New Incinerators Planned for CA

[Mike Ewall]

I just posted the message below in response to a new recruit from
California to our Biomass Opponents email list. I ran into this data
source a few months ago and should have brought this to the attention
of these lists earlier. In addition to about 30 proposed "biomass"
incinerators, there are four trash incinerators proposed by Los
Angeles listed as well. In case any of these are not yet known to
those who'd be inclined to fight them, check this out. Also, if
you're fighting biomass or landfill gas and would like to join our
biomass opponents list, let me know and I'll add you.

Mike
-----

There are dozens of existing and proposed biomass plants in CA. To
find many of them, see the Excel downloads available on these pages:
http://energy.ca.gov/portfolio/contracts_database.html (public utilities)
http://energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-300-2008-005/ (private,
investor-owned utilities)

Of the public ones, see the "Contract Detail" tab and sort the
"technology column" to find the biomass, LFG (landfill gas) and MSW
(municipal solid waste / trash incineration) categories.

There are 4 proposed trash incinerators:

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) LADWP RenewLA -1
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) LADWP RenewLA -2
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) LADWP RenewLA-3
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) LADWP RenewLA-4

There are 7 proposed biomass plants:

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) LADWP Terminal
Island Fuel Cell
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) LADWP TI Renewable Energy
Redding Electric Utility Redding Roseburg
Shasta Lake, City of Shasta Lake Sierra Pacific Industries
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) SMUD Sierra Pacific
Industries (to be located in WA state, but power purchased in CA)
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) SMUD Feb-07 n/d (biomass
digester)
Turlock Irrigation District Turlock Aug-07 Turlock waste water
treatment (fuel cell)

There are also 26 landfill gas facilities (7 existing; 19
proposed). I'm not listing them here.

If you look up the private utilities data file, you'll find many more:

23 biomass plants (8 existing, 10 proposed, 5 re-starts)
19 biogas plants (mostly proposed)

Mike Ewall
Energy Justice Network
cata...@actionpa.org
http://www.energyjustice.net

[Norm Ruttan]

Mike,

With respect, I'm opposed to a blanket condemnation of biomass for
energy.

10 years ago I asked the Kortright Center in Toronto for a
recommendation on how to replace electric heating in my house. They
recommended (of course) that I spend as much as I could afford on
conservation.

At the same time, they recommended that I buy a wood pellet stove that
would burn sawdust pellets that were made out of sawdust that was at
the time being 'wasted' by being put in huge piles, causing runoff
problems, slowly decaying without producing any useful decomposition
product.

As a result, I bought a wood pellet stove, and have used it for that
period of time, thereby permitting me to avoid the use of coal (and
hydro) produced electricity. During that time, I have avoided burning
X gallons of fuel oil, or Y cords of firewood cut expressly for my
wood stove, or Z tonnes of coal transported by train to the Naticoke
Hydro Generating Station in Nanticoke, Ontario to be turned into
electricity.

In my view use of biomass for energy, including direct combustion, and
also including biomass being put through a biodigestion process, and/
or producing biochar and pyrolysis products is not a bad thing. If I
had to judge it solely on its own merit, I'd say 'conserve' and then
use biomass if you have to. But compared to fuel oil, coal fired
electricity, tar sands oil, etc it's a good thing.

I am in favour of developing a 'hierarchy' of 'wise use of biomass' so
that we avoid things like 'corn to ethanol' for eg. where the full
cost assessment of the process would/does show that the net effect of
growing corn, including the use of petroleum for fuel and fertilizer
is not beneficial for our planet.

I am of course first in favour of 'conservation' as the prime method
of reducing generation of energy and waste. In a perfect world, we
would not need to use biomass for energy, but the world I live in is
not perfect.

Norm (Ruttan)
iWasteNot Systems

> catal...@actionpa.orghttp://www.energyjustice.net

[Andrew Kessler]

Mike. It would appreciate it if you could clarify your position on
biomass a bit more. Are you against organics recycling activities
that produce (from organic feedstock such as food, yard and ag waste)
biogas from anaeorobic digestors and subsequently compost the
digestate to produce compost and soil amendments?

If so, what is your objection to that form of biomass recycling/
processing?

We are in favor of best use for biomass "waste". In our view,
incineration, gasification and pyrolisis is not "best use". We also
do not see the production of biomass for use as an energy feedstock as
an optimal way to source biomass feedstock. There is plenty of
organic "waste" that needs to be recycled. We don't need to spend
energy, resources and soil fertility to produce feedstock when it
already exists within the "waste stream".

With respect to landfill methane gas capture projects we have mixed
feelings. Organics do not belong in landfills so we don't want to
encourage more organics going there. However, a significant amount of
organics are already entombed in landfills and of course, organics are
going to landfills everyday as part of the MSW stream. That means,
methane gas is being generated at landfills which contributes to
global warming.

So how do we mitigate landfill methane problems without discouraging
organics diversion efforts? Landfill methane capture technology is
quite inefficient relative to anaerobic digestion but at least some
amount of methane coming from the landfill is captured. But the last
thing we want to do is support the false notion that landfill "waste
to energy" technology is a good way to manage our organic waste
stream.

