Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Incineration – Solid Waste Disposal

Recycling figures: plain rubbish

Aug 25th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

ENVIRONMENT PANEL Chairman CHAN HAK KAN

2012 – reasons for Panel EA rejection of ENB landfill / incinerator package

www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0527cb1-1079-2-e.pdf
“13. Details of the funding proposals for the three landfill extension projects are set out in LC Paper No. CB(1)1369/11-12(01) which is hyperlinked in the Appendix. According to the Government, IWMF would require some seven years for reclamation, construction and commission, while landfill extension would need a few years for site preparation works
15. The Panel held another special meeting on 20 April 2012 to continue discussion on the funding proposals. Noting that many measures pertaining to the Policy Framework had yet to be implemented , members were opposed to the reliance on landfills for waste disposal in view of the associated environmental nuisances, as well as the long lead time and cost incurred from restoration of landfills. They stressed the need for an holistic package of waste management measures (including waste reduction, separation and recycling) with waste incineration as a last resort and better communication between the two terms of Government on environmental policies, in particular on the need for incineration. They also urged the Administration to identify other suitable outlying islands for IWMF and promote the local recycling industry. In view of the foregoing, members did not support the submission of the funding proposals to the Public Works Subcommittee for consideration.”
Q: WHAT POLICY AND DIRECTION HAS CHANGED AT ENB SINCE THE LAST LEGCO PANEL ENV AFFAIRS REJECTION ?   A: NOTHING !

actually gone backwards as the ‘new’ figures show– the China ‘Operation Green Fence’ blocking of transhipped dirty plastic from overseas to China via HKG exposed this sham of using the plastic trash transhipment figures as ‘local recycling’. ENB/EPD were caught out cheating by ‘Operation Green Fence’. The ENB denied the container loads of blocked plastics were locally landfilled – so what happened to it ?

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/china-green-fence-global-recycling-innovation

SCMP Recycling figures: plain rubbish

CTA says: this only came to light due to China’s ‘Operation Green Fence’
ENB has been using data of containers of trash transhipped through here to China in their local recycling figures
When China blocked the transhipment of unwashed plastic imports the shxt hit the fan + the divisive ‘local recycling’ practice came to light
Still waiting to find out which local landfill they buried the dirty plastic waste in

Recycling figures: plain rubbish?

Wednesday, 29 January, 2014

Cheung Chi-fai

Overhaul of system is promised as officials admit estimates of the amount of waste the city recycles have been drastically overstated

Officials have admitted that estimates of the amount of Hong Kong waste being recycled – once put at over 50 per cent – have been drastically overstated. They said yesterday that the figures were distorted by “external factors” beyond their control and the system for calculating them would be overhauled. The admission came as the Environmental Protection Department reported a slashed recycling rate of 39 per cent in 2012, down from 48 the previous year and a peak of 52 in 2010.

The department blamed fluctuations in the waste trade and irregularities in export declarations for the distortions. In an effort to improve its data collection, it will introduce extra measures, as recommended by a consultant commissioned to look into the problem. But the officials said they did not believe the distortion would affect policy-making or the achievement of targets set out in the waste-management blueprint released last year.

World Green Organisation chief executive William Yu Yuen-ping said he was concerned about the “inflation of the recycling rate” and urged the department to set up an expert group to review the system. Friends of the Earth said the public would be confused by the figures. According to the 2012 solid waste monitoring report released by the department yesterday, Hong Kong recycled just 2.16 million tonnes of waste, 860,000 tonnes less than 2011. About 60 per cent of the shortfall was due to a sharp drop in the trade in plastic waste. Last year, a reported 320,000 tonnes of plastic waste was recycled, down from 840,000 tonnes in 2011 and 1.58 million tonnes in 2010. But the amount dumped in landfills largely remained steady at 600,000 to 700,000 tonnes during the same period. Since then, officials have used the disposal rate per person, rather than the recycling rate, as the key indicator to measure policy effectiveness.

In 2012, the former rate rose 3 per cent to 1.27kg. The department said the recycling rate had been calculated from waste export figures compiled by census and customs officers, and the booming trade in recent years might have inflated the figure. It also admitted that the formula could not accurately reflect local recycling efforts since it also included waste imported and then exported after processing. “We believe the 2012 figure is closer to the reality of how the city fared in recycling after a slump in the trade,” said an official, speaking anonymously.

