Category: Gasification

Gasification is a hot new technology. How efficient is it and how safe is it?

  • A really bad piece of 2021 legislation in Virginia – ‘Advanced Recycling’

    The 2021 Virginia legislature passed a really bad compromise piece of “environmental” legislation. They swapped a styrofoam ban for extremely polluted air, water, and land. Instead of styrofoam microbeads in our air and water, on the land and in our food, we get to have our air polluted and our lungs further damaged from heavy metals, mercury, lead, and other wonderful things. What a compromise!

    It’s been estimated that we will have 5 or 6 of these extremely polluting incinerators, now governed by waste management regulations, moved over to a “manufacturing” category.

    Who regulates these new factories? Who ensures that they don’t spew toxic fumes all around us?

    “Advanced recycling” is a way to hide pollution. and to keep the fossil fuel industry in the plastics business. So they can continue to make plastic things, then burn them, to continue profiting on extracting fossil fuels for all sorts of places. Think Exxon Valdez, Gulf of Mexico, Africa, and all the other places on this planet that have been despoiled.

  • Incinerator Misinformation – Pyrolysis & Gasification

    This misinformed effort to pretend that some types of incinerators aren’t incinerators has been laid to rest repeatedly, but the confusion still persists.

    The numbers below in brackets (e.g., [1]) refer to the linked source references at the bottom of this story.

    Most recently, the state of Delaware ruled [1] that a tire pyrolysis proposal [2] IS incineration according to the state’s definition [3], and is thus banned in the state.  (In 2000, Delaware passed a law [4] banning incinerators within 3 miles of a residence, church, school, park, or hospital — which is basically the entire state.)

    Read about this tire pyrolysis incinerator proposal here:

    http://www.greendel.org/2013/08/09/new-castle-de-threatened-by-tire-incinerator/

    One thing that the article, written by an engineer, states is that: ALL burning of solids and liquids involves gasification, simply because solids and liquids don’t burn.  They have to be gasified first.  Combustion is a process that occurs in the “gas phase.”

    U.S. EPA and the European Union’s definitions of incineration include pyrolysis, which I’ve documented at the bottom of this page:

    http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration

    As I’ve also pointed out in presentations, gasification (of which pyrolysis is one type) is just a more expensive and complicated type of incineration.  Gasification and pyrolysis promoters argue that they are not incinerators because they aren’t burning waste directly (they turn it into a gas first, then burn the gas).  If you light a piece of paper on fire, technically it’s the same thing… the paper isn’t burning, but the heat is turning the paper into a gas, which is then what burns (hence the small gap between the paper and the flame).  Gasification and pyrolysis basically just separate this process by putting a pipe in the middle.  This provides opportunities to filter the gas before burning, but that isn’t always done, and the toxins produced don’t disappear if filtered. They are just relocated to solid wastes that go to a landfill, making the landfill more toxic.

    Claims that no dioxins [5] can be formed by pyrolysis are bogus, as they’re based on the false claim that there is no oxygen in the gasification process (step one of the two-step incineration process).  While air is not added to the chamber, there is plenty of oxygen in the waste burned, which is why data from a company planning a huge pyrolysis facility in Indiana shows that 20% of the content of the “syngas” that comes out of the pyrolysis chamber is oxygen atoms (in the form of CO and CO2).  There are plenty of ingredients to make these ultra-toxic dioxins, and they ARE formed readily because pyrolysis operates at the lower temperatures where dioxins are more easily formed… and tires contain a lot of zinc, which is a catalyst for dioxin formation. [6]

    No matter how you cut it, incineration (including pyrolysis, gasification and plasma arc) is the most expensive and polluting way to manage waste or to make energy. [7]  Wasting any time and money considering it is folly.

    I see this conversation is turning to jobs.  If cost, jobs, the environment, or property values are the question, the best and worst answers are the same.  The worst answer is any type of incineration.  The best answer on all fronts is a “zero waste” plan.  Here’s a simplified zero-waste hierarchy as I proposed it recently to the state of Maryland in comments [8] on their zero waste plan: Reduce, Reuse, and Source Separate. Separating garbage into the following types:

    Source Separate:

    • Clean Compostables ⇒ Aerobic Composting ⇒ Non-food landscaping/agriculture uses
    • Recycling ⇒ Material Recovery Facility (MRF):
      • Recyclables to Highest-end, Most Local Markets Possible
      • Residuals ⇒ Waste (below)
    • Waste ⇒ “Dirty MRF” (a.k.a. Mechanical / Biological Treatment):
      • Additional Recyclables captured and marketed
      • Residuals ⇒ Anaerobic Digestion ⇒ Digestate to Landfill
    • Special Collections ⇒ e-Waste, Household Hazardous Waste and other special/dangerous materials to proper recycling option

    A more detailed zero waste hierarchy is here: http://www.energyjustice.net/zerowaste/hierarchy

    …and links to other online resources on zero waste (including zero waste plans from other cities, even Austin, TX) can be found here:

    http://www.energyjustice.net/zerowaste/

    The R-Board really ought to work with experts like Dr. Neil Seldman to help develop a zero waste plan and have a variety of businesses collaborate to fulfill the plan instead of expecting one vendor to come along with a magic box and make it all go away.  Look at the track record of any companies like EEP trying to do this and you’ll see that it’s a miserable track record of failed and expensive projects.  Not a single commercial pyrolysis, gasification or plasma arc waste incinerator exists in the U.S.  Ask why…