"Biomass" is a very broad label. Are we talking about growing crops
or using "waste"? What kind of technology (incineration vs. anaerobic
digestion) will be used? What type of facility are we talking about
(landfills or a facility focused on organics diversion)?

It would be great to better understand your position and whether it
might be appropriate to find a more precise label than "Biomass
Opponents".

On Nov 18, 4:29 pm, Mike Ewall <catal...@actionpa.org> wrote:

> catal...@actionpa.orghttp://www.energyjustice.net

[James Travers]

Andrew,

 

While I agree with much of what you have written and also wish for a clarification from Mike Ewall on his view of which method would be most acceptable for handling true biomass wastes, I would like you to clarify for those of us who do not know you, who do your refer to as "we" in your comment below? :

 

"We are in favor of best use for biomass "waste".  In our view,
incineration, gasification and pyrolisis is not "best use".  We also
do not see the production of biomass for use as an energy feedstock as
an optimal way to source biomass feedstock." 

 

While I believe many in NY are accepting of certain ag biowaste combined heat and power operations (CHP) utilizing yard, manure and feedstocks and bedding wastes such as hay to anaerobically create methane, many are opposed to other types of biomass thermal generated power production, as you mention or allude to as being objectionable.

 

Aside from the fact that some detest the robotic, inhumane unnatural conditions and inherent problems Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) pose, it seems that they are here to stay, at least until we are weened from eating of pork and beef and the drinking of cow's milk, and as long as they are, we are confronted with dealing appropriately with the waste from these types of operations. But what is often overlooked is what happens to the waste after it has given up its carbon content in the form of methane. The left over 'sludge'. Sure, some may be returned to fields, but what about those that combine animal waste with MSW? Nasty stuff (digestate) is often left behind that should not be spread on fields, but is. In some cases these types of sludge are incinerated.

 

Even when super purified and desulfured, which adds undesirable expense to the enterprise, the methane being burned also contains various aerosolized toxins. In New York these emissions are not being monitored, though they should be.

 

Due to the diminishing and finite world supply of phosphorous, a necessary ingredient in fertilizers, I, and others within our NY Zero Waste Alliance support and advocate for the aerobic composting of other forms of biowaste.

 

Aerobic composting of organic wastes closely mimics nature by sequestering carbon when mixed with field soils and some is taken up by growing plants which over time is released rather naturally.

 

Burning methane quickly returns carbon dioxide, and due to incomplete combustion inherent in all internal combustion engines, some unburned methane to the atmosphere.

 

Soon our new (first update in 20 yrs) NY State Solid Waste Management Plan will be released for public comment. When it is I hope opponents of thermal treatment of biomass waste will offer their comments, as all of these technologies in all their forms is undesirable, not just because of their atmospheric warming gaseous and ultra- fine particulate releases, some of which are toxic, but also because of their bankrupting costs which, once they have chosen to go down that path, prohibit investment by localities in truly clean and renewable power generation technologies, like wind, solar and hydro.

 

All WTE technologies deter waste reduction, and in fact demand an increased waste stream to feed their hungry appetites. All to often these projects fall short of meeting their contractural supply of tonnage of waste and when they do taxes must be raised to pay for the shortfall. 

 

Indeed, it seems that while not explicitly encouraging WTE thermal treatment of waste, NY's DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) does not condemn these thermal treatment technologies because of their exorbitant costs, their highly toxic mercury containing fly and bottom ash which needs to be landfilled or because of the tremendous quantity of releases of atmospheric warming and toxic emissions and sadly, other state agencies subsidize their development as renewable sources of energy production.

 

While presented with a unique once in a generation opportunity to create a most meaningful and sustainable state solid waste plan, NY's DEC has failed in its obligation to protect our citizenry and environment by not promoting truly sustainable policies. They encourage waste reduction, but seem to embrace these non- sustainable, costly and wasteful thermal treatment technologies. Two steps forward and three backward.

 

After clarification, Mike should circulate a sign-on letter opposing those thermal waste treatment technologies his organization and many of ours find objectionable. We must oppose these wasteful technologies in a unified national effort, for surely I doubt there is one state in the nation the pro- incinerator lobby is not pushing these technologies as the be all and end all solution for dealing with solid waste.

 

Let's remember, 7/100ths of 1% (0.07%) of earth's landmass dedicated to solar energy production can supply us with enough electricity to meet all of our world's energy needs.

 

We need to move away from our dependence upon carbon emitting internal combustion energy producing technologies. There are better ways to deal with our wastes and better, sustainable technologies available for us to produce electricity.

 

Jim Travers

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: Andrew Kessler <andrew....@comcast.net>
To: GreenYes <gree...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 9:29:26 AM
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: New Incinerators Planned for CA

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to Google
Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to Gree...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
GreenYes+unsub...@googlegroups.com
To change email delivery options visit  http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes?hl=en

[Peter Slote]

Allow me to add a few things to this excellent discussion, without
commenting on everything covered.

