Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

November, 2014:

Shek Kwu Chau incinerator requires careful look

28 November, 2014

LAI SEE

Howard Winn

The Legislative Council finance committee is again poised to give the go-ahead for funding the Shek Kwu Chau incinerator. We hope the committee will take a careful look at this project. This so-called Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) is to be built at a total capital and operating cost adjusted for inflation of HK$45 billion.

It is supposed to handle 3,000 tonnes a day of municipal solid waste (MSW) as a waste-to-energy plant. However, unlike every other major world city, the input feedstock is unseparated and unrecycled MSW. Some 50 per cent of this MSW is organic food and green waste with a minimum water content of 70 per cent. This means that 35 per cent of the 3,000 tonnes a day is water, or 1,050 tonnes of water. Since water does not burn, this means that the input fuel stock is actually 1,950 tonnes a day. Of this one-third is left as toxic top and bottom ash after combustion with atmospheric oxygen – 650 tonnes a day.

The net MSW to be dealt with at the IWMF next to Shek Kwu Chau will therefore be 1,300 tonnes a day. Comparative incinerators in other locations presume fuel feedstock that has been quality recycled and packaged. Shek Kwu Chau will need additional energy inputs like coal to burn this low energy value MSW and will have no viable energy output worth connecting, as it is located too far away from existing power generation networks to be worth the cost.

http://www.scmp.com/business/article/1650269/shek-kwu-chau-incinerator-requires-careful-look

Proposed incinerator will be world’s most expensive bonfire

26 November, 2014

In reply to Victor Sum’s letter (“Promote incinerator advantages [1]”, November 14), I would like to inform him that the proposed incinerator has nothing worth promoting.

In fact, 30 per cent of what is burnt will go to landfills. And, based on the Environmental Protection Department’s own data, this will require the extension of all three landfills.

The reality is that the incinerator is a poor choice for Hong Kong on account that it is old technology. It does pollute (why else would the Netherlands not install the same incinerator within 15 kilometres of a residential area, based on health concerns of its residents). It will cost Hong Kong taxpayers billions to build and millions to run once built. The energy it produces is small and there is no agreement on price from CLP, so it is unlikely to produce any cash offset for its operating costs. Plus, the incinerator won’t be ready until 2022 or later. All three landfills will require extending from 2015.

The problem is the department is blinkered and is pressing ahead knowing all this and residents like Mr Sum are sufficiently misinformed to buy what the department is selling.

There is a better solution. It is gasification and it burns everything. It is cheaper than the reclamation alone at Shek Kwu Chau. It produces “syngas” that can be turned into biofuel and sold to airlines and shipping operators, therefore producing a profit within the first year of operation.

If built now, it would be operational by 2016. But, best of all, it can be used to back-mine the existing landfills, turning them back into useable land (back-mining involves digging up the old rotting rubbish from the landfill and feeding it into the gasification plant).

Maybe Mr Sum and other residents with similar views should write to the department, instead of these columns, and demand a better solution than the world’s most expensive bonfire.

Craig Colbran, Lantau

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1648754/proposed-incinerator-will-be-worlds-most-expensive-bonfire

Sweden Runs Out Of Garbage: Only 1% Ends Up In Landfills

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/11/26/sweden-runs-out-of-garbage-only-1-ends-up-in-landfills/

Something incredible has been taking place in Sweden over the past several years, somewhat of a “recycling revolution,” if you will.

Something incredible has been taking place in Sweden over the past several years, somewhat of a “recycling revolution,” if you will. Currently less than one percent of the garbage produced in Swedish homes ends up in the landfill today, with the other ninety-nine percent being recycled or composted.

Sweden has been known for years now for the amazing and resourceful waste management system that they have had in place for some time. They have 32 waste-to-energy (WTE) plants and this burned waste powers 20 percent of Sweden’s district heating as well as electricity for about 250,000 Swedish homes.

In fact, Sweden has become so good at recycling their waste; the country now has to import 800,000 tons of trash each year from the U.K., Italy, Ireland and Norway to keep their WTE plants up and running.

