This is the first of two parts on Waste to Energy. Read the follow-up here.
The County of Kaua'i, for good reason, is making waste diversion a priority for the coming year. They just closed their Request for Information (RFI) on waste diversion technologies and systems after receiving eight responses. The proposal that some elected officials seem most excited about came from Pelatron Q for a waste-to-energy facility. If their proposal comes to fruition, it would divert 75,000 tons a year from the Kekaha landfill, it would add 8 MW of energy to our grid displacing up to 30,000 barrels of oil annually, and it would allow Mayor Carvalho to keep his campaign promise of building a Materials Recovery Facility (to separate and sort recyclables from trash). And, since it's a Public Private Partnership it won't cost the county a dime. If we ignore the fine print, it's perfect.
The County of Kaua'i, for good reason, is making waste diversion a priority for the coming year. They just closed their Request for Information (RFI) on waste diversion technologies and systems after receiving eight responses. The proposal that some elected officials seem most excited about came from Pelatron Q for a waste-to-energy facility. If their proposal comes to fruition, it would divert 75,000 tons a year from the Kekaha landfill, it would add 8 MW of energy to our grid displacing up to 30,000 barrels of oil annually, and it would allow Mayor Carvalho to keep his campaign promise of building a Materials Recovery Facility (to separate and sort recyclables from trash). And, since it's a Public Private Partnership it won't cost the county a dime. If we ignore the fine print, it's perfect.
While the absence of any successful plasma gasification plants in the US is disconcerting, it's the inherent contradiction of waste-to-energy and zero waste that really worries me.
On October 19, 2011, the Kaua'i County Council unanimously adopted a Zero Waste Resolution, committing to diverting 70% of Kaua'i's waste by 2023 through the principles of zero waste. In the County's words:
Rather than looking at our production systems as one way and linear, we can redesign them to be cyclical, as in nature, where there is no such thing as “waste” and materials are kept in the production cycle. Zero Waste is emerging as a paradigm shift, a new, comprehensive socio-technical system that addresses our resource use from product design to disposal.Zero Waste is a design principle for the 21st century. A system where instead of buy, use, then throw away, we focus on:
- Reducing: Not creating waste in the first place ... Reducing consumption, minimizing packaging, buying in bulk, buying longer lasting durable goods,
- Reusing: Finding another home for things we no longer want or need, or finding new uses for things that are no longer suitable for their original purpose.
- Recycling: Turning our discards into new products. Saving energy and conserving valuable natural resources.
Using the estimates in Pelatron Q's proposal, Kaua'i will be creating somewhere around 100,000 tons of annual waste by 2023. The Zero Waste Resolution calls for diverting (through reducing, reusing, and recycling) 70% of that, leaving 30,000 tons for the landfill.
So, there will be an estimated 30,000 tons available for the plasma gasification plant. What's the problem? That's only 40% of the proposed generation capacity of the plant. And, the fine print of the Pelatron Q proposal contains this financial sinkhole for the County:
To cover debt service obligations, Pelatron Q is required to have guarantees that a minimum amount of feedstock (MSW) is available. A loss of ability to operate the plant due to a significant and prolonged drop in the supply of feedstock that resulted in violation of minimum electrical output requirements as specified in the PPA, could trigger damages per the terms of the PPA. Typically, the guarantee of the county must match the loss of revenue or damages associated with that specific clause in the PPA terms and conditions.
Meaning that if the county is successful in pursuing zero waste as outlined in their unanimously adopted resolution, there won't be enough waste to supply the plasma generator with feedstock and the county will then be responsible to "match the loss of revenue or damages" associated with the decline in electrical output. And there lies the problem with waste to energy: it incentivizes the creation of waste and disincentivizes recycling of plastic, cardboard, and composting of agricultural products (glass and metals will be seperated). The County's Zero Waste Resolution and the current proposal are incompatible simply because following the resolution ensures that there won't be enough waste available to use as feedstock. So, what's the solution?
Simple, just expand the meaning of diversion (which, in the Zero Waste Resolution means reusing, reducing, and recycling) to include burning. "This PPP will further the County's goals of zero waste disposal by… achieving the County's diversion goal of 70% diversion by 2023 in the first year of commercial operation." One beautifully simple sentence at the very end of the Pelatron Q proposal reconciles the inherent incompatibility of zero waste and waste to energy by expanding the meaning of diversion to include burning. If that seems deceptive to you, I agree.
Before going any further with waste to energy the county should clarify that diversion, as used in the Zero Waste Resolution, does not include burning and clearly state that the current Pelatron Q proposal is oppositional to the Zero Waste Resolution. If the bill ever comes before the council to guarantee feedstock for a waste-to-energy facility, and if the feedstock amount is greater than 30,000 tons (remember, Pelatron Q is looking for 75,000 tons while only 30,000 should be available with implementation of the Zero Waste Resolution) then, for transparency, the bill should include language clarifying that it contradicts Kaua'i's Zero Waste Resolution and that a vote for waste-to-energy is a vote against zero waste.