Regarding LF gas to energy, there is another position besides "for or
against". The way this activity is financed is critical to outcomes.
Providing a competitive advantage through subsidies or credits to LFG-
to-energy arguably promotes the placement of organics into landfills.
On the other hand, if LFG emissions were regarded and regulated as
pollution, that would drive the minimization (and perhaps also the
capture for energy) of LFG emissions. The former makes LFG-to-energy
a profit center that demands return on investment (feed the beast);
the latter forces the internalization of the costs (by LF operators)
and aligns with keeping organics out of the landfill, though perhaps
it too includes LFG-to-energy (as a cost recovery opportunity).

Second, I think a good test of the desirability of anaerobic digestion
for a given feedstock is if the resulting digestate (solids) are
suitable for return to soils, either directly or via aerobic
composting. I call this the "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The
Windrow" scenario. This is a general rule of thumb of course, but it
begins to assess not just the technology/process, but includes
consideration of the specific feedstock for a given project. I think
that's critical in the assessment of AD.

The California Organics Recycling Council (CORC), a technical council
of the California Resource Recovery Association (CRRA) held an AD
workshop in Oakland, CA on 11/17/09, and was attended by 200 zero
waste professionals and advocates. Look for presentation materials at
www.CRRA.com sometime soon.

Finally, I offer the City of Oakland's "Environmental Hierarchy to
Guide Oakland’s Zero Waste Strategies, Policies and Actions" which is
Exhibit A of Oakland's Zero Waste Strategic Plan, available at
www.ZeroWasteOakland.com. This hierarchy covers just urban municipal
discards, not industrial/agricultural byproducts, etc., discussed in
this thread. Anyone familiar with Mike Ewall and Environmental
Justice Network will see that Oakland's Hierarchy draws heavily on his/
their excellent work.

Peter Slote
City of Oakland Public Works Agency

[Andrew Kessler]

Jim: Thank you for your comments. I would be happy to provide you
and this community with more information about myself and my company,
Turning Earth, LLC.

Recognizing the need to better manage our organic "waste" stream, my
wife and I launched Turning Earth in January 2009. Turning Earth is
an integrated organics recycling company focused on producing biogas,
compost and sustainable agriculture, an approach called The Triple
Play. To clarify further:

Targeted feedstock: Organics do not belong in landfills or
incinerators. Nor should resources be spent creating organic matter
simply as a feedstock for energy when there are organics in our
"waste" stream to recycle. We are firm believers in the merits of
source separation as the most effective and efficient way to manage
organics. Our focus is on yard, food and farm "waste".

Biogas production: We plan to use anaerobic digestion technology to
produce biogas from the organics that we collect.

Compost production: The digestate will be aerobically processed into
rich compost and soil amendments.

Sustainable Agriculture: We plan to utilize composting bi-products
such as heat, steam and CO2 to create optimal, low cost conditions for
the production of local foods for local communities on a year-round
basis.

We share your concerns regarding the state of our industrial farming
industry including the industrial production and processing of live
stock. Perhaps over time, more sustainable practices will evolve. In
the meantime, we must find ways to responsibly manage manure and farm
waste. We think we can be a part of that solution. We'd be delighted
if, over time, the emergence of smaller scale, sustainable farms
emerged that could responsibly process the farm waste they produce.

As I already stated, we are opposed to incineration, gasification,
pyrolisis, plasma or any other creative way of describing effectively
the combustion of organics as way to manage organic "waste".

We are strong advocates for the need to replenish our nation's
(indeed, the planet's) soil fertility though compost and view compost
as a key tool in the fight against climate change.

Turning Earth is not and will never be a landfill biogas company. Our
mission is organics diversion from landfills and incinerators. That
being said and to clarify my previous post, organics are currently
entombed in landfills. And sadly, organics continue to go to
landfills. The organics already entombed in landfills and still going
to landfills will produce methane that will simply be released into
the atmosphere and contribute to climate change. We would like to see
a solution emerge that captures that methane WITHOUT encouraging more
organics into landfills. We are not sure if such a solution exists.
Once landfills spend the money on methane capture technology, they
will (as you say) demand more organics to "feed their hungry
appitites". We are very sensitive to this risk. Indeed, we are
already seeing organics diversion rollback efforts in certain states.
Discouraging organics diversion would be way too high of a price to
pay for finding a way to force landfills to capture the methane that
their landfills are producing today.

Please feel free to call me directly to speak further on any of these
important issues. Thank you.

Andrew Kessler
Managing Director
Turning Earth, LLC
97 Maple Wood Drive, Brewster, NY 10509
andrew....@turningearthllc.com
Telephone. 845 259 8400 | Facsimile. 845 622 3649 | Mobile.
917 251 5662

