The term ‘energy from waste’ (EfW) covers a wide variety of combustion processes that reclaim energy from a waste material feedstock.

It in particular refers to treatment processes that harness the calorific price in waste to generate electrical power or heat. This is then distributed with the rest of our “non-renewable” and “fossil fuel” derived energy.

Using energy which would have been lost if it had been placed in a landfill, EfW energy production methods also serve to cut back the volume and weight of the original waste which will go to landfill, leaving only a small residue that requires disposal. These plants, in the form of incineration plants, are actually capable of reducing the volume of waste by as much as ninety p.c. and the weight by seventy five percent The incineration process is actually just about the most efficient at this, and the ash that’s left may also be made excellent use of in construction materials recycling applications. This ability of incineration to reduce volume and mass, is not nowadays as effective as it once was, when emissions to atmosphere were less strongly regulated. This is due to the need for sophisticated methods to be used to clean up incinerator flue gases before they can be emitted, and the air pollution control systems which provide this function. The air pollution control systems most often used in incineration plants produce waste of their own, which needs further treatment or disposal in a specifically approved “hazardous waste” landfill site.

A number of alternative strategies to incineration have just recently been developed for recovering EfW, including combustion, gasification, pyrolysis and biological processes, e.g. anaerobic digestion and the extraction of landfill gases. The quest continues for better EfW processes which:

- avoid creating polluting gases and toxins in order to reduce the need for costly and energy consuming flue gas clean-up technology
- are highly effective in reducing the volume and mass of the residue
- if not particularly good at reducing volume and mass of the incoming waste, to provide a valuable non-toxic product (e.g. anaerobic digestion produces biogas and a fertilizer).

Despite much work having been done in developing alternative EWfW technologies to incineration the commonest kind of EfW is using incineration technology, and the majority of new capacity (e.g. in the UK) is being installed as incineration processes.

This means burning residual waste ( generally after separation for recycling and composting ) in furnaces and which incorporate a boiler and generator system to supply an electricity output from the steam produced. The heat may be exploited in district heating systems (known as CHP). The technology itself is really flexible, and can process mixed municipal wastes and other waste streams, including clinical and industrial wastes.

Other processes pelletise waste inputs for burning in a refuse derived fuel ( RDF ) plant. The UK Governing Body has outlined RDF as ‘turning the flamable portion of waste, e.g. paper and plastics, into a fuel which can on occasion be stored and transported, or immediately used on site to provide heat and / or power. RDF gives the operator the opportunity to store energy and choose to generate power when it is needed the most – a rare attribute among renewable energy processes.

A key development of EfW has been thru the development of environmental technology and regulation. During the last 20 years the emissions from EfW plants have been seriously reduced thru progressively tighter regulation and improved use of flue gas treatment technologies.

Throughout Europe the older generation of incineration plants have all been closed or upgraded to meet the 1996 EU emissions directive and the further reinforced EC Incineration Directive emission came into effect in 2004.

There are no longer any reasons to hold back any EfW plants due to concerns about gas emissions as the science surrounding what constitute emissions risk to human health are now well known, and the legislation has been set at a level which guarantees the health of all those who work in these plants, or live nearby. The idea of incineration, being simply to burn the materials until there is nothing left to combust has its limitations, especially when other processes can produce useful products, so many would like to see a bigger upatke of the alternative waste technologies, like including combustion, gasification, pyrolysis and biological processes.

Unfortunately, although there’s been a major level of interest in developing new plants which will utilize the ‘emerging ‘ technologies ( pyrolysis, gasification etc.), and basically thes are essential to help the all EU nations meet their duty to reduce their dependance on landfill dumping of waste. EfW plants that handle between ninety thousand and six hundred thousand tonnes of waste every year can produce between 6 and 40MW of electricity.

There was in 2004, enough capacity to provide 203MW of power from UK EfW facilities, which process has a grand total of just about 3,000,000 tons of community solid waste every year. Substantial extra capacity for the has been installed since then, and furthur plants are in the planning stage, with the result that installed capacity has more than doubled and with a similar increase in the power now being generated from previously landfill-dumped municipal industrial and commercial solid waste.

The reason that the more recently developed waste technologies are not being built in bigger numbers lies in their newness meaning that investors find it hard to take on-board the bigger risk from new processes, and which in a recessionary economic period might or might not, in unstable “immature” markets produce essential income from the sale of their products (e.g. compost or say “bio-char”).

All nations should do their utmost to gain as much value from our wastes as practical, instead of continuing historical dependence on landfilling, for the sake of minimising use of finite materials resources and avoiding groundwater pollution. After we have removed as many valuable materials from the waste as feasible, like paper, glass and plastics, the residual waste still contains valuable energy that will replace coal or oil burning.

The United Kingdom lags behind its Western european neighbors in recovering energy from waste, it is pleasant to note the accelerating number of energy from waste facilities now being built and further projects in the pipeline, will soon make the UK one of the leaders in EfW adoption.

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 .

At the Wasters blog we started the year by reporting the gap between Ireland’s actual rates of recycling and waste diversion away from landfill, and the target requirements. It seems that Ireland will need to speed up its progress or soon face fines from the EU for failing to comply with the targets set up in the Landfill Directive.

This contrasted strongly against stories of success from the United Kingdom which were posted on our blog throughout the year. In fact, the Environment Secretary for Scotland announced ambitious plans to exceed the EU targets, for waste management in Scotland. The new targets amount to 60 percent recycling by 2020 and 70 percent by 2025. Also, incineration received a knock as a part of this plan, when it became clear that no more than 25 percent of waste is to be used to generate energy. The ultimate target is that they will reduce municipal waste being sent to landfill to just 5 percent by 2025. That is quite a target to go for! Especially as the easy option of incineration will be severely capped.

All the time last year, new announcements of new waste collection and massive investment in waste and secondary resource processing facilities planned were being made by the big five waste management companies, and indeed newcomers to the PFI Contracts, especially for the very large big-city contracts.

At the start of the year all were surprised that the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (GMWDA) was still in extended negotiation for its PFI Contract. In March we were told that they would very soon be announcing the award. However, the end of April arrived before there was a further delay announced. Even now the deal is not resolved.

Of course, all large contract negotiations are suffering from the much tougher bank lending rules which have been in place since the credit crunch really began to bite in the summer. The contractors bidding have found that the banks have been pulling back on their borrowing and at the very least their interest rates will have no doubt been revised. At a contract value in the region of reported £3 billion, and said to be the largest municipal waste contract in Europe, the GMWDA deal must be extremely hard to clinch.

The latest News (from LetsRecycle.com) about the Manchester PFI contract, at the start of December was that the banks were completing final formalities with a hoped for Christmas signing. The Waster has not seen an announcement so far, so we will hopefully receive the good news as one of the first events in the UK waste management scene in 2009!

The Manchester contract, and many others, need signing soon and then to move into the construction stage for the new facilities planned and much needed in order for the UK recycling and waste diversion targets to be met in the years to come.

One of the highlights for the Waster (who has been described as “born to landfill”) was a German research paper reported in April to be recommending the use of landfill as a carbon sink, as in carbon sequestration/storage. The posting was titled “Carbon Storage – A Renaissance for Landfill?”. How refreshing it was for a landfill lover like the Waster to be told that landfilling should be increased and encouraged and certainly not reduced. Wonderful! More of it please!

Autumn news showed the waste industry to be remarkably resilient to the economic slowdown, although landfill operators were, and still are, reporting the current remarkable rarity of once ever-present construction waste vehicles arriving at their landfill gates.

Of course part of the reduction might be due to better management of waste at the construction sites themselves, and in particular this may have had a small effect after the introduction, in the spring by the UK government, of a new legal requirement. The new rule is that all large construction sites produce Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs) for every site from now on.

However, the lack of much SWMP activity reportedly being seen from the construction industry in setting up these plans shows that it is the economic slowdown rather than much better construction site waste minimisation and recycling that is the predominant effect here!

All in all, the UK waste management industry continues in the path set for it by the politicians in the 1986 Maastricht Treaty. Don’t forget that ALL EU member nation policy on waste-related legislation is derived from the EU commission and through qualified majority voting (unanimity in these matters is a thing of the past). The Waster is UK based and from his point of view the waste legislation has nothing directly to do with public health or environmental health issues in the UK.

In effect this means that the degree to which EU targets are set and goals derived make no allowance for national differences, bear no relationship to what might be more or less sustainable from a climate change perspective, and make no allowance for cost/benefit to local communities.

The Waster’s view is that this is nowhere more obvious than in the last of the big news events of the year. That is the autumn’s big and ever-rising cost of recycling due to the economic slowdown. How can it be right that policy is so inflexible that the ratepayers have to pick up whatever bill the waste industry incurs when the raw materials price falls through the floor?

In any other market there would be a market self-correction when the recyclers reduced their output to match the value gained from the recycled materials. In fact, the recycling market is bound to create these huge fluctuations as it is so distorted by inflexible EU policy.

As the Waster has been around for a long time, he continues to see it as remarkable that the current waste policies have lasted for as long as they have in their current form and ever increasingly are being built with huge investment into the fabric of our nation.

The concern must be how well technically they are based, when MBT in all its forms is put forward as better than incineration by our policy makers. Given public hostility in the UK to incineration it may be convenient to neglect the fact that no proper primary research has been done into the long-term impacts of MBT residues which receive only scant drying or composting treatment in order to declassify them from being organic waste. This allows this supposedly processed material to be sent to landfill without, on paper, contributing the the organic waste sent to landfill. This must surely be bending the rules beyond the point of forgiveness, purely for convenience?

Furthermore, why all the obsession we see with the carbon cycle within the waste regulators and impacts – to the almost complete neglect of consideration of the nitrogen cycle?

Both must be got right for a healthy environment and both need very careful consideration. However, the Waster is not aware of any recent research into the fate of nitrogen from waste residues, which he considers must be highly neglectful.

As we said earlier, the Waster does have a long memory, and he does remember that the UK only signed up to the Landfill Directive after resisting doing so for 11 years, in exchange for a deal with the Spanish on fishing quotas!

We did not know then what that had to do with sound waste management or environmental protection, and that has not changed.

So, the Waster will continue through 2009 to take a critical view of the waste scene as it implements EU legislation, and will plea for ALL aspects of policy to be founded on sound principles, rather than embarking on huge investments in waste technology in waste processing without good research to back up politically convenient theory.

Those were the main issues for the Wastersblog in 2008, and that ends our look back at the year 2008.

Your comments on this blog posting will, as always, be highly welcomed. Don’t be shy – comment away! (Email me direct if you have any problems with the commenting system on the blog site. All previous problems you might have experienced with the comments system have been rectified.)

The Waster would like to take this opportunity to wish all his readers a happy and prosperous new year.

* Mark Milner, industrial editor
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday November 11 2008 00.01 GMT
* The Guardian, Tuesday November 11 2008

Paper being recycled

Britain’s paper recycling strategy is under increasing strain after a collapse in waste prices in recent weeks, according to a leading industry organisation.

Britain lacks the capacity to handle the rising amount of paper being recovered for recycling, and its dependence on exports has left it vulnerable to a rapid price collapse, the Confederation of Paper Industries said yesterday.

Far Eastern buyers had been snapping up about three-quarters of Britain’s exports of paper for recycling, but demand from the region has almost disappeared recently, the CPI said.

“With no obvious signs of Far East buyers returning to the market soon there is a serious possibility that storage of recyclables may end up being a high-risk strategy with huge costs to those requiring storage, including the taxpayers through local authorities,” the CPI said in a statement.

“The worst-case scenario is that some material collected for recycling could go to incineration or landfill,” CPI recovered paper sector manager, Peter Seggie, said.

