County Council: Stop Wasting Taxpayer Money
The King County Council’s plans to “study” the feasibility of making aviation fuel from trash (www.bellevuereporter.com/news/king-county-and-port-of-seattle-to-collaborate-on-waste-to-fuel-study/) is “just another ploy to divert attention from the planned expansionof the Cedar Hill landfill,” said Philipp Schmidt-Pathmann, President and CEO of the Institute for Energy and Resource Management(IeRM), a non-profit scientific research and education organization in Newcastle. “This technology, along with others, was studied forthe County four years ago, and the conclusions were definite: it’s not the best way to deal with waste, and it will have little to no impact on their goal of 70% recycling. Why do we need to spend half a million dollars to get the same answer again?”
The real reason for the study, said Schmidt-Pathmann, is to divert attention from the County’s plans to expand the Cedar Hill landfill again, a move that will continue to contaminate soil and groundwater, bring noxious odors and pests to the neighborhood, and release methane and carbon dioxide, global warming gasses, in spite of the County’s proposed Climate Action Plan. Putting a plan in place to end the practice of landfilling and moving to a circular economy is being resisted by the County’s Solid WasteDivision because it would mean lost revenue. This issue was discussed by Councilmembers at a recent meeting. The Solid WasteDivision’s concerns were summarized in this chart.
With respect to the viability of waste to fuel, a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (www.pnas.org/content/118/e2023008118), using a number of assumptions concerning new technology, blending, feedstocks, emission credits, and other factors, concluded that aviation fuel derived from food and other “wet” waste could break even at a cost of $2.50 per gallon. The current price of aviation fuel, with petroleum at over $70 per barrel, is $1.70 per gallon. In other words, oil must be over $100 per barrel for the concept to work economically.
“The whole idea is ludicrous,” said Schmidt-Pathmann. “The amount of waste suitable for making aviation fuel is small, and the cost of conversion is relatively high, compared to conventional fuel. There is no way to recover the initial investment, and it would become another expense line in the County budget. The County has commissioned study after study, yet has done very little as aresult. Why don’t they stop studying and start acting on the advice they’ve already paid for?”