On Nov 24, 2:48 am, James Travers <jat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> While I agree with much of what you have written and also wish for a clarification from Mike Ewall on his view of which method would be most acceptable for handling true biomass wastes, I would like you to clarify for those of us who do not know you, who do your refer to as "we" in your comment below? :
>
> "We are in favor of best use for biomass "waste".  In our view,
> incineration, gasification and pyrolisis is not "best use".  We also
> do not see the production of biomass for use as an energy feedstock as
> an optimal way to source biomass feedstock." 
>  
> While I believe many in NY are accepting of certain ag biowaste combined heat and power operations (CHP) utilizing yard, manure and feedstocks and bedding wastes such as hay to anaerobically create methane, many are opposed to other types of biomass thermal generated power production, as you mention or allude to as being objectionable.
>  
> Aside from the fact that some detest the robotic, inhumane unnatural conditions and inherent problems Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) pose, it seems that they are here to stay, at least until we are weened from eating of pork and beef and the drinking of cow's milk, and as long as they are, we are confronted with dealing appropriately with the waste from these types of operations. But what is often overlooked is what happens to the waste after it has given up its carbon content in the form of methane. The left over 'sludge'. Sure, some may be returned to fields, but what about those that combine animal waste with MSW? Nasty stuff (digestate) is often left behind that should not be spread on fields, but is. In some cases these types of sludge are incinerated.
>  
> Even when super purified and desulfured, which adds undesirable expense to the enterprise, the methane being burned also contains various aerosolized toxins. In New York these emissions are not being monitored, though they should be.
>  
> Due to the diminishing and finite world supply of phosphorous, a necessary ingredient in fertilizers, I, and others within our NY Zero Waste Alliance support and advocate for the aerobic composting of other forms of biowaste.
>  
> Aerobic composting of organic wastes closely mimics nature by sequestering carbon when mixed with field soils and some is taken up by growing plants which over time is released rather naturally.
>  
> Burning methane quickly returns carbon dioxide, and due to incomplete combustion inherent in all internal combustion engines, some unburned methane to the atmosphere.
>  
> Soon our new (first update in 20 yrs) NY State Solid Waste Management Plan will be released for public comment. When it is I hope opponents of thermal treatment of biomass waste will offer their comments, as all of these technologies in all their forms is undesirable, not just because of their atmospheric warming gaseous and ultra- fine particulate releases, some of which are toxic, but also because of their bankrupting costs which, once they have chosen to go down that path, prohibit investment by localities in truly clean and renewable power generation technologies, like wind, solar and hydro.
>  
> All WTE technologies deter waste reduction, and in fact demand an increased waste stream to feed their hungry appetites. All to often these projects fall short of meeting their contractural supply of tonnage of waste and when they do taxes must be raised to pay for the shortfall. 
>  
> Indeed, it seems that while not explicitly encouraging WTE thermal treatment of waste, NY's DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) does not condemn these thermal treatment technologies because of their exorbitant costs, their highly toxic mercury containing fly and bottom ash which needs to be landfilled or because of the tremendous quantity of releases of atmospheric warming and toxic emissions and sadly, other state agencies subsidize their development as renewable sources of energy production.
>  
> While presented with a unique once in a generation opportunity to create a most meaningful and sustainable state solid waste plan, NY's DEC has failed in its obligation to protect our citizenry and environment by not promoting truly sustainable policies. They encourage waste reduction, but seem to embrace these non- sustainable, costly and wasteful thermal treatment technologies. Two steps forward and three backward.
>  
> After clarification, Mike should circulate a sign-on letter opposing those thermal waste treatment technologies his organization and many of ours find objectionable. We must oppose these wasteful technologies in a unified national effort, for surely I doubt there is one state in the nation the pro- incinerator lobby is not pushing these technologies as the be all and end all solution for dealing with solid waste.
>  
> Let's remember, 7/100ths of 1% (0.07%) of earth's landmass dedicated to solar energy production can supply us with enough electricity to meet all of our world's energy needs.
>  
> We need to move away from our dependence upon carbon emitting internal combustion energy producing technologies. There are better ways to deal with our wastes and better, sustainable technologies available for us to produce electricity.
>  
> Jim Travers
>  
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ________________________________

> From: Andrew Kessler <andrew.kess...@comcast.net>

> > find many of them, see the Excel downloads available on these pages:http://energy.ca.gov/portfolio/contracts_database.html(publicutilities)http://energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-300-2008-005/(private,

> GreenYes+u...@googlegroups.com

[Eric Lombardi]

Andrew:

Love your Triple Play game plan.  I think the technology for pulling it off clearly exists, so it comes down to the economics and regulatory environment that will determine the degree of your success.   Going a step deeper on the economics, it will be the feedstock and project scale that will be all-important.

My question ... I want to pull a Triple Play here in my area using the organic discard stream from all the commercial enterprises in my town.  That stream will include food scraps from restaurants and grocery stores, as well as a lot of "biobased" materials like PLA cutlery, biobags, and finally a bunch of nonrecyclable paper, especially paper towels from restrooms.  My research says that this isn't a very "good" feedstock for an AD unit, meaning that the BTU-production potential is low.  Also, the total tonnages from my commercial sector won't be all that high (my town is only 100,000 people).

So if I want to implement AD for this program, I need a small inexpensive AD technology.  But I haven't found one yet... have you? Until that comes along, I'm looking at the aerated static pile system (ASP) as the "middle-cost alternative" that also ensures that NO odors will come from my facility.  I'd rather go AD, but at this point success seems to require large scale and quality feedstock?