Officials refused to be drawn on whether the admission showed that the recycling rate, used by former environment chiefs to highlight the city’s progress in dealing with its waste problem, had little value. “The public still have expectations for this figure and we will try to give the best estimate,” said an official, adding that the formula was widely adopted elsewhere in the world. Greeners’ Action executive director Angus Ho Hon-wai said the government should set up a registration system for recyclers in order to get first-hand recycling data. Lau Yiu-shing, a local waste recycler, admitted some operators might have wrongly reported export figures to suit their needs. But the scope of doing so had shrunk as mainland customs stepped up checks in recent years.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1415979/recycling-figures-plain-rubbish

Incinerator figures don’t add up

Aug 21st, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Elvis Au (“Incinerator will adopt proven, cost-effective technology on island [1]”, August 5) continues to weave his tangled web of half-truths.

He revealed that of the HK$18.2 billion requested for the project, HK$12.7 billion is to build the incinerator and HK$5.5 billion (30 per cent of the total cost) to build infrastructure on Shek Kwu Chau.

So we will pay an extra HK$5.5 billion because vested interests do not want the incinerator built near the Tuen Mun landfill, which is the logical site.

The “balanced distribution of waste facilities” Au cites as the reason for selecting Shek Kwu Chau was never raised by the Environmental Protection Department from 2004 to 2010.

It surfaced only in 2011 after Lau Wong-fat, chairman of Tuen Mun District Council, objected to putting the incinerator in Tuen Mun.

The department then created the “balanced distribution” criterion to justify Shek Kwu Chau.

Getting approval for another site takes no more time than obtaining it for Shek Kwu Chau, that is, one year from April 2011 to April 2012.

On the capital cost, Au provides selective data.

A survey of all incinerators constructed shows that economies of scale lead to lower per-tonne capital cost the larger the capacity. Au chose Denmark’s lower-capacity 1,100 tonnes per day incinerator costing HK$4.27 million per tonne to compare to his proposed high-capacity 3,000 tonnes per day incinerator costing HK$4.25 million per tonne.

This is like comparing the per passenger cost of a bus to a Rolls Royce.

An honest comparison is with the per-tonne cost of high-capacity incinerators.

These include – the 2,300 tonnes per day facility in Runcorn, Cheshire, UK, at HK$2 million per tonne; the Afval Energie Bedrijf Waste Fired Power Plant in Holland with 3,800 tonnes per day capacity at HK$1.1 million per tonne; the 3,000 tonnes per day facility in Beijing at HK$1 million per tonne; the 1,600 tonnes per day facility in Riverside, Kent, UK, at HK$2.6 million per tonne.

Nor did Au mention the 1,000 tonnes per day incinerators in Finland, China, England, South Korea and Azerbaijan costing less than HK$3 million per tonne.

The 1,000 tonnes per day plasma gasification plant in Teesside, England, cost HK$3.1 million per tonne, paid by the operator.

If approved by the Legislative Council’s Finance Committee in October, Au’s Rolls Royce incinerator will cost between 100 per cent and 300 per cent more than similar capacity incinerators in the world.

Dr Tom Yam, Lantau

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1574518/letters-editor-august-16-2014

dynamco Aug 16th 2014
8:10am

If Tom Yam is quoting $ numbers then at least he should get them right, upfront.
The Govt and AU especially well know what they asked for:
www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0326cb1-1369-1-e.pdf

CB(1)1369/11-12(01) 1.1.b) sets out the Administration’s request @money-of-the-day prices in March 2012
5177DR: IWMF Phase 1 14.96bn – MOD – now 17bn
5163DR: NENT landfill ext 6.632bn MOD -now 8bn
5164DR: SENT landfill ext 1.76bn MOD -now over 2bn
5165DR: WENT landfill ext 33.4mn – now 36mn
The ‘package’ is at least 27bn!
The building of an incinerator is dependent on the capacity of the landfills being increased to handle the 30% by weight ash produced, so they are a ‘package’
Then need to ADD a Pulau Semakau island as the new ash lagoons (10 bn?)
So even at today’s money of day prices Shek Kwu Chau package is $9m per tonne
but by the time it would be finished (like the fast rail to nowhere) it will be far higher
Then, we have all the peer reviewed evidence showing increase in deaths, cancers, birth defects, orofacial clefts in spatial proximity to incinerators
Only with a Rubber Stamp person I/C EIA approvals could this be allowed to happen & she wears two hats & has never knocked back a Govt EIA to date!

