Waste Not, Want Not, As My Mum Used to Say (Waste disposal)

Member Name: jeff2000

Product:	Waste disposal
Date:	13/07/04 (178 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: None

Disadvantages: Lots

Waste is a serious problem in the UK, every year we throw away around 1 tonne of rubbish per household, much of this goes direct to landfill without recovery. However a large amount of what we deem to be waste can actually be re-used or recycled, to encourage this the EU Landfill Directive requires member states to divert 25% of biodegradable waste from landfill by 2006, 50% by 2009 and 65% by 2016. In order to achieve this, the way in which the UK waste industry is operated needs to be changed to allow increased recycling and material re-use. There are a number of alternative options for waste disposal including: recycling, pyrolysis (burning in the absence of oxygen), anaerobic digestion (composting in the absence of oxygen), composting or energy from waste (incineration).

Clearly recycling is the most environmentally friendly option and this has been shown through councils recent efforts to recycle waste through the provision of a number of different bins for different types of material. This pre-sorting allows ease of recycling, though requires participation from the public, something that is often hard to achieve. Because of this even the most successful schemes have a participation rate of around 50%, and as these recyclables count for only 50% of the waste stream around 25% of waste is being recycled. This leaves a large amount of waste still going to landfill.

Pyrolysis, gasification and anaerobic digestion plants involve developing technologies that are yet to be proven in a commercial environment; if these options were to be chosen then a large amount of investment would be required in something that may not return the required results. The composting plant is a proven technology; however because of the large amount of space required due to the long timescale of degradation it is not practical for this to be a complete solution to this extra waste.

Energy from waste (EfW) mass burn incinerator plants have been used as a solution
for waste disposal for many years, unfortunately they have received a reputation as being dirty, smelly and a danger to health. Despite this poor reputation EfW plants have a number of advantages over other waste disposal techniques; they can be sited close to the source of waste, reducing the need for the long distance movement of waste, in keeping with the proximity principle. They reduce the waste to 10% of its original volume in the form of a biologically sterile ash; this can then be disposed of in landfill without the possibility of local contamination, or alternatively be used as a building material for road surfaces etc? With modern flue gas clean up techniques the amount of harmful chemicals being released from the process is very small, and the global warming potential of waste methane produced from landfill is reduced. The main opposition to EfW arises from the poor reputation of previous plants and the feeling that reduction and recycling of waste should be encouraged, rather than disposal.

Incinerations poor reputation has come about because of the old style plants present in the 70?s and 80?s, during this time there were few controls over emissions from these plants and this led to little or no flue gas treatment. Clearly when a ?dirty? fuel, such as solid waste is being burnt a number of waste products will be produced, which, if left untreated, can cause a large problem, hence the incinerators bad reputation. Today?s modern EfW plants are a long way from the stereotypical vision of an incinerator, EU directives 89/429/EEC and 89/369/EEC that came into force between 1989 and 1995 regarding the emissions from these plants has meant that most of the old style sites have closed down as adapting them to meet these tight limits would have been too expensive. Many of the old incinerators did not have any form of energy recovery, any heat generated was not utilised and hence made them unviable for upgrade. All new forms of plant include energy reco
very in their design; this may be in the form of electricity generation or district heating, or to achieve highest efficiencies, both. Despite the new emission controls public concern over harmful emissions, especially dioxins and furans is high. This is due to the bio-accumulating nature of these chemicals that can cause many health problems, and although the levels of these chemicals emitted is very low it is often argued that any amount produced is too much, particularly when the plant is situated close to residential areas. This view is opposed by the Department of Health, who claim that EfW presents very little risk. Many residents adopt a NIMBY (not in my back yard) approach to proposed sites and resistance would likely be large; this would have to be addressed should the EfW plant be adopted as a waste solution. Residents of the UK also view EFW as an energy disposal method, rather than a method of generating heat and power and as a general recovery of resources, as it is seen in areas where energy efficiency is perceived as being more important, such as in Scandinavian countries. This view is generally not considered as waste is generally seen in that way, rather than as a commodity, if this way of thinking was to be changed through community involvement in waste policy consideration EfW may become a more popular option.

As I?ve said recycling is the second best way to control waste, the best being not to make it in the first place, however in today?s consumer society being told to cut down on waste is not a popular option and the country needs to address its rubbish problem before it?s to late with an integrated and open minded view to it?s management.

Summary: