Incineration is a “waste treatment technology that utlises the combustion (burning) of organic materials at high temperatures and in a plentiful supply of air. Incineration and other high temperature waste treatment systems are described as “thermal treatment”.

Incineration of waste materials converts the waste into incinerator bottom ash, flue gases, particulates, and heat, which can in turn be used to generate electric power.

How does an incinerator generate electricity?

The heat from the incinerator generates steam in a boiler, and that steam is then fed into a turbine manufacturing as much as a hundred MW of electricity. A high stack, fan, or steam jet supplied from the boiler provides a draft to feed air into the process. The combustion takes place and the flue gases are cleaned of contaminants before they are dispersed in the atmosphere.

Did you also know that?

All waste incinerators in Europe must now be approved to be permitted to operate, and the owner/operator has to get and keep their licence which can be removed at any point by the Environmental Regulator if the flue gasses emitted surpass the authorized levels.

Incineration with energy recovery is an example of many waste-to-energy ( WtE ) technologies like gasification, plasma arc gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion which are classed as renewable energy helping to reduce climate change. Incineration could also be implemented without energy and materials recovery but this is quite rare in Europe now.

What Will We Do When All the Landfills Get Full?

Well if we do nothing we will suffer from ill health and diseases spread by rotting materials and decay around us once there is nowhere to take the waste.

In numerous areas in many countries the landfill sites are virtually full so that the Council’s waste management staff are contemplating beginning a waste management scheme that may include an incinerator.

We must find alternative ways to get rid of our rubbish without using landfill, otherwise diseases from rats and other decay will happen when the waste has to be left lying around.

Secret to What Mechanical Biological Treatment Plants Do?

They help to minimise waste, segregate waste, and treat it to as far as possible avoid sending organic based Municipal Soild Waste to landfills.

The best Mechanical Biological Treatment Plants Do Not burn the waste.

There many new ideas to discover in the new Waste Technologies. Find out more about what Mechanical Biological Treatment Plants are, plus you will learn about many other types of waste technology. These exciting new technologies will help ensure a sustainable future for society, and the health of future generations.

Copyright 2009 IPPTS Associates

The only way it is possible to define the zero waste philosophy is to study the schemes which describe themselves as zero waste projects around the world.

However, let me make it clear, nowhere that I know of does it mean literally “zero waste” to landfill. As I said, this is a term coined by politicians rather than waste management engineers.

The “Zero Waste” or “No Waste” goals in the places which were studied by the Green Alliance in 2006, were found to mean in effect no un-recycled waste, and not much more.

Yes, most are articulated as Zero Waste to landfill, however, none of the places in question at that time seemed to be planning an increase in incineration for example, which would reduce the waste tonnage greatly, and some appear to have ruled it out (Canberra, Kamikatusu, New Zealand, Philippines) citing negative public opinion.

Some of the Zero Waste goals have target dates attached (Kamikatsu, Japan, 2020; New Zealand, 2020; San Francisco 2020). For others, “Zero Waste” provides a notional target with some interim targets (Bath, Philippines).

Canberra’s target of no waste by 2010 is acknowledged to mean in practice 95 per cent diversion from landfill.

Those municipalities espousing zero waste will nevertheless be some of the highest recycling rate achievers, and studies appear to show recycling rates are and will be raised to between 37 per cent and 80 per cent

The experience of a Flanders, France experience was thought in 2006 to indicate that household recycling rates of 60 per cent ought to be obtainable in the UK with the right mix of instruments – although until the new UK government was elected in May 2010, it was expected that local authorities would be allowed to charge householders extra for non-recycled (black bag) waste, as way to achieve these high goals. However, the Conservative/Liberal Coalition has already announced that no such an incentive will be allowed by the new UK Government.

A common feature to many of the Zero Waste targeted schemes is rigorous source separation and collection of recyclables, but so far, in no case, does this appear to be mandatory.

In many places zero waste recycling is driven by pricing of landfill (Bath, Canberra, Flanders, New Zealand) and variable charging of householders (Flanders, San Francisco).