The correct numbers sought in Legco by ENB included ALL the infrastructure as shown here:

5177DR – LEGCO REQUEST FOR FUNDING 2012

IWMF PHASE 1 FUNDING REQUEST 14.96 BN INCLUDES THE ISLAND COST AND MUCH MORE AS SHOWN BELOW

www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0326cb1-1369-1-e.pdf

4.1.1.4 Scope of work

4.1.1.4.1 A plan showing the location of the IWMF Phase 1 at the SKC site is at Annex B1. The IWMF will be built on an artificial island

formed by reclamation to the south-western coast of SKC. The reclaimed island will measure about 11.8 ha including a berth area and storage area

for waste containers. Due to occasionally rough sea condition in the vicinity, the project will include constructing a breakwater of about 4.1 ha

to ensure that loading/ unloading activities can be safely carried out in the berth, and that the safety of facilities can be guaranteed.

4.1.1.4.2 The scope of 5177DR comprises –

(a) design and construction of reclamation to form an artificial island near SKC;

(b) design and construction of an MSW incineration plant of a design capacity of 3 000 tpd employing advanced moving grate waste-to-energy technologies. The incineration plant will comprise the following main components –

(i) waste reception, storage and feeding system;

(ii) moving grate incinerators;

(iii) waste heat recovery, turbine generator and cooling

(iv) boiler feedwater treatment system;

(v) flue gas treatment and discharge system;

(vi) fly ash, bottom ash and residues storage, treatment and handling system;

(vii) bulky waste storage and handling system, reagent

reception and storage system; and

(viii) process control and monitoring system;

(c) design and construction of a mechanical sorting and recycling plant of a design capacity of 200 tpd. The mechanical treatment plant will comprise the installation of the following main components –

(i) waste reception system;

(ii) mechanical sorting and shredding system; and;

(iii) process control and monitoring system;

(d) provision of ancillary and supporting facilities including submarine power cables and electrical system connecting the artificial land to Cheung Sha of Lantau Island, a desalination plant providing water supply to the facility, a wastewater treatment plant, an environmental education centre, community facilities1 and minor supporting facilities for a marine park2; and

(e) environmental monitoring and auditing during the

construction stage.

A layout plan showing the proposed works is at Annex B2. Subject to funding approval of the FC, we plan to commence the design and

construction works in September 2013 and commission the IWMF in 2018/19.

The Govt and AU especially well know what they asked for:
www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0326cb1-1369-1-e.pdf

CB(1)1369/11-12(01) 1.1.b) sets out the Administration’s request @money-of-the-day prices in March 2012
5177DR: IWMF Phase 1 14.96bn – MOD – now 17bn
5163DR: NENT landfill ext 6.632bn MOD -now 8bn
5164DR: SENT landfill ext 1.76bn MOD -now over 2bn
5165DR: WENT landfill ext 33.4mn – now 36mn
The ‘package’ is at least 27bn!

Detroit residents sue incinerator owner over ‘noxious odors and contaminants’

Aug 19th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

on Mon, Jul 28, 2014

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against the owner of Detroit’s municipal solid waste incinerator Monday, accusing the company of nuisance and gross negligence violations

According to the complaint filed by Detroit-based Liddle & Dubin P.C., “On occasions too numerous to list, Plaintiffs’ property including Plaintiffs’ neighborhood, residences and yards were physically invaded by noxious odors and contaminants

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s’ negligence in operating and/or maintaining the facility, Plaintiffs’ property has been invaded by noxious odors.”

The eight-page complaint charges that local property values have dropped due to the incinerator’s presence, “and has interfered with Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property.” The lawsuit, filed in Wayne County Circuit Court, seeks a financial award in excess of $25,000 and all costs and attorney fees related to the case.

In an email, a spokesperson for the company says, “Detroit Renewable Power is reviewing the complaint filed today,” but declined further comment.

The suit comes weeks after a Metro Times’ cover story earlier this month found a growing number of odor complaints from nearby residents since Detroit Renewable Power LLC (DRP) took control of the facility in 2010. The investigation found a spike in citations from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for noncompliance related to odor issues, and showed how the incinerator’s odor is the predominant issue for a local enforcement agency. Since last fall, MDEQ ramped up its enforcement and began to craft a consent judgement with DRP that would likely stipulate fines, and lay out a timeline for the company to follow to resolve the alleged odor, officials said.