Finally, I want to add one comment to the idea that a "landfill gas capture project" is the only alternative to keeping organics out of the landfill.  I think there is a middle-road, and I favor it.  In Germany, there is a law that all mixed-waste must be preprocessed before it is buried so that the organic fraction gets "stabilized"... meaning that around 90% of the potential methane gets converted to CO2 before it is buried.  How?  A simple windrow approach works at the landfill for about 30 days.  In Europe they call this MBT (mechanical biological treatment) but here in the States some of us remember it from the early 1990's as "mixed waste composting".   The difference is that today we wouldn't have any illusions that the end product (the "compost") is good for anything except burial.  I support this approach since it is relatively inexpensive, flexible, and allows for creating a "rates and dates" bridge to the future where the goal is source-separated organics (SSO) within "x" years, and after that a huge processing fee is applied to any remaining mixed waste coming to the landfill.  Our goal should be 100% SSO out of landfill, and this landfill gas capture system is just confusing the issue.

Eric Lombardi

Eco-Cycle

www.ecocycle.org

---

From: "Andrew Kessler" <andrew....@comcast.net>

Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 11:58 AM
To: "GreenYes" <gree...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: [GreenYes] Re: New Incinerators Planned for CA

On Nov 24, 2:48 am, James Travers wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> While I agree with much of what you have written and also wish for a clarification from Mike Ewall on his view of which method would be most acceptable for handling true biomass wastes, I would like you to clarify for those of us who do not know you, who do your refer to as "we" in your comment below? :
>
> "We are in favor of best use for biomass "waste".  In our view,
> incineration, gasification and pyrolisis is not "best use".  We also
> do not see the production of biomass for use as an energy feedstock as
> an optimal way to source biomass feedstock." 
>  
> While I believe many in NY are accepting of certain ag biowaste combined heat and power operations (CHP) utilizing yard, manure and feedstocks and bedding wastes such as hay to anaerobically create methane, many are opposed to other types of biomass thermal generated power production, as you mention or allude to as being objectionable.
>  
> Aside from the fact that some detest the robotic, inhumane unnatural conditions and inherent problems Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) pose, it seems that they are here to stay, at least until we are weened from eating of pork and beef and the drinking of cow's milk, and as long as they are, we are confronted with dealing appropriately with the waste from these types of operations. But what is often overlooked is what happens to the waste after it has given up its carbon content in the form of methane. The left over 'sludge'. Sure, some may be returned to fields, but what about those that combine animal waste with MSW? Nasty stuff (digestate) is often left behind that should not be spread on fields, but is. In some cases these types of sludge are incinerated.
>  
> Even when super purified and desulfured, which adds undesirable expense to the enterprise, the methane being burned also contains various aerosolized toxins. In New York these emissions are not being monitored, though they should be.
>  
> Due to the diminishing and finite world supply of phosphorous, a necessary ingredient in fertilizers, I, and others within our NY Zero Waste Alliance support and advocate for the aerobic composting of other forms of biowaste.
>  
> Aerobic composting of organic wastes closely mimics nature by sequestering carbon when mixed with field soils and some is taken up by growing plants which over time is released rather naturally.
>  
> Burning methane quickly returns carbon dioxide, and due to incomplete combustion inherent in all internal combustion engines, some unburned methane to the atmosphere.
>  
> Soon our new (first update in 20 yrs) NY State Solid Waste Management Plan will be released for public comment. When it is I hope opponents of thermal treatment of biomass waste will offer their comments, as all of these technologies in all their forms is undesirable, not just because of their atmospheric warming gaseous and ultra- fine particulate releases, some of which are toxic, but also because of their bankrupting costs which, once they have chosen to go down that path, prohibit investment by localities in truly clean and renewable power generation technologies, like wind, solar and hydro.
>  
> All WTE technologies deter waste reduction, and in fact demand an increased waste stream to feed their hungry appetites. All to often these projects fall short of meeting their contractural supply of tonnage of waste and when they do taxes must be raised to pay for the shortfall. 
>  
> Indeed, it seems that while not explicitly encouraging WTE thermal treatment of waste, NY's DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) does not condemn these thermal treatment technologies because of their exorbitant costs, their highly toxic mercury containing fly and bottom ash which needs to be landfilled or because of the tremendous quantity of releases of atmospheric warming and toxic emissions and sadly, other state agencies subsidize their development as renewable sources of energy production.
>  
> While presented with a unique once in a generation opportunity to create a most meaningful and sustainable state solid waste plan, NY's DEC has failed in its obligation to protect our citizenry and environment by not promoting truly sustainable policies. They encourage waste reduction, but seem to embrace these non- sustainable, costly and wasteful thermal treatment technologies. Two steps forward and three backward.
>  
> After clarification, Mike should circulate a sign-on letter opposing those thermal waste treatment technologies his organization and many of ours find objectionable. We must oppose these wasteful technologies in a unified national effort, for surely I doubt there is one state in the nation the pro- incinerator lobby is not pushing these technologies as the be all and end all solution for dealing with solid waste.
>  
> Let's remember, 7/100ths of 1% (0.07%) of earth's landmass dedicated to solar energy production can supply us with enough electricity to meet all of our world's energy needs.
>  
> We need to move away from our dependence upon carbon emitting internal combustion energy producing technologies. There are better ways to deal with our wastes and better, sustainable technologies available for us to produce electricity.
>  
> Jim Travers
>  
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ________________________________
> From: Andrew Kessler

> To: GreenYes

[Andrew Kessler]

Eric: Thank you for your thoughts. In response to your questions:

1. I agree that the "bio-based" material as you describe/define it
isn't very good feedstock for AD. You may consider simply not taking
that feedstock. If you don't think it is possible to avoid that
feedstock, you need to consider the economic and environmental impact
of separating that stuff out at your facility. The pro of this is
ending up with more AD capacity which you can fill with better
feedstock to enhance the biogas yield. The con of this is separating
out that stuff will require incremental energy, labor and equipment.
In addition, you'll still have to find some way of processing these
bio-based materials - you could probably compost them along with the
digestate from the AD process. Did you attend the recent BioCycle
Conference? There was an excellent presentation entitled "Assessing
Behavior of Ingeo Compostable Resins In AD Systems" by Brian
Glasbrenner of NatureWorks, LLC. I believe presentations from that
conference are available via the BioCycle website. Lots of great
information about how compostable disposables breakdown in AD,
commercial composting and landfills.

The issue brings up a topic of much debate which is the relative
efficacy (from an environmental and economic perspective) of
biodegradable/compostable cutlery and bags. I want to be clear that
we are not anti-compostable disposables. We are anti-waste, and our
goal should be less waste. To be sure, at least compostable
disposables are compostable, but they are still disposables. My fear
is that widespread introduction of compostables will simply give
people an excuse to continue to use disposables, perpetuating our
society's disposable/wasting mindset.

2. With respect to scale, at the recent BioCycle conference there was
a track entitled "Digester Feasibility, Economics" on October 19.
Please review the presentations - lots of good information; although
much of it tended to focus on manures which is not your targeted
feedstock. Your question is a very good one. Unfortunately, the
answer is that it depends on a lot of factors. What is your assumed
tip fee? What are you assuming in terms of compost volume and sales
price. Are you thinking wet or dry AD technology? You really need a
full model to determine that and the key inputs vary from region to
region and will be impacted by the choices you make with respect to
how you choose to operate and the technologies you pick. You should
also look at the presentation entitled Renewable Energy From
Residential Organics. Kelsey Dahlen from Avant Energy Services
suggested you need 25,000 tons of feedstock per year to be cost
effective for dry AD technology. I can suggest specific industry
consultants who you may consider engaging to perform a feasibility
study. Feel free to email me directly.

3. With respect to composting technologies, what is best for you will
depend on your circumstances. But I would say that it is virtually
impossible to assume that any composting solution will produce NO
odors. Technology buys you control of certain key factors and risks
including leachate, odor, compost production time, etc. How much
technology you can afford is a function of how much control you need
on these issues as well as a host of other assumptions running through
your model (some of which I already mentioned in #2 above). I
encourage you to attend the US Composting Council conference in
Orlando (end of January 2010). There is a workshop on Sunday (the day
before the conference officially starts) that would be an excellent
primer on commercial composting including the pros and cons of various
composting technologies. That workshop is called "USCC 'Foundations
of Compost' Training Course". There is also one in which I am an
instructor along with Craig Coker and Thomas Spiggle entitled "Compost
Business Management". There is no shortage of excellent information
available at that conference including a live equipment demonstration
at Disney's commercial composting facility (maybe Mickey will be
driving a window turner)!

4. Your comment regarding building a "rates and dates" bridge to the
future via a European style MBT approach is very interesting. I hate
the notion that organics are going to landfills but of course they are
and that will be the case for some time. Perhaps MBT could be a way
to deal with the flow in a way that minimizes methane production.
But, as you say, this approach must be based on the ultimate goal of
within "x" years banning all organics from landfills.

Thank you.

Andrew Kessler
Managing Director
Turning Earth, LLC
97 Maple Wood Drive, Brewster, NY 10509
andrew....@turningearthllc.com
Telephone. 845 259 8400 | Facsimile. 845 622 3649 | Mobile.
917 251 5662

[Mike Ewall]

Hi all,

Sorry to take so long to respond. I'm going to try to reply here in
one message to the "what's wrong with biomass" thread that developed
in response to my "New Incinerators Planned for CA" message. I'm
updating the subject line accordingly. In the future, please update
subject lines if you're changing the topic. It really helps those of
us who are on over 300 email lists. Thanks!

First, let's clarify terms. When I use the term "biomass," I'm
referring to burning of certain allegedly "bio" feedstocks for
electricity. The term "biofuels" refers to the conversion of these
feedstocks to liquid fuels to be burned in the transportation or
heating fuels sectors. Bioenergy refers to both biomass and
biofuels. If I'm referring to wood pellet stoves, or other
applications of "biomass" being directly combusted for heating, I'll
mention this specifically. I do not consider that part of "biomass"
when I use the term, since I'm speaking about the electricity
sector. This doesn't mean that I support wood burning for heating,
but in my writing, please don't confuse statements I make about
"biomass" with wood burned for heating. [Briefly, on this topic, I
really appreciated seeing what Jeffrey Morris had to share on this
topic on 11/13. For more on the health and environmental
consequences of burning wood, see http://www.burningissues.org]

What are "biomass" feedstocks? The term "biomass" is defined
differently everywhere you look... in different state and federal
laws and in private certification programs. Environmental groups
have varying ideas on what they think it means, and their ideas are
usually not as dirty as the definitions that end up in the bills they
still find themselves supporting. The biomass term has been used to
refer to processes that make electricity by burning: municipal solid
waste (trash), tires, construction/demolition wood waste, other wood
and paper mill wastes (even black liquor), crop and animal wastes,
energy crops, trees, landfill gas, and gas from digestion of sewage
sludge or animal wastes or other organic materials. "Biogas" is a
confusing term used by some to cover both digester gas and landfill
gas. Please don't use/encourage it. It's important that agencies
track these separately, though some combine them.

