Waste-to-energy may not be a bright idea at all, but could even create new forms of waste
Ardent advocates of waste-to-energy or WtE insist it is a viable solution to mountains of trash accumulated on a daily basis by households and various industries.
They claim incinerating solid waste to fuel electricity generators is the future of waste management and clean energy.
The rationale for a bill now pending in the Senate is the assessment of the Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR that the country is projected to generate 92 million tons of waste between 2022 to 2025.
Hence, the proposed measure “seeks to help address our solid waste management problems by encouraging the development of environmentally sustainable innovations in the recovery, conservation, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste by using WtE technologies.”
The proposed law, however, overlooks other waste management technologies that evidence suggests represent a much safer and cleaner way to convert garbage dumps into a repository of fuel sources.
It would take more than just a law, however, to kickstart the waste-to-energy industry.
It requires a paradigm shift in mindsets and lifestyles as well as the active participation of at least three government departments: DENR, DOE and DILG.
The DENR should be involved because it has jurisdiction over solid waste management; the DOE because the WtE system will produce electricity; and the DILG because it is local governments that will implement waste management operations.
It is true that WtE facilities can help divert waste from landfills. By converting waste into energy, we decrease the need for large landfill sites, which can be environmentally damaging and space-intensive.
But what the proposed law does not clearly state is that there is no other currently available method to produce electricity directly from waste other than by burning everything flammable collected from garbage dumps. That’s how incineration works.
Properly managed WtE facilities emit fewer greenhouse gases compared to uncontrolled landfill sites. Incineration reduces methane emissions (a potent greenhouse gas) by preventing organic waste from decomposing in landfills.
The waste to incinerated would include plastics, food waste, textiles, rubber, PVCs, and polyurethane, among others. Without effective segregation, these materials are toxic and can kill.
The international environmental group Friends of the Earth is among those opposed to burning waste to produce electricity.
They reject incineration because this contributes to climate breakdown and is an inefficient way of generating energy.
They also say that incineration destroys valuable materials that could be recycled into new products, and that recycling avoids having to make products from virgin materials.
And they claim that incineration does not provide an incentive for reducing waste, since contracts for incinerators are long, requiring waste for 20 years.
The NGO also believes that WtE is not likely to reduce the volume of waste being dumped in landfills and open dumps.
“Burning the waste doesn’t cause it to disappear,” the group said, adding that 15 to 25 percent of the waste thrown in incinerators “remains as ash in the end.”
“The incineration process produces highly toxic filter cake which will need to be disposed of in hazardous waste landfills,” the group said.
Some ash can be used in construction materials, but managing it can be a challenge.
While modern WtE facilities have strict emission controls, incineration still releases pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter.
These emissions can impact air quality and human health.
Though in minute amounts, the air we breathe, because of pollution, is laden with some of the most toxic substances on Earth—arsenic, lead, mercury and a host of other deadly chemicals.
While in very minuscule amounts, these poisonous chemicals will build up in the human body and act like slow poison.
And we’re likely to just watch helplessly as new forms of waste, a more toxic one, add to our growing garbage pile.
WtE works best with homogeneous waste streams.
Mixed waste can be challenging to process efficiently. Contaminants like plastics and hazardous materials may affect energy recovery.
Finally, compared to other renewable energy sources like wind or solar, WtE has lower energy efficiency. It’s more efficient than landfilling, but not as efficient as some alternatives.
In other words, waste-to-energy may not be a bright idea at all, but could even create new forms of waste.
(Email: [email protected])