Attorney Nick Coulson, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the case, cited the recent Metro Times cover story as a factor that led to the suit.

“It appears the odors have worsened substantially in the past few years,” Coulson says in an email. “The recent Metro Times article brought to light increased odor complaints and violations. We believe those reflect not only worsening odor emissions, but also increased community concern.

“People are upset, and they want this problem to stop.”

The incinerator was constructed in 1986 by the city of Detroit, which issued $440 million in bonds to finance construction of the facility. Since its inception, the trash-burning machine has been a source of complaints. Soon after, then-Mayor Coleman Young sold it for $54 million to private investors, including tobacco giant Philip Morris.

By 2009, Detroit had spent north of $1.2 billion to retire the incinerator bonds. Vocal opponents called for the city to dump the plan, but the following year, the Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Authority — the quasi-public agency created in 1986 that’s responsible for overseeing disposal of the city’s municipal waste — passed a resolution obligating the city to continue sending trash to the incinerator until 2021. That’s when DRP stepped in.

The facility process as much as 3,300 tons of trash per week at temperatures higher than 2,300 degrees. Its furnaces create steam that’s purchased by DRP’s sister company Detroit Thermal to heat and cool more than 140 buildings between downtown and New Center. The company is permitted to receive as much as 20,000 tons of municipal solid waste per week, according to the state.

http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/archives/2014/07/28/detroit-residents-sue-incinerator-owner-over-noxious-odors-and-contaminants

SCMP: Follow best practice on waste incineration, and think local

Aug 15th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Friday, 15 August, 2014

Comment›Letters

As project designer of a conservation group on Lantau, I wish to respond to the letter by Elvis W. K. Au, assistant director of environmental protection, regarding the Shek Kwu Chau incinerator (“Incinerator will adopt proven, cost-effective technology on island [1]”, August 5).

I visited the plasma arc gasification plant in Teesside, in northeast England, on June 18, joining its annual open day. Many delegates and big name companies from around the world attended. I was the plant’s first “Hong Kong delegate”.

The day included presentations and a visit to the plant, which was impressive. It is the largest plant in the world and will come into commission by next year.

The most striking part of the visit was the large number of delegates from China, gathering information on plasma. Two out of the three presentations given were by Chinese companies, which have set up plasma gasification plants; it felt as if China was teaching the rest of the world.

I also talked with the British team that met seven Hong Kong government representatives when they visited Britain. They had met in a hotel room in London for an hour: the Hong Kong representatives had said they did not have enough time to visit the Teesside plant. They then visited a small-scale plasma gasification site, in Avonmouth, in southern England, Afval, a company generating electricity from waste in the Netherlands, and then went on to Denmark.

The reaction of the British officials had been the same as mine: surely, if you go on a fact-finding mission, you should go to the best example of whatever that subject is.

Someone senior in the government told me we needed the proposed super incinerator, because, firstly, Hong Kong people were never going to be able to reduce, reuse and recycle their waste in time; and, secondly, plasma would not work.

After my visit to the Teesside plant, my response is to ask: why will plasma arc facilities not work? If the rest of the world is doing it, and it needs to be done, then Hong Kong can do it.

Let’s catch up. Hong Kong always wants everything super-sized, but is that the way of the future?

The workable future is smaller scale and localised. A plasma plant can be constructed quickly, and does not pollute or need landfills, as there is no residue ash waste.

We can set up cluster recycling centres for composting, recycling, plasma arc facilities and education centres where they are needed all over Hong Kong.

The government has already signed contracts so it is reluctant to change tack. But what is really best for Hong Kong?

Jenny Quinton, Ark Eden Foundation, Lantau

More on this:

Incinerator will adopt proven, cost-effective technology on island [1]

Source URL (retrieved on Aug 15th 2014, 5:55am): http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1573735/follow-best-practice-waste-incineration-and-think-local

Links:
[1] http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1566561/incinerator-will-adopt-proven-cost-effective-technology-island

Lai See: Garbage in, garbage out

Aug 15th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Saturday, 07 January, 2012

Howard Winn

A letter in today’s paper pooh poohs plasma arc technology as a means of disposing of municipal solid waste saying: ‘To demand that the Environmental Protection Department should consider this technology, which is unproven at any commercial scale, for Hong Kong, is about as ludicrous as suggesting to shoot all of our garbage by space rocket into the sun!’ Strong words from Alexander Luedi, who is the general manager of Explosion Power Hong Kong.

