Assignment #7: Sustainability Discussion Waste-To-Energy Plants

This story deals with an innovative method combating an age old problem, energy conversion from garbage or waste. A few countries in Europe, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands have adopted an innovative technique of burning garbage and industrial waste using filtrated incinerators which then convert the heat into energy. It is a very novel approach to something which is a part of our daily lives. The program only burns non-recyclable materials, which allows for its recycling programs to continue, and then uses the energy for heating of homes. In Denmark there are nearly 30 of these plants which serve almost 100 different cities. These plants are called waste-to-energy plants which were spawned from the strict environmental regulations and pollution standards the European Union placed on its members.

This program demonstrates the ability of local governments to take the lead in preventing pollution within their communities, while maintaining sustainable practices. Although the initial costs associated with these types of plants and new technology is somewhat expensive, there is little to none pollution be emitted. Bi-products of the plant are sold to the manufacturing industry where they can be used and eventually recycled. Also, this eliminates the costly storage, use of green space, and pollution of a traditional landfill.

The article also compares this type of program to the sluggish and slow development of systems like this in the United States. Issues such as unwillingness to change habits, deal with the upfront costs, and relatively inexpensiveness of landfills are common in the argument. Also, the fact that communities traditionally are not supportive of plants to be built and operated in a location close to their residence is another issue. This is typically called NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard. Even traditional environmental groups have a hard time buying into the sustainable factors surrounding this method in a somewhat similar sense to nuclear energy.

What we could learn from this type of project is a couple of different things. First, we as Americans must change the way we view things and broaden our scope to not only are individual benefit, but the community, city, state, etc benefit too. Their needs to be a collective change among our perception, otherwise NIMBY will rule us. Secondly, adopting sustainable practices like this can have direct and immediate impacts, residents in Horsholm, Denmark and the other 97 municipalities have witnessed a decrease in their overall heating bill. We must understand the economic gains, as well as the environmental benefits too. Third, we do not have to sacrifice that must in order to achieve this type of system. Recycling will still be prevalent, and anything not able to be recycled will be burned in a waste-to-energy plant.

What I really like about this particular project is that it adopts principles of strong sustainability. This is evident by utilizing energy, creating electricity to power homes and provide heating, from human waste and garbage. The only problem I foresee with this is the fact that it may create a moral hazard to have more garbage than use recyclable products or recycle in general. More chemical waste could develop through programs like this. It could occur an influx of more garbage, however if the technology is provided to combat with this with low to zero pollution then the moral hazard becomes minimal.

Also, with this program we see an elimination of perfectly usable green space being exploited for waste storage. Coupled with that will be less transportation costs associated with sending waste to other nearby states for storage by merely just burning it. This is where economic sustainability comes into the equation by then allowing more funds to be diverted to other projects that are deemed more useful and sustainable. The hardest parts of the public taking an investment into plants like this are upfront costs, (which will be less in the long-term compared to use of landfills) and the location of these plants in relation to their communities. For the latter, financial incentives or credits could be given in order to encourage communities to allow for construction and operation of plants in their areas.

This might region-specific in Europe, however I believe this could be implemented in places like China, United States, and other large waste producers. Also, in the United States, states could provide region specific plans. The main area which concerns me would be industrial areas and manufacturing. They could benefit greatly, however as stated previously there may be more excessive use of products that are hard to dispose of or burn.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science