According to Swedish Waste Management communications director Anna-Carin Gripwell, “Waste today is a commodity in a different way than it has been. It’s not only waste, it’s a business.”

This is pretty impressive especially when compared to Americans who recycled just thirty-four percent of their waste in 2010 and according to the Environmental Protection Agency more than fifty percent of the average U.S. household waste ended up in landfills, this is about 136 million tons of garbage in total. According to the New York Times there are some trash burning facilities in the United States, but only a small portion of the waste is burned, and most of that burned waste ends up in landfills anyways.

What About The Environmental Effects?
Of course there is some controversy over this method of waste management and energy production. There are fumes that are produced that are toxic, but many argue that this is still a much better alternative to the typical landfills that we see more often in America. On average, more than forty percent of the world’s trash is burned and mostly in open air, this is much different from the regulated, low-emission process that has been adopted by Sweden. This makes Sweden’s method a lot more eco-friendly.

It is unfortunate that at this time the options are to either pollute the air, or pollute the Earth because we are producing so much garbage and it doesn’t just simply disappear without leaving its mark. It doesn’t look like manufacturers are going to stop making products that can’t be recycled anytime soon, so it is up to us to be more conscious with what we are consuming. We need to stop the problem at the source.

How Can We All Be A Bit More Like The Swedish?
Sweden is an excellent example of a nation of citizens that care for their environment and their ecological footprint. If the Swedish are able to recycle 99% of their waste, why can’t we? Well we certainly can, however it does take a bit more effort. I believe that it is truly worth the effort, soon it will become so natural to us that it won’t even feel effortful, we just have to start taking that step!

There are many people now that are striving to produce zero or at least very minimal waste. You can read one of those stories here, check out the supermarket in Germany that produces zero waste here and read about the American restaurant that managed to not produce any waste in two years and counting here to get inspired on how you to can begin to implement a minimal waste, minimal footprint lifestyle.

Sweden Runs Out Of Garbage: Only 1% Ends Up In Landfills

Something incredible has been taking place in Sweden over the past several years, somewhat of a “recycling revolution,” if you will. Currently less than one percent of the garbage produced in Swedish homes ends up in the landfill today, with the other ninety-nine percent being recycled or composted.

Sweden has been known for years now for the amazing and resourceful waste management system that they have had in place for some time. They have 32 waste-to-energy (WTE) plants and this burned waste powers 20 percent of Sweden’s district heating as well as electricity for about 250,000 Swedish homes.

In fact, Sweden has become so good at recycling their waste; the country now has to import 800,000 tons of trash each year from the U.K., Italy, Ireland and Norway to keep their WTE plants up and running.

According to Swedish Waste Management communications director Anna-Carin Gripwell, “Waste today is a commodity in a different way than it has been. It’s not only waste, it’s a business.”

This is pretty impressive especially when compared to Americans who recycled just thirty-four percent of their waste in 2010 and according to the Environmental Protection Agency more than fifty percent of the average U.S. household waste ended up in landfills, this is about 136 million tons of garbage in total. According to the New York Times there are some trash burning facilities in the United States, but only a small portion of the waste is burned, and most of that burned waste ends up in landfills anyways.

What About The Environmental Effects?

Of course there is some controversy over this method of waste management and energy production. There are fumes that are produced that are toxic, but many argue that this is still a much better alternative to the typical landfills that we see more often in America. On average, more than forty percent of the world’s trash is burned and mostly in open air, this is much different from the regulated, low-emission process that has been adopted by Sweden. This makes Sweden’s method a lot more eco-friendly.

It is unfortunate that at this time the options are to either pollute the air, or pollute the Earth because we are producing so much garbage and it doesn’t just simply disappear without leaving its mark. It doesn’t look like manufacturers are going to stop making products that can’t be recycled anytime soon, so it is up to us to be more conscious with what we are consuming. We need to stop the problem at the source.

How Can We All Be A Bit More Like The Swedish?

Sweden is an excellent example of a nation of citizens that care for their environment and their ecological footprint. If the Swedish are able to recycle 99% of their waste, why can’t we? Well we certainly can, however it does take a bit more effort. I believe that it is truly worth the effort, soon it will become so natural to us that it won’t even feel effortful, we just have to start taking that step!