A little context of interest here, which Luedi doesn’t mention in his letter, is that his company, according to its website, specialises in cleaning furnaces, boilers, ash hoppers, silos and other vessels. ‘We provide online boiler cleaning equipment and services to thermal power plants, waste-to-energy plants, … to improve thermal efficiencies, reduce downtime, and improve the safety of maintenance workers.’

So it’s not unreasonable to think Luedi’s eyes lit up at the prospect of business opportunities from a monster incinerator that processes some 3,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste a day which, in turn, generates 1,200 tonnes of fly ash.

In his letter, Luedi says plasma arc technology, ‘is neither needed, nor feasible for the disposal of 3,000 tonnes per day of municipal waste.’

His views don’t appear to be shared by authorities in Japan, the UK, Mexico, India and China, which are all using plasma arc technology to process municipal solid waste and to convert it into energy instead of the conventional moving grate technology proposed for Hong Kong. The new technology produces little in the way of emissions of toxic dioxins and less mess for the likes of Luedi and his company to clean up.

http://www.scmp.com/article/989409/lai-see

(letter in question)

Incinerators’ good global track record

South China Morning Post

SCMP Letter   Jan 07 2012

Incinerators’ good global track record

Plasma arc is a suitable and proven method for the disposal of small quantities of hazardous waste. However, for household refuse it would use large quantities of energy, and it is definitely neither needed, nor feasible, for the disposal of 3,000 tonnes per day of municipal household waste.

The “old-fashioned” moving grate technology is fully capable of addressing Lai See’s “noxious chemical cocktail” (“Making a hash of dash to ash”, January 4) and hundreds of plants operate worldwide in highly sensitive areas.

To demand that the Environmental Protection Department considers this technology, which is unproven at any commercial scale, for Hong Kong is about as ludicrous as suggesting shooting all our garbage by space rocket into the sun. What is needed is a plant that meets the highest standards in operational efficiencies. That is where the department could learn from my firm.

Alexander Luedi, general manager, Explosion Power Hong Kong Limited

Residence Near a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator and Cancer Risk: an Analysis Using a Geographic Information System (GIS)

Aug 14th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Marcilio, I; Lopes, M; Prado, R; Souza, M; Gouveia, N

Introduction:

Recent studies have evaluated possible health effects of emissions from solid waste incinerators (SWI). Most of these studies have used the spatial distribution of incinerators and health endpoints to analyse exposure and risk. Lung and liver cancers has shown as the ones with the strongest associations with proximity to SWI. The emissions of the incinerator under investigation included lead, arsenic, dioxin and cadmium. The latter two are considered carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Although this incinerator is located in a densely populated area, there has been no study evaluating the impact of its emission on environmental quality and on health of the population living in its vicinity. This study intends to examine health effects possibly associated with emissions from this SWI among the local population through an epidemiologic investigation using spatial analysis.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods:

All liver and lung cancer deaths (ICD-10 C22.0; C22.7; C22.9 and ICD-10 C34.0 – C34.9) from 1998 to 2002 among people aged 40 years and older in an area around the SWI were included. All deaths were geocoded using MapInfo 7.8 ®. Deahts were separated in 3 groups, according to their spacial distribution: the reference group comprised those located within a radius of 2km around the incinerator, while comparison groups were within 5 and 7km around it. Age-adjusted mortality rates in each area were calculated, taking into account the respective area population. The Stone test was used to check if differences among rates were statistically significant.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results:

The area studied included 543.054 people aged 40 years and older. Data about population distribution and number of cancer deaths are presented in Table 01. People living closer to the SWI had a higher risk of dying from lung cancer, and the observed difference was statistically significant, with a Stone test of 1,14 (p=0,04). A gradient was also noted for liver cancer deaths, but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0,07). (Table 02)

Table 1

Table 1

Discussion:

These findings suggests a higher risk of death from lung and liver cancer in the proximity of a municipal solid waste incinerator, with a statistically significant association with lung cancer.

http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2006/11001/Residence_Near_a_Municipal_Solid_Waste_Incinerator.1287.aspx#

Waste Incinerator in Atsugi, Japan (US Naval Base/Japanese Company)

Aug 14th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Waste Incinerator in Atsugi, Japan

Smoke pouring out of a smokestack

From 1985 to 2001, personnel at Naval Air Facility (NAF) Atsugi in Atsugi, Japan may have been exposed to environmental contaminants from off-base waste incinerators. The Shinkampo Incinerator Complex (SIC) was a combustion waste disposal equipped with incinerators that burned up to 90 tons of industrial and medical waste daily. Emissions included chemicals and other particulate matter.

