homeless. A drought in areas of the western US is now classified as “exceptional,” and has many reservoirs at their lowest levels ever recorded. Hurricanes in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico are becoming stronger and more intense, including the recent Hurricane Ian, a Category 4 storm that caused a tidal surge of over twelve feet in coastal areas of western Florida left a path of destruction and millions without power. Unfortunately, these extreme events, and the conditions they foster – flooding, wildfires, property damage, loss of life – are becoming the new normal, thanks to global warming. And there are other, less obvious but equally damaging, effects as well. As the ocean warms and becomes more saturated with carbon dioxide, fish and other creatures in the marine food chain are adversely affected. Diseases once limited to the tropics are spreading into the temperate zones. Coastlines, from Louisiana to Alaska, are receding, due to more frequent and more powerful storms, rising sea levels, and, in Alaska, the loss of sea ice. The message should be clear: we are running out of time to turn this trend around. Even insurance companies have stopped insuring the homes in particularly affected areas. Two questions come to mind. First, what will it take to force the government to recognize the urgency of the situation and to take some meaningful action? And second, what can be done that will contribute significantly and quickly to a reduction in greenhouse gases before it’s too late? To be fair, the Biden administration has acknowledged the need for action, and proposed legislation that Congress passed, authorizing nearly $400 billion for clean energy, tax credits for electric vehicles, and other measures to reduce greenhouse gases. Independent analyses of the impacts of these measures predict a decrease in GHG emissions of about 15% by 2030 over what would be emitted without them, or about a 40% reduction from 2005 levels. Even if fully implemented, however, they will not achieve the administration’s goal of 50% of 2005 levels by 2030, according to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued in April of this year. The IPCC report states that to keep the average global temperature increase below 1.5C, emissions must peak by 2025, and be reduced by 43% worldwide by 2030. Which brings us to the second question. What can be done now to reduce emissions relatively quickly? The answer is simple: the US must stop landfilling untreated municipal solid waste. A recent (July, 2020) article in the journal Environmental Health and Safety stated that with regard to waste management, “Landfilling is the most greenhouse gas (GHG)-intensive option, emitting nearly 400 kg CO2e per tonne of organic waste…the GHG footprint of landfilling organic waste is higher relative to composting or waste-to-energy by as much as a factor of 9, even when landfill gas is captured and utilized.” While the exact numbers can be argued, there is no question that landfills are a significant source of methane. They also bring other problems, such as water contamination via leachate runoff, toxic emissions, noxious odors and vermin, depressed property values, and a hidden escalating financial burden in the form of a requirement for care for generations long after the landfill is closed. Even more fundamental, however, is the fact that landfilling perpetuates the notion that we, as a society, can take from the earth, use something once or twice, and then throw it away, without any consequences. Producing new materials to replace those discarded requires new raw materials and a significant amount of energy, both of which are becoming more expensive, and the production of which are harmful to the environment. What is needed is a complete replacement of the landfilling infrastructure with an Integrated Waste Management System (IWMS), based on the international waste management hierarchy. The IWMS starts with the reduction in the amount of waste, through changes in product design and composition, extended producer responsibility, reductions in packaging, and the like. Recycling is increased by improvements in collection systems, public education and (possibly) rewards, and the development of markets. Recovery of materials such as metals, glass, certain chemicals, and energy are made possible by advanced thermal recovery facilities for the remaining 20-30% of the waste. Once these are in place, only a very small amount – less than 1% – needs to be disposed of. To those who say, “This will never work,” we say, “Look at Europe.” The European Union has recognized the dangers that landfilling poses and has adopted legislation to completely phase out the landfilling of reactive municipal solid waste. A number of countries, such as Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, have already done so. Their systems, much more efficient than the landfill-based system in the US, also cost less, and operate without subsidies. Despite what special interest groups claim, the fact is that the European infrastructures are significantly more effective – economically as well as environmentally – than those here. If the US started now, landfilling – and its deadly methane emissions – could be phased out by 2030. The environmental and economic benefits of an IWMS to replace landfilling are substantial and for the sake of us and future generations must be utilized! Politics must act. Industry redirected. How much longer can we wait? We can’t! It’s NOW or NEVER.