But, on the other hand, if the technology is proven to be commercially viable, it could have the potential to significantly reduce our island's carbon footprint and reduce the amount of toxic materials in the environment. With the goal of the Zero Waste Resolution being 70% diversion, we are still going to have 30,000 annual tons of waste to dispose of and a massive toxic landfill which is leaking into the surrounding area and releasing plumes of methane. So, there is room for plasma gasification of the remaining 30,000 tons and for hundreds of thousands of tons if the Kekaha landfill is mined. Reduction of waste, and the recycling of cardboard, plastics, and composting of biowaste (which would all be burned under the current proposal) should be aggressively pursued and only non-recyclables and current landfilled waste used in a waste-to-energy plant.
Before I close, it's important that we don't conflate the very different technologies of traditional incineration with plasma gasification. While there are huge emissions concerns with incineration (like burning trash in your backyard, it all goes into the air), the extreme heat of the plasma gasification technology makes it significantly cleaner. Because of the oxygen deprived atmosphere where the gasification occurs, dioxins are eliminated and carbon dioxide can't form. Also, because it will eliminate the potent greenhouse gas methane (released from anaerobic decomposition in landfills) it theoretically will result in less emissions than standard decomposition. Most importantly, when you take into account the avoided diesel or naptha fuel (as currently burned by KIUC), it definitely could reduce our island's carbon footprint and provide necessary baseline power.
While the process has been used in steel foundries, disposal of chemical weapons, and is part of the technology behind clean coal, there are currently no commercial plasma waste-to-energy plants in the US. One plant in Japan produces an electrical output of only 4.3MW (a little more than half of the proposed Kaua'i plant) while processing well over 100,000 annual tons of trash (30% more than Kaua'i plant). A similar project has been under development in St. Lucie Florida since 2004 and was slated to go on-line in 2011 yet a lack of financing led to the abandonment of the project in 2012. The VP of a proposed facility in Tallahassee, Florida was quoted by Biomass Magazine as saying: "I think as soon as several of these get on line and operating, and people gain some confidence, you'll see them widespread. However, somebody has to be the first so that others can use that as a blueprint for success going forward." Shortly afterwards their project also collapsed. There appear to be a lot of companies claiming they can reproduce the technology but, so far in the US, nobody is successfully using plasma gasification for waste-to-energy on a commercial scale.
There is room for a dialogue on the benefits of plasma gasification. However, I hope that the county does its due diligence in ensuring that the technology is commercially feasible, that emissions are as low as stated, that they have a plan for disposal of the sludge byproduct, and, most importantly, that they effectively reconcile it (by lowering the feedstock minimums to account for non-recyclables only) with our current zero waste plan and clearly state that the proposed plan is oppositional to the County's Zero Waste Resolution.
Before going any further with waste to energy the county should clarify that diversion, as used in the Zero Waste Resolution, does not include burning and clearly state that the current Pelatron Q proposal is oppositional to the Zero Waste Resolution. If the bill ever comes before the council to guarantee feedstock for a waste-to-energy facility, and if the feedstock amount is greater than 30,000 tons (remember, Pelatron Q is looking for 75,000 tons while only 30,000 should be available with implementation of the Zero Waste Resolution) then, for transparency, the bill should include language clarifying that it contradicts Kaua'i's Zero Waste Resolution and that a vote for waste-to-energy is a vote against zero waste.
But, on the other hand, if the technology is proven to be commercially viable, it could have the potential to significantly reduce our island's carbon footprint and reduce the amount of toxic materials in the environment. With the goal of the Zero Waste Resolution being 70% diversion, we are still going to have 30,000 annual tons of waste to dispose of and a massive toxic landfill which is leaking into the surrounding area and releasing plumes of methane. So, there is room for plasma gasification of the remaining 30,000 tons and for hundreds of thousands of tons if the Kekaha landfill is mined. Reduction of waste, and the recycling of cardboard, plastics, and composting of biowaste (which would all be burned under the current proposal) should be aggressively pursued and only non-recyclables and current landfilled waste used in a waste-to-energy plant.
Before I close, it's important that we don't conflate the very different technologies of traditional incineration with plasma gasification. While there are huge emissions concerns with incineration (like burning trash in your backyard, it all goes into the air), the extreme heat of the plasma gasification technology makes it significantly cleaner. Because of the oxygen deprived atmosphere where the gasification occurs, dioxins are eliminated and carbon dioxide can't form. Also, because it will eliminate the potent greenhouse gas methane (released from anaerobic decomposition in landfills) it theoretically will result in less emissions than standard decomposition. Most importantly, when you take into account the avoided diesel or naptha fuel (as currently burned by KIUC), it definitely could reduce our island's carbon footprint and provide necessary baseline power.