The UK collects about 8.6m tonnes of paper and board for recycling every year but UK paper makers can only handle 4m tonnes, resulting in dependence on export markets, primarily the Far East and Europe, to take the remainder. More …

The organisers of the top Waste and resource management conference are once again seeking papers from experts in their fields. To write a good quality paper and present it at the conference is the very best self publicity for yourself and your company. Now is your chance to start by submitting your abstract for consideration.

Get started now – there is not much time!

SYMPOSIUM THEMES

The Symposium will last five days and will deal with municipal and commercial solid waste, hazardous waste and special waste including the following topics:

A. Waste policy and legislation National and regional guidelines; regulation and planning
requirements; role of scientific and technical bodies as well as associations.
B. Waste management strategies Integrated waste management; national and local strategies; zero waste management; future perspectives.
C. Public participation and education
Public involvement; NGO activities; mediation; education; communication; training in waste management and operation, public and occupational health impacts of waste management.
D. Waste management assessment and decision tools
Life cycle analysis; risk assessment; environmental impact assessment; EMAS; quality control procedures; cost benefit analysis; multi-criteria analysis; auditing.
E. Waste characterisation as a tool for waste management
strategies
Standardisation; analytical procedures.
F. New concepts for waste collection
Cost optimisation; on-demand collection; separate collection;subsurface systems; case studies.
G. Waste minimisation and recycling
Waste avoidance; waste logistics and recycling; new recycling technologies; material quality after recycling; packaging material; electronic waste; construction and demolition waste; batteries; end of life vehicles; market waste.
H. Biological treatment
New developments in composting and anaerobic digestion; emissions from processing facilities; product quality.
I. Thermal treatment and advanced conversion technologies
Technology and experiences; new technologies; production and use of RD F; emission control; reatment of residues; beneficial use of combustion ash.
L. Mechanical biological treatment prior to landfilling
Mechanical pretreatment (separation, shredding, RD F-production, etc.); technology and experience; new technology, testing and landfill acceptance; off gas treatment; emission control.
M. Sanitary landfilling
Sustainable landfill concepts for municipal and special waste; processes and emissions; leachate and gas management; landfill design and construction; barrier design and long-term performance; waste mechanics; landfill operation; administrative and financial aspects;
landfilling under specific conditions (tropical, islands, mountains, etc.); aftercare and reuse; landfill remediation; cost studies; cases.
N. Integrated wastewater and solid waste management
Decentralized systems; closed substance cycles; future perspectives; cases.
O. Waste management and climate change
Minimisation of greenhouse gases from waste management activities and landfills, waste – CDM projects, minimisation of energy consumption, landfills as geological sinks for carbon and other elements.
P. Waste management in developing and low income countries
Appropriate technologies, experiences, international cooperation, financing, education.
Q. Special sessions
BAT – Best Available Technologies; IPPC regulations.

Due to their relevance, all these subjects will be presented in general sessions, specialised sessions, workshops and poster sessions. Offers of papers for workshops are also welcome.

An extended abstract (at least one but no more than two full pages) should reach the Organization no later than January 30th 2009.

Continuously updated information is available on the web page http://www.sardiniasymposium.it

On Thursday, the ninth day of the hearing, landowner David Horgan told Oisín Collins for North East Against Incineration that the field was his and he had not been asked to sell or for permission to include it in the plans, or to allow a waste licence on it.

Mr Collins asked Pauline Fitzpatrick, the inspector chairing the hearing, to rule the application invalid.

When the hearing resumed yesterday, Suzanne Murray for College Proteins confirmed the field was owned by Mr Horgan. She said it was with adjoining fields to be used for soil depositions during the construction of the landfill.

She argued that the SIA did not give the inspector or the board the power to invalidate the application. If it did decide to invalidate it, the company would be seeking its planning application fee returned.

Ms Fitzpatrick yesterday requested the company to “take time to consider their position” and said there was a legal requirement for an applicant to have a significant interest in a site.

She was not in a position to make a ruling and she would report to the board. She adjourned the hearing for three weeks. More…