There are many people now that are striving to produce zero or at least very minimal waste. You can read one of those stories here, check out the supermarket in Germany that produces zero waste here and read about the American restaurant that managed to not produce any waste in two years and counting here to get inspired on how you to can begin to implement a minimal waste, minimal footprint lifestyle.

China adopts waste processing technology rejected by Hong Kong

07 November, 2014

Howard Winn

We see with some interest that the Zhuhai Gaolan Port Economic Development Zone is planning to build a waste-to-energy plasma gasification project with a capacity of 2,000 tonnes per day. It will be the world’s biggest plasma plant. This is of interest because green groups have been imploring Hong Kong’s Environmental Protection Department to take a proper look at this technology before proceeding with its proposed incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.

These pleas have fallen on deaf ears and the EPD has clung to its incinerator project. The current price for this is HK$19.2 billion and rising. The original price in April 2012 was HK$14.92 billion. The incinerator will produce almost 1,000 tonnes a day of toxic waste, which has to be loaded into barges and sent to landfills. The incinerator is estimated to export some 10MW of electricity. This compares with the Zhuhai Gaolan Port project, which aims to produce some 200MW of exportable power. The project is being built for about 2.8 billion yuan (HK$3.5 billion) which we are told should be increased by a factor of three to compare with Hong Kong prices, which takes it up to HK$10.5 billion.

So half the price and 20 times the amount of electricity and no toxic ash. But the other aspect of interest here is that the company building this plasma project – Guangdong Plasma Power – is a subsidiary of the local power company Zhongshang Jiaming Electric Power. We gather that Hong Kong’s local power companies have considered the possibility of running plasma plants next to their power plants but have received no response from the government. We are frequently told by the EPD in letters to the SCMP and in public statements that the plasma technology is untried and not suitable for Hong Kong. Yet Guangdong Plasma plans to start building its Zhuhai plant in July 2015 and to complete it by December 2016 well before Shek Kwu Chau is built.

Hopefully the Legislative Council finance committee will scrutinise this carefully before giving the green light. It might at the same time ask the EPD about its practice of sending 1.41 million tonnes a year of construction and demolition waste (CDW) to landfill. It seems odd given that Hong Kong sends 20,000 tonnes a day (7.28 million tonnes a year) of CDW to China for “storage” under an agreement with China’s Oceanographic Administration. The remaining 11.56 million tonnes of CDW is recycled according to the EPD. You have to wonder why any CDW is being sent to landfill.

People are rightly incredulous when they hear this. The EPD claims that 80 per cent of CDW is recycled though the figures show that 58 per cent is recycled.
This compares with levels of 99 per cent for Singapore and 95 per cent for the Netherlands and Germany. It is a mystery why Hong Kong has to send such colossal amounts of waste to landfill. But its good business for the likes of Veolia Environment and their subsidiaries and Sitra, which control waste management in Hong Kong.

http://www.scmp.com/business/article/1633743/china-adopts-waste-technology-rejected-hong-kong

Mary Creagh confirms Labour support for landfill ban on food waste

23 Sep 2013

Speaking at the Labour Party Annual Conference 2013 in Brighton yesterday (22 September), Mary Creagh MP confirmed Labour’s intention to introduce a ban on food to landfill should they be successful at the 2015 general election.

Creagh said: “A one nation Labour government will ban food from landfill so that less food gets wasted in the supermarket supply chain and more food gets eaten by hungry children.”

In a speech full of condemnation for the Conservative’s policy on food, Creagh, Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, also confirmed that Labour will insist upon improved labelling in supermarkets as well as increased levels of food regulation, boldly stating that “deregulation gave us horse meat in our burgers.”

Creagh’s speech builds upon the strong environmental stance set out by the Labour in its ‘Resource Security: Growth and jobs from the waste industries’ released this April, in which Labour singled out the waste industry as vital to boosting the economy, adding that there is an urgent need to improve packaging and design and ensuring that the UK remains a world leader in waste management technologies.