While the process has been used in steel foundries, disposal of chemical weapons, and is part of the technology behind clean coal, there are currently no commercial plasma waste-to-energy plants in the US. One plant in Japan produces an electrical output of only 4.3MW (a little more than half of the proposed Kaua'i plant) while processing well over 100,000 annual tons of trash (30% more than Kaua'i plant). A similar project has been under development in St. Lucie Florida since 2004 and was slated to go on-line in 2011 yet a lack of financing led to the abandonment of the project in 2012. The VP of a proposed facility in Tallahassee, Florida was quoted by Biomass Magazine as saying: "I think as soon as several of these get on line and operating, and people gain some confidence, you'll see them widespread. However, somebody has to be the first so that others can use that as a blueprint for success going forward." Shortly afterwards their project also collapsed. There appear to be a lot of companies claiming they can reproduce the technology but, so far in the US, nobody is successfully using plasma gasification for waste-to-energy on a commercial scale.
There is room for a dialogue on the benefits of plasma gasification. However, I hope that the county does its due diligence in ensuring that the technology is commercially feasible, that emissions are as low as stated, that they have a plan for disposal of the sludge byproduct, and, most importantly, that they effectively reconcile it (by lowering the feedstock minimums to account for non-recyclables only) with our current zero waste plan and clearly state that the proposed plan is oppositional to the County's Zero Waste Resolution.
Check out this video for an explanation of the proposed technology.
Excellent points made Luke! In addition, another concern is what kind of money they would expect KIUC (us members) to pay for the electricity they would be making - I'm sure it would be no where near the low rates we are achieving with our solar farms.
ReplyDeletePelatron
ReplyDeleteState-backed Loans: $89M to Companies Tied to OHA Chair Robert Lindsey
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/14702/State-backed-Loans-89M-to-Companies-Tied-to-OHA-Chair-Robert-Lindsey.aspx
Is it really "Zero Waste," though, to recycle materials by sending them to O'ahu and then to China or the mainland, burning fuel for the long journey and producing emissions using internal combustion engines along the way? Is the corrugated cardboard, paperboard, and junk mail that we're currently bundling up and sending away, at great cost, different in a meaningful way from the biomass being burned at the new facility near Knudsen Gap? Not that the biomass facility can accept those materials as fuel -- it can't -- but if this newer technology can do so, is it better to continue sending it across the ocean instead, so we can call it "Zero Waste?"
ReplyDeleteGlass, metals, electronics, and universal waste (batteries and fluorescent bulbs) are one thing. They aren't useful as fuel, some of them save a lot of energy when recycled, and others should be recovered to prevent release of heavy metals such as mercury and lead. It would be nice if these materials could be sent to Hawai'i manufacturing facilities for recycling (if those existed, which generally they don't), but even sending them further away can make sense, particularly in the case of aluminum.
But the hydrocarbon-based "recyclables," in contrast, are basically fuel. The current state is that we're importing fuel (diesel and naphtha), using fuel to bring it here, burning it near Port Allen to generate about 85% of the island's electricity, and simultaneously exporting fuel (cardboard, mixed paper, etc.), using fuel to carry it around the island, load it onto barges, and transport it away. With curbside pickup, even more fuel is slated to be burned for this process. The "Zero Waste" proposal doesn't eliminate this waste and fuel use. It only categorizes it as "diversion."
I'd love to have a 100% non-fuel-sourced electrical generation system. Wave energy, hydro, geothermal, wind, solar, add in some pumped storage for 24/7 availability. Sounds great. But the reality is that we haven't even managed to transition a fifth of the island's electrical generation away from fuel. The reality is that whether or not I compost, recycle, and commit to source reduction of waste (which I do), my friends tell me they're concerned the new 64-gallon bin won't be big enough, because right now they pay to put two contractor bags (55gal) of rubbish on the curb each week. Those of us who want to reduce waste are doing it already. Not everyone is going to change. Refusing to accept that fact isn't going to change it, it's just going to grow the landfill taller.
There isn't even a way to divert wooden pallets from the landfill, and hasn't been for years.
It sounds as if mining the landfill could produce years worth of fuel. It seems to me that processing greenwaste into jet fuel might also turn out to be more environmentally friendly than the current composting process (which generates CO2 and methane).
I don't know for sure. I'm not involved with any of these proposals. I just hate to see all possibilities dismissed if they don't line up with an ideology labeled "Zero Waste" that isn't zero-waste at all.
PETRON GROUP LLP is a global private Equity Firm that invests in Private Equity, Debt, Infrastructure, Renewable Resources globally. The firm manages a broad range of investment programs for Institutional Investors such as family offices, endowments, funds of funds, ultra high net worth investors who wants direct exposure into Private Equity.
ReplyDeleteWaste To Energy