Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
- I think that the major impact, the major reason why you see these differences in terms
of recycling rates in these areas which have waste-to-energy compared to those that don't
is basically the state and local policy environment. To just make the decision to move to waste-to-energy
facility there has to be a lot of studies of feasibility, including understanding the
waste stream, thinking through what are the different streams of waste that I have? How
can I best maximize those streams? The kind of planning that goes into this type
of a facility really engages the whole gamut of the waste stream, the waste management
stream. So, those localities, districts, solid waste
districts that have sited or are looking at moving to waste-to-energy as one part of their
waste disposal strategy are also engaged in - sort of - an integrated waste policy initiative.
There are various areas in United States we can cite, Florida being one.
Some of the facilities in Florida have the most advanced recycling programs, as well
as energy recovery at landfill, as well as landfill solar, using landfill cover sheets.
They have solar panels on them to actually generate power additionally from their landfill.
Not only siting waste-to-energy facilities, but in one case in Palm Beach County, they
actually are building a second waste-to-energy facility in the midst of a (...) wide range
of initiatives (...) every waste (...) Another good example, and a very interesting
one to me, is Minnesota. I think one of our guests comes from Minnesota!
Minnesota is an interesting state. It is in the mid-west.
It has access to low cost landfill, but in the state itself, - especially within certain
areas - the landfills themselves are very problematic, given the geological formations
of the rock. So, there has been a real effort in certain
areas to nearly move to a landfill ban, or to lower the amount of landfilling to about
10% of the waste. In those areas, waste-to-energy plus recycling
has become the major strategy. And again, these - some of these plants - are
not the large plants that we might associate with waste-to-energy on the East Coast or
maybe even in Florida, but these are mid-size to smaller plants that are actually being
built in conjunction with a very very strong state-wide recycling policy.
So, in some places, most of the local and state-wise policies really help to - in those
areas where you see high recycling rates, and often in conjunction with waste-to-energy.
- I think that is very true. Although there is a growing concern amongst
local politicians about the cost of waste-to-energy and its environmental effects.
So, there are lot of counter arguments being brought forward about whether or not it should
continue. Most of those are based on old data again.
But, the issue that is most commonly brought up is the economic one of the increased cost
and how much cheaper it is - in a market sense - to take waste to a landfill in a neighboring
state. - Is that true? The increased cost argument
bear out if you extend it to the life cycle of the waste-to-energy plant?
Or is it... - No, it doesn't and its really predicated
on the idea of externalizing all of the costs of the decomposition of that waste, by just
dumping it in the ground and really not taking that much further responsibility for it, other
than eventually covering it up and harvesting some of the methane.
But, a great deal of the methane and a great deal of the green house gases that are produced
by the landfills, as you know, happen in the first decade when the landfill is open.
So, I think it is based on some false economics that we really need to address in our policy
system.