A private Japanese company owned and operated the business. The U.S. Navy found a potential for increased health risks and worked with the Japanese government to close the SIC. The incinerator was shut down in May 2001.

If you are concerned about exposures at Atsugi, talk to your health care provider or local VA Environmental Health Coordinator.

Health effects from pollution at Atsugi

Short-term health effects could include irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, skin rashes, and sinus problems. These conditions usually went away after the exposure ended. Long-term health effects could include a possible increase in the lifetime risk for cancer.

Since the 1990s, the Navy has informed sailors and their families about the possible long-term health effects of living at Atsugi. Visit the Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center website for health information about air quality monitoring and soil testing at Atsugi.

Currently there is no definitive scientific evidence to show that living at NAF Atsugi while the incinerator operated caused additional risk for disease.

Health concerns?

If you are concerned about exposure to environmental contaminants during service at NAF Atsugi, talk to your health care provider or local VA Environmental Health Coordinator.

VA offers a variety of health care benefits to eligible Veterans. Not enrolled in the VA health care system? Find out if you qualify for VA health care.

Compensation benefits for health problems

Veterans may file a claim for disability compensation for health problems they believe are related to exposure to environmental contaminants during service at NAF Atsugi. VA decides these claims on a case-by-case basis. 

http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/sand-dust-particulates/atsugi.asp

SCMP: Incinerator will create toxic ash with poisonous emissions

Aug 13th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Tuesday, 12 August, 2014, 5:16am

Comment› Letters

In his letter to supposedly correct “misunderstandings” by opponents of the planned Shek Kwu Chau incinerator (“Incinerator will adopt proven, cost-effective technology on island [1]”, August 5), Elvis W. K, Au, assistant director of environmental protection, added yet more disinformation on the project.

Au boasted that the facility will adopt proven technology, yet omitted to mention that this technology creates toxic ash along with poisonous emissions, with adverse health impacts described in peer-reviewed research.

Were the incinerator emissions clean, it could be sited beside the government’s Tamar offices, so officials like Au could admire it each day. Yet instead, it is to be beside a relatively remote island.

It seems laughable to claim this choice of location arises through trying to “achieve a more balanced distribution of waste facilities”. But then, Au and colleagues have made a host of absurd claims regarding the project.

For instance, the incinerator with its 150-metre chimney can somehow blend with the surroundings – in an area of outstanding natural beauty; the reclamation and operations will not adversely affect the globally endangered finless porpoise; and, the incinerator will even benefit local tourism.

To those of us living on Cheung Chau, this last claim is a joke. More serious is Au’s previous habit of wrongly claiming the incinerator can completely destroy organic pollutants, which reflects an inadequate understanding of the basic chemistry and health risks, and is disturbing coming from an official supposedly helping safeguard our environment.

Au even played fast and loose with financial information in striving to show the incinerator will be “cost effective”. In his letter, he cited a capital cost of about HK$12.7 billion, which may be the first time this figure has been published, as in March 2012 the anticipated cost was HK$14.96 billion.

Conveniently, too, Au omitted to mention that because the incinerator and its island will take perhaps eight years or more to build, landfills must be extended, at an additional cost of HK$12 billion – making the real incinerator project bill nearer to a hefty HK$27 billion, which will rise when costs soar, as they are wont to do for infrastructure schemes.

In rejecting plasma arc facilities as being small scale with limited performance tracks, Au further demonstrated his blinkered approach, ignoring the large-scale facilities being commissioned and built in the UK, and planned for several countries including China.

Dr Martin Williams, director, Hong Kong Outdoors

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1571513/incinerator-will-create-toxic-ash-poisonous-emissions

Two thirds of residual municipal waste in Germany incinerated in 2012

Aug 10th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

Germany’s local authorities managed two thirds of their residual municipal waste by sending it to incineration plants in 2012. The 66.6 per cent share is slightly lower than in the previous year, when incineration accounted for 67.7 per cent of residual municipal waste, according to an annual overview published by the German statistical office (Destatis) at the end of July.