Biomass can involve the combination of nearly any one of the
above-mentioned feedstocks plus numerous processing technologies
(mostly forms of incineration, including gasification, plasma and
pyrolysis). Biofuels can also be produced from this same set of
feedstocks, but with a different assortment of technologies, such as
pyrolysis, acid hydrolysis, Fischer-Tropsch gas-to-liquids, thermal
depolymerization and cellulosic ethanol.

Finally, on terminology... please don't say things like "burning
biomass for energy" when you mean electricity. There are three
energy consumption sectors: electricity, transportation and
heating. This is how the Energy Information Administration tracks
it, and it gets confusing when some use the word "energy" to mean
just electricity. It also gets confusing when some groups talk about
"buildings" as if they're an energy use sector, when they really are
referring to parts of the electricity and heating fuel sectors.

Yes, we (Energy Justice Network, and the preponderance of the
grassroots activists we work with) oppose biomass
categorically. That's why we host an email list for "Biomass Opponents."

Rather than recite the litany of materials written up on why these
feedstocks and technologies are a problem, let me refer you to
several websites, then focus the rest of this message on the topics I
saw come up in the responses to my initial posting.

Trash incineration, gasification, plasma and pyrolysis:
http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration/

Biomass:
http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/factsheet.html
http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/
http://www.maforests.org/Biomess.pdf
http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org/forestry.html
http://www.stopspewingcarbon.com/biomass-facts.html
http://www.nobiomassburning.org/

Biochar (a.k.a. charcoal or wood pyrolysis)
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf

Construction/demolition waste:
http://www.actionpa.org/waste/cd/
[I have some great materials on this that I don't have online yet,
but can easily forward by email on request.]

Tire incineration:
http://www.energyjustice.net/tires/

Poultry waste incineration:
http://www.energyjustice.net/fibrowatch/

Landfill gas:
http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/factsheet-lfg.pdf
http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/
http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg/mercury/
http://www.energyjustice.net/resources/lfgbiomass.ppt
http://www.competitivewaste.org/documents/LNDFL-LFG-GHG-CA-ARB-5_000.pdf
[Much more info on this available by email on request.]

Digesters
http://www.energyjustice.net/digesters/


Norm pointed out that he supports conservation as a top priority. I
totally agree. I believe it should be followed by efficiency, just
as we follow Reduce with Reuse in the solid waste hierarchy before
backing Recycling. In the energy sectors, after conservation and
efficiency, we must move directly to clean renewables (those that do
not continue to create pollution per kilowatthour by consuming
feedstocks and creating wastes). You'll find this reflected in our
hierarchies chart here:
http://www.energyjustice.net/technologies.pdf (this is the one
Oakland drew from, as Peter so kindly pointed out).

Norm wrote about biomass: "But compared to fuel oil, coal fired
electricity, tar sands oil, etc it's a good thing." I think that's a
false comparison. It's like choosing between Coke and Pepsi when
we'd really prefer juice, or between Democrats and Republicans when
we'd really prefer Greens. The real comparison is between dirty
energy technologies (including nukes and all combustion technologies,
whether biomass or fossil fuels) and the real
solutions: conservation, efficiency, wind, solar and ocean power.

Some prefer to think of natural gas and biomass as "transition"
fuels, as if we need to invest and rely on them because genuine
solutions aren't get available. I don't believe that these are
transition fuels. I believe they're false solutions and are an
investment dead-end. If we spend money to do any sort of change, we
need to be moving directly to clean solutions, not differently-dirty
false solutions. We don't have the time or the economic resources to
waste on such "transition" fuels. See
http://www.energyjustice.net/solutions/transition.html for more on
why we don't buy the "transition" arguments.

First, some general arguments:

1) There is no such thing as clean combustion. All "biomass" is
incineration. All involves pollution and requires feedstocks,
whether waste-based or purpose-grown. They require production
systems and produce air pollution and solid wastes that aren't needed
since we can meet all of our electricity needs without burning anything.

2) Even if you assume that there are "clean" types of biomass, it's
important to recognize that these "clean" burners have an economic
incentive to burn dirtier feedstocks, like waste streams, since they
can get paid to take waste rather than pay for whatever organic
switchgrass you'd like to think they're using. Even if a facility's
permit doesn't allow burning these dirtier feedstocks (and many
permits DO), it's not hard to get the permits changed. I've seen
examples where state environmental agencies are urging a wood burner
to burn tires. They've also tried burning plastics. Once you give
the "biomass" industry a foot in the door, they jam the door open and
burn more toxic feedstocks.

