programs

Waste to Energy Program 5

Notes and Sources

1. On an equal heat input basis. This statement compares the total emissions (in pounds) from a home furnace burning heating oil or natural gas with the total emissions (in pounds) of a modern waste-to-energy plant burning an amount of garbage with equivalent heat content.
2. Others are: energy efficiency (25 percent), alternative fuel vehicles (23 percent), and natural gas reforms (23 percent). National Energy Strategy, U. S. Department of Energy, 1991/1992, pages 181, 182.
3. This calculation is performed using the latest EPA estimate of U. S. Annual garbage production (197 million tons), the current mix of fossil fuels used for electric generation in the United States (1992 final data from Electric Power Monthly, October 1993, Energy Information Administration, U. S. Department of Energy, page 22), and emissions data presented elsewhere in graph form. (Note: This analysis does not include waste-to-energy's considerable advantage in net greenhouse gas emissions.)
4. Interviews (June 1993) with John Eppich and Don Avilla, Sanitation District of Los Angeles County, and Joe Smisko, plant manager of the Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility, Commerce, California.
5. Derived from American Ash Recycling Corp. (Jacksonville, Florida) numbers of 10 tons ferrous and 1.2 tons non-ferrous recoverable from 100 tops of ash. (1,000 tons per day produces 300 tons of ash which contain about 20 tons ferrous and 3 tons non-ferrous).
6. "Organic Matter" includes coal, oil and natural gas, which are fossilized organic matter.
7. Based on emissions data collected in 1985 and 1991 from the McKay Bay waste-to-energy plant in Tampa, Florida.
8. Public information office of the American Petroleum Institute, Washington D. C. (June 1993).
9. Cool Energy, Michael Brower, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1992, p. 108.
10. U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S., Franklin Associates, 1992 Update.
11. These graphs represent average emissions for electricity production, allowing for different turbine efficiencies. Individual plant performance may differ. Various reference sources were used, since no reference covers all power plant types:
• Coal: Particulates from USEPA document AP-42 Utility Boiler Classification, page 1.1-2, Revision 9/88 corrected for 97% removal efficiency; acid gas and NOx from Clean Air Act Amendments Phase 1 requirements; hydrocarbons and CO based on AP-42 and Renee Resenbaum, Department of Systems, University of Pennsylvania.
• Oil: CO and hydrocarbon based on Consolidated Edison's Hudson Avenue Steam Generating Facility burning 0.3% sulfur fuel oil; acid gas and particulates from "How Does Waste-to-Energy 'Stack' Up?", Norman P. Getz, Roy F. Weston, Inc., Wilmington, MA, March 30, 1993, with reference to USEPA document AP-42 Utility Boiler Classification, page 1.3-2, Table 1.3-1, Revision 10/86 for a plant burning 0.7% sulfur fuel oil (low sulfur No. 6); NOx from Clean Air Act Amendments Phase 1 requirements.
• Waste-to-Energy: These emissions reflect the average performance of a typical mass-burn plant (the most common type) burning an average "waste stream." Actual plant emissions data will include brief periods of emissions that are higher than normal (but still within permitted limits) because waste-to-energy plants burn fuel that is relatively inconsistent in moisture content and heat value, compared to coal, oil and gas. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Sold Waste Processing Division and Integrated Waste Services Association provided emissions data.
• Natural Gas: CO, acid gas, particulates (ave.) from USEPA document AP-42 Utility Boiler Classification, page 1.4-5, Table 1.4-2 and 1.4-3, Revision 10/92; NOx from Clean Air Act Amendments Phase 1 requirements; hydrocarbon from Licata Energy & Environmental Consulatnats, Inc., Yonkers, New York.
• Metal Emissions: Data were examined from "Electric Utilities and Long-Range Transport of Mercury and other Toxic Air Pollutants," Chris Neme, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC, November 1991; "A Comparative Evaluation of Metal Emissions and Human Health Risks from Inhalation of Metals Emitted from Waste and Coal Combustors," Macoskey, Roffman, and Lentz, AWD Technologies, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA; "How Does Waste-to-Energy 'Stack' Up?", Norman P. Getz, Roy F. Weston, Inc., Wilmington, MA, March 30, 1993. In constructing these graphs, it was assumed that waste-to-energy plants would replace the electric utility's older base load coal, oil or gas capacity. The rationale for this comparison is as follows: Waste-to-energy plants are used for "base load" electric generation; that is, they run on 24 hours a day, year-round (except during maintenance). The type of fuel replaced by waste-to-energy plants will vary from one region of the country to another, but in almost every case it will be coal, fuel oil or natural gas. This is because electric utilities will use their least expensive power first, adding more expensive power only as necessary to meet increased electric demand in winter and summer. Utilities also trade power with one another to use the most efficient resources in the region. Most regions of the country have several older coal, oil or natural gas plants "in reserve." These older plants are generally more expensive to operate, and so their fuels are the first to be replaced by waste-to-energy. Coal and oil may also be restricted in some regions by the new Clean Air Act regulations. Non-fossil sources of electricity, such as hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear, solar and wind power generally have high fixed costs and/or low operating costs, so they are unlikely to be replaced by waste-to-energy.
12. 1992 year end estimate by J. Winston Porter, former EPA Assistant Administrator (1985-1989), Waste Policy Center, 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA.
13. "Recycling and Waste-to-Energy: Working Well Together," Jonathan V. L. Kiser, Solid Waste & Power, Industry Sourcebook 1993. Examples: Newark, New Jersey, winner of the 1991 U.S. EPA Administrator's Award for Local Government, has a recycling rate of 52 percent and a 2,277 ton per day waste-to-energy plant. Gloucester County, New Jersey has a recycling rate of 47 percent and a 575 ton per day waste-to-energy plant. Hennepin County (Minneapolis) Minnesota has a recycling rate of 46 percent and two waste-to-energy facilities, one handling 560 tons per day and one handling 1,200 tons per day.

©From America's Newest Energy Source and Making a Clean Energy Source Cleaner. Call (202) 659-3819 for samples. Volume discounts available for quantities from 100 to 20,000 copies. All material Copyright 1994 by the AIMS Coalition [American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Integrated Waste Services Association (IWSA), Municipal Waste Management Association of the U.S. Conference of Mayors (MWMA), and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)].