Overall, waste management plants in Germany treated nearly 18 million tonnes of mixed residual municipal waste in 2012. This is around 0.4 million tonnes less than in the year 2011. The total does not include source-separated waste fractions such as paper and board, packaging waste and organic waste collected from households and similar sources.

8 Aug 2014

Denmark’s transition from incineration to Zero Waste

Aug 10th, 2014
by Editor.
No comments yet

http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2014/01/the-story-of-denmarks-transition-from-incineration-to-zero-waste/

“The truth is that the construction of the Amager Bakke incinerator has sparked lots of debate in the country. Danish citizens and politicians are more and more aware that they are recycling too little and burning too much, and that the incineration overcapacity of the country is not something to be proud of. For this reason, the ministry of environment led by Ms Ida Auken opposed the construction of this incinerator and in the end it was only because of the pressure from the finances minister, Mr Bjarne Corydon, that this project got the green light. If you wonder what does the minister of finance have to do with waste incineration it will help understand that he is elected in Esbjerg, the city where happens to be the headquarters of the company which will build the incinerator.

This conflict of interest that in southern Europe would be quickly associated with corruption did spark some public debate in Denmark but didn’t stop the process. Actually just after the decision to stop the incinerator was changed through secret negotiations the director of the supplier company wrote an article in the national business paper thanking the finance minister for good lobby work in the case of Amager incinerator. It has also been implied that the interest from Chinese companies to order a good number of burners from the Danish company has played a decisive role in rubberstamping this unnecessary and expensive infrastructure.”

Denmark is perceived to be one of the world’s greenest countries. But is it really? Besides the Danish windmills and bike lanes there is a not-so-well-hidden secret of this otherwise rather environmentally friendly country; their passion for burning garbage!

This burning passion has received widespread and often misleading coverage by international media such as the New York Times or the National Geographic who didn’t bother to dig too much into the details and instead succumbed to the charms of well-designed green washing.

Objective facts about Denmark are that is one of EU countries that generate more waste per capita, and is world leader in incineration of household waste, burning 80% of it. For comparison this means that after discounting recycling Denmark burns more waste than what is generated in countries such as Czech Republic, Estonia, Bulgaria or Poland. How green is that?

Contrary to best practices in the sector, in Denmark most household waste is not separately collected this means that recycling rates are as low as 22%. Most organic waste, which is 90% water, ends up in the oven.

More waste is good, less waste is bad

It might look like a contradiction but in Denmark the system is set up in a way that the worst thing you can do is reduce the size of your waste bin. Why? Well, every city in Denmark has its own incinerator and they are mostly publicly owned. This means that the citizens are actually the owners of the burners and hence if less waste is sent for burning -because it is being avoided, reused or recycled- the incinerator will function under full capacity, lowering the efficiency to generate heat and power. Yet the incinerator has to meet the capital and operating costs with less income which will result in an increase in the waste management fees. I.e. the more waste you generate, the better for your pocket.

With the current system of incentives in Denmark getting to Zero Waste would be a financial catastrophe. It is therefore unsurprising that the country that burns the most also generates more waste than any other. Denmark is the perfect example of the linkage between waste burning and waste generation.

But burning waste is good to heat and power the Danish homes!

This has been the mantra in Denmark and in some other northern-European countries. Scandinavian long dark cold winters of course justify higher intake of heat and power and this has been the main reason why generation of energy from waste has been pioneered in these countries. However waste burning in Denmark is a 19th century practice which is clearly unfit for the 21st. Not only because burning waste is extremely inefficient way to generate energy but rather because there are already other carbon neutral technologies that are put on stand-by for as long as the incineration capacity is in place.

In other words, incineration is one of the main obstacles in the path of Denmark towards becoming a carbon neutral country. Indeed, 20% of heat production and 5% of electricity in Denmark are generated from waste incineration but this heat and power could be replaced with a combination of geothermal, wind and biogas from separately collected bio waste, all mature and available technologies. Moreover, EU law dictates that as from 2020 all new buildings will need to be carbon neutral radically reducing the need for energy input. Last but not least, there is a clear overcapacity of installed power between the waste incineration and large combustion plants which causes that in the coldest months of the year the windmills are stopped despite the strong winds, only to give priority to the thermal installations due to the need of heat.

The case of incinerator with the ski slope. Why not building a sauna instead?