On Wednesday evening, April 27th 2022, the King County Solid Waste Division (SWD) held a virtual meeting to provide an update on the expansion and operation of the Cedar Hills landfill, an exercise that can best be described as attempting to put lipstick on a pig. The landfill, originally slated to close decades ago, has been given another 7-10 years via some “sleight of hand” design, but as SWD Director Pat McLaughlin said in response to a question, no alternatives for now or in the future are being considered. The main thrust of SWD’s approach (also stated by Mr. McLaughlin during the meeting) is to “reduce the 70% of what’s being thrown away that could be recycled,” something the agency has been unable to do for the past ten years, by their own admission. On the whole, the SWD’s efforts over the past ten years have amounted to running in place while falling behind. Failure to plan, after all, is planning to fail. Yet the SWD is not entirely to blame. The County Council voted most recently in 2019 to expand the landfill, over the objections of two of its members. In opposition, one of them said “We are long overdue for a long-term plan for how King County will responsibly manage its trash. The County has said many times in the past decades that the landfill was getting full and would close soon…It’s time for a more equitable and environmentally responsible option that protects the health of our communities.” In spite of this plea, the Council “Kicked the can down the road,” leaving the problem for the next generation. The Cedar Hills landfill is an anachronism, and like any outmoded way of operating, it has hidden dangers and costs that are unaccounted for. It causes significant harm to the region’s air, water, and soil, requiring costly mitigations that, unfortunately, aren’t always effective. It causes noxious odors and attracts pests, bringing down the values of nearby properties. And it releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, even with a collection system that by the SWD’s admission is only 80% effective. Of greatest concern is the deposit of persistent bioaccumulative toxins, or PBTs; chemicals like flame retardants and pesticides that end up in the trash. These can cause cancer, genetic harm, nervous system disorders, and other problems in humans and animals. The landfill is also a huge drain on current and future tax revenues, which means an increase in property taxes for King County residents. In addition to repairs and improvements to environmental controls, the facility will cost hundreds of millions to close, and will have to be monitored and maintained for at least thirty years, likely much longer, after closure. The longer the wait, the more expensive this becomes. Other costs include mitigation of environmental damage outside the landfill, reduced property values, damage to roads by collection vehicles, and increases in traffic congestion. Add to that the impacts of the methane released on global warming (for which we are all paying), and the hundreds of thousands of tons of materials buried each year, almost all of which could be reused or recovered in some way. This adds to the costs of goods we purchase, and causes further damage to the environment through mining, the use of fossil fuels for more plastics, deforestation for more wood and paper, and so on. What is needed is an integrated waste management system (IWMS), based on the USEPA’s international waste hierarchy. Such a system stresses source reduction, reuse and recycling, and resource recovery rather than disposal of untreated waste. Similar systems have been put in place in other locations, with great success: a diversion of over 99% of waste away from landfills, and costs lower than those now being paid in King County. The infrastructure needed for an IWMS, and its operation, requires both expertise and vision. Sadly, it would seem that the County has neither. In short, the landfill is the least desirable, and most expensive, means of waste disposal, a holdover from the past that perpetuates the environmental problems of today and creates new ones for the future. The County Council and the SWD have avoided action for far too long, ignoring scientific evidence and economic analyses. But when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Waste Management Policy

February 17th 2022 In December of 2021, after months of questioning the King County Solid Waste Division (KCSWD) about their plans to expand the Cedar Hill Landfill, the Institute for Energy, Waste and Resource Management sent a challenge to the Director of the SWD. In it we took issue with their decision to expand, their claim of a recycling rate of better than 50%, their plans to improve that rate, their failure to take action on recommendations for improvement provided by consultant reports that they commissioned, and, last but most important, their claim that they capture more than 90% of the methane generated by the solid waste in the landfill. You can read the letter exchange here. For years we have heard from experts that capture of more than 50% is just not possible. The USEPA recently announced that methane from landfills is underestimated by a factor of two, and that methods for estimating emissions via computer models are outdated and based on faulty assumptions. And so, we issued a challenge: measure the methane escaping from the landfill, using proven, peer-reviewed technology, and see the results. We pointed out that this could be done for a very modest cost (less than $50,000) and in a very short time (less than amonth).  