All case studies assume that good markets will exist from now onward for most recyclates, although some will always be awkwardly distant (China and India). So, this raises questions as to whether the goal of zero waste is sustainable, in a market sense, or whether recycling will continue to suffer from the recessionary effect on China’s need for imported secondary materials.

The notions of designing out waste, changing the nature of products and making producers responsible for the consequences of wasteful consumption are still not really on the agenda for zero waste advocates, but shouldn’t they be?

Beyond European or European-style agreements on recycling of packaging and WEEE, there seems little real appetite for imposing more biting producer responsibility. The “Cradle to Cradle” concepts of beneficial products and continual recycling of biological and non-renewable materials are being developed, but are not yet necessarily a part of the Zero Waste philosophy in many places.

The UK is well investing heavily to take a lead on waste prevention with large amounts of landfill tax money being channelled into bodies such as WRAP, Envirowise, BREW, and the Centre for Sustainable Design. Let’s hope they will soon be able to produce some truly ground-breaking ideas and initiatives to actually achieve close to what the public must think the politicians and the waste industry mean by zero waste..

Underpinning the philosophy of zero waste is an aspiration for continuous improvement that goes beyond being compliant with legislation, targets or contracts. While practically delivering zero waste is a significant challenge, the desire to do more and do it better is perhaps the most important lesson we can draw from these case studies.

Zero waste had been portrayed as utopian and undeliverable, yet getting as close to it as possible is worth striving for, and the zero waste concept is already delivering results. Let’s hope the backwash from the press and media, and the public when they realise that most of the landfills will stay open, is not too great.

Visit the web-site: www.green-alliance.org.uk .

The amount of waste going to landfill in the United Kingdom has continued to fall in 2009, according to figures from the government environmental department Defra.

Provisional estimates from the department’s survey of municipal waste in England incorporate the first quarter of the 2009/10 financial year and are based on information supplied by local authorities to WasteDataFlow.

To minimise the effects of seasonal fluctuations, comparisons are made between the year April 2008 to March 2009 and the year July 2008 to June 2009, that is, encompassing the provisional results for the quarter April to June 2009.

Total municipal waste decreased by 0.28 million tonnes in the year to end June 2009, to 27.06 million tonnes. A decrease in total household waste was observed, from 24.3 to 24.1 million tonnes, or 1.1%. Waste going to landfill dropped by 3.1% (13.4 million tonnes).

There was also an increase in the household recycling rate, from the average rate of 37.6% between April 2008 and March 2009 to 38.3% between July 2008 and June 2009. The average residual household waste (which is the amount of household waste which is not recycled) decreased from 295 kg per head between April 2008 and March 2009 to 289 kg per head between July 2008 and June 2009.

Defra explained that the data are provisional as not all returns have completed full validation and returns to WasteDataFlow can be revised by local authorities during the scheme year. “There are also seasonal effects on waste arisings and management which means care needs to be taken when assessing trends,” it explained Final figures will be released in the annual National Statistics release in November 2010.

For April to June 2009, all local authorities submitted data to WasteDataFlow and at the time the data were downloaded for this release, all authorities (358) had completed validation.

The term “final storage quality” was first defined twenty years ago by Baccini and Henseler and other members of a Swiss working group on landfills. In the meantime, the definition has been modified by several authors in various published papers.

In essence, final storage quality is used to imply an “environmentally sound flux/load for short, medium and long term periods”, to use one of the academic versions that I rather like for its brevity.

Which criteria should be used to determine when the “Final Storage Quality” has been reached, is being debated.

What will be the final contaminating parameter of the large number of potential pollutants in a landfill at the end of that that long awaited transition from active aftercare management to passive aftercare?

Which contaminant will be the most critical in the long term, which when it is dissipated, we can all stop concerning ourselves that what was once a landfill no longer has a potential to harm the environment which surrounds it?