    Sources:

    [1] http://www.greendel.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/INCINCERATORBANLETTER.pdf

    [2] http://www.greendel.org/2013/08/09/new-castle-de-threatened-by-tire-incinerator/

    [3] 7 Del.C. §6002(25)  http://www.delcode.delaware.gov/title7/c060/sc02/

    [4] 7 Del.C. §6003(c)(2)  http://www.delcode.delaware.gov/title7/c060/sc02/

    [5] http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/

    [6] http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/catalysts.html

    [7] See powerpoint and other documentation at http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration

    [8] http://www.energyjustice.net/files/md/ZeroWastePlanComments.pdf

    Mike Ewall, Esq. Founder & Director, Energy Justice Network

  • Is the Incinerator inevitable?

    Will Landfill Planning Doom Stafford and Fredericksburg to an Incinerator?

    On May 27, 2014, the Free Lance-Star published an article by Vanessa Remmers titled “Landfill Facing $228K Shortfall”.

    Current landfill revenue does not cover operational costs nor fund an expansion reserve. Why? Mismanagement and poor planning. The members of the Rappahannock Regional Solid Waste Management Board (R-Board) have done almost nothing to prevent the revenue shortfall, and over the last few years have actually caused landfill revenue to decrease.

    The landfill is subdivided into cells. Simply put, each cell requires a hole with a non-porous liner that meets environmental regulations. A new cell, opened in Fall 2013, is expected to be filled by December 2015. At the May 21, 2014 R-Board meeting, Mr. Keith Dayton, Deputy County Administrator, replied to R-Board Chairman, Mr. Paul Milde’s question, stating that the R-Board needed to act immediately to prevent a December 2015 landfill shutdown.

    The Stafford Board of Supervisors (BOS) stated it would not subsidize the operational shortfall. R-Board staff recommended options to increase revenue, but most were denied by the R-Board. How did we get to this point?

    • Haulers pay “tipping fees” to dump garbage. These fees, set by the R-Board, are the second lowest in the Region and do not meet the cost to process the garbage. Large-volume haulers receive additional discounts, reducing revenue way below operating costs.
    • Tipping fees had been charged by the ton, but the R-Board changed that to by-the-truckload. Haulers can overload trucks and save money, again, lowering revenue below costs.
    • For individuals bringing waste into the landfill, there are no decals to identify where the garage is from. A decal and $3 charge at the gate would raise over $1 Million, eliminate the entire shortfall, and provide a surplus to fund a new cell reserve.
    • Recycling revenue is down, and closing all 3 local recycling centers reduced recycling. Stafford’s recyclables are not adequately pre-sorted. Companies that take the landfill’s recyclables to sell, get mixed loads. Some recyclables are far less profitable to recycle, and so wholesalers pay significantly less or even reject the delivery, if they are mixed in. Hence, reduced revenue.
    • The landfill methane gas recovery system generates electricity and revenue, but leaky pipes allowed methane to escape, causing lower revenue.

    The R-Board made these policy decisions despite knowing that they would decrease revenue, and cause operational funding shortfalls and no money for new cells. The R-Board could have eliminated the shortfall and funded the reserve. Failure to do so benefits private companies at the expense of taxpayers.

    Make no mistake about it, Request for Proposals (RFP) # 85144, issued May 30th, is intended to convert landfill operations to an incinerator-based solution, owned and operated by private industry. The R-Board knowingly created a revenue shortfall, changed the permit process to eliminate public scrutiny, and continuously berates opponents saying that we lie to the public. Stating that the landfill will shut down is a blatant attempt to cause panic and ram an incinerator down our throats.

    Ponder these:

    • The landfill’s commercial garbage has increased this year by 26%, but billable tonnage increased only 11%; last year, commercial tonnage increased 18% but billable tonnage only 3%; so, more garbage is dumped for less revenue.
    • Tire tonnage is down by 64% from FY 2013, which was down another 35% from FY 2012; this 2-year downward trend coincides with a proposed tire-burning incinerator, where tires would be burned for free. Is it possible they are being stockpiled in anticipation of free disposal? The incinerator awarded in 2013 was only commercially viable if it burned an unlimited amount of tires.
    • Even if an incinerator is built, the landfill will still need to open another cell, as no incinerator can be built, permitted, and made operational before the December 2015 landfill closing deadline. Where will the money come from?

    The crisis is real, but manufactured. We need to implement policies that are environmentally sound, do not cause health risks, are sustainable, and which handle all our jurisdiction’s garbage in a cost-effective manner.

    No incinerator has been built in the US in the past several decades, despite over 100 industry-driven attempts to do so. No incinerator built with the thermal technologies listed in the RFP has successfully performed anywhere in the US.

    Let’s not make Stafford and Fredericksburg the incinerator guinea pig or the tire burning capital of the US.

  • North Iowa Landfill Board Kills Energy Plant Project

    http://globegazette.com/news/local/landfill-board-kills-ces-energy-plant-project/article_42288c0c-4e17-11e1-96b9-001871e3ce6c.html

    The Landfill Board voted the proposal down because they wanted more time to study the project. The proposal would have diverted much of the solid waste going to the landfill through a process to create gas that would be burned to create electricity. Globegazette.com, John Skipper, February 2, 2012.