And it would show the County government, and the citizens and taxpayers, what is really happening. The letter we received in reply was non-responsive and condescending. It merely restated the claims that we had questioned, noted that the most recent Comprehensive Plan included goals for improvement (although not the improvements their consultants had recommended), and declined our challenge to measure, rather than estimate, the methane emissions, saying that the KCSWD was “following the procedures.” In other words, they didn’t care that recycling rates can’t be proven, that their collection methods decrease the amount of material fit for recycling, and that methane emissions are probably much higher than they claim. But they’re “following the procedures,” so everything is okay. Our response to this letter pointed out its errors and called out the SWD for its failures, particularly its failure to take the advice of its consultants to begin moving away from landfilling. Why is this important? For three reasons: 1.) The Environment. Municipal Solid Waste includes toxic materials and chemicals such as flame retardants and that can accumulate in body tissue. They can pollute the air, water and soil. The methane generated is a greenhouse gas, much more potent than carbon dioxide in its potential for trapping heat, and it has become the focus of the US effort to reduce global warming. 2.) Resource Conservation. According to SWD’s own statements, much of what ends up in the landfill could be recycled. Further, their collection method – all recycling in one bin – contaminates some of the materials, rendering them unusable. Reuse and recycling saves virgin materials and the energy needed to produce finished goods. 3.) The Economy. When the true costs of landfilling are considered – the need for maintenance and mitigation for hundreds of years, the impacts of pollution on human health and the environment, the waste of energy and materials – burying our trash in the ground is by far the most expensive means of disposal. You, and your children, and their children, will pay this bill for generations. The SWD’s own consultants told them this, and were ignored. So what is the alternative? Many other countries, as well as some communities in the US, have adopted an Integrated Waste Management Plan, based on the international waste hierarchy followed by the USEPA and the European Union. The five principles are, in order of application: 1) prevention, 2) reuse, 3) recycle, 4) recover, and 5) disposal. By following this plan, the amount of waste is reduced, reuse and recycling are increased, valuable metals and materials are recovered for sale, and only a small amount of inert material needs to be disposed of. By adopting this system, countries in Europe have greatly increased their recycling rates, prevented millions of tons of methane from entering the atmosphere, created thousands of family-wage jobs, and saved the taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars. We could do the same here, if the SWD would get out of the way of progress. Sincerely yours, The Institute for Energy and Resource Management Contact: Stephen Gerritson, contact@ie-rm.org Waste Management Solution

October 18th, 2021 Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, has found himself in a position of great influence, given the 50-50 split in the US Senate and the administration’s desire to pass a $3.5 trillion bill that includes a number of measures to combat global warming. Currently, the part of the bill that he opposes is the Clean Electricity Performance Program, or CEPP, which would reward utilities for increasing their production of clean energy, and penalize those that don’t. His argument is that companies should not be rewarded for something that they are already doing, but his real concern is that companies that don’t produce more clean energy should not be penalized. In the long-standing tradition of American politics, he’s taking care of his constituency at the expense of the country. Manchin, after all, represents West Virginia, the nation’s second largest coal producer and the fifth largest energy producer, according to the US Energy Information Administration. More than 90% of the energy produced there comes from coal-fired power plants, and Manchin, Chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is very dedicated in his efforts to preserve that mix. Not surprisingly, energy companies have supported him, contributing nearly $500,000 to his campaign in the most recent election cycle, another long-standing tradition of American politics. Yet even with Manchin’s considerable assistance, the coal industry in West Virginia is fighting a rear-guard action. The state produced a total of 93 million tons in 2018, well down from peak production of 169 million tons in 1990. Employment in the mining industry has fallen by about a third over the past decade as well. More than one-third of the state’s production in recent years has been exported, chiefly to China, India, and South Korea. Renewable energy installations, although small, are increasing, with wind generation recently overtaking hydropower. The state suffers, however, from limited wind potential, and other forms of renewable energy, such as solar and biomass, account for less than 0.01% of utility-scale generation. This gives the coal and utility industries greater influence than one would expect. Manchin’s dilemma, therefore, is whether to continue protecting what most acknowledge is a dying industry, or to assist in the transition to a new paradigm, one that will provide jobs to a state with a 16% poverty rate and will help reduce the threat of global warming to the country and the world. Unfortunately, it appears that he has chosen to protect the special interests of his contributors over the well-being of the country. Energy and resource management