CIWM chief executive Steve Lee said: “The current debate about banning food waste to landfill highlights the seriousness of the issue. In addition to the cost to both society and the environment of discarded food that could have been consumed, the need to reduce the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill continues to be a strong policy driver.

“In the short term, we need to strengthen our efforts to raise awareness about the environmental and economic costs of food waste and ensure we have the right infrastructure to extract value from unavoidable food waste. In the medium term, we expect to see further policy measures across the UK governments to tackle this waste stream.”

To read the full transcript of Mary Creagh’s speech, click here

http://www.ciwm.co.uk/CIWM/MediaCentre/PressReleases_archive/Press_Releases_2013/ciwm_news_230913.aspx

Taxpayer funds the Hybrid Green Technology import instead of Govt making tougher laws and Clean Air Zones to make the bus companies buy hybrids

For discussion FCR(2011-12)4
on 15 April 2011

ITEM FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE
HEAD 44 – ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
Subhead 700 General non-recurrent
New Item “Trial of Hybrid Buses by Franchised Bus Companies”

Members are invited to approve the creation of a new
commitment of $33 million for funding the full cost of
procuring six hybrid buses for trial by the franchised
bus companies in Hong Kong.

PROBLEM

Franchised buses are one of the major causes of roadside air pollution
on busy corridors. We need to implement improvement measures to reduce
emissions from franchised buses.

PROPOSAL

2. The Director of Environmental Protection, with the support of
the Secretary for the Environment, proposes to create a new commitment of
$33 million to fund the full cost of procuring six hybrid buses to be used by the
franchised bus companies for trial along busy corridors to assess their operational
efficiency, emission performance and economic feasibility in local operational
conditions.

3. Subject to the funding approval by the Finance Committee, we plan
to work with the franchised bus companies to procure six hybrid buses in this year.
Allowing one year for delivery, the trial could commence within 2012.

Crop yields cut by almost half due to India’s dirty air: study

04 November, 2014

The Guardian

Study finds that 90 per cent of falls in production of wheat and rice over 30 years could be attributed to black carbon and ground level ozone

Air pollution in India has become so severe that crop yields are being cut by almost half, scientists have found.

Researchers analysed yields for wheat and rice alongside pollution data, and concluded significant decreases in yield could be attributed to two air pollutants, black carbon and ground level ozone. The finding could also be relevant to farmers in China, as well as having implications for global food security as India is a major rice exporter.

Black carbon is mostly caused by rural cooking stoves, and ozone forms as a result of motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and chemical solvents reacting in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Both are “short-lived climate pollutants” that exist locally for weeks to months, with ozone damaging the leaves on plants and black carbon reducing the amount of sunlight they receive.

The study looked at both the effects of climate change and the two pollutants on crop yields.

“While temperature has gone up in the last three decades, the levels of smog and pollution have changed much more dramatically,” said Jennifer Burney, an environmental scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and co-author of the paper, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “But this was the first time anyone looked at historical data to show these pollutants are having tremendous impacts on crops.”

Comparing crop yields in 2010 to what they would be expected to be if temperature, rainfall and pollution remained at 1980 levels, the researchers showed that yields for wheat were on average 36 per cent lower than they otherwise would have been, while rice production decreased by up to 20 per cent. In some higher population states, wheat yields were as much as 50 per cent lower.

Using modelling to account for the effects of temperature increase and precipitation changes in that time, they were able to show that 90 per cent of this loss is attributable to the impact of the two pollutants.

The results are specific to India’s seasonal patterns, the crops, and its pollution levels, but may extend to other places with similar problems. Chinese scientists warned in February that air pollution is slowing photosynthesis in plants, with effects “somewhat similar to a nuclear winter”.

Previous studies had used experimental data looking at the impact of ozone on plants to extrapolate potential losses, but this is the first study to use actual historical agricultural and emissions data to account for lower crop yields.

“Overall I think it’s a great paper,” said Stanford University agricultural ecologist David Lobell. “I think in both India and China there is growing recognition of the toll poor air quality has on agriculture. This study will certainly add to that.”

Lobell and Burney both point out that because black carbon and ozone are short-lived pollutants, they present a clear opportunity for tackling climate change. While long-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides can persist in the atmosphere for decades, addressing sources of the short-lived pollutants will have more immediately perceptible effects.

Measures such as improved cooking stove technology for rural areas, or cleaner coal consumption and diesel filters on trucks in urban ones, could go a long way to improving the impact on agricultural yields.

“Our thought is that these are more politically tractable points of entry for making a meaningful change in the climate,” said Burney. “There’s a really local benefit in taking on some sort of costly action.”

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1632064/crop-yields-cut-almost-half-indias-dirty-air-study-finds

670,000 deaths a year the cost of China’s reliance on coa

05 November, 2014

Li Jing

Smog caused by coal consumption killed an estimated 670,000 people in China in 2012, according to a study by researchers that tries to put a price tag on the environmental and social costs of the heavy reliance on the fuel.

Damage to the environment and health added up to 260 yuan (HK$330) for each tonne produced and used in 2012, said Teng Fei , an associate professor at Tsinghua University.

The 260 yuan is made up of two parts: the health cost and the environmental damage caused by mining and transporting coal.

“With existing environmental fees and taxes of between 30 to 50 yuan for each tonne of coal, the country’s current pricing system has largely failed to reflect the true costs,” Teng said.

Tiny particulate pollutants, especially those smaller than 2.5 micrograms (known as PM2.5), were linked to 670,000 premature deaths from four diseases – strokes, lung cancer, coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – in China in 2012, Teng said.

That translated to an external cost of 166 yuan for each tonne of coal consumed. Authorities levied only about 5 yuan as a pollution fee per tonne of coal used by consumers including power companies and iron, steel and cement producers.

Mining and transport add 94 yuan per tonne, including through damage to groundwater resources, subsidence, deaths and occupational diseases.

Beijing is considering replacing pollution charges with more stringent environmental protection taxes, but progress on legislation has been slow.

Li Guoxing , from Peking University’s School of Public Health, said the full impact of coal use was still underestimated as the study did not take into account medical costs associated with other pollution-induced diseases such as asthma.

“The health cost [of the study] is only based on the premature death figures due to the limitations of our research data,” said Li. “It could be way higher if we also include medical costs for other chronic illnesses.”

The study found that in 2012, more than 70 per cent of the population was exposed to annual PM2.5 pollution levels higher than 35 micrograms per cubic metre, the country’s benchmark for healthy air quality.

The World Health Organisation sets its PM2.5 safety limit at an annual concentration of 10mcg/cubic metre. That class of particulate was officially recognised as a human carcinogen last year by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, especially its link to lung cancer and a heightened risk of bladder cancer.

In 2012, some 157 million people in China lived in areas where the annual PM2.5 concentration was higher than 100mcg/cubic metre – 10 times the WHO’s recommendation.

A previous study published in British medical journal The Lancet said outdoor air pollution contributed to 1.2 million premature deaths in China in 2010, or 40 per cent of the global total. Former health minister Chen Zhu said this year that pollution caused 350,000 to 500,000 premature deaths a year in China.

The new study – based on research from Tsinghua and Peking universities, the China Academy of Environmental Planning and other government-backed institutes – represents the latest lobbying efforts by some Chinese experts to cap coal consumption.

But this is a difficult task, as the country relies on the fuel for nearly 70 per cent of its energy.

Teng estimates there would be a further cost of 160 yuan per tonne, on top of the 260 yuan calculated in the study, if the long-term social impact of climate change from coal burning were considered.

Zhou Fengqi , a former energy official, said it was impossible for the country to radically slash coal consumption in the coming decades.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1632163/670000-deaths-year-cost-chinas-reliance-coal

8 ways to rethink resources: nappies to benches and food waste to biogas

3 November 2014

Conscious consumers know not to use disposable plastic bottles, or single-use plastic bags, and try to use as little packaging as possible in order to save the planet. A growing number of companies are also developing innovative ways to give waste a second lease of life.

