Category: Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is all the rage. There are no pyrolysis-based garbage incinerators running successfully in the US, and less than a handful are in operation worldwide. All previous attempts to implement this technology have been costly disasters.

  • 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

  • Zero Waste Stories – It works!

    I have provided links that anyone interested in Zero Waste might want to view. Take a look and learn!

    This is an operational pyrolyzer somewhere in the world. It shows the process for how it is done.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HAx0odJbgM

    This is s video created by residents of Logansport who are fighting the largest proposed pyrolysis incinerator in the world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GKz7Vti5no

    A description of how biomass, in this case, wood chips and sawdust, is incinerated in a pyrolyzer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PItlQZC5_-4

    After you see that, read the Letter to the Editor posted on June 21, 2014 in the Gainesville Sun at their website regarding the Gainesville Florida biomass incinerator’s appetite for wood, and how it has devastated the environment.

    http://www.gainesville.com/article/20140621/OPINION02/140619618/1077/opinion?Title=Letters-to-the-Editor-for-June-21-2014

    Capannori, Italy, adopted Zero Waste plan long before it was fashionable. Google “capannori italy zero waste” and an interesting story is revealed. Today, as a result of that community’s actions, over 117 Italian communities have adopted Zero Waste policies, creating jobs, reducing landfill use, while preventing more than 50 new incinerators from being built.

    http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2013/09/the-story-of-capannori-a-zero-waste-champion/

    Urban Ore is a company that implements Zero Waste in Berkley, CA, diverting between 7,000 and 8,000 tons of waste from that city’s landfill. It reuses, recycles, refurbishes, etc., things that normally go into the ground, creating 38 jobs that average over double the minimum wage, while including health coverage for all employees that is fully paid for by the company. They were in Fredericksburg on June 13th, but only one City Council member and no Stafford Board of Supervisor member took the time to learn. I guess it is better to remain ignorant, for plausible deniability purposes.

    www.urbanore.com

    Read the report from the Berkley City Manager to the Mayor and City Council on how they are achieving their zero waste goal, how they have been stuck at 75% diversion since 2010, and their plan remedy that to go much higher.

    http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Auditor/Level_3_-_General/A%202_RPTwithCouncilRpt_Zero%20Waste_Final.pdf

    This link has some interesting data, specifically describing how Delaware regulations require that no incinerator be built within 3 miles of residences, communities, schools, parks, churches, etc. What is within 2 miles of the incinerator site?  Brooke Point High School, Stafford Middle School, Stafford Hospital, Marian Manor (Alzheimer care), the Senior Center. The new Cliff Farm school site is less than 1 mile from that site.

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

    And this link describes the full rationale that the State of Delaware used for blocking an incinerator in New Castle, DE.

    http://www.greendelaware.org/http://greendel.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Incinerator-Status-Decision-RenewOil-Energy-Jun2013.pdf

    The Zero Waste Alliance’s motto: Creating a prosperous and inclusive future without waste. See how it can be done.

    http://www.zerowaste.org/

    Zero Waste International Alliance, another great source for how and why.

    http://zwia.org/

    Wikipedia quotes the Zero Waste Alliance: “Zero Waste is a goal that is ethical, economical, efficient and visionary, to guide people in changing their lifestyles and practices to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded materials are designed to become resources for others to use. Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water or air that are a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_waste

    Eco-cycle provides a great list of how to deal with discards, an A-Z recycling guide. It also describes the Production-Consumption-Disposal System that most of the world uses, showing why it is broken. They have a great video there as well on zero waste.

    http://www.ecocycle.org/zerowaste

    San Francisco adopted a Zero Waste policy and is well on its way to implementing it by 2020. Go to the city/county website and see what they are doing, and why.

    http://www.sfenvironment.org/zero-waste

     

  • 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.

  • Incinerators – The Dirty Truth

    Facts Rule Out Trash Gasification (Including pyrolysis, plasma arc, and other variations of staged incineration) – Clean Water Action [and Don’t Waste Massachusetts, Energy Justice, EcoCycle and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives] 1/13 http://cleanwater.org/files/Gasification%20fact%20sheet%20Jan%202013-final.pdf

    Stop Incinerators in Disguise – Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice http://greenaction.org/incinerators-in-disguise/

    Powerpoint: Incinerators in Disguise [Gasification, Plasma Arc, and Pyrolysis: Renewable Energy and Recycling – or Incinerators in Disguise] – Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice 8/12 http://greenaction.org/powerpoint-incinerators-in-disguise-august-2012/

    Burning Public Money for Dirty Energy: Misdirected Subsidies for “Waste to Energy” Incinerators – Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives 11/15/11 http://www.no-burn.org/burning-public-money-for-dirty-energy

    Incinerators: Myths vs. Facts – Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives 5/10 http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Incinerator_Myths_vs_Facts.pdf

    An Industry Blowing Smoke: 10 Reasons Why Gasification, Pyrolysis and Plasma Incineration are Not “Green Solutions” – Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives 6/09 http://nobiomassburning.org/docs/Industry_Blowing_Smoke.pdf

    Incineration and Incinerators-in-Disguise – Energy Justice Network http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration

    Briefing: Pyrolysis, Gasification, and Plasma – Friends of the Earth UK 9/09 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/gasification_pyrolysis.pdf

    Proposals for new facilities in the U.S. [including pyrolysis gasification] have failed when authorities investigated – UK Without Incineration Network 11/25/08 http://www.ukwin.org.uk/?p=599

    Incinerators Trash Community Health – Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives 6/08 http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Incinerators%20Trash%20Community%20Health.pdf

    Tellus Institute Report: Assessment of Materials Management Options for the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan Review [Concludes “gasification … [is] unlikely to play a major role in municipal solid waste management in Massachusetts.”  Also notes that “emission factors used to compare environmental performance are based largely on modeling and/or vendor claims … as opposed to actual operational data from real world experience.”] – Tellus Institute 12/08 http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/priorities/tellusmmr.pdf

    Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste: An Update on Pollution [also addresses pyrolysis gasification and other forms of staged incineration] – Pembina Institute in collaboration with the David Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Legal, Toronto Environmental Alliance, Canadian Environmental Law Association and Great Lakes United 5/07 http://www.pembina.org/pub/1450

    “No Incentives for Incinerators Sign-on Statement” – Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives and other organizations 2007 http://www.zerowarming.org/article.php?id=247 http://www.zerowarming.org/article.php?id=248

  • Stafford/Fredericksburg Incinerator On-line Discussion

    From July 28, 20/13 to August 2, 2013 there were over 40 posts on the subject, on the first page, and there are 2 more pages, with a similar number of posts. A lively discussion. Some highlights: (1) the opening post, first paragraph states: “Stafford County has been keeping secrete the details of a lease at the landfill for a Waste to Energy facility. The details of the lease only became public when the City of Fredericksburg put the lease on their website over a month after the Stafford Board of Supervisors approved the lease.” What a way to start.

    There is a lot of good reading there, including things like a discussion about the amount of tires that would be imported into Stafford as feedstock for an incinerator; questions about the success/failure of the few projects the proposing company cited their involvement; why Goodyear and Firestone both gave up on that technology (couldn’t sell the byproduct, and couldn’t find a way to integrate it into their products); and lots more. The waste oil from “melting” the tires was what the incinerator company was going to sell, if they could find someone to buy it. That someone would actually burn it, sending their fumes East, across the oceans, or anywhere across the lands. But, what’s even scarier, from an environmental perspective, is to think that they actually might be able to sell it. If they do, it would be to someone who would burn it, releasing all that stuff into the air, or the ground water, or just the land.

    http://fredtalk.fredericksburg.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=1712722&an=0&page=0#Post1712722

  • Rockbridge, VA – Replace the landfill with a pyrolysis plant? (No)

    http://rockbridgereport.washingtonandlee.net/?p=6811

    When Rockbridge County, VA was told to close its landfill, Community Energy Independence sent them the following unsolicited proposal to build a pyrolysis plant:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/48444702/Unsolicited-Proposal-From-CEI

    The proposal, similar to EEP’s proposal to Stafford, describes a pyrolysis plant that conducts a “proprietary thermo-chemical process.”  Most confusing is CEI’s statement regarding emissions: “…the emission levels from EnerSol technology will be much lower…the base gas elements do not form toxic compounds such as furans, dioxins, and nitrous oxide or sulfur oxide. The few, limited emissions are treated by common fume management methods.” While on p. 11, they claim that there are no negative effects.  In the end, Rockbridge County Supervisors did not need to question CEI’s contradictory statements. CEI decided that rural Rockbridge County did not produce enough trash to make their project viable. Incidentally, EcoCorp also presented a Waste-to-Energy proposal, but never responded to Rockbridge County’s questions. “EcoCorp we just never heard from again.”

     

  • Court: Green Bay Improperly Revoked Plant Permit

    http://www.twincities.com/News/Wisconsin/ci_25418285/Court:-Green-Bay-improperly-revoked-plant

    After residents came together and convinced the city to revoke Oneida Seven Generations Corp.’s permit to build a waste-to-energy plant, the corporation fought back. It is suing the city of Green Bay for revoking the permit. The corporation claims that all allegations made against the success and safety of the plant are false. TwinCities.com, March 25, 2014

     

  • Oneida Tribe Sued in Failed Green Bay Energy Venture

    http://www.twincities.com/News/Wisconsin/ci_25339099/Oneida-tribe-sued-in-failed-energy

    After public outcry, the Oneida Seven Generations Corp. was unable to build a waste-to-energy plant that it promised would be profitable for its business partner Generation Clean Fuels. The latter is suing the former over lost profits and broken contracts. TwinCities.com, March 13, 2014.

     

  • Fredericksburg City Council Approves Pyrolysis Incinerator Lease

    http://news.fredericksburg.com/businessbrowser/2013/07/09/fredericksburg-city-council-approves-landfill-lease/

    Energy Extraction Partners, LLC is under the umbrella corporation Creative Energy Systems. In this article, CES states that it has similar pyrolysis projects progressing in other cities. However, those projects don’t seem to be going anywhere. Fredericksburg.com, July 9, 2013.