Waste to Energy Roadblocks in the US

The New York Times ran a fascinating article today on the prevalence of waste to energy facilities in Europe, and why they don't seem to have caught on in the US. Waste to energy facilities used to be called "incinerators" of course. But modern plants resemble the old incinerators as much as an egret resembles a duck. The Times reports that Denmark has 29 such plants in a country of 5.5 million people. In the US, a nation of 300 million people, there are only 87 trash-burning power plants, and almost all were built at least 15 years ago. No new waste-to-energy plants are being planned or built in the United States even though the federal government and 24 states now classify waste that is burned this way for energy as a renewable fuel, in many cases eligible for subsidies.

The argument has progressed in the US. The objection used to be to the toxins and heavy metals that exited the smoke stack on incinerators. Few in the US argue that this is still a problem. European technologies have shown that exhaust can be cleansed of the problem compounds, and in fact waste to energy plants in Europe reclaim and sell the compounds scrubbed from the exhaust.

Arguments about odors and garbage trucks have likewise been obviated by the European experience. In Denmark, odors are so well controlled that plants are located right in the community they serve, even the most affluent. In fact, they deliver hot water for heating in addition to electricity, a really efficient approach made possible only by proximity to the user. And planners make sure there is a separate route for trucks in and out of the plant that bypasses the residential streets. Waste to energy plants also put out less Greenhouse Gas emissions than landfills, even landfills where the methane is captured!

There are several roadblocks in the US. One, of course, is that landfill space is still available, although prices are getting steeper. When landfill space fills up - or when we need to pay for the carbon emissions of the trucks, trains, and barges that are now transporting our waste across State lines - there will be more motivation to build waste to energy plants. Finally, perceptions formed by old style incinerators in the 60s and 70s die hard.

One of the more cogent arguments against these plants is that if you build a waste to energy facility, you then have to feed it. And we should be moving toward a zero-waste society, one where waste is either not created or it is recycled. It's difficult to argue with this except on the basis of pragmatism. In Denmark, 54% of waste is incinerated for energy, 42% is recycled, and 4% goes to the landfill. The only waste that is incinerated is waste that cannot be recycled. In the US, 13% is incinerated, 33% is recycled, and a whopping 54% goes to the landfill. If Denmark were recycling less than the US, or if the US sent less waste to landfills, this argument would carry more weight. But as it is, the statistics would indicate that we are taking a principled, but misguided, stand.

Stay tuned!

Paul Birkeland lives in Seattle, WA, US, and develops Strategic Energy Management Systems for government, commercial, and industrial organizations through Integrated Renewable Energy.