Have you heard of the latest Danish contribution to waste management? It is about merging garbage and sports by skiing on piles of garbage burning under immaculate synthetic white… and in order to remind skiers of the real purpose of the plant, each time a metric tonne of CO2 is released the smokestack will puff out a 30m wide ring into the sky. This is the project of the Amager Bakke incinerator, the jewel of the crown of Danish incineration.

As usual the too-good-to-be-true things are actually not that good at all. This half a million tonnes burner is the latest attempt to sell this technology to the world. As long as you keep people entertained talking about the ski slope they will not think about avoiding or recycling this waste instead. Why is it that Danish composting plants don’t try to use the heat generated in the organic decomposition of food waste to sell fancy saunas? Well, firstly because they don’t need this kind of marketing to operate and lastly because there aren’t many composting plants in a country where most organic waste is not recycled but burned.

The truth is that the construction of the Amager Bakke incinerator has sparked lots of debate in the country. Danish citizens and politicians are more and more aware that they are recycling too little and burning too much, and that the incineration overcapacity of the country is not something to be proud of. For this reason, the ministry of environment led by Ms Ida Auken opposed the construction of this incinerator and in the end it was only because of the pressure from the finances minister, Mr Bjarne Corydon, that this project got the green light. If you wonder what does the minister of finance have to do with waste incineration it will help understand that he is elected in Esbjerg, the city where happens to be the headquarters of the company which will build the incinerator.

This conflict of interest that in southern Europe would be quickly associated with corruption did spark some public debate in Denmark but didn’t stop the process. Actually just after the decision to stop the incinerator was changed through secret negotiations the director of the supplier company wrote an article in the national business paper thanking the finance minister for good lobby work in the case of Amager incinerator. It has also been implied that the interest from Chinese companies to order a good number of burners from the Danish company has played a decisive role in rubberstamping this unnecessary and expensive infrastructure.

Two more interesting facts are the uneasiness of the neighbours who will have to pay for this piece of design and above all the fact that for the moment no company is interested to run the famous ski slope. As explained, household waste incinerators in Denmark are publicly owned but this doesn’t apply to ski resorts. In other words, for the moment the ski slope doesn’t have an operator and the neighbours have said that one thing is to have to pay for the incinerator and another thing is shouldering the costs of running the ski slope. Stay tuned because the saga of the Amager Bakke is far from over.

Denmark is leaving behind the incineration age

Leaving behind these isolated desperate attempts to make incineration fashionable in order to sell the technology to Asia, the truth is that Denmark is planning to embark in a very challenging journey. The country aims at becoming independent from fossil fuel by 2050 and this will mean having to close down all polluting power plants by then, including of course the waste-to-energy incinerators.

This will not be an easy task because as already explained the link between waste and energy in Denmark is very strong. This has an impact on waste management, creating perverse incentives which are contrary to waste reduction, reuse and recycling and it also has an impact on energy policy, effectively blocking cleaner technologies from taking over. Moving away from incineration allows hitting two targets with one shot and the Danish ministry of Environment knows it.

This is why the new waste management plan that minister Auken presented in November 2013 is called ”Denmark without waste – Recycle More, Incinerate less”. In her own words: ”in Denmark we have been incinerating almost 80 % of our household waste. Even though this has made an important contribution to green energy production, materials and resources have been lost which could otherwise have been recycled. Now, we are going to change this.”

Some measures envisaged by the plan consist in replacing incineration with separately collected garden and food waste to produce biogas and compost, with the recycling of plastic and paper that are now being burned or to landfill toxic materials such as PVC instead of releasing them into the air through combustion. It also implies the privatisation in the ownership of the incinerators so those that are not profitable will have to close. All in all it aims at reducing the waste sent for burning in 820,000 tons by 2022.

It looks like the showcase for incineration in the world will be changing business. This will be good for the Danish recycling industry which might see a rebirth after having turned to ashes by decades of burning fever. It will also be good for the Danes for the decrease in incineration will reduce the pollution and associated health impacts and the increase of recycling will generate jobs and a more self-sustainable economy. And finally it will be good for the rest of the world which finally will be able to import good waste practices from Denmark.

This change of paradigm will not happen overnight but considering the determination and efficiency of the Danes once they set their minds into something it is to be expected that they will be as good in moving towards zero waste as they have been in championing incineration

← Earlier Posts Newer Posts →