3) Coal plants are looking at fuel-switching to biomass. This is a
dangerous trend, as state renewable portfolio standard laws and
upcoming climate legislation push companies to make this switch,
converting huge amounts of megawatt generation into biomass-eating
monstrosities. In South Point, Ohio, there is a proposal for the
nation's largest biomass incinerator, which would be 200 MW. The
proposal came in 2004, in response to Pennsylvania's renewable energy
law (before the legislation even passed). More recently, there's
also now a proposal in Shadyside, Ohio for a 312 MW coal power plant
to switch to 80%-100% biomass. Also, in the same area, a proposed
coal-to-oil refinery would use up to 30% biomass. The scale of these
proposals could cause massive damage to forests in the region as they
get logged to supply the needed wood to these projects. Other coal
plants around the nation, like one in Salem Harbor, MA, are
considering fuel switching from coal to biomass. The magnitude of
these projects will dwarf the already dangerous emissions and wood
supply problems posed by conventional (smaller) "biomass" incinerators.

4) Burning biomass (whether landfill gas, wood, poultry litter or
trash) releases more global warming pollution than coal plants. Put
a monitor on the stack of comparable-sized plants and there is no
question that this is true. The only way the biomass promoters get
away with claiming otherwise is via their bogus claims that the CO2
emissions don't count because the planting of new trees (which
doesn't even happen for many types of "biomass") sucks up the
CO2. However, the very long time frame needed to make things carbon
neutral undermines the entire purpose.


Here are some points to counter the confusion and concerns raised
around our position on digesters and on landfill gas:

The gas-based biomass sources (digester gas and landfill gas) require
more nuanced positions. We're 100% against any use of solid fuel
biomass combustion. Our position on digesters and landfill gas is as
follows...

DIGESTERS

If we're talking about animal waste, it's important to recognize that
these are usually done on large-scale operations, not mom-and-pop
little farms. While using digesters on CAFO waste streams is better
than letting it sit in open lagoons, aerobic composting seems
preferable to anaerobic digestion. Looking at the larger picture,
it's important that we do not create economic incentives to help keep
factory farms viable. This means that renewable energy subsidies
should never go to digesters. Digesters are a waste management
technology that factory farm operators should have to use if they
don't use aerobic composting methods. Ideally, the "reduce" part of
the 3 R's should be applied, and these animal factories should be put
out of business -- preferably by people curtailing their consumption
of animals, but of course few want to be told what to eat... and few
want to face up to the fact that moving our society toward a vegan
diet is an environmental and human rights imperative.

If we're talking about sewage sludge, this is a really tough issue,
since there are no good solutions to the sludge problem -- just bad
and worse options. Digesters are one of the less bad options, but it
still leaves a toxic sludge residue. Subsidy-wise, I'm fine with the
government subsidizing sludge digesters as a waste management tactic,
but it should not be subsidized through programs for renewable energy
where it'll compete with wind.

In the case of food or other relatively clean organic waste streams,
let's have that aerobically composted, not digested.

Wherever digester gas is produced, it's best to use it to displace
the oil and gas used in the heating fuels sector. Let's heat
buildings with it, not use it to produce electricity. This is
because it's more efficient to do so, but also because we can meet
the entire electricity sector with non-burn technologies. It's not
as quick or easy to do the same for the heating fuel consumption
sector, so if we have a source of methane-rich gas from animal waste
or sludge digesters, let it be used for heating. Such a policy also
makes it clean and easy to define our policies -- keeping digesters
out of electricity policies altogether while still providing valid
places for their use, where appropriate.


LANDFILL GAS

Landfill gas is a very confused and complicated subject. If you
haven't read our factsheet or some of the other material on the topic
(see the landfill gas links above), I suggest reading them if you
expect the following to make sense.

First, recognize that only 10-20% of landfill gas is ever collected
over the collective life of U.S. landfills. Also, burning landfill
for energy releases 20-40% MORE greenhouse gas pollution than simply
flaring the gas, even when accounting for displaced coal power on the
grid. This is due to the ways that landfills are mismanaged when
used for energy production. Peter Anderson has exposed this quite brilliantly.

Because of this fact, communities are exposed to more methylmercury
than they'd otherwise be, because more landfill gas escapes
uncaptured (and thus unburned). This is because landfill gas is one
of only two human-made sources of methylmercury (sewage sludge is the other).

The way to deal with landfill gas is as follows:

1) Treat landfill gas as a waste management issue, not an energy
issue. Don't subsidize it as renewable energy (which harms both the
wind market as well as recycling/composting markets).
2) Divert clean organics (not sewage sludge) from landfills.
3) Digest waste to stabilize it before landfilling (but don't pretend
that it's fertilizer or soil amendment!).
4) For the landfill gas that is generated at existing landfills:
-Minimize gas generation.
-Maximize gas collection.
-Filter the toxins out of the gas into a solid medium like a
carbon filter and don't subsequently burn the filters in carbon
regeneration plants, but store them indefinitely instead.
-Use the methane and CO2 in the remaining gas for heating or for
industrial feedstocks (or, as a last resort, flare it).

So... I'll stop this long message here. I'll address a few other
(more random) topics in a separate message.

If anyone has specific questions on anything I wrote above, feel free
to ask for more details or documentation.

Mike Ewall
Energy Justice Network

cata...@actionpa.org
http://www.energyjustice.net