1. Nappies to roof tiles and railway sleepers

Every parent knows that disposable nappies generate enormous amounts of waste. And with the average baby using the equivalent of 150kg of wood, nappies waste a lot of resources, too.

To remedy this, two years ago Scotland – with a total of 450,000 used nappies per day – pioneered a nappies-to-roof tiles scheme. Nappies are collected in recycling bins and sent to treatment plants, where they’re sterilised and the human waste removed. The plastics and celluloid contained in the nappies are then converted to everyday products such as park benches, railway sleepers and road signage.

In Mexico, consumer product giant P&G now turns rejected Charmin nappies into roof tiles, while scraps from its American Pampers nappies are reused as upholstery filling. Fifty P&G plants now produce zero manufacturing waste, and it claims that repurposing the waste has created an additional value of $1bn for the company. Elsewhere, a growing number of parents are turning to GNappies. The British company makes nappies in two parts: covers that can be reused, and inserts that can be composted or even flushed down the toilet with human waste.

2. Paper to reduce food waste

Rarely does one blank piece of paper make a big difference. But FreshPaper, an organic and biodegradable sheet added to fruit and vegetables, keeps the produce fresh for two-four days longer, thereby eliminating countless tonnes of wasted food. As world demand for food keeps rising, eliminating food waste will become even more important. Today FreshPaper, first sold at farmer’s markets in America, is available in shops in several dozen countries.

3. Sustainable construction materials

San Diego-based Ecor takes cellulose fibres, a material found in wood, cardboard and even forest and agricultural waste, and turns it into new construction material. The process is surprisingly simple: the waste is mixed with water, heated, pressurised and made into sturdy panels that can be used in a variety of functions: as wall panels, tables, bowls, building walls, even glasses frames. Best of all, the products contain no toxic additives and can themselves be recycled at the end of their life-span.

4. Clothes from old water bottles

If you really need to buy soft drinks or even bottled water, make sure to recycle the bottles; they can be used for yarn. Bionic Yarn turns used PET bottles into fibres that can be used in clothes. This is how it works: the bottles are cut into chips, which are in turn shred into fibres. The fibres are mixed with polyester and spun into yarn. The end product, reports Bionic Yarn, contains 40% recycled plastic bottles, including ones from the large colonies of plastic bottles floating on the world’s oceans.

5. Agri-waste into plastic bottles

Bio-on provides an excellent reason to choose your plastics carefully. The Bologna-based company has developed a pioneering process that allows it to turn agricultural waste into biodegradable plastics. Using a fermentation process involving sugar beet, Bio-on manufactures plastics that can be used for anything from food packaging to electronics. Better yet, the process requires no chemical additives, and the end products are biodegradable, dissolving upon prolonged contact with bacteria.

6. Worms as fertiliser

Repurposing waste can be as simple as it is ingenious. In Guatelamala, Byoearth uses red worms to transform food and other biodegradable waste into organic fertiliser. Doing so, of course, reduces waste but also results in higher-quality soil.

7. Food waste to biogas

Got food waste, need energy? BioTrans Nordic has got just the thing for you, especially if you work in a restaurant, canteen or other large kitchen. The Danish company’s BioTrans tank stores food waste, where it turns into biomass. The biomass is collected by a truck for delivery to biogas plants and delivery to local customers.

8. Recycling polyester

Japanese firm Teijin didn’t set out to repurpose clothe; it’s a chemical company. But, almost as a by-product of its R&D, Teijin discovered a way of recreating polyester from itself. Because reusing clothes’ fibres has long been considered near-to impossible, Teijin’s discovery was a considered a breakthrough. It has already saved tonnes of clothes from landfill, and earlier this year, Swedish firm Re:newcell unveiled a similar process for cotton. For several years now, retailer Patagonia has sold clothes made from Teijin-recycled fabric.

Today you can wear new clothes made from old clothes and old plastic bottles, while eating food enhanced by old food – and stored in plastic containers made from agricultural waste – in a restaurant powered by food-waste energy and decorated by agricultural-waste wood panels with nappy-based roof tiles. Not too shabby.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/03/8-ways-rethink-resources-nappies-benches-food-waste-biogas