Well, having I hope now wetted your curiosity, I am going to disappoint you by saying that I don’t think that academia really yet knows for certain the answer to that. Given the huge number of sanitary (lined and capped landfills) now being filled around the world as I write this, I think we should all think hard and get a little worried for our offspring.

However, two aspects of long term landfill which are of direct economic importance and about which more can be said, are:

1. The longevity of economic landfill gas production for energy production,
2. And, (for those tasked with landfill aftercare duties) it is from the point of economic aftercare, how the escape of the remaining methane to atmosphere without first oxidising it, can be achieved.

It is important to achieve “final storage quality” while consistently burning/flaring the methane in landfill gas, or in another way oxidising the methane to prevent serious climate change implications.

We can be sure that in the long-term, gas produced by landfills will be characterized by low methane content.

The methane content and rate of gas production will be so low that there will be scarcely any possibility for its use in economically-sound energy recovery procedures and yet it will still amount to a significant discharge due to the very long period of its slow discharge.

There is no escaping that the gas produced in the long tail of the “elk” requires treatment due to its global warming potential.

New low-cost technologies must be found, either to extend the phase of profitable landfill gas utilization, or methods developed to, if possible, reduce the landfill gas aftercare phase and mitigate long-term emissions.

At our sister landfill gas web site we have started to look at possible aftercare strategies with respect to dwindling landfill gas, and we have written about:

• The proportion of total Active Landfill Gas Recovery that can be economically utilised by active landfill gas extraction
• The developing concept of bio-oxidation of landfill gas instead of flaring, either in specially designed vessels or within modified landfill caps during landfill aftercare.

Click on the linked text in the above lines to read more.

“Pay as you throw” charges for household waste have been ruled out by Communities Secretary Eric Pickles.

Plans to let English councils pilot schemes which would charge or reward people according to the waste thrown out had been drawn up by Labour.

But councils shunned the trials, aimed at cutting landfill, and Mr Pickles said the government backed rewarding people for recycling instead.

Labour said it should be up to councils to choose how to collect waste.

The UK must reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill by nearly two-thirds by 2020 to meet EU targets.
‘Bin tax’

Government says No! To bin tax.

Powers to allow five councils in England to trial the scheme from April 2009 were included in the Climate Change Act – but none applied, saying they had not been told how it would operate.

Critics said the “bin tax” idea could encourage fly-tipping and prompt people to burn rubbish at home.

You should treat people with respect instead of having a bunch of bin inspectors

Eric Pickles Communities Secretary

Mr Pickles has effectively ruled out a charging scheme, instead backing a recycling reward scheme pioneered by Windsor and Maidenhead council in Berkshire.

Households in the borough – which Mr Pickles visited on Monday to draw attention to the scheme – are being awarded points for the amount they recycle, which can be redeemed at shops, restaurants and leisure centres, or donated to schools.

Mr Pickles said the scheme had increased recycling by 35% and an incentive-based approach was more effective than taxes or fines in reducing the amount of rubbish sent to landfill sites.

“You should treat people with respect instead of having a bunch of bin inspectors, bin police,” Mr Pickles told BBC Radio 4′s The World at One.

Incentivising people was the quickest way to increase recycling levels, which he said would be badly needed if the UK was to meet its target of becoming “one of the green economies of Europe”.

“It does not put the costs up,” he added. “Actually what it does is it increases the recycling rate and puts money into the local economy.”

Windsor and Maidenhead council is inviting more than 60,000 households to join its RecycleBank service from Monday.

Councillor Liam Maxwell said: “Paying the public to recycle works. It increases recycling rates, reduces our environmental impact, reduces council tax and helps local businesses.

More at BBC News.

Between 1.1 and 1.75 million tonnes of plasterboard enters the waste stream each year in the UK, which is not only a waste of resources but also, potentially, an environmental problem.

Scotland’s environment watchdog is hoping to encourage more businesses to increase the amount they are recycling, by confirming that waste plasterboard which has been processed to the correct specification, is no longer classified as waste.

