State of the Art Incinerators: The Problem Won't Go Away!                       <pdf version>

Whenever an incinerator company wants to persuade local communities to invest in a new incinerator plant, they often attempt to sell it by claiming it is "state of the art," meaning that it is equipped with the latest pollution control devices. But this ½ end of the pipeline ² approach will not solve the heavy metal and dioxin contamination of the environment.

Toxic ash

Modern incinerators with sophisticated pollution control equipment will trap some of the toxic metals in the fly ash _ the residue captured by the pollution control devices. Ironically, this means that the better the air pollution control, the more toxic the ash. Not only are toxic metals captured in the fly ash, but a number of toxic compounds, including dioxins and furans, are actually created on the fly ash particles in a process called post-combustion formation. A hundred times more dioxin may leave the incinerator on the fly ash than is emitted into the air from the smoke stacks.

The toxicity of the fly ash means that an expensive hazardous waste landfill site must be found for its disposal. However, all landfills eventually leak; the dioxins and heavy metals in the fly ash will eventually find their way into the ground waters around the landfill and then perhaps into drinking water sources or the sea. A modern, properly regulated landfill will only delay this process, not prevent it.

Doubtful Air Emission Data

Much of the airborne emissions data from modern incinerators comes from measurements made under ideal conditions, for example, when the plant is brand-new or when the operators are seeking to obtain their operating permits. Companies know exactly when they are going to be tested and can ensure that their most qualified operators and engineers are present to achieve optimum conditions. It is very doubtful that an incinerator facility will enforce this kind of drill 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with no inspector present. In the Netherlands, one study showed that the standard six-hour test for dioxin emissions from a modern incinerator actually underestimated dioxin emissions by a factor of 30 to 50.

The public is held hostage to how well the incinerator is operated, maintained and monitored over its 20-year lifetime. In the U.S., modern incinerators have had problems with their pollution control equipment. Sleuthing from a local environmental group in Indianapolis, Indiana documented that the local modern
incinerator exceeded its permitted pollutant limits more than 6,000 times, including bypassing its air pollution control devices 18 times in less than two years. The potential problems are magnified in countries where there are little or no regulatory control abilities.

Exorbitant Costs

Modern incinerators with sophisticated air pollution control equipment are extremely expensive. For example, a new incinerator in Amsterdam (2000 tons per day) cost approximately US$600 million, with about US$300 million spent on pollution control. This kind of investment discourages a community from
investing in recycling and other waste disposal alternatives, essentially locking in the community to incineration while it pays back the massive investment involved in building the incinerator.

"Incinerators do away with consumer and producer responsibility to minimize waste generation. In a way it legitimizes the generation of waste."

Waste to Energy ?

One of the most lucrative solutions being promulgated by the incinerator promoters is its potential to generate energy from waste that too clean renewable energy. This is a myth! It economically nonviable, environmentally unsafe and posed health risk to all living beings!

A class claim made by the proponents of incinerators is that heat generated from burning of waste can be used to create electricity, which is a renewable energy as it can replace equal amount of electricity to be generated from fossil fuel-based power plant However, the truth is, electricity generated from waste incineration is very expensive (2-4 times costlier than conventional energy) and it also burns fossil fuel in the form of plastics, which is a petroleum-based product and has a high calorific value. To recover energy from a waste stream efficiently, waste with high calorific value is required. Which means waste like plastics as well as fuels are needed for energy recovery. Therefore, it is not entirely true that energy from waste is renewable energy.

"It takes more than 160,000 US Dollars to convert 150 tonnes of waste into 1 MW power, while 500 tonnes of waste can be turned into compost with around 63,000 US Dollars"

Apart from the calorific value of the waste, the efficiency to recover energy from the waste is also a critical factor. The level of efficiency for energy recovery in incinerators compared to the potential energy present in the waste is very low. As a thumb rule, according to the Indian Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (MNES), 150 tonnes of municipal solid waste would generate 1 MW of electricity.

It is paradoxical that incinerator promoters are trying to recover energy from waste by destroying material whose extraction and processing requires a lot of energy, which by recycling and reusing can be saved to a greater extent To manufacture a tonne of aluminium cans from virgin bauxite ore takes about five times as much energy as producing a tonne of bauxite mining. According to a Canadian study, "on an average, recycling saves three to five times as much energy as is produced by incinerating municipal solid waste."9

Environmental Cost

In terms of environmental costs, which is often not taken into consideration while calculating the costs of energy recovery from incineration, Friends of the Earth, UK, has compared the amount of carbon emission, major contributor to the global warming, from incineration versus recycling and composting of household waste. It estimates that up to 4.5 million tonnes of carbon emission can be saved each year by recycling and composting of household waste as compared to incineration with energy recovery. According to the report "Beyond the Bin, 2000", recycling 20% of municipal solid waste reduces the cost of environmental damage by as much as £200 per tonne (approximately Rs 13,200).

"Incineration shifts the burden of responsibility of waste from the producers and the consumers to those who have very little to do with the waste problem. In India, there is a huge disparity in per capita waste generation between lower and higher income groups that ranges between 180 to 800 gm per day."

Toxins released from incinerators with energy recovery, where mixed waste is burnt, pose health and environmental risks that will impact not only the present but future generations.

But the disposal of waste through incineration burdens all sections of the society equally in terms of financial and environmental costs, notwithstanding who the generator of waste is.

References:
5. How to Win campaign against incinerators. Friends of the Earth, UK. 2000. Pg. 17.
6. Ibid
7. Tod Robertson,"Trash Shortage Could Lay Waste to Area Budgest," Washington Post, 4 February 1997. (Referenced in Exploring Environmental Issues: Municipal Solid Waste, American Forest Foundation, US, 1997. Pg. 5. http://www.plt.org)
8. Neil Tangri, Essential Information, USA.
9. Ibid. Note 5. pg 19. (Recycling versus Incineration, 1992. Sound Resource Management Group Inc.)
10. Ibid.Note 5. pg 20.
11. Srishti and TERI study, 1996.
12. Toxics Link, Putting out the Flames, 2001