If gypsum comes into contact with biodegradable waste in landfill, toxic and smelly hydrogen sulphide gas is produced. However, if producers separate it for recovery and recycling, it can then be used to replace virgin gypsum in the plasterboard, cement and soil conditioner markets.

To promote the market for quality gypsum recycling, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has taken the position that where waste plasterboard is processed in accordance with BSI PAS109:2008, it will no longer be regarded as waste.

The recently published BSI PAS 109:2008 “Specification for the production of recycled gypsum from waste plasterboard” specifies minimum requirements for the recycling process itself. It covers the selection, receipt, handling of inputs, specification of product grades and the storage, labeling, dispatch and traceability of the products that are produced from that process.

BSI PAS 109:2008 compliant gypsum which has been recycled to the correct specification and is to be used for plasterboard manufacture, cement manufacture and as soil conditioner, will no longer be regarded as waste by SEPA. This means the subsequent storage, movement and use will not be subject to the requirements of waste legislation, meaning it does not need to be transported by a registered waste carrier or accompanied by a controlled waste transfer note.

Kenny Boag, SEPA’s Head of Waste Policy, said:

“SEPA supports the responsible processing of waste materials into high quality products as part of achieving a Zero waste society. SEPA’s policies on the disposal and recovery of gypsum from plasterboard will reduce pollution from landfilling and will also facilitate the recycling of this valuable resource.”

Iain Gulland, Director of Zero Waste Scotland, said:

“We are delighted that SEPA has adopted the BSI PAS 109:2008. Scotland has a vibrant building industry and SEPA is sending strong signal to industry that it takes the issue of construction waste very seriously.”

To take advantage of this position the local SEPA team must be contacted and a demonstration of compliance with PAS109 must be provided. BSI PAS 109:2008 covers the selection, receipt, handling of inputs, specification of product grades and the storage, labelling, dispatch and traceability of the products that are produced from that process.

Processors and users are not obliged to comply with these terms, but reprocessed gypsum that is not BSI PAS 109:2008 compliant will remain classified as waste.

The full position is available under the category “regulatory guidance” – click here.

Wednesday 26th May, The Source Conference Centre, Sheffield

Find out more and register FREE as an individual member @ www.sorp.org

Attend and listen to presentations on:
 Winning Commercial food waste business – How hard can it be?
 Collection – Performance and Efficiency in Partnership
 Turning Waste into Opportunities
 Creating valued products from your waste/resource
 Delivering Advanced Biological Treatment Processes
 Quality Compost the Cost and Value- The Choices Facing Operators
 Using ‘waste’ resources for soil benefit
 The sensitivities of the agricultural market using recyclate
 Using organic resources – A farmer’s view

A few of the companies already booked to attend include:

ADAS, CO2 Sense, Entec UK, Enterprise Plc, Envirolink NW, Environment Agency, Northumbrian Water, Scottish Water Horizons, Tanks & Vessels, Yorkshire Water , Wessex Water, WRAP.

To book your place please just complete and return the attached booking form to fax 01924 257455 or visit www.aquaenviro.co.uk

The climate change phenomenon, its causes and consequences, is now generally accepted and recognised by the international scientific community, governments, the private sector, NGOs and the general population.

It requires a robust response. Solutions must be found that will mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases and help to adapt to its unavoidable consequences. The complexity of the issue requires the acceptance of a common responsibility from both the public and private sector.

The waste industry occupies a unique position as a potential reducer of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As industries and countries worldwide struggle to address their carbon footprint, waste sector activities represent an opportunity for carbon reduction which has yet to be fully exploited.

The waste sector offers a portfolio of proven, practical and cost effective technologies which can contribute to GHG mitigation. When adapted and deployed according to local traditions and needs, they can help secure significant global GHG emission savings.

The transfer of sustainable technology to developing countries is crucial to reducing GHG emissions. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), introduced under the Kyoto protocol, has provided an opportunity for the waste sector to make significant advances towards this goal. However, structural and administrative improvements to the CDM registration process are needed.

Waste policies and regulations can be strong national drivers to reduce GHG emissions.

However, accurate measurement and quantification of GHG emissions is vital in order to set and monitor realistic reduction targets at all levels. Current methodologies form a valuable database for assessment of GHG emissions from waste activities, however, improvements are required to adequately represent the full life-cycle of materials and energy.

Read More ISWA: Waste and Climate Change White Paper.

EDMONTON – Apartment and condo dwellers in parts of Edmonton will soon be serenaded by their recycling bins.

Motion sensors are being installed in 400 blue bins citywide. When the lids on the bins are opened, the sensors will trigger sound devices to play one of two 30-second blues tunes.

It’s part of a $160,000 “blue bin blues” campaign to get Edmontonians to stop dumping inappropriate items in the bins while also encouraging people to recycle more.

“When you go to recycle, you may hear your blue bin singing to you,” said Connie Boyce, the city’s director of community relations.

Typical items inappropriately dumped into blue bins include garden hoses, wires and Christmas lights, she said.

Boyce said the items get wrapped around machinery at the sorting facility, which can cause the whole plant to be temporarily shut down.

Paints, motor oils, butcher knives, needles and even guns have been found in blue bins, she said, posing a danger to the workers who must sort through the contents of the bins.

Boyce said the one-of-a-kind promotion was devised after the number of building dwellers who recycle recently dropped to 80% from 90%.

She said she’s not aware of any other city that has singing recycling bins.

Boyce acknowledged it’s possible some of the singing units may be stolen and some may not work at all times.

“But we’ve got a few hundred out there, so some people will definitely be surprised when they go out there to recycle.”

Motion sensors are expected to be installed in the bins by the end of the week. Each one costs the city about $10.

The campaign runs until the end of June.

There are about 1,600 blue bins at apartment, condo and townhouse complexes throughout Edmonton.

The tunes are sung by local musician Hank Leonhardt. More here.

Introducing ambitious Europe-wide targets for the separate collection of both food and garden waste could offer environmental and cost benefits worth more than €7billion (£6 billion) between 2013 and 2020, according to a report published as part of the European Commission’s work on potential new EU bio-waste legislation.

The study, entitled ‘Assessment of the options to improve the management of bio-waste in the EU’ was published earlier this year with little fanfare by consultants ARCADIS and Eunomia, to look at the relative benefits and costs of various potential policy measures to deal with bio-degradable waste.

It emerged as the European Parliament’s environment committee is set to consider a draft report this week (April 28) drawn up by one of its members that urges the European Commission to develop proposals for a specific bio-waste directive by the end of 2010.

This could provide renewed momentum for supporters of separate legislation on bio-waste, in the face of recent indications that the Commission did not wish to pursue a legislative proposal.

The consultants’ report concluded that, in all cases where separate targets for collecting the two waste streams were included, there would be a “significant” net benefit to society. The benefit would be increased even further if the food waste was treated using anaerobic digestion (AD), due to the reduced greenhouse gas emissions that brings, it added.

It compares the approach with a ‘baseline’ scenario which assumes EU member states meet the targets for diverting waste from landfill set by the EU Landfill Directive, including a “minimum quantity” of treatment of bio-waste to reach this goal.

The targets outlined in the report as a “high ambition” scenario are 60% for food waste and 90% for green waste to be reached by 2020, with all garden waste above a 2006 baseline level being treated using in-vessel composting and food waste being sent for either IVC or AD.

The report also claimed that there were longer term benefits from providing additional treatment of bio-waste, explaining that: “The additional treatment of source separated bio-waste develops a significant annual benefit to society from 2020 onwards.

“This is of great importance since, given that nearly 40% of the total benefit occurs in 2020, the continued benefits, beyond the period modelled in this study, will remain significant,” it added.

The report is intended to support the Commission’s continuing work on potentially developing a separate legislative proposal for bio-waste, such as a possible ‘Bio-waste Directive’.

A green paper looking at future options for managing bio-waste in the European Union was published by the Commission in December 2008, raising hopes that a separate legislative proposal could be brought forward.

Read